User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Star Trek XI (Coming in 2008, err, 2009)


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Star Trek XI (Coming in 2008, err, 2009)
Page 5 of 16 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next Last Thread Tools
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2008-11-12, 02:51

Quote:
"If you're going to do Star Trek there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people. So if you're going to do the Enterprise, it better look like the Enterprise, because otherwise, what are you doing?"
Wow. Perfect. I think this guy gets it.

*looks at size chart*

Wow! Look how big Babylon 5 is compared to a Borg cube! No way Babylon 5 would survive. John "Nuke 'Em" Sheridan would have been completely fucked. You can't nuke Borg!

I bet Minbari would make nice drones, though.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2008-11-12, 07:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Wow. Perfect. I think this guy gets it.
I understand perfectly the need to stay true to the original look & feel when doing a ToS reboot...

The thing I don't understand is why in the hell are they doing a ToS reboot? They should be doing a new arc, a new crew and ship to go along with forward looking content. Now excuse me while I fap to the comparison chart Brad posted.

Last edited by Eugene : 2008-11-12 at 07:43.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-12, 10:58

The second Death Star, according to the link Brad provided earlier, is 160km wide. The first one, from "A New Hope", was 120km. So the Empire was going "bigger" the second time around. But they still make it too easy for a small ship to access the core reactor thingie.



That's twice they had their crap blown up by Rebels doing the same thing (destroying the core). You think they would've learned after the first one..."whatever we do, let's make this second one really tight and secure, and let's not have it to where a few lucky torpedo shots at the right spot can blow the entire damn thing up."

For all their technology and power, they were kinda boneheaded, huh?

I know, I know...the thing was protected by a shield generator on the forest moon of Endor, blah, blah. But they have to allow for things like such a device getting destroyed by sneaky, resourceful Rebels (assisted by teddy bears, no less).

  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2008-11-12, 11:21

That link is 10,000 kinds of awesome. Thanks Brad.

The Death Star size didn't surprise me so much as the difference between the Executor and the "normal" Star Destroyers. I knew it was quite a bit bigger, but not that much bigger.

Another thing that got me is that the Death Star is larger than V'Ger. I wouldn't have called that one. Though, with the "cloud" V'Ger would be bigger...right?


[edit]: Star Trek Wiki to the rescue:

Quote:
In the original theatrical release, the V'Ger energy cloud was given a size measuring 82 AUs in diameter in dialog from the Epsilon IX commander. Placing V'Ger at the same position as the sun would mean that the energy cloud would extend beyond the orbit of Neptune. This was later drastically scaled down to two AUs for the Directors' Edition DVD by editing the spoken dialog to clip out the "eighty" and leaving just the "two". As one AU is precisely the average distance between Sol and Earth, this reduced the size of the cloud to "merely" larger than the diameter of Earth's orbit.
Teh big.

So it goes.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2008-11-12, 11:24

You know what?

We should have a starcraft shootout! See who survives the whole shootout!

After all, we did that with redshirts and stormtroopers! Why stop there?
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-12, 11:32

My money's on the Executor. That's just a bad-ass piece of machinery. And it comes with its own theme music!

I think it's neat that the "whale probe" from "Star Trek IV" was included in that size chart. I've often wondered how big it was.
  quote
bassplayinMacFiend
Banging the Bottom End
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2008-11-12, 11:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post

[snip deathstar]

If you haven't seen the episode of Robot Chicken where the Emperor gets a collect call from Darth Vader, you owe it to yourself to watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2luQBudEp6c
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-12, 11:53

Oh, I've seen it. BTW, part two of that comes on Sunday night at 11:30 on Adult Swim. I'm looking forward to it. Seth Green was on Conan last night and showed a clip.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2008-11-12, 11:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
My money's on the Executor. That's just a bad-ass piece of machinery. And it comes with its own theme music!
While that is truly bad-ass, I find it appalling how the Death Stars and Star Destroyers were absolutely horrid at stopping small fighters. With all that AA guns and TIE fighters at their disposals, you would think they would vaporize every X-wing fighter well before they could even come into fighting range.

