160 years before Kirk was born, eh? That'd put it somewhere a few years after First Contact with the Vulcans. The screenwriter promises no existing characters (save probably Zefram Cochrane, who could be reprised by the same actor in an age-appropriate role), and a gritty "Band of Brothers" feel that he's known for, having written that miniseries.
Kill all the lawyers, indeed...
Mark
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
If its 160 years before Kirk, why does it talk about the Romulan War?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
While I thought people complaining about Enterprise not being "Star Trek" because it was looking backward and not forward - was stupid - this prequal to Enterprise IS pushing the limit.
Bermaga should be out of there.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
AndrewR, really, you need a new catch phrase. And the important reason is that, you know, Brannon Braga has his own show now.
CaptainBoh, you're right. Someone's math is way off on that. If it's 160 years before Kirk's birth, then that would put the movie in the area of 2070. If they meant 160 years before Kirk commanded the Enterprise, that'd be about forty years before the start of Star Trek: Enterprise. We'd be talking major continuity problems in either case.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Hopefully, that will get caught by someone and changed as the script goes through the revision process.
Sounds promising. I am wary of phrases like "blank slate," though.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
in case the timeline really has been worked out to match the Romulan War, an original phrasing of "a hundred... (damn, I screwed up, I meant to be more accurate and say, now what was that figure we agreed on?) ...SIXTY years before Kirk's birth" seems rather likely here.
Placing the war in the 2170s works just fine in terms of general chronology, and also steers clear of ENT characters and events. Even if Archer or Reed is still alive at the time, they won't be in this Band of Brothers, but rather sitting behind a desk and at most sending cameo-type orders and despatches to the main heroes.
Not that I'd think the franchise would be strong enough to support such a specific, niche show at the time - but as a movie, the war story might be fun to watch. But only assuming that Paramount risks big money on it, which isn't likely to happen. I mean, scifi war on a shoestring budget? Perhaps, if it's all surgically clean ship-to-ship (B5 style). But with an emphasis on "grunt" characters, we need "infantry" action outside the ship sets. And whether with live extras or digital characters, that's gonna cost.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Gonna be tough to have "infantry" style action against an enemy they never see face to face.
Even if the Romulans were to wear helmets that cover teir entire heads, some bodies would be left behind on the battlefield...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: AndrewR, really, you need a new catch phrase. And the important reason is that, you know, Brannon Braga has his own show now.
Fair Enough. But they still will be teaming up for Trek XI.
Interesting Braga series - would these scientists... and milit-- oh my god sounds like a Stargate rip-off. I wonder if it will be called "Wormhole X-treme"?
So it's just a hiccup about the 160 year thingy - so it will be about the Romulan War - now this could be interesting. I reckon an Enterprise movie would work.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Fair Enough. But they still will be teaming up for Trek XI.
No. Every release that's come out about about Trek XI shows that Braga is not involved in the new movie. Now, could things change? Yeah, especially if Threshold tanks and Braga suddenly find himself needing work. But for now, it's a new group of producers and writers teaming up with Berman for the new movie.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
It is starting to sound like a kit-bash of Starship Troopers meets Space:Above & Beyond meets Star Trek. How do they expect an audience to walk into a theater and instantly identify with an unknown "crew"? The first third of the movie would have to be introduction and relationship then straight to the shoot-m-up. Not a good formula
I think Trek needs to recuperate for a few years before it gets its own residual "Genesis Effect".
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
If production on the movie is just beginning, it may well be a couple of years before it's released.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: How do they expect an audience to walk into a theater and instantly identify with an unknown "crew"?
This is exactly why I don't also don't favor the idea of doing a series of TV movies where each one focuses on a different crew and ship. Part of what's fun about watching Star Trek on the big screen is that it features characters you've seen who've gone through a lot and grown. Would Spock's death in The Wrath of Khan have been as powerful if we hadn't already spent years with him? Would Picard's behavior in First Contact have been as jarring if we hadn't seen his normal attitude and seen what the Borg did to him? I think you can do a Star Trek with an unknown and undeveloped cast of characters, but I don't think you're going to have the level of connection between the audience and the characters that has been evident with using established characters.
