Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on July 22, 2006 07:36 PM:
Is this official or home-made? Pretty frikkin nice either way.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on July 22, 2006 11:13 PM:
What about the bottom being red?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 23, 2006 02:32 AM:
*sigh* Am I the only one NOT excited about yet another incarnation of Star Trek? Sure, I'll probably go see it, regardless, but I'd be just as happy if they didn't do anything at all...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on July 23, 2006 02:52 AM:
No, you are NOT.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 23, 2006 03:05 AM:
Good.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on July 23, 2006 05:30 AM:
Uh...hello? How can you not be excited about THE RETURN OF STAR TREK?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 23, 2006 05:46 AM:
I'll be excited when it turns out to be good, when they've proven that they're not just trying to make a few extra bucks by continuing to beat a dead horse with the same old broken stick. They were saying the same shit about "a fresh new start for Trek" back when they were pitching Enterprise, remember? And we all know how well that turned out!
"There's an old, old saying, Mr. Sulu. 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." "I know this saying. It was invented in Russia."
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on July 23, 2006 06:09 AM:
Don't you mean "inwented"?
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on July 23, 2006 08:55 AM:
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I'll be excited when it turns out to be good, when they've proven that they're not just trying to make a few extra bucks by continuing to beat a dead horse with the same old broken stick. They were saying the same shit about "a fresh new start for Trek" back when they were pitching Enterprise, remember? And we all know how well that turned out!
"There's an old, old saying, Mr. Sulu. 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." "I know this saying. It was invented in Russia."
Star Trek was never an art and always a business. Don't fool yourself. Its about money -- and to make money you need a quality product.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 23, 2006 10:49 AM:
Of course it was always about money. But there's a difference between making gems like "Battlestar Galactica" and making money, and making shit like "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" and making money. For the last ten years or so, the Trek franchise has been following the latter. And that's why "Enterprise" was cancelled, because enough people finally got fed up and stopped watching, and thus Paramount wasn't making enough money.
The producers are obviously hoping to make lots of money by convincing enough people that there's enough of a turnaround in the development that the audience will come back to see what's new.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on July 23, 2006 10:57 AM:
BSG is not that good.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 23, 2006 12:04 PM:
You know what I mean. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on July 23, 2006 12:46 PM:
Compared to ENT, oh, yes it is. I gave ENT a fair shake, I wanted it to be good, but I just couldn't get with Paramount's creation.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on July 23, 2006 01:21 PM:
1.) This image, or, rather, the uncropped version of this image, is the splash intro at Startrek.com.
2.) Battlestar Galactica is the best or maybe second best drama on TV, officially, as determined by seasoned experts who happen to be me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on July 23, 2006 02:27 PM:
Fuck Battlestar Galactica. I'll take the cheesy OS over this new asshole-filled show chock full of pyschos, terminators and modern military jargon. It's like watching the very worst of humanity trying to survive while fucking each other over.
And fuck everybody: I liked Enterprise!
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on July 23, 2006 03:49 PM:
I hope the marketing campaign will feature a number of different posters featuring insignias from different eras. That would be pretty cool.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on July 23, 2006 03:56 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: It's like watching the very worst of humanity trying to survive while fucking each other over.
So it is like watching US politics?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 23, 2006 10:09 PM:
I think I'm with Keckler from Television Without Pity on Enterprise... Archer was a big fucking jackass who mistreated his dog and had no clue about what was actually going on around him most of the time. T'Pol was a fucking CRACK WHORE. Reed was a prick who just liked to blow shit up. Mayweather was a potted plant for all practical purposes. Hoshi magically turned into a computer hacker when they realized that they didn't need a translator that often anymore.
No, BSG is not perfect. Sure, it's over the top oftentimes. But it's a HELL of a lot more interesting than Enterprise ever was...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on July 23, 2006 10:35 PM:
Fight! Fight! Fight!
So this is actually happening then? It's not going to be like Bryan Singer's proposed BSG - a pipe-dream? Abrams and his minions aren't going to be tempted off by something else, like a big-screen Banana Splits film or anything equally absurd?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on July 24, 2006 02:25 AM:
Reboot.
Awficial Site Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on July 24, 2006 02:47 AM:
There's nothing in that link that mentions a reboot. What are you smoking?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on July 24, 2006 02:56 AM:
Um...that link was last updated in April. In crapass T.V. Guide (which I read at the Newsstand) Abrams says they've "got a really great begining, but the script is not complete" and he "knows how important it is to respect the fans".
He's also a "huge fan" of TOS and TNG.
Sure dont sound like a reboot.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on July 24, 2006 03:11 AM:
The poster is supposed to be "Clues to the direction of the next movie". Since it is the original Enterprise logo, I'd say its a good bet they are going to do something from that era which means either Robert April, Christopher Pike or the final two years of the Kirk mission. Since the colors are Yellow/Gold and Blue it reminds me of Kirk & Spock's uniform colors. Hmmmm. Whichever way they go they will have new actors for the familiar characters or brand new characters. To me, that is about as close to a reboot as you can get without saying "JMS".
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on July 24, 2006 03:15 AM:
"Reboot" means ditching everything that's come before and starting a new continuity. Revisiting past eras and/or characters does not inherently signify a reboot. Enterprise was not a reboot and neither will this be (insofar as we currently know).
-MMoM Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on July 24, 2006 03:23 AM:
Maybe they visited Galifrey in the past and saved the universe and were each given one "Get Out of Death" Regeneration card to play. That will explain different actors playing the familiar crew.
Posted by mikephys (Member # 1876) on July 24, 2006 03:34 AM:
The absence of red implies first or second pilot uniform colors. I agree, this could be a Pike or April film. Or maybe JJ is getting rid of the red uniform color, so we don't know in advance who's going to die!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on July 24, 2006 03:43 AM:
More likely -- the film will focus on Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and who of those three wears red ... ?
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on July 24, 2006 11:49 AM:
Im going to circulate this just to be a bastard.
Hehe!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 24, 2006 12:56 PM:
That sure as hell had better be a fake. If this is something they're actually planning on doing, I'm going to be very, very pissed.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on July 24, 2006 01:24 PM:
I wouldn't. making a movie based on TOS is going to suck. Especially since it isnt a re-imaging. Those cheesy, bright assed retro colors are ugly and completely take me out of the movie.
Sure, so would making a movie about something as obscure as 29th century starfleet, but a solid story about the Titan and Capt. Riker would be good.
Im sick of his prequel shit.
The sad part is, i'll see it 3-4 times anyway.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on July 24, 2006 01:34 PM:
quote: making a movie based on TOS is going to suck
And there are people who say that making a DS9 or VGR or ENT movie would suck.** The simple fact is that Trek has become so fragmented that even the fans can't agree on anything anymore. (It's one of the things that keeps this place in business, right? ) I would view these posters as indication that the studio is coming up with some kind of catch-all plot that will end up throwing a bunch of shit up against the wall and seeing what sticks with the audience.
** One of my mom's childhood friends -- the person who got her interested in Trek back during its first run -- is such a rabid TOS fan that she has refused to watch ANY of the subsequent television series or [TNG] movies AT ALL. And there are nutcases out there who say the only good thing about TOS was that it led to newer, better shows. Reality is somewhere in the middle. But, my point is, that there's such a variety of opinion that they're never going to please everyone with any single movie. And yet, because they're so intent on sticking with the original formula and they want to make as much money as possible at the same time...
As of right now, my attitude is "why should I go see it?" instead of "I'll probably go see it, regardless of how good it is." I fully respect anyone else's choices otherwise. But given the past six years, I'm still quite puzzled as to why people seem to be going apeshit over a damn poster.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on July 24, 2006 02:08 PM:
Honestly, I don't really care how it turns out. I've converted to BSG and Stargate.
However, the fans at TrekBBS are going CRAZY over this image.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on July 24, 2006 02:23 PM:
(As far as I can tell, there's no information about the content of the movie one way or the other, and all we've got is a teaser image with the classic logo, plus Abrams' comments to the effect that he likes TOS.)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on July 24, 2006 03:27 PM:
I'M WITH WES!
(You earn NEGATIVE ONE THOUSAND points.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on July 24, 2006 03:51 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Ritten:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: It's like watching the very worst of humanity trying to survive while fucking each other over.
So it is like watching US politics?
No, U.S. Politics is funny and has better acting.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on July 24, 2006 03:56 PM:
They seem to have skipped the DS9 pin. I think it's a fantastic ad series- looks great just as a promo for the whole "40 years" thing.
It would not be terribly suprising for them to try a "grand unification" plot to sorta give fans a taste of each version of Trek. A bit fanboy-ish prahaps...
quote:Originally posted by Wes: Honestly, I don't really care how it turns out. I've converted to BSG and Stargate.
Jesus, that sad. It's like saying "I only listern to cover songs..." Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on July 24, 2006 08:13 PM:
quote:Originally posted by mikephys: The absence of red implies first or second pilot uniform colors. I agree, this could be a Pike or April film. Or maybe JJ is getting rid of the red uniform color, so we don't know in advance who's going to die!
The pilots had there colours, the third was just really close to the yellow.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on July 24, 2006 09:26 PM:
Jason, yes, it is funnier in a saddish sort of way, although the actors aren't really that good.
I wouldn't mind seeing a series based during the TOS era, just do to the other stories that could be told, I guess the same goes for the TNG era, although DS9 and VOY covered other parts of it already. ENT would have been more appealing had they used a ship that looked like it pre dated the E-nil.
I echo Jason's sentiment about ENT, although replace ENT with BSG. It seems far closer to what you'd expect than the family BSG of old. Maybe at the end of this one Earth will be destroyed because they did come here.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on July 25, 2006 12:07 AM:
Get ready for "The Five Captains"...Evil 29th Century dude uses a timescoop to pluck Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, & Archer to the future to (insert evil plot here). The Captains must overcome their differences to fight E29CD and set the universe right.
You just KNOW there's already a scipt like that out there.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on July 25, 2006 10:08 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Wes: Im going to circulate this just to be a bastard.
Hehe!
