My vote is to simply keep Abrams away from anything Trek. After the abortion that was the latest movie, the last thing I want to see is him cast Trek further into populist, BSG-loving ruin by messing with the "Khan timeline".
Registered User
My vote is to simply keep Abrams away from anything Trek. After the abortion that was the latest movie, the last thing I want to see is him cast Trek further into populist, BSG-loving ruin by messing with the "Khan timeline".
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for others.
It's the same when you are stupid...
Registered User
I keep doubting Abrams would keep Khan in the next Trek movie if he were to direct it.
Apart from the Vulcans (who were wiped out anyway), the last movie had very few canon races in it (there's the green Orion girl, though I don't remember if she is actually referred as Orion, a mention to a cocktail named from the Cardassian, and I think that's almost all). Nero did not behave quite like the Romulans we know and for all intents and purposes could have been from any other race as far as his behaviour was concerned.
So I expect the next movie to feature completely new aliens and storylines, with little to no relation to the established Trek canon (and paradoxically, I might enjoy it much more than the last movie, since I won't be expecting to see a Trek movie but rather another space-opera with some references to Star Trek here and there).
I don't quite see what Khan could bring to the next movie. Remaking Space Seed or The Wrath of Khan would be a bit pointless IMHO (especially given the efforts taken in the first movie to distance itself from the original universe - no matter what one may think of the result), and it would be sad to see Khan being used in a completely different storyline as a completely different character, just to cash on the renown of the original series character.
On an unrelated note, I'm a bit sad to see in the article at the origin of this thread that the next movie is referred to as "Star Trek 2". While technically no previous Trek movie was actually called just "Star Trek", I can't help feeling like those 10 previous movies are being casually discarded as belonging to another era.
"The main difference between Trekkies and Manchester United fans is that Trekkies never trashed a train carriage. So why are the Trekkies the social outcasts?"
Terry Pratchett
Registered User
Sadly that seems to be Abrams way of thinking.after watching the extras on the new ST dvd set I feel really sad for the man.The extras basicly extoled the virtues of how great JJ Abrams is.Very sadOriginally Posted by C5
Registered User
There's another reason for me to have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Abrams brings to Star Trek roughly what Keanu Reeves brought to The Day the Earth Stood Still.On an unrelated note, I'm a bit sad to see in the article at the origin of this thread that the next movie is referred to as "Star Trek 2". While technically no previous Trek movie was actually called just "Star Trek", I can't help feeling like those 10 previous movies are being casually discarded as belonging to another era.
I know what Star Trek is - I have every minute of every bit of live-action ST on DVD, and I'll keep watching them for the rest of my life. Abrams and his cohorts won't be getting a cent of my money for their cheap plastic copies.
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for others.
It's the same when you are stupid...
Registered User
They did that when they sold all the props, and sent all the old set pieces to the wreckers or burned them. Paramount made an active effort to get rid of everything but the legel license to the property, and although many fans who could afford it got a bit of their own piece of fandom, it ruined any possibility of continuing that future.
DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
"The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One
Registered User
No, selling the props isn't any obstacle to the future. They could make all new props and sets if they wanted to. One reason why all the ships got sold off was because they could do it all with CG.
The only thing that is ruining the possibility of continuing on with "that future" is the decision by those in power not to do so.
What the people at Paramount don't seem to "get" is that the reason why the Trek franchise was in a decline was because the last few series and films weren't very good.
Unfortunately, the Abrams film did well at the box office and with the general public.
About the only chance I see of a return to the former continuity would be if the next film or two tanks badly.
Registered User
And with the current movie-watching audience, I can't see that happening. You could make Transformers 3: Dinosaurs Punching An Aircraft Carrier and people would trudge down to the cinema to see it.
I don't really understand people who still go see new films in multiplex theatres...
Registered User
Now that made me laugh out loud!You could make Transformers 3: Dinosaurs Punching An Aircraft Carrier and people would trudge down to the cinema to see it.
We were giggling in the video store last weekend about a movie on DVD being advertised: Megashark vs. Giant Octopus. I kid you not.
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for others.
It's the same when you are stupid...
Registered User
Actually I have seen that.. I thought the trailer was so hilarious it would wrap round from bad into good.. sadly it only succeeded in wrapping from bad into incredibly rubbish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7ck5mcd1o hehehe
and yeah Transformers has been a real let down.
I'll let you get back to your Abrams Trek bash now
Ta Muchly
Registered User
Registered User
*thwack* *thwack* *thwack*I'll let you get back to your Abrams Trek bash now
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for others.
It's the same when you are stupid...
Registered User
OK, the ships I can see, but did they take measurements of the sets? Design specs of the props? Patterns for the costumes?
Remember when they had to remake the original TOS bridge for Relic, they had to do a lot of guess work. Sure props, sets, and costumes can be replaced, however, to get it right all the hard background work needs to be preserved.
DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
"The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One
Registered User
They don't need to take measurements, aAll those things are built from plans, and drawings that still exist somwhere. A lot of it has been printed in various magazines over the years, too.
Additionally, there is nothing to prevent them from "revamping" some of the designs-especially if they set a series a few years before or after a preexisting series. Just take a look at how often the movie era Enterprise changed-getting "redecorated" with each film. They could have made it look exactly the same for each film. They choose not to.
That was caused in part because they were using bridge footage from TOS rather than rebuilding a entire bridge set. It wasn't that they couldn't build the set, but that they wanted to find a less expensive way to accomplish the same thing, and have it match perfectly with the preexisting footage from "Mark of Gideon".
TOS would probably the hardest style to recreate, as some of the original props were sold off to fans after the series was canceled (in 1970 it was considered to be a dead series). But just take a look at the high quality toy replicas that are available for TOS. There are some that actually look better than the original props. It would certainly be possibly for a studio to make convincing copies of all the sets, costumes and props.
So there really isn't any technical difficulty that would prevent them from rebuilding old sets and reestablishing the original continuity. The reason why they won't is that the franchise wasn't doing so well, but the Abrams film did very well at the box office.
If you want my opinion as to why the franchise stopped doing well, I'd say it was because they wrote off the fans.
Registered User
Won't argue that part with you, because it feels so true.
They always want new fans, but seem to treasure what fans they already have.
DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
"The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One
Registered User
They used to treasure the fans the already had. About the time of Roddenberry's death that changed. During interviews and special events cast and crew would start to stress the point that only a small part of their viewing audience was made up by the fans. Maybe the didn't realize that one fan might be responsible for a whole family watching the show.
It got worse from there. The "let's rewrite the continuity" idea didn't start with the Abrams film. When the producers give the impression that they don't care much for the series history and continuity, it makes fans wonder why should they.
The really odd thing is that the original series writers and staff figured this out long ago.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