My money goes to Borg cube.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-12, 13:14

Hey, for those interested: if you go to aintitcool.com, they have a story about JJ Abrams and Simon Pegg showing four(!) competed scenes, clocking in at 20 minutes (with music and full CGI), to several hundred journalists in the UK. The piece at AICN links off to two other spoiler-heavy articles/recaps at other sites, so it's safe to go to the above link, as no actual spoiler info is there.

I just read them and this sounds like it will be a really enjoyable movie!

Nothing "spoiler-y" in the sense of anyone dying or whatever, just the description for the four sequence and how things go.

Sounds great. "Star Trek", of all things, is now my most eagerly-awaited movie of 2009. It opens in early May, I believe.

  quote
rampancy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick
 
2008-11-12, 16:24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
I understand perfectly the need to stay true to the original look & feel when doing a ToS reboot...

The thing I don't understand is why in the hell are they doing a ToS reboot? They should be doing a new arc, a new crew and ship to go along with forward looking content. Now excuse me while I fap to the comparison chart Brad posted.
What I find confusing is that since Leonard Nimoy playing the original Spock is supposed to figure fairly heavily in the plot, it would imply that it's not really a reboot, but more of an ENT-like prequel.

"The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."
- Mahatma Gandhi
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2008-11-12, 18:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
My money's on the Executor. That's just a bad-ass piece of machinery. And it comes with its own theme music!
I'd like it better if it had more than one bridge.

Those goddamn A-wings are like gnats.
  quote
NosferaDrew
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Send a message via ICQ to NosferaDrew Send a message via AIM to NosferaDrew Send a message via Skype™ to NosferaDrew 
2008-11-12, 20:36

On a side note,they tracked the score for the film at the end of September with a full orchestra where I work.
They recorded versions with a soprano singing the familiar wordless theme and a version with Gene Roddenberry's lyrics.

I don't believe that I've heard the version with lyrics. I've heard a couple of amateur versions, but not the real thing.
  quote
PKIDelirium
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
 
2008-11-12, 20:55

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
I think it's neat that the "whale probe" from "Star Trek IV" was included in that size chart. I've often wondered how big it was.
Uh, where? I don't see it...
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2008-11-12, 21:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKIDelirium View Post
Uh, where? I don't see it...
In the 100m per huge link.

Compare that to the 2000m per huge page and prepare to be astounded.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2008-11-13, 00:49

Courtesy of Ex Astris Sciencia, here are some comparative illustrations of the re-imagined Enterprise, original TOS Enterprise, and refit "movies" Enterprise.

Spoiler (click to toggle):






And here's his scathing commentary. Ouch!

I'm putting the image in spoiler tags and hope anyone tempted to leak details of the early screening does the same!

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-13, 08:00

Wow, "Star Trek" people are every bit - maybe even more so? - nitpicky and geeky on the details than any "Star Wars" nerd.
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2008-11-13, 11:28

The spoilers of the early screening upset me immensely.

Spoiler (click to toggle):
ROMULANS ON VULCAN. Yes. Because canon doesn't say that the first time the Romulans tread outside their borders again isn't in "Balance of Terror" when Kirk's own bloody Enterprise discovers them. And yes, Kirk can totally know about what happened in a prior attack, since canon totally says the Romulans just kept raiding after the Earth-Romulan war. Yep! ANd who wants to bet they show that the Romulans look like Vulcans, totally in contradiction of the whole "Kirk's crew was first to see that" bit?


Unbelievable.

"A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel my anger!" - Darth Baras
twitter ; amateur photographer ; fanfiction writer ; roleplayer and worldbuilder
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-11-13, 11:33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capella View Post
Unbelievable.
Wellllll...

