posted
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 ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
:: rubs temples :: You know, sometimes I think we should just torch the franchise and run off to Mexico with the insurance money.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
"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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
I shall win the race by saying B5's "In The Beginning". Which was actually quite good really yes.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