Wait where's the Enterprise patch
Really I get no reaction from this. I'm mean the official website is pulling all the stops for a teaser poster that a few months ago might have been viewed as a nice free wallpaper to put on your desktop. Why so much hype for something that has not really been planned and may not be good? Who runs that sight? The Underpants Gnomes?
Step1: Teaser Poster
Step2: ?
Step3: Profit!
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on July 25, 2006 10:10 AM:
Hillarious. Look at them try to anyalize it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on July 25, 2006 10:55 AM:
Are you, Mars, perhaps new to the phenomenon of marketing?
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on July 25, 2006 11:55 AM:
If by "analyze" you mean "call into question your abilities as an artist" then whoa hilarity.
I agree with them, by the way.
DON'T TRIP UP THE STAIRS ON YOUR WAY TO DINNER
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on July 25, 2006 11:58 AM:
Anyalize, I mean.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on July 25, 2006 02:40 PM:
Wes, let's please try to not have the doings of other boards (especially the TrekBBS) posted here. We'll have our own discussions without dragging their insipid nonsense here, thank you.
Anyway, I find your previous post about wanting to see posters from different eras, and then having you actually post said wish to be highly suspicious. Or maybe I'm just jealous of your apparent superpower of making wishes come true. Although if it were me, I'd have wished for a million dollars.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on July 25, 2006 04:47 PM:
And a turkey sandwich.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on July 25, 2006 05:16 PM:
No, we have no insipid non sense here by golly gee whiz.
With Mayo?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on July 25, 2006 05:29 PM:
Hang on are these posters legit? The first TOS poster is nice - i like the stitching/texture on the insignia and the uniforms.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on July 25, 2006 05:31 PM:
The first one is official; the others were cooked up by Wes.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on July 26, 2006 12:47 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Are you, Mars, perhaps new to the phenomenon of marketing?
If the stupidity I saw on StarTrek.com is any indication, then yes I am new to this.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on July 26, 2006 02:07 AM:
I hate reboots... god damn I'm not looking forward to Casino Royale nor this film.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on July 26, 2006 08:46 AM:
The preview for Casino Royale looked pretty good.
I don't know anything about it's plot line but from the preview - considering it had Dame Judi that they weren't "Rebooting" but that it was an insight into how they get new "James Bonds" each time.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on July 26, 2006 10:22 AM:
How is every James Bond film not a "reboot?" "Say James, interesting how you're a veteran of the Boer War."
And how is a poster with a single image and a date on the bottom crazy go stupid? There's something like that for every movie ever. (Well, for the ones intended to be loud summer fims, at least.)
And Wes announces his intentions in the very same post.
This thread is making me prematurely grey.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on July 26, 2006 12:49 PM:
I was just dicking around with the TrekBBS kids. I know you chums are above this sort of thing.
The posters were a quick 20 minute fanboy wack-job. No need to troll on me (ahem. Home Decor) for how they look rushed... jesus.
I still think 29th century starfleet could be a good time-travel-inspired series. Time travel can definitely be the core of a series - no a plot device or some sort of creative hack, if used correctly. It'd never happen, but one can dream.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on July 26, 2006 05:02 PM:
I think you should take it as a complement that the pictures were so good that people were willing to believe they were legit!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on July 26, 2006 05:12 PM:
There is that.
But that TrekBBS thread. . . Jesus. And this is an example of one of those dynamic Trek discussion forums which we should aspire to emulate? I'm trying not to have a go (because such things always seem to get back to them, result, instant flamewar) but aside from the miasma of avatars and quotes and re-quotes, one thing kept popping up in my head: who takes the time to talk about Trek on the internet but isn't sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to recognise the "AGT..." or 29th Century Starfleet logos? Or am I really displaying one of the problems with current Trek that a reboot might hope to address, that there's too much other stuff to remember, which drives away casual and new fans?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on July 26, 2006 10:32 PM:
No not really, the AGT communicator has appear now in 4 Major episodes, AGT, The Visitor, Timeless and Endgame. They should know. Anyone with the encyclopaedia would know it - same as the Far future communicator.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on July 26, 2006 10:58 PM:
But from an aethetic and social engineering standpoint it is pretty interesting the conclusions being jumped to.
RE: The actual movie, well, Mr. Abrams's MI:III doesn't exactly fill me with hope towards a vital and refreshingly interesting take on an old fave.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on July 26, 2006 11:41 PM:
(Well, not really.) Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on July 27, 2006 01:56 AM:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: No not really, the AGT communicator has appear now in 4 Major episodes, AGT, The Visitor, Timeless and Endgame. They should know. Anyone with the encyclopaedia would know it - same as the Far future communicator.
Yes, but for older people with slipping memories even the encyclopedia doesn't always help, especially when one forgets he has it until someone mentions it in a thread. Two of them even, the older one and the one with the supplement.
Age and memory jokes aside, the encyclopedia still has a lot to remember, and each person will only remember the parts that they are more drawn to.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on July 27, 2006 02:14 AM:
I think requiring ownership of a specialized reference work is a good way to avoid both artistic and financial success.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) I would view these posters as indication that the studio is coming up with some kind of catch-all plot that will end up throwing a bunch of shit up against the wall and seeing what sticks with the audience.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)