Posted by Bones McCoy (Member # 1480) on :
I think it could definitely work if you got the right director and writer. You don't have to have seven years of knowing the characters to feel connected to them. As long as there aren't too many main characters, I think you could tell a good story in a short time.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:How do they expect an audience to walk into a theater and instantly identify with an unknown "crew"?
And
quote:This is exactly why I don't also don't favor the idea of doing a series of TV movies where each one focuses on a different crew and ship. Part of what's fun about watching Star Trek on the big screen is that it features characters you've seen who've gone through a lot and grown.
While I understand where you're coming from, I disagree with this mindset. Yes, we've come to accept various characters and even feel fondly for them. Yes, the episodic format of a weekly series hinges on the continued development and growth of these characters.
But, is that enough of a reason to shun/naysay/reject an idea based on new characters? Does the fact that we'd have characters nobody had ever heard of spoil the concept? If the characters are new, does that automatically mean the movie or TV mini-series would flop?
Why?
Using the above reasoning, TNG, DS-9, VOY and ENT should have never been made or should have failed. After all, they all at one time were brand new with characters nobody had ever heard of. Yet, did you think their premier episodes sucked?
Why should anyone make any movie or TV mini-series for that matter? After all, they are full of characters nobody had ever heard of or developed any kind of relationship with.
Is there so little room in the minds/hearts/imaginations of Trek fans that they can't stomache the idea of a movie or TV mini-series without established characters?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: [QUOTE]
Is there so little room in the minds/hearts/imaginations of Trek fans that they can't stomache the idea of a movie or TV mini-series without established characters?
The problem is that we have too much negative AND high expectations.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but... We have official statements that the movie is set 160 years before Kirk was born, and rumors that it's about the Romulan War. Now, they can't both be true (if they aren't really screwing up the continuity). So, why are people trying to rework the official "160 years" bit to fit the "Romulan War" bit? Shouldn't it be the rumors that are dismissed, when they contradict the official word?
If it's about a war, and it's around the year 160 B.K., doesn't that pretty well mean it's about World War III or something pretty close thereto?
[ March 10, 2005, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Using the above reasoning, TNG, DS-9, VOY and ENT should have never been made or should have failed. After all, they all at one time were brand new with characters nobody had ever heard of. Yet, did you think their premier episodes sucked?
For all the claims you make alleging that you understand my point, you simply don't seem to. There's a huge different between a one-shot movie or TV movie that brings in characters that we'll never see again after two hours and a television series that's going to bring in new characters and develop them over the course of three, four, and seven years (depending on which television series we're talking about). With what you propose, we'll never see a level of character development that goes beyond what gets accomplished in the premiere episodes of each series.
quote:Why should anyone make any movie or TV mini-series for that matter? After all, they are full of characters nobody had ever heard of or developed any kind of relationship with.
Most miniseries or movies are either plot-driven or action-orientated. They don't necessarily need to have characters that have a long history for us to understand; must just simply pop in stock characters. However, Star Trek is a different beast from most of what's out there. Star Trek includes a lot of character-driven stories, and that's what make Star Trek so enjoyable. It's not the plot or the action of the Dominion War that was so good about Deep Space Nine, it was watching how the characters changed in response to it.
quote:Is there so little room in the minds/hearts/imaginations of Trek fans that they can't stomache the idea of a movie or TV mini-series without established characters?
Cut the characters out of the equations, you're going to be left with shoot-em-ups and let's-do-something-for-the-sake-of-doing-somethings. For me, I don't care about the technology or the action that's in Star Trek. I love watching the characters, and I love watching them grow and seeing how they react to the challenges that the plots put to them. That's why the fans care so much for the characters. You're not going to get that with characters you're only with for two hours. That's why I'm less than enthused with these particular ideas.
quote:If it's about a war, and it's around the year 160 B.K., doesn't that pretty well mean it's about World War III or something pretty close thereto?
The Encylopedia claims that Kirk was born in 2233. Going by the 160 year figure, we wind up with 2073 for about when the movie will take place. That's about twenty years after the events in First Contact, which were in turn after World War III. So, that doesn't really fit either.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The fact that the individual giving the "160-odd years" figure is apparently unacquainted with the details of the Trek universe and timeline suggests to me that it shouldn't be lent too much credence. I mean, do you really think the movie is going to open with a title card reading "160 years prior to the birth of James T. Kirk..."? Whatever gets said in early (pre-script) stages is surely not to be taken too seriously.
The guy's just trying to hook people in with sweeping, dramatic rhetoric.
And as to the RW, he *did* say "take a Romulan chill pill..."
-MMoM Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
BTW, he posted a correction saying that he was in error, though I didn't see a more correct one.
Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what he said, but I do remember that there was a correction.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
:: rubs temples :: You know, sometimes I think we should just torch the franchise and run off to Mexico with the insurance money.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Most miniseries or movies are either plot-driven or action-orientated. They don't necessarily need to have characters that have a long history for us to understand; must just simply pop in stock characters. However, Star Trek is a different beast from most of what's out there. Star Trek includes a lot of character-driven stories, and that's what make Star Trek so enjoyable. It's not the plot or the action of the Dominion War that was so good about Deep Space Nine, it was watching how the characters changed in response to it.
ENT was cancelled after 4 seasons due to lackluster ratings. Perhaps it's a time for a change.
A mini-series or motion picture that is plot-driven may be just the thing we need.
Perhaps a plot-driven movie with a fresh set of characters would be successful. My wife, for exampe, is gunshy about watching Star Trek because she feels she has to catch up on 30+ years of history.
Character development may have attracted viewers to the Dominion War arc, but there are plenty of stand-alone episodes that are fan-favorites or have introduced fan-favorite characters. The Besto of Both Worlds, for example, spawned fans of Shelby and is a highly acclaimed two parter (yes, there is a lot going on with our favorite characters, too...) Yesterday's Enterprise is another stand-out episode more for the plot than for all the Tasha fans out there.
When I mentioned the Captain Sulu idea, part of my thinking was this reason you've mentioned... Fans needed established characters and there weren't that many established characters left from TOS that could have new adventures.
And there's nothing preventing the idea of developing a movie or TV mini-series involving one or two established characters. If Frakes and Sirtis are favorable, I'm sure a TV mini featuring Captain Riker and the Titan would be a smash.
But I'm open and willing to the idea of a successful plot-driven or action driven stand-alone story.
No matter what you do, you won't please everyone. Some people praise DS-9 and others thought it was "too dark." Some people love the new Battlestar Galactica, others feel it's from the devil.
Some won't watch any one-shot Trek because it's not developing characters. Others may give it such a shot.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"And as to the RW, he *did* say 'take a Romulan chill pill...'"
To me, that would mean one of two things. One, that he's saying "calm down about the bloody Romulans, because they have nothing to do with it". Or, two, that's he wanted to sound "hip to the lingo", and he just pulled a random alien name out of his ass. Therefore, a "Romulan chill pill" is like Romulan ale, or an Andorian tortoise, or whatever.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
But we've already heard it's about the RW from Berman, haven't we?
[EDIT:Correction---it was Braga.]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: Perhaps a plot-driven movie with a fresh set of characters would be successful. My wife, for exampe, is gunshy about watching Star Trek because she feels she has to catch up on 30+ years of history.
Surely Enterprise would have been the perfect show for her to start with, then?
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
ZING! Point for Psy
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
While I would *love* to see a movie featuring the Romulan War, I don't see how it could be done well. Has anybody seen a 2+ hour movie that features an entire war? It seems they would have to gloss over a lot.
B.J.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Braveheart. Maybe?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I shall win the race by saying B5's "In The Beginning". Which was actually quite good really yes.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Braveheart might qualify. I wouldn't count "In the Beginning" since they didn't have to introduce the characters. Starting from scratch with new characters I think would be more difficult.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Oddly enough, I once had housemates that had only watched "In The Beginning" of all of B5, and while the framing story with Londo was of course incomprehensible they still really enjoyed it. So I'm thinking that from a viewer's point of view, you should be able to make a movie that caters to new viewers yet still resonates for the long-time viewers.
Now whether the writers for ST:XI are capable/going to, all bets are off.
Another thought, the Star Wars Clone Wars sorta between SWII and SWIII, but thats probably not the best example.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The thing with Braveheart was, while we still had to get to know the characters, the situation was relativley easy to establish. If they could give a situation that we could jump into and make it easy for us to understand why the characters would imediately react they way they do, it coudl be possible. Because we'll instantly relate to their feelings and actions without having to know everythign about them.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Fair Enough. But they still will be teaming up for Trek XI.
No. Every release that's come out about about Trek XI shows that Braga is not involved in the new movie. Now, could things change? Yeah, especially if Threshold tanks and Braga suddenly find himself needing work. But for now, it's a new group of producers and writers teaming up with Berman for the new movie.
I'm sorry - his new series is called "Threshold"?? Named after one of the WORST episodes of all 740 or so hours of Star Trek!?!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think what Berman and the suit want - is a movie - that has the 'star trek' tag on it - but doesn't have to be bogged down by 40 years of Star Trek back-story. Star Trek = Easy Money. Or at least it gives it a fan base on which to build audience numbers.
All the pilot episodes of Trek have been big ratings winners - pulling millions of viewers. If they did things CORRECTLY they could pull off a new 'big screen crew' - without having the pressure o having to follow up for another 22-26 episodes. They could focus all their efforts into GOOD movies with a brand new crew every few years.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Sort of like the whole idea of the Final Fantasy franchise; everything is named Final Fantasy but the various games and movie don't have anything to do with each other.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I'm sorry - his new series is called "Threshold"?? Named after one of the WORST episodes of all 740 or so hours of Star Trek!?!
Well, I don't think anyone would have gotten why a series called Spock's Brain didn't have guy named Spock in it.
You call yourself a true anti-Bermaga, and you didn't know this? I'll have to take back your membership club. No Burger King coupons for you, mister!
quote:I think what Berman and the suit want - is a movie - that has the 'star trek' tag on it - but doesn't have to be bogged down by 40 years of Star Trek back-story.
They've tried this twice now: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Nemesis. Both movies weren't specifically written to be as you stated, but it's obvious that large chunks of backstory were ripped out in the need to appeal to a large audience. Although, to be fair, that was only one of numerous problems with both movies.
quote:All the pilot episodes of Trek have been big ratings winners - pulling millions of viewers. If they did things CORRECTLY they could pull off a new 'big screen crew' - without having the pressure o having to follow up for another 22-26 episodes. They could focus all their efforts into GOOD movies with a brand new crew every few years.
As with anything, it depends. When John Logan stepped in to write Nemesis, we were pretty much expecting some great stuff in a two-hour package. How much of what we got were flaws with Logan's writing or interference from Stewart and Spiner I don't have the answer to, but regardless we got a lackluster movie that did horribly at the box office.
What's being pitched for the in-development movie sounds like it could be good. Without using familiar characters, the writer has pretty much free reign on what to do. And, if you cast good but relatively unknown actors, you bypass the star-tantrum stuff that interfered with Nemesis. However, keep in mind that doing a good movie period is hard. For every Million Dollar Baby there's at least one Catwoman.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm not sure how TFF skimped on backstory any more than the other films. Care to elaborate?
And agreed, I thought Nemesis was going to be great when I read the script, but the execution sucked some major dong.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Mim: What I'm talking about mainly is the whole Kirk and Klingons thing. The only time he showed any rage towards them was the one insult he threw at them when the Bird-Of-Prey pointed its disrupter at him. The rest of the time, it was "oh no, we've got to avoid the Klingons." Considering the rage and grief he showed over David's death in The Search for Spock and The Undiscovered Country, it strikes me as very unusual that he's then sharing a drink with Klingons onboard the Enterprise. (In case you ask me about The Voyage Home, I have a similar complaint with that as well. Although, we can assume the stress of saving Earth from destruction made Kirk suppress his mourning).
I'm also referring to, in smaller parts, the way the Klingons reacted to Kirk. Instead of the "there shall be no peace" rhetoric, there's the "respected enemy" attitude in place. I wouldn't expect that from the Klingon captain, especially if he browbeaten into apologizing to Kirk by his superior. And, then there's Spock suddenly having a fully-Vulcan half-brother also.
Edit: Yes, thank you, I meant half-brother. And, to elaborate on that point as well, I meant that we knew Spock was an only child. I can't remember if this tidbit came solely from The Animated Series, but Spock also grew up alienated. If Sybok were as different as Spock claims he was, then Spock might have formed a bond with Sybok. Yet, apparently, he didn't.
[ March 12, 2005, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Half-brother.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: Mim: What I'm talking about mainly is the whole Kirk and Klingons thing. The only time he showed any rage towards them was the one insult he threw at them when the Bird-Of-Prey pointed its disrupter at him. The rest of the time, it was "oh no, we've got to avoid the Klingons." Considering the rage and grief he showed over David's death in The Search for Spock and The Undiscovered Country, it strikes me as very unusual that he's then sharing a drink with Klingons onboard the Enterprise. (In case you ask me about The Voyage Home, I have a similar complaint with that as well. Although, we can assume the stress of saving Earth from destruction made Kirk suppress his mourning).
Isn't all of that more a retroactive problem created by STVI than a problem with STV?
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, but VI is far superior to V, so we just backport the issues. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Backport? Is that anything like a fanhole?
And a series called Spock's Brain that has nothing to do with Brains or anyone named Spock would be mighty... different! Anyone got a few mil to splurge on a pilot?
If Callista Flockhart kept going the way she did on Ally McBeal - that could have been "Ally's Sinew". Posted by Curzon Dax (Member # 1481) on :
The only thing that I worry about is continuality. Call me a purist but that is the main problem I have with E was it was not part of the time line of the other four series'. I will go see the movie but I hope they don't make it yet another ST "universe".
:{)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Curzon Dax: ...it was not part of the time line of the other four series'.
You say that as if everyone agrees about it.
Continuality?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Curzon Dax: The only thing that I worry about is continuality. Call me a purist but that is the main problem I have with E was it was not part of the time line of the other four series'. I will go see the movie but I hope they don't make it yet another ST "universe".
:{)
On the contrary, as I was saying in this thread, there are numerous indications that ENT is very much supposed to represent the "true" history of the other series. (The biggest one being that "Regeneration" [ENT], "Q Who?," et al [TNG], and First Contact are supposed to represent a temporal causality loop.)
$$ SPOILERS FOR "These are the Voyages..." (ENT FINALE) $$ - - - - - Furthermore, though some fans seem to have misinterpreted it as a reset button like on Dallas, I believe the "valentine" intended to be conveyed by the Riker & Troi holodeck gimmick in the upcoming finale is in fact the exact opposite---an explicit acknowledgement of the series by characters from the universally-accepted/respected TNG.
And despite this being a very old argument, surely the continuity glitches on VGR were more serious than anything done in ENT...
-MMoM Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Well, technically speaking, shouldn't Khan have launched in the DY100 a few years back? There is NO way that you are going to have seemless continuity between shows when the very basis that everyone calls "Canon" is WRONG.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well, Greg Cox has a thing or two to say about that matter...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Well, technically speaking, shouldn't Khan have launched in the DY100 a few years back? There is NO way that you are going to have seemless continuity between shows when the very basis that everyone calls 'Canon' is WRONG."
And yet, on ENT, they managed to explicitly follow the TOS continuity with the Eugenics Wars, and it didn't cause a problem at all.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Rock on!!
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
I would just do another TNG movie and make it a better ending. Bring Data back as B4, and show the Dastrum institute work on him while studying the parts of Lore to bring him back. Of courlse something stupid will happin and Lore will be back, and be the main villian. Maybe the borg queen will decide if not data then lore, some weird incest thing, or the borgs from "Unimatrix Zero" needed a leader and took Lord as one.
Nemesis was bad and that path should be corrected, but then the script was not as bad as the movie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, if you just fast-forward through evrything except the....er....
Okay, the whole thing sucks- even watching only the space battles is a sad experience- only the Enterprise moves like a large ship. The Reman/Romulan ships move like fighters, banking and dogfighting at point-blank range and the new Valdore type ships are slightly less tough than an Oberth.
Not good at all.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There was a rumor recently at Ain't It Cool News, I believe, saying that Paramount was looking to film the next one in Australia, though there wasn't anything about what in fact they would be filming, or when, or with who. And everything films in Australia now anyway. But, you know. Since the thread is active.
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
Australia? I thought it was Vancover, Canada.
Actually I liked one thing about Nemesis. The LASCARS didn't have the traditional orange and black interface, they had blue and black. The colors of the movie were good. But then to substitute colors and style for story sucks. I would rather have a good story and bad special effects and props, rather than bad story and great special effects and props. Sadly Nemesis turned into the New Star Wars.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
LASCARS?
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
Is it wrong to adore this guy?
It's too bad I'm over the hill.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
quote:Originally posted by wingsabre: I would rather have a good story and bad special effects and props, rather than bad story and great special effects and props.
Do you think he remembers Blakes Seven?
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: LASCARS?
Sorry, typo it's LCARS
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
I'm 19, and from the US. I had no idea what Blakes Seven is untill I looked it up on Wikipedia.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by wingsabre:
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: LASCARS?
Sorry, typo it's LCARS
Star Trek Eleven: Nascar..... in.... SPACE!
I'd have gone for a nice Blake's 7 ending to the last movie- now that would have been a movie to remember! Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I thought that WAS their attempt at NASCAR....running around the planet in a 4x
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Seemed more like a bad reality show- find all the parts before the aliens arrive to shoot you.
Kind of like Fear factor but with no shock, zero suspense and with stiffer acting.
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
no, the NASCAR idea was done already on Voyager. Remember Alice?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
BZZT! Thank you for playing!
The race episode in Voyager was "Drive".
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
honestly they should just do an ending fitting for TNG crew. Nemesis was a horrible ending for TNG
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: BZZT! Thank you for playing!
The race episode in Voyager was "Drive".
Hardly blame him for mucking up the name - all the episode titles for Voyager were so unimaginative - and all one word. Gah! (well not ALL but most - also exclude episodes that had a "The" at the start.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I like some of what I'm hearing from this guy, (multiple ships and crews, "story is big and epic, and it isn't as antiseptic as the television stories had to be") though that working title is terrible, and I'm not sure how the film's events (presumably the war with the Romulans) are "the beginning" of Star Trek, for that matter. I suppose he's speaking of how the RW led to the founding of the Federation, although the beginnings of that have already been seen on ENT...
-MMoM Posted by Captain Serek (Member # 1038) on :
Well it might follow the curses of the odd numbered Treks and suck, but one can hope for the best Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's not antiseptic?!? There goes my dreams of watching T'Pol get a rubdown on the big screen...
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't see how you can deal with a story a couple of years after the events of Enterprise that "stars everything" without incorporating Archer if he was supposed to be so involved in the founding. I'm assuming it actually takes place between the last real episode of Enterprise and the sucky finale, which I don't count.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain Serek: Well it might follow the curses of the odd numbered Treks and suck, but one can hope for the best
That "curse" was WELL and TRUELY broken with Star Trek 10 "Nemeshits"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Y'know...I've missed almost all of season four of Enterprise and I really dont intend to watch the last episode when I buy season 4 of DVD.
I just dont think I'm missing anything.
Now, they could mention "President Archer" giving orders to the fleet and tie things in nicely.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
John Logan had neat things to say about his script as well.
Though I think breaking things up a little, as far as what sorts of crew star, could definitely help. That is to say, when every show is about your command crew, all your stories are from that perspective. Which is just fine, and certainly natural, but more so for TV than film. Maybe. Like, war movies do not tend to focus on the generals.
Except for Patton. Er, and any movie that's about a general. But, aside from all of those.
I looked up all the names on the IMDb, just for fun.
DONT talk bad about John Logan's magnificent comedic script!
If only Ed Wood could have directed it.....
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
Actually the Logan script for Nemesis was not that bad. He incorporated a lot of stuff, and it was edited out. Actually it wasn't really edited out, more hacked out. The editing was the bad part, and the directing was not great either. I would have prefeered John Franks to direct, or have former Trek starts direct.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What exactly was good and "hacked out"?
I cant imagine the lame dune-buggy scene was added in.
I really would have liked to see Wesley's toast at the wedding though- editing that out when so much shit remained was just....wrong.
Fuck, it was not even among the deleted scenes- and the lame ass child-restraint captain's chair bit was included!
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
"I would have prefeered John Franks to direct, or have former Trek starts direct."
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, to be fair, no one named John Franks ever actually starred in any Star Trek production...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye he wanted Shatner to direct?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The dune buggy scene was added at Patrick's direct request.
--Jonah
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It could have been worse. He could have asked that Picard have had mental powers to make anything he wanted happen and then spent the entire time causing women's clothing to fall off.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh no now you will pitch a tent and camp out in line and pitch a tent.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There are two meanings in one phrase there!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Which is a bargain in anyone's language.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
So, the next movie will be Star Trek meets Starship Troopers?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Starship Trekkers. Startrek Troopers. StarTroop Trekkers. So long, and thanks for all the Romulans.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What HAS David Boreanaz been up to anyway?
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
He is in the new FOX drama "HOT BONE LADY AND FURROWED BROW COP HAVE FLINTY RELATIONS AND PROBABLY MAKE OUT IN THE SEASON FINALE? WE DON'T KNOW? WATCH IT JUST IN CASE!!" Tuesdays 9/8c.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
She's not hot.
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
I suppose to those of us who aren't bathing in the founts of piled women with our craftsmen building a gilded golden throne to seat the newfound Queens of our eyes, there is little to be picky about.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Buh?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't know, makes sense to me.
I guess one should note that Boreanaz's new show is called, simply, "Bones". Otherwise it is largely as described: forensics and sexual tension. Or so the promotional material suggests.
I think he's also got some movie coming out.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I am interested in two new FOX shows this season: Prison Break (which has started out good IMO), and Reunion.
24 will also be viewed with beer and wings on a weekly basis.
Bones will not, as I find myself uninterested in either forensics or Boreanaz's lonely manhood.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Surely he has a woman? If nerdy guy-who-does-British-accents-in-American-shows-and-American-accents-in-British-shows can go out with girl-who-is-considered-hotter-than-Sarah-Michelle-Geller-by-nerds, I'm sure sexy David with his sexy hair could get one.
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
John is short for Jonathan, just like Bill/Will is short for William, and Dick/Rick is short for Richard. In other words you can say Rick Berman is a dick and not be wrong. I�m sorry for misspelling Jonathan Frankes name, but I�ve always pronounced Frankes, Franks so it slipped my mind to double check his name. I was simply referring to the fact that there�s several cast members who direct, including Jonathan Frakes, LeVar Burton, Avery Brooks, and Rene Auberjonois.
As for Nemesis, I thought they touched on too many things, and didn�t really carry them through. They tried to show that it was the last voyage of TNG crew, but it wasn�t shown well. I got a bigger sense of that looking at the script, but the script wasn�t that great either. They edited out the goodbye to Beverly. Removed the Wesley toast, and clipped several other stuff. All in all the script was bad, but the movie just made the script look a lot better, especially if you remove some of the stupid internal monologue of John Logan, which was quite pitiful; especially when �Yes!� was typed after a description of the Enterprise warping away.
Nemesis felt like this group old guys trying to be hip, like parents trying to be cool. Artistically I liked the opening credits from the script more than the one we saw. The reverse R was lame in my mind. Plus, they took out a whole section in the beginning that introduces the Remans.
The only thing I liked from the movie was the music (with the exception of the stuff from Berlin), and the colors. I liked how the orange was replaced with blue tones.
The movie also sucked, since I knew what would happen before I watched the movie. I was watching the news, and they did a small segment on Nemesis. I expected, a general picture about the last voyage and that there will be a Romulan influence. They ended up interviewing Berman, which told the whole plot of the movie. He said there would be an android called B-4 or B-9, Clone of Picard, Wedding between Riker and Troy, and the Enterprise will ram a ship, Remans was a lower group of Romulans, and Data could die but would only die to save everyone or for a cause. Every hidden plot, every storyline was given out.
Side note on this rant: Personally I think B-4 (before) is a horrible clich� name, and B-9 (benign) isn�t that great either. I think B-9 was referring to the fact that the android was not supposed to be violent but friendly, and would tie in with the whole Romulan plot, but the stupid editors changed it to B-4, so the audience, who they think is stupid, would understand that this android came before Data.
Also, I don�t think Boreanaz would help a movie. The stupid writers will mess things up like Enterprise and they�ll go, �We got Boreanaz!� just like they did with Bakula, and went, �We got Scott Bakula!� I�m a little worried with B&B at the helm when they have a big name person on the script since they�ll simply put a bunch of filler, senseless crap so they can give the big name person some air time, and try to milk for more cash.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Waaaay back before I saw Nemesis. I avoided all spoilers and only say the commerical the day before it opened and I was shocked at how much was shown there alone- fuck, they showed the Enterprise ram the Scimitar and Data jump out the torn section!
Duh.
I really tried to like the movie though....I focused/obsessed on the battle stuff but...
I did see a very early production still showing B4 next to Shinzon, and I thought: Wow. They brought back Lore- it's gonna rock!
...and it could have if the B4 android was a copy of Lore that he's made as a backup, and if Data truly died stopping Lore (just drop the whole inane Shinzon bit- Tom Hardy did a good job, but the script only allows for so much).
Posted by wingsabre (Member # 1682) on :
Yeah i think it would have been better if they had Lore as the Nemesis, but they would then have to explain how he got rebuilt. I'm preety sure that that would have been done in like 5 minutes of the movie with some complex over scientific reasons, or not at all.
I tried to avoid all spoilers but when it's on the local news, I'd expect them to just do something general but they actually got details. I read the script after the movie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Like I said, a simple line from Lore about having made a backup copy of himself from Soong's lab (while data was out and Soong was dying) would have done nicely.
Hell, at least Lore has a reason to wipe out Earth- he's nuts!
Hell, just for kicks, I'd have Shinzon die saving Picard and there could have been a big weepy ending as the crew split, Data died and Picard loses his last shot at an heir.
But I'm mean that way.
Besides, weepy worked great in STII (and look how they fucked up that ending later!).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Anybody read the "Tales of the Dominion War" anthology? Surprisingly good stuff there - including a story that plugs most of the plot holes of "Nemesis" without appearing TOO forced.
It actually makes me believe "Nemesis" could have been good. At least as a serial novel chapter, if not as a movie...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I read that- it explains a lot about Shinzon's rise to power not being so fast as it seemed in Nemesis and the orign of the Thelaron weapon (and how Shinzon got his hands on it). The writer made Shinzon into a Jem Hadar stomping uber-baddass though, and I just did not see that from his pitiful death.
If only the same writer could do a follow up explaining where the Scimitar came from...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)