posted
More recently I found this at startrek.com:
quote:The article [on MTV.com] contends that Kurtzman and Orci described the film as "not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise," without quoting them directly saying that. The article does quote Orci as saying, "We're not going to start totally from scratch." But, "We want it to feel like it's updated and of the now. That's actually the discussions we're having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing's new. It's tricky."
I sure hope the writers' impression "of the now" in no way resembles the drivel on MTV. In fact, in no wise do I want "of the now". Gene Roddenberry was all about exploration and the betterment of mankind, something not much seen in the 20th or the 21st centuries thus far. I don't want "the now", I want the future possiblities.
I seem to remember a previous discussion of rebooting the Star Trek franchise. Who knows how close to a reboot this "reimagining" will be. Let's hope that it's a reimagining that actually adds something to Star Trek rather than some horrible abomination that fans will wish had never seen the light of day (e.g. Star Trek V).
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that's the problem with Trek now. It presents too much of an optimistic view of Earth's future when today we're constantly being reminded of how much the world sucks and how close we are to total annihilation. So now they're trying to include modern elements into Trek in an attempt to update it. But the Trek universe is too rigid to fully incorporate these modern elements. Besides Trek has reach a point where they no longer show anything new or innovative.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
DS9 hit a good seam in the nineties when the real world wasn't particularly dark or anything, and terrorists were romantic. A happy world needed its angst and mayhem. Today, I guess we could use a bit of optimism.
But "reimaging"? I still maintain that Trek isn't worth the airtime except as a "phenomenon", something greater than the sum of its parts. Trying to "do TOS again" is unlikely to catch any of the original attraction of Trek.
Then again, BSG-R never really needed the few things it borrowed from BSG. A reimagined Trek shouldn't needlessly try to borrow from TOS, either. Just steer clear of Kirk, Spock and the five-year mission, please...
quote:Originally posted by Zefram: Who knows how close to a reboot this "reimagining" will be. Let's hope that it's a reimagining that actually adds something to Star Trek rather than some horrible abomination that fans will wish had never seen the light of day (e.g. Star Trek V).
Hey don't knock ole STV:TFF!
It had one AMAZING soundtrack. Besides - everything from the point of the campfire scene is a shared dream of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. It's probably a result of Spock or even Spock's reaction to McCoy's beans-with-burbon. Or the "Marshmellons" were hallucinagenic!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Not at all. We were simply transported to the Shatnerverse without us knowing just after the campfire scene.
In the Trekverse the film panned out in a similar way, but without all the crappy bits that make no sence, and with the rock monster thingies.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