Spoiler (click to toggle):
This *IS* a time-travel story. The Romulans on Vulcan could be in the future. Or it could be a future Romulan team sent back to Vulcan. Or it could be a future team sent back to prod the Romulans to leave their space early.

Time-travel = what canon?
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-13, 11:34

There are gonna be fistfights breaking out in the lines to see this thing, I'm afraid.
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2008-11-13, 11:46

Spoiler (click to toggle):
The problem with time-travel means it then changes everything Even if it's a future team/future Romulans, it still measn young Kirk meets them before he, y'know, actually meets them. And if they show their faces, then there's NO WAY Kirk can be surprised to find out they're Vulcanoid, so... I don't like it. They should never have done a time-travel plot. Was it impossible to find a plot that hadn't been done before in a Trek movie? *whines loudly*

"A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel my anger!" - Darth Baras
twitter ; amateur photographer ; fanfiction writer ; roleplayer and worldbuilder
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-13, 11:56

Spoiler (click to toggle):
It almost seems as though it was done solely for the purposes of involving Nimoy, and that "tie to the past" that so many sequels, prequels, re-boots, remakes, spin-offs, "re-imaginings", etc. seem to rely on. Think of every move of this type you've ever seen, including this year's Indy sequel, and they always have to "tie it to the original" in some way, heavyhanded or otherwise. If they left Nimoy out, and, therefore, the time travel thing, they might've had more to work with, and could've stuck closer to what's supposed to be. I'm not even a huge fan or knowledgeable follower, but isn't this the third (maybe fourth?) "Star Trek" movie to center around time travel? After a while it gets a little silly, and then you start to wonder "wait a minute...if all this crap can be changed or undone by some "visitor from the future", then why does anything happening right now really matter, in the big, overall scheme of things?"

It feels a little cheap and "cheat-y" sometimes. But, again, I'm not a that big a follower and I don't know all the angles, backstory and lore associated with "Star Trek", so maybe that's just part of it?
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-11-13, 12:04

Spoiler (click to toggle):
Well, the problem as I see it is that just filling in gaps in someone else's story isn't compelling for someone who wants to tell their own epic stories. ie, Abrams. Going back and mucking with the timeline a bit gives them the freedom to branch off in a new direction without being pinned into the existing canon. Messy? Yup. (As a prime example, witness DC Comics. Oy.)

But, it does attract new generations of storytellers who want to establish their own continuity and mythos hung loosely on an existing backdrop.

When the Romans co-opted the Greek myths, they didn't just change the names, they juggling details around to fit their own society. The world of 2008 is not the world of 1968, and certain things won't tell well now that would then. Alternately, there are story styles now that can work that wouldn't have been accepted then.

Personally, I still think that Balance of Terror is one of the best suspense hours aired, and certainly the best submarine battle ever filmed for TV.

But that doesn't mean that the new timeline has to adhere to every detail of the previous one. This isn't a story that will *re-establish* the *existing* timeline (ST: First Contact, etc), this is a story that will *establish a new one*.

New continuity starts here. (And to be honest, the old one was gettin' kinda creaky with all the retcons and patching.)

It doesn't mean that it's necessarily *gone*, just that we're in an Earth-1/Earth-2 situation here, and if you subscribe to a multiple-universe theory, it only means double the sandbox to play in.
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2008-11-13, 13:21

I was pretty sure that this was the case ever since I heard about the new movie. Seeing the new Enterprise now makes me 100% sure.

This is a reboot.

Just like Battlestar, Bond, and Batman. (Damn you J.J. Abrams! You broke the alliteration!)

In terms of how much rebooting is going on, I predict way less than Battlestar, and somewhere between Bond and Batman.

I know, J.J. has stated that this isn't a reboot and they will be sticking to what's canon.

Does it look like they're sticking with canon? He lies. This is absolutely a reboot, J.J. only said it isn't a reboot to avoid rabid trekkies. People were up in arms over Enterprise because it looked too modern. What they really meant was "I'm going to bitch about the fact that we have a more accurate picture of 2150 today than we did in 1965." I took NX-01 for what it was: a realignment with reality. They were just trying to create an Enterprise that doesn't look like an antique.

This is a reboot. It will not be marketed or explained as such, or accepted as such, until after the movie is out.

What do I think this means? I think it's easy to sum that up as, what will stay, and what will go.

What will stay?
- The major themes and events from Starfleet History. (Federation Day, World War III, Zefram Cochrane, First Contact, etc...)
- The strong moral compass that most Starfleet officers exhibit. Expect the Prime Directive to be mentioned at least once, and hopefully more.
- The basic structure and organization of Starfleet (ranks, uniforms, fleet size, ship size, Starfleet Adademy, etc...)
- Names and functionality of most Treknology. Warp Drive, Phasers, Shields, Transporters, etc...
- Kingons and Romulans as enemies. This is a good place to mention this, too: I am very happy with the choice of the Romulans over the Kingons as the primary villains. Klingons are fun but Romulans are a lot more interesting, and throughout 700+ episodes, I felt like we didn't see nearly enough Romulans.

What will go?
- The old look. The old Enterprise is what people predicted spaceships would look like by 2260 in 1965. Some of the technological predictions have already come true. I'm pretty sure a MacBook is more powerful than NCC-1701s main computer. They all carry those little electronic clipboards and use little yellow squares for data storage. There's no way that these technological predictions will ever come true, because we've already developed superior technology. As fun as it would be to see a design closer to the original NCC-1701, it wouldn't have very wide appeal. Lets face it: the original Enterprise is very, very obviously a product of the sixties. I'm about as hardcore trekkie as they come and I think this is a move in the right direction.
- Excessive treknobabble. A splash of treknobabble is always fun, but the ridiculous sentences that Geordi and B'Elanna would sometimes string together would make my head explode. Get rid of it.
- Contradictory canon. Since it's a clean slate, only the major events and history will be incorporated. I'm pretty sure the rest will be filled in. This is my favorite reason. I know the entirety of Star Trek history, and the sheer number of contradictions is astounding. Wipe it all away. Post-TNG it always felt like the fans had chained a large black iron ball to the franchises ankles, and they always got PMS every time a writer attempted to break the chain. Of course, Enterprise was basically Brannon & Braga yanking that ball loose from the chain and throwing it at trekkies collective faces.
- Excessive deus ex machina/escape button. I doubt that this Enterprise will ever be saved by Geordi simply reversing the polarity of the warp field. This Enterprise will never be saved by Janeway flying through some unholy rift which causes Voyager to revert to how it was last episode. You remember what happened to Voyager in Year of Hell? When Voyager got the shit kicked out of it? Yeah, that should of been happening the entire series. When Voyager got home, it should have been limping, as if it was being held together with the 24th century equivalent of duct tape.

Honestly? This is the right thing to do. Here's why. I think it's pretty obvious that there's no room for this movie in any of the existing timelines or eras in the Star Trek universe. They needed a modern look, because I really don't think retro would fly. News flash: people don't like TOS. Even a lot of trekkies. It's old, it's stale, it didn't hold up well as time marched on. The NCC-1701 looked outdated after ten years. OTOH I think that the Enterprise-D is more plausible as a starship despite the fact that it was designed more than 20 years ago. In fact, even the Enterprise refit holds up pretty well from thirty years ago. Bottom line: the look and feel of TOS didn't hold up well. It's way too ridiculous at times. It always feels old and stale. There are definitely some classic episodes, but for the most part, it's either boring, or way to ridiculous to be taken seriously. The new NCC-1701 is what we, in 2008, will think a ship in 2265 will look like, and that was realistically the only way to do this. The modern look was necessary and I knew it was coming. But according to trek nerds, the rules are clear. Modern ship? After 2400. Period, end of story. I don't want 2400+. At all. More importantly, Starfleet is out of enemies. Klingons? Allies. Romulans? Peace talks. Dominion? Licking their wounds/somehow achieving enlightenment now that Odo is squirming around in that freaky ocean. Borg? Crippled. So either they ruin next gen cannon, go way the fuck out into the future (like 2600 or something) or come up with a new race of villains. No thanks.

Seriously. Do you realize how limited their options are if they stick to cannon? Especially if they stick to TOS cannon?

Pre-ENT: 2100 - 2150: Woo hoo! Let's galavant around the solar system at Warp 2!

ENT: 2150 - 2200: Still too early. Era already established from Enterprise which many trekkies hated. Again, we'd need a new ship and crew. Archer is either Starfleet Chief of Staff, Andorian ambassador, or UFP President. Trip is just straight up dead, and god knows where the rest of the crew went.

It's actually too bad that we will probably never revisit this era as part of the old canon, because I think the Earth-Romulan war was probably epic. Remember, it's the Earth-Romulan war, not the Federation-Romulan war. Starfleet was in it's infancy. They had, at best, maybe a hundred ships, and only 9 or 10 NX class ships. I'd love to know how the humans pulled that one off, because it was certainly an uphill battle the whole time. It must've looked really grim for Earth in the beginning. That's why I was really hoping for Enterprise to make it the whole seven seasons, because then we would've caught the first 3 years of the war, leaving the end of the war open for a possible ENT movie. The movie, of course, would depict the Battle of Cheron, where Earth's decisive victory ended the war. In fact, Enterprise only needed to make it one more season than it did to see the beginning of the war, and a number of 4th season episodes made it very clear that the Earth-Romulan war was the direction Coto was planning to take the series in. The 4th season of Enterprise is significantly better than any other season, I think Coto did a great job making it feel Star Trek again. I also think that ENT season 4 first made it clear to me how it's okay to be flexible with canon as long as you maintain the essence of Star Trek, which is really what the entire series was trying to prove to begin with. I remember when it was cancelled, and just thought "not now! not when it's actually getting good again!" It's a real shame they cancelled it when they did.

Pre-TOS: 2200 - 2250: This was the best time period to do it, which is exactly why the movie starts in the late 2240s, I believe. But without rebooting, there's a major problem with this era, since it would have to reconcile the change in ship design to be halfway between NX-01 and NCC-1701, which would be really tough, given that NCC-1701 looks like a step back from NX-01. Another problem: the crew is too young. April is in command of the Enterprise, Kirk was a lieutenant J.G. serving on either the Republic or the Farragut. So, really, canon was broken the second we heard anything about Kirk being on the Enterprise before 2260.

TOS/Movies: 2250- 2300: Well, here we have 2250-2260, which I when I believe that the movie is mostly set. Again, canon has already been egregiously violated, because Kirk was a lieutenant commander and later a commander, and still serving on the Farragut. 2260-2270 is out, it's the original five year mission. (early 2260s could be interesting, but Pike is still in command.) There's a half-decent candidate for a year after that: 2270. But there are too many problems: The The Enterprise is in drydock and will remain there for another year. Kirk is an admiral, I think he's more fun as a captain. Spock is finding himself. We would have to find a way to incorporate Decker, Xon, and Ilia into the story. The window of time is simply too small, it's not flexible enough. You'd violate canon simply by putting the Enterprise crew on the Enterprise.

Late 2270s? Also a potential choice, but has the following problems: Kirk is an Admiral, Spock is in command of the Enterprise, and at some point in time, the Enterprise becomes a training ship. 2280s and 90s? Nope, too much going on. Late 2290s? Kirk's retired.

Pre-TNG: 2300 - 2350: Almost nothing is known about this time period, but we do know a couple things. Almost all of the main characters (not Vulcans, of course) were born in this time period, the first being Picard, in 2305. Relations with the Kingons evolved from truce, to trade agreements, to alliance. An incident in the Tomed system resulted in a revised neutral zone and a Federation ban on cloaking devices. The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) was built, launched, served for 12 years, before it was lost in the Narendra system in a skirmish with 3 Romulan warbirds. It was the first Enterprise to be destroyed with all hands lost. It would make a good era, but you would definitely need a new ship and crew. (Interestingly enough, Abram's Enterprise shares more similarities with the Enterprise C than any other Enterprise.) Deep Space 9 was built by the Cardassian Union in orbit occupied Bajor for use as an ore processing station. Oh yeah, and Picard got laid a lot.

TNG/DS9/VOY/Movies: 2350 - 2400: Now we're in next gen territory. New Picard adventure? No thanks, Nemesis was enough. Janeway or Sisko? Not big on them, either. Again, you encounter the problem with the era being so well defined - you're practically guaranteed to violate canon at some point in time.

Post-VOY: 2400+: No thanks. No enemies, technology too advanced, would need a new crew.

This is a reboot, plain and simple, masquerading around as a movie that will stick to established canon. It won't. I don't even want it to. Even if J.J. continues to insist that it's not a reboot, I am going to treat it like one anyways. It's a fucking reboot.



@pscates: Yes, Trek nerds are the worst, simply because there's so much information. 700+ episodes and 10 movies makes for a lot of content to nerd out on.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.

Last edited by Kraetos : 2008-11-13 at 22:57.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-13, 13:23

On a side note, I've never used (or heard) the word "nacelle" until yesterday. And now I've seen/read it about 600 times in just 24 hours, with all these articles and links...



Interesting take, Kraetos (from someone who doesn't even known 1% of everything you just talked about).

Is this new movie planned as a series, with sequels to come? I would assume so (nobody makes these big-budget "event" movies with the intention of just doing one). They would tell stories prior to the events of the 60's series? Is that possible? Or do they overlap, and if this is a true re-boot, do they just continue on as though the Shatner/Nimoy TV show never existed, and tell completely new stories from the crew we all know?

I don't know enough about what the 60's show covered to know where the "early years" stopped and the adventures/stories told on the original TV show began.

It's all kinda confusing.

I guess, most of all, it would never occur, at this point, to anyone in Hollywood to perhaps write, oh, a new story completely? I guess if you glom onto an already-known/proven thing like "Star Trek" you've got the guarantee of (at the very least) a decent opening weekend. But creating a whole new "space series" that isn't "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" just probably isn't something anyone in Hollywood is willing to do.

It'll take someone writing (or filming) something by accident to become a "new standard", I guess.

Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2008-11-13 at 13:34.
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-11-13, 13:46

Kraetos: you lovable bastard. Applause.

Indeed, this is a reboot. I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this. Look at it this way - the only tv sf mythos that is larger, and more trampled, is Doctor Who. And that series *REVELS* in paradox, alternate timelines, pocket universes and so on! (Star Wars? Stretch any story out enough millennia, and you can find holes to fill without stomping on canon.)

Star Trek (The Original Timeline) is so chock full of... STUFF... that it needed a sweeping out. It's a wonderful universe, but it's not consistent. It's not without flaws.

Think of this as Star Trek: We Get To Start Shit Over Again, and have fun with it. Your blood pressure will thank you.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2008-11-13, 13:56

It's cleaner, and easier, doing it that way. You don't have to worry about trampling on nearly as much lore and history, and you've got a lot more freedom. You can adhere to the "big stuff" (and probably should), but have some flexibility and options in the the other things you want to pursue, story-wise.

I'd hate to try and make a modern, feature-length movie based on a 40-year-old TV show that, itself, has been redone, revisited, re-imagined, re-tooled, reworked, etc. countless times over.

They (Abrams and Co.) have a tougher job than Lucas/Spielberg and Christopher Nolan all had this past summer, in many ways.

They have to find that nice "middle ground" where the "Star Trek" fans will show up (and not be too pissed off at what they see), and pull in regular people who otherwise wouldn't waste their time seeing yet another "Star Trek" flick. Because a big, expensive movie (and franchise?) like this won't be able to be sustained by geek dollars alone. It'll have to get people like my Dad and sister, etc. to make any sort of numbers or impact (and have any hope as an ongoing series, with additional installments).

I don't think Paramount is going to finance a bunch of "Trekkie porn" with no performance or return tied to it. And this is such a stretch and departure, that it's bound to hit (or miss) quite big. And if it sucks, and if it's too "inside" or tough to follow, all the geeks in the world can't save it.

I guess they (the filmmakers) will try to cover both ends and try their best to make something that will appeal to both ends as much as possible.

Unlike Kraetos and others here, I've got the luxury of being almost completely ignorant about it all and can walk into it next May and simply dig it for the (to me) standalone movie it is..."neat adventure, stuff blowing up, a few nods to the past that even I'll be able to catch, etc.". But I simply won't be in a position to judge it from any sort of hardcore perspective, so it's easy for me to be a lot more forgiving (or, more accurately, not give a shit if the control panel on Corridor 12 only has five screws, but it was clearly shown, in that Tribble episode, to have eight, and...).





I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing this one. It'll be one of those "midnight showings" or "opening day" flicks for me, most likely (I'm seeing "Quantum of Solace" at midnight tonight, so, even at the back end of 39 I still do this crap).


Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2008-11-13 at 14:07.
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2008-11-13, 13:57

Kraetos, you truly live up to your user title. Bravo!

FYI: I agree with pretty much everything you said. I think most people (all but the hardest of the die-hard trekkies) will enjoy the new movie and will not be disappointed that the Enterprise doesn't look like a shoestring-budget 60s TV set. Thing is, TOS looked campy compared to basically everything else since then, but they took care with "Enterprise" to limit the big technologies to not exceed the level of TOS. So it may look all futuristic in Enterprise (this is, after all, the future), but they don't have deflector shields, replicators, or a very advanced transporter.

I also think it's very important to stick with some familiarity in a Star Trek movie. Like you said, there aren't any good enemies left in the post-DS9 timeframe, and the familiar characters from there are all played out too. So if they were to set a new movie in that time period, they'd have to come up with all new protagonists and all new antagonists, and it would end up being a slightly Trek-flavored sci-fi action movie that many people wouldn't enjoy.

So yeah, go ahead and throw out all the weighty canon. Take the TOS crew, which everyone loves, go back to when they're young again, and have them fighting Klingons and Romulans. Couldn't be better!
  quote
Argento
I puked at work.
Because I'm a pussy.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Head in a trash can.
 
2008-11-13, 14:04

Kraetos,

You have truly earned your custom title.

Hail to the king baby

*edit* LUCA IS A THIEF
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2008-11-13, 14:06

Furthermore, you have to admit that if we went down the true-to-original road, we'd have lot of WTF?!? moments.

I mean, TOS was using analog dials for time, warp speed and that stuff. Talk about reinforcing the disbelief.

"It's in future, and they haven't heard of digital watches?"

And communicator? Even the bubbly blonde preteen is going be like so, "Oh, my god! What century is this? Cellphone, puh-leeze!"

It was cutting edge back in 60s. Today? I can't watch through TOS with a straight face and not chuckle at how horribly off they were WRT predicting the technology of future.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 5 of 16 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Star Trek series Kraetos AppleOutsider 124 2008-08-14 10:32
BBC iPlayer Coming to Macs in 2008 digitaldave Third-Party Products 2 2008-02-07 18:18
Happy 40th Birthday, Star Trek! Brad AppleOutsider 34 2006-09-08 23:17
Star Trek 2.0 = promo awesomeness curiousuburb AppleOutsider 8 2006-05-17 12:51
Paramount cancels Star Trek. Again. curiousuburb AppleOutsider 45 2005-02-25 20:23


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:03.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova