So I went to Quantum of Solace, and I knew the Star Trek trailer was -- or was rumored to be -- attached. But that wasn't why I worked a 12-hour day in the office on Thursday, so I could leave work early today and catch the afternoon show at the Uptown Theater in DC. No, I really thought Casino Royale was a fantastic film, and I've been eager to see the sequel.
So, there are a whole ton of trailers. And then this one starts up. There's a car, speeding towards the edge of a cliff, with a cop on a motorbike in hot pursuit.
At the last minute, the kid at the wheel jerks the wheel, throws the door open, and leaps out. The car plunges over the cliff, and the kid nearly follows, but manages to hang onto the edge of the cliff and pull himself up.
The angle flips to the cop. It's at that point I realize the bike is hovering. And, also, that the cop is a robot.
"What's your name?" The robocop demands.
The kid says: "James Tiberius Kirk."
And instantly scenes are intercut: the Enterprise, being built on the ground; Kirk and Spock fighting on the bridge; stuff blowing up; who I assume to be a Romulan soldier saying, "The wait is over!"
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Um... robo... cop?
So they're really doing the Kirk as rebelious hot-head thing, eh?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
As cheesy as that sounds, what was your take on it? Was it good? I've been hearing good things about it on other forums, so I'm obviously curious.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I liked the trailer, I don't know that I "buy" Quntio and Pine as Spock and Kirk, but they're working against 30 years worth of ingrained Trek with a brief speaking clip, set design doesn't look how I expected ... I'd say I'm giving a cautiously optimistic thumbs up on the trailer.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Um... robo... cop?
So they're really doing the Kirk as rebelious hot-head thing, eh?
We're talking about the same smug Kirk that not only cheated on his final exam in Starfleet Academy, but has broken the prime directive dozens of times, and has little to no respect for authority even well into his senior years.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
"The word, sir?"
"The word is no. I am therefore going anyway. And then driving the car off a cliff."
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Kirk is definitely portrayed as someone willing to take risks, but he's always had a sense of duty. I don't mind his youth being a bit adventurous, but I don't want him to be Tom Paris.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ug. Sounds like a crappier version of the scene from Nemesis with the dune buggy. Why would the Federation have robot cops but be awed by Data a century hence? Who says their middle name during an introduction? No one, that's who.
Sounds craptackular.
I wince whenever more stuff is revealed about this movie....
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Sadly, I thought the trailer had probably the most telling thing about the movie sucking was the extremely gratuitous shot of Uhura taking her shirt off.
Pretty much nailed what this movie is going to be about to me, really.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: Sadly, I thought the trailer had probably the most telling thing about the movie sucking was the extremely gratuitous shot of Uhura taking her shirt off.
I'm sorry but every time I read this sentence by people I get a mental image of Nichelle Nicols doing this... an OLD Nichelle Nicols.
"Hello boys..."
Arrrrrrrrgh!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
That's not a robot, it's someone with some kinda futuristic law-enforcement-hoverbike-flying mask.
Dammit, you can nearly see the phaser. This kind of thing is calculated to annoy me, personally.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Most things are. Haven't you put it all together yet? Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Aha! I knew it! 8)
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
No its not a robocop, its a breen cop!
And the Romulans are flying around in a giant burnt Christmas tree.
And there's DS9-ish epic space battles.
So I remain cautiously excited.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
You know, I admit, what really cheezes me off with this 'reboot' is the overt sentiment of "The original Trek sucked! Everything about it sucked! You suck for liking it! So we're redoing it all, but want the name for easy money and built-in fanbase.. even if the fans sucked." This is coming both from fanbois and from Abrams himself.
When the entire premise is to literally erase original Trek from 'canon', and so many so-called Trek fans are going "Yay! About time!" I'm just pissed off.
So, yes, I hope this Trek dies a horrible, horrible death, and that the fanbois for it cry in their sleep for years to come. I don't WANT it to succeed, because it means losing, permanently, what -I- liked about Trek and getting it replaced by yet another Sci-Fi Channel style fanboi flick.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:You know, I admit, what really cheezes me off with this 'reboot' is the overt sentiment of "The original Trek sucked! Everything about it sucked! You suck for liking it! So we're redoing it all, but want the name for easy money and built-in fanbase.. even if the fans sucked." This is coming both from fanbois and from Abrams himself.
Hmm, I guess that press release snuck past me.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well Vanguard, you make it seem like TPTB are going to take every piece of footage from the original series and burn it in a big pile. Fine, don't watch the movie. No one's forcing you to. Certainly around here, it's not like we're going to forget about the show that started it all.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Mars, Honestly, I think that if some of the powers that be could do that, they most certainly would. Star Trek, to them, is nothing more than a branding, and Paramount/CBS thinks of it in extremely generic terms.
They want the cash influx of the name, but honestly have no understanding, or desire to understand, why it was popular in the first place. They also think they can't sell 'old Trek' anymore, so they want to get rid of it as 'old product'.
Reverend, Citatation: JJ Abrams interview in Entertainment Weekly.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Vanguard:
quote:what really cheezes me off with this 'reboot' is the overt sentiment of "The original Trek sucked! Everything about it sucked! You suck for liking it! So we're redoing it all, but want the name for easy money and built-in fanbase.. even if the fans sucked."
Yes! YES! I love it! Seal your destiny!
Oh your hatred feeds me...your hatred is like a summer breeze across my black brow...
quote:They also think they can't sell 'old Trek' anymore, so they want to get rid of it as 'old product'.
I knew it! You're standing in a time-warp field right now, aren't you? You are in 1987, weeks before the launching of the dreaded new "Star Trek: The Next Generation".
Regarding "Old Trek" and why TPTB would want to modernize it, it might have to do with the fact that normal moviegoers expect more Oomph than "I have a klingon pimple on my klingon cheek!" or "The plasma manifold was transphasic all along! What fools we've been!" for entertainment.
I'm not saying they should've followed every other franchise and hired Christopher Lee (though that would just be awesome, Sarek's evil brother with 10-inch eyebrows), but if Trek could aquire some of the wit and sharpness of Heroes and LOST, I don't care if the interior of NCC-1701 *doesn't* look like grey cardboard.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I was gonna say, "One of us, One of us, One of us, One of..."
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Again, there's a difference between what TNG did and what this is doing. TNG said "We're moving on, building on what's before, but it's a NEW show..." and didn't start off by saying "TOS needs rewritten" (even if Roddenberry FELT that, and effectively tried to do that with licensed material).
This movie is overwriting, if you will, the original series. That's the purpose of it. Really, what's the point in this direction? "New and Sexy!"? Where did I hear that mantra before... oh yes, from Voyager, Enterprise and Nemesis, all of which had the 'kewl' elements thown in just like they are now.
Honestly, if they were making a reboot that wasn't explicitly rewriting TOS, and didn't have a staff that overtly stated their contempt for Star Trek, maybe I would be hopeful. But, as it is...
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
from the very brief view we get from behind The Kelvin, the Rom ship looks either really fucking big, really fucking stupid or both (Still, the Kelvin goes boom nicely... )
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
They show the Romulan ship pretty clearly in one shot. It's cylinder-type thing with spikes and protrusions on it's hull. Also at one point it seems like there are shuttles flying next to the Kelvin, firing at the Rommie ship.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I went to see Quantum of Solace last night and was jipped out of the Star Trek trailer. Will Smith's new movie looks interesting though.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
It IS strange, that with the hoopla that's going around about this 'newer sexier Trek', that the actual material keeps getting pushed back, run in limited views, and so on.
Hype aside, it really seems to me that Paramount/CBS isn't actually all that confident of this budget-buster. (At least $200,000,000 to make at this point, and the money's still being spent! Even if it's a hit, that's a hell of a lot of money to get back.)
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
It's not strange that the trailer isn't played at every showing. Trekmovie explained the reason.
quote:Enclosed, not attached Sources at Paramount confirm that the Trek trailer was sent out with Quantum of Solace, but that it was ‘enclosed’ and not ‘attached.’ This is an important distinction with regards to trailers. An ‘attached’ trailer is literally on the same reel as the main film, making it almost a given that the theater run the trailer. This is done for trailers from the same studio as the feature film and why the Star Trek teaser trailer was seen at every showing of Cloverfield back in January.
However, MGM is the studio behind Quantum of Solace, so the Star Trek trailer (along with many other trailers, including one for Watchmen) are part of the package of trailers ‘enclosed’ with the Bond film. This is also standard practice. Apparently there are so many trailers ‘enclosed’ with the new Bond film, that some theaters are picking and choosing which ones to show
And it's only been pushed back once, which also made sense since the writers strike seemed to cause a summer blockbuster vacuum (although it hasn't worked out quite like that).
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Okay, I hadn't heard that. The amount of hype around the trailer seemed to say "It WILL be on the reel!" Odd that Paramount chose otherwise, though, you would think that with $200M+ in the hole already, they would be advertising the hell out of this thing.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I saw it at a budget too and they rarely have more than three trailers before a movie. So they probably just played the attached ones.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Well.... the trailer is good, but has done nothing to stop my thumb sucking worries of a film that will stomp all over the fans. It looks like Star Wars (and not just cos it's the same guy doing the SFX ifs yous sees whats Is means).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Somebody made a comparison between this film and Batman, and I think it's very apt.
So first you had the cheesy Batman TV series with Adam West. Then later in the late eighties/early nineties, you had the four Tim Burton films. Finally, in the 21st century, you have the Christian Bale flicks. Each of the above is still Batman, just a different version of it reflecting the time periods they were made in. None are any more or less valid than the others. They're just different versions of the same thing.
That's what this movie is: just a different version of the same thing. Does it fit into the "regular" TOS Star Trek continuity/universe? No, just like the Dark Night doesn't fit into the Adam West series.
The problem here is that people are unfairly comparing this movie to TOS, and that's wrong. Trying to shoehorn this movie into the "established" Star Trek continuity is just not going to work. And from what I've gathered, it was never meant to be that way. When Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams etc. say they are respecting Star Trek canon, they are telling the truth. But there's a difference between respecting the show and slavishly following every little minutiae that ubernerds obsess over.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yeah. It's not a reboot - Spock isn't female, the Klingons weren't created by man nor do they have a plan. Nobody's said of the Batman films "they're not Batman, I'm not going to watch!" Nobody has said of any of the Bond films "he's not Bond, I'm not going to watch!" . . . OK, so they DID say that about Casino Royale, but their choice was an aesthetic one (the casting of Craig) rather than the near-reboot the storyline presented.
This is the only way you're ever going to get new Trek. If you don't like the new direction, then don't watch (but you will! I bet you've even seen Nemesis even though you'd never admit it). It's you choice. I hope you have lots of DVD box-sets (there are 30-odd seasons to choose from).
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Batmand and Bond are different. Just like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers are different. Some things have been rebooted and retold several times before I was even born. Some titles have had a different reboot for each generation.
Star Trek, however, is different. It's been one continuous story, one continuous universe for 40 years. Each story has contributed to the whole, making Star Trek a very solid, viable, believable universe. If, for some odd, fantasy reason I woke up one day in the Star Trek universe I could function and navigate just fine, practically like a native.
For me this is just too much change at one time. Sure, they all seem to be minor details such as Chekov's age, etc... But, how much can you change something without wiping it out and starting over?
Yes, I'm a canonista. Maybe I'm just too old.
I've got nothing against a new WAY of telling the stories. I've got nothing against different ideas being brought forth to enhance a continuing story in the saga of Trek.
But not at the sake of what has come before.
I wonder how many of the people saying "deal with it, accept it" will howl if/when (god forbid) they ever reboot Star Wars.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Again, the difference is that Batman was generally accepted as being 'new' without going out of its way to 'poo' on the Adam West series. Batman had also had quite a few restarts and reimaginings by that time too.. but, yes, there were Adam West fans that screamed bloody murder when Nicholson put on the Joker makeup...
This 'new' Trek, though, has a more hostile tone towards the older material, actively saying 'the old stuff sucked, here's 90210 instead', rather than really trying to be respectful. It's wanting the names, the Trademarks, and built-in 'base' for the sales, but not really paying an ounce of attention to why that base exists in the first place.
For the record, I never expected nor wanted a return to the 1960s for the sets and props.. but, who, may I ask, was asking for a 'relaunch' with Kirk anyway? Most of us had long ago accepted TOS as part of history and just wanted something new that didn't, for once, just suck.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
And, no, I still have not seen Nemesis, and will likely still never go see it. Being a Trek fan doesn't automatically mean that I'm a mashochist.. though I sometimes wonder about that.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well, I wouldn't be surprised at a Star Wars reboot as their creator is raving lunatic who has become more and more engrossed with CGI.
Edit: Vanguard, I'd love to know what you deem exactly as canon. What do you think of Star Trek V?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
....ok, this is a bullshit idea but *insert sarcasm tone..... HERE* with the seeming success of such fan-films like New Voyages/Phase II, Hidden frontier and Exeter (once/if they finish the credits for their Eps Two...), maybe the current PTB (who are clearly idiots, by all info provided) thought a reboot would be a good idea...
*meekly grows quiet* or some reason, along that line, fan-films to JJ-Trek...
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Well, I wouldn't be surprised at a Star Wars reboot as their creator is raving lunatic who has become more and more engrossed with CGI.
Edit: Vanguard, I'd love to know what you deem exactly as canon. What do you think of Star Trek V?
it holds the same status that Macross 7 holds to the macross universe. It's ignored, depending on:
1) Who's remembering what?
2) what gets mentioned in other series.
3) Why go there, if you think that rocketboots, Guitar HOTAS controls (The original Guitar hero, Bommmmmbaaaaa?) and huge ass space vampires...
and oh yeah, the space whales, pussy whipped Klingons and what... what else is fucking retarded about both Macross 7 and STV?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Again, the difference is that Batman was generally accepted as being 'new' without going out of its way to 'poo' on the Adam West series.
I don't see this movie or its creators "poo-ing" on the old series.
quote:Batman had also had quite a few restarts and reimaginings by that time too.. but, yes, there were Adam West fans that screamed bloody murder when Nicholson put on the Joker makeup...
There were? Those people really need to get a life
quote:This 'new' Trek, though, has a more hostile tone towards the older material, actively saying 'the old stuff sucked, here's 90210 instead', rather than really trying to be respectful. It's wanting the names, the Trademarks, and built-in 'base' for the sales, but not really paying an ounce of attention to why that base exists in the first place.
I respect your opinion, Vanguard, because you state your reasons eloquently instead of the usual canonista bullshit excuses, but honestly I fail to see how this movie and its creators have a hostile attitude toward TOS. If anything, Berman and Braga had more of a hostile attitude toward TOS when they created Enterprise than JJ Abrams has toward this movie.
quote:For the record, I never expected nor wanted a return to the 1960s for the sets and props.. but, who, may I ask, was asking for a 'relaunch' with Kirk anyway? Most of us had long ago accepted TOS as part of history and just wanted something new that didn't, for once, just suck.
Abrams chose Kirk, Spock, and the rest of TOS because that's what the average person equates when the word "Star Trek" is mentioned. If he had made a movie with yet another new crew on yet another new ship, people would just say, "Oh hell, not another new Trek" with the requisite eye-rolling.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
I'm not too stringent on 'canon', to be honest. I think the salient points of any given episode or movie are really what has to be paid attention to. Then, second, what keeps within credibility.
Sadly, both of those very broad ideas are getting shat on by this movie. So.. there ya go.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
quote:If he had made a movie with yet another new crew on yet another new ship, people would just say, "Oh hell, not another new Trek" with the requisite eye-rolling. [/QB]
Thing is, I'm not too sure that's not the reaction we're getting anyway. If many fans see this as a desperate cash grab, can you imagine what non-fans (and this movie will need a LOT of them) are thinking about it? Remember, this is only.. three years after Nemesis and two after Enterprise failed spectacularly?
I could be wrong, and this could be the 'next thing for teenage boys'.... but I'm obviously far from sold on the idea.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard:
quote:If he had made a movie with yet another new crew on yet another new ship, people would just say, "Oh hell, not another new Trek" with the requisite eye-rolling.
Thing is, I'm not too sure that's not the reaction we're getting anyway. If many fans see this as a desperate cash grab, can you imagine what non-fans (and this movie will need a LOT of them) are thinking about it? Remember, this is only.. three years after Nemesis and two after Enterprise failed spectacularly?
I could be wrong, and this could be the 'next thing for teenage boys'.... but I'm obviously far from sold on the idea. [/QB]
I know this is far off topic (as that's abnormal around here when ST is concerned) but besides what my brother and myself thought of the faults of Ent (B&B phat finger fucking of the story line and somewhat unoriginallity), how exactly did Ent fail? and by who's standards, does that equate to failure? ratings? sponser's reduced amounts of $ they spend on adverting as the seasons go? the actual viewers, according to Nelsonomics?
I liked Ent. besides the xindi-to Iscandar storyline (which i still liked, mostly since i like story arc shows), i can't really fault Ent. It's the idiot Tv exec's, who obviously don't give a flying oscar-fist-fuck what you, me, or my ex-GF Y, THINK about TV shows. (when you make hand-over-fist as a TV exec, would you care?)
how much of a shit storm did Nu-BSG start up with when it was first leaked? Not that it matters, since Nu-BSG beats the shit out of anything in it's catagory. So the visuals look shiney, the bussard collectors are silvery hubcaps and the nacelles look like they are attached by Wishbones. So what?
*sighs* so what, indeed folks... Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I should really pay more attention to the little voice in my head that's saying "Why are you arguing the merits of a film you haven't seen yet with someone who clamis they will never see the film?" I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment (which is what I always thought the next status-line category below "Tim-like" should be).
I was watching Star Trek in 1973. Nineteen-seventy fucking three. Thirty-five years ago. Sam Tyler territory. Being three years old at the time, I'd be hard-pressed to express what it was about the show I liked. Spaceships, phaser battles, fights, the coolness of Kirk & Spock, the nice pretty patterns they made when standing on the transporter pads in their different coloured uniforms (three years old, remember?). The well-craftedness of the scripts and the intelligence and depth of the philosophical concepts expressed in the show didn't get a look in.
My point? That I'm as well-placed as anybody to decide what Star Trek is, and I don't have a problem with what I've seen so far.
Yes, the look of the film diverges wildly from that established on the show. But what did you expect? Iconic though they may be, the show's visuals have not aged well. New Voyages etc. may have proved that note-perfect (well, except for the acting) recreations of the look'n'feel of the show are possible, but no-one is rushing to watch them and no-one is offering James Cawley et al $200m budgets for their next outing. Try to do that on a big Hollywood film and it would be received with derision, you might as well have cast Wilson & Stiller as Kirk & Spock. The fact that Abrams is doing it, with his track record, makes me feel much happier than I'd be than if it was McG or Michael Bay directing.
Worst case scenario? The film does badly across the board and is a sad epitaph for an already-dead franchise. Best case? It reinvigorates the franchise, and though it may only lead to a handful of movies over the next deade or so, at some point a new show is created, done by someone willing to take risks, to think about pushing the envelope that's outside the box, to mix a metaphor. I'd love it if it was one of the cable channels - HBO, Showtime, AMC. The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire, Mad Men - these are all shows I love and which are unlike anything you've seen on TV.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Dukhat:
quote:I don't see this movie or its creators "poo-ing" on the old series.
No, but you have to understand that it's tradition for polemics to equate subjective opinion with universal fact.
And if even Pensive advises caution and a cool head, well...I don't know what to say. I expect there to start raining blood and locusts any time now.
I like that frontal screen of the Enterprise, the wishbone is aesthetic. I've seen countless sovereignized or modernized attempts at the Connie class that didn't come close to this. And I enjoy that they give it influences of the 1965 hot rod "Atomic Refrigerator" kind, which has a basis in actual pop culture design that people can relate to, rather than the NX-01 dark-grey "plumbing under the sink" style.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I like the look of Spacedock in the preview. I think the film will be suitably epic - and probably more 'realistic' than ever. It will make the Star Trek experience something even MORE tangible for people! I think it looked good!
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Pensive, Enterprise was a decided marketplace failure, as was Nemesis. Both lost huge amounts of money. Enterprise was being boistered up out of desperation for UPN (which is now also gone). It doesn't matter if you liked the show or not, it was an abject commerical failure.
Lee and Nim, I understand that you're entitled to your opinons. Please appreciate that I'm also entitled to mine, regardless if you agree with them or not. One of my biggest 'hates' with the new movie is actually from it's would-be supporters, who basically seem to think that even voicing concerns over any issues is worth throwing someone in the gulags.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I think the whole "backlash" is fuled partly by the reboot (and it is, stop kidding yourselves by saying otherwise), partly because it's TOS - sacred ground to those who like their rulers slidey, their Dungeons Mastered and their pockets protected.
But most of all, I think it's because Star Trek XI: the Quest for The Huge Ticket Returns, going to be a huge summertime hit regardless of fans going to see it or not. We're jealous and worried all at the same time!
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
It's not really jealousy.. more of a concern that "Trek as I know it" (and by that, the original story-telling style, by and large) is "dead" and being "replaced" by something far more shallow and superficial.
Like I said, if they we're really going out of their way to 'kill' TOS, it wouldn't really be an issue, and I could take the new movie much more on its own merits.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
People bleat on like this EVERY time a new incarnation of Trek comes along, from TNG to Enterprise it's the same every time. Fact is, whatever "Star Trek" you think is the be all and end all of science fiction is going nowhere; it's on DVD, it's repeated on TV ad nauseam in just about every country on the planet. It's not as if all memory of the old show(s) will somehow disappear of a puff of ignorance. My advise to anyone who thinks this will somehow retroactively destroy their childhood: don't watch it.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote:One of my biggest 'hates' with the new movie is actually from it's would-be supporters, who basically seem to think that even voicing concerns over any issues is worth throwing someone in the gulags.
This is no place for self-imposed martyrdom and calling people fascists. By and large, Flare opinion about this movie has been negative ever since the announcement of it, only the last few months have there been reason to feel a bit of optimism, it's not like you're fighting a horde of starry-eyed Harry Potter fans, so don't play the victim.
Lee made a constructive and positive post about his views on Trek, you've posted about every third or second post in this thread, answering almost every new entry with hyperbole and wild conjecture about the production team's evil inner motives. I'm just observing here. You're entitled to write what you want, but now no one can reply to your stuff without effectively saying you are either dead-wrong or extremely subjective, and that's pretty poor discussion material. We need a little more gray areas and less black/white polarization here, tbh.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
THANK YOU!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: It's not really jealousy.. more of a concern that "Trek as I know it" (and by that, the original story-telling style, by and large) is "dead" and being "replaced" by something far more shallow and superficial.
Like I said, if they we're really going out of their way to 'kill' TOS, it wouldn't really be an issue, and I could take the new movie much more on its own merits.
Sorry, but if you want something that emulates the style of 1960s episodic TV drama, then you're just going to always be disappointed. And you haven't seen the film and don't intend to, so how will you know what sort of storytelling style they employ? Ignore how they sell it in the trailers, for one thing. I think the general consensus here (and elsewhere) would be that DS9 represents one certain pinnacle when it comes to intelligent storytelling, but you can be damn certain that when the "Next Time on DS9" bit popped up on screen at the end of an episode, they'd include the bit where the Defiant blows shit up rather than a well-crafted dialogue between Sisko and Gul Dukat!
And as for your second point, that's just crazy talk. All or nothing, is that it? They either "do" TOS exactly how you should feel it should be done, or not even try but set out to dump on it from a great height?! You didn't use to post as EdipisReks, with some rather inflexible views on the Lord of the Rings movies, did you?
The Original Series will live forever. It'll probably be remembered long after a 2009 film remake is largely forgotten. Three words for you: Lost In Space. It'll be online, in syndication and on tape/disc/crystal lattice/whatever. The charm, the often-quaint attitudes and dramatic devices, the groovy outfits, the funky sets, they will always be there. You're not going to get any more iof it, but that's part of the attraction. You want something that goes on forever and never changes, watch The Bold And The Beautiful. Or you can learn to stop worrying, and love the (probably not a box office) bomb.
Join us, Vannie. 8)
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Here's the thing, how inflexible am I really being? You're operating under the assumption that I'm wanting the best and worst elements of 1960s television, bad SFX and all. Thing is, I've never SAID that. You're also operating under the assumption that I WANT slavish adherence to the Canon as defined by Emporer Okuda... I'm not advocating that either.
What I don't want is something that panders to such a base level that it's an 'also-ran' with just really good CGI (and, face it, this is NOW going up against Transformers II: revenge of the CGI). Super-angsty Kirk, 'pretty boy' casting, Uhura's topless scene, all point to storytelling elements borne of desperation, not of a solid action-adventure base.
I'm not dumping on this movie because it's not slavish to how I see TOS. I'm dumping on it because on its own merits, it looks like crap to me. Being a relaunch of a beloved franchise that looks this bad, well... I suppose I've made that point already.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
You do know that the movie studio execs have more to say about trailer contents than the director, right?
If you want to be remotely fair, you'd have to compare it to other trailers in the same genre. For instance, I hated 50% of the trailer for "First Contact" (you're travelers on some kind of star trek!), and Sunshine felt really hammy (stupid "Lux Aeterna" music spam), while becoming my favorite little indie gem of that year. Every Lucasfilm-movie trailer ever has been a jumbled mess of sounds and flashes because they like their Ben Burtt and John Williams too much and must shove everything in at once, but not all Lucasfilm movies have sucked, I think you'd agree. No one's denying that this new movie's key demographic is the high school/college age span, and we're not going to see any decapitations or spurting arteries in this picture (which makes me wonder how the hell "The Undiscovered Country" got off the ground. "Get Chang!"-*aaghagharlb*), but somehow I've found that even smelly PG-10 movies can work sometimes.
I've always thought that Kirk's reputation as a "swashbuckler" in TOS was exaggerated, I saw him more often sitting in the chair and brood than taking risks. But in "ST: TMP" he was a rabid belligerent nutjob the whole first half-hour. If I'd make a cadet out of that guy, I'd make someone with piss and vinegar coming out the ears too. And again, this trailer is picking out four Kirk-highlights from a 2 hour movie.
Van, you're using the word "angst" a lot in conjunction with new Kirk. As far as I know, angsty kids of the Linkin Park-type are usually without influence, self-esteem or resolve in their family/school/tabernacle, they're whiny victims (like Gladiator-Commodus or Padawan Anakin). Generation Y-ME. I think the word you're looking for is "cocky", which would fit a young Kirk pretty well. Obviously the symbolic element of the motorbike is meant to make us think about Brando and James Dean, mavericks and all that, but it doesn't have to mean Kirk cuts his arms and dreams of kicking the school jocks' asses.
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: I think the whole "backlash" is fuled partly by the reboot (and it is, stop kidding yourselves by saying otherwise)
THANK YOU. I've been a lot happier thinking about the new movie since I started thinking of it as a remake. And I also feel a lot like Vanguard... sure, it's necessary to reinvent certain things. But reinventing it to be CRAP isn't a good idea. And it's not crap because it's not identical to the original show, it's because it looks like a soulless action flick.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
BUT WE DONT KNOW THAT FOR SURE! WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE. WE DON'T KNOW HOW EXACTLY IT WILL BE. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH A LITTLE OPTIMISM. AND IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST "ACTION" TREK FLICK. *cough*FirstContact*cough*
I shouldn't yell so much. Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
I think that 'angst' describes at least YOUNG Kirk in the movie quite fairly. Certainly the voice-over describes an angsty, angry, rebellious youth. He's not 'emo', maybe, but he's the stereotypical 'rebel without a clue' needed something just to 'point him the way'.
Granted, I actually laughed at the mop the kid was wearing.. the scene was bad enough without that... thing... on the kid's head. Maybe Kirk's taste in faux hair improves over the years? It's CANON, dammit!
So this is yet another case of 'despite this being exactly what was said, they don't really mean it' in defense of the film. Eh, wha?
And, again, Nim, you're taking my comments and assigning them an extreme that I have not ever stated.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"So this is yet another case of 'despite this being exactly what was said, they don't really mean it' in defense of the film."
You're not making any sense, sorry. And I didn't misquote you, I talked about the word "angst", which you're abusing.
Besides, I was under the impression that Kirk outranks Spock, so he's not being angsty, angry, nor rebellious. He's pushing Spock to get a reaction, just like he did several times in the show history, for some reason that is revealed in that scene.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
To all you younglings: I've been a fan since Star Trek first aired in the 1960s. From the very start there've been ups and downs and write-overs of previously established events and facts. You all should be used to this by now. Through it all Star Trek, like the Dude, abides.
I liked the trailer, and I'll see the new movie as soon as I can. Until then, I'm not going to get worked up about how this movie destroys Star Trek.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm senile!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Sorry, hit the wrong button!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seal your destiny!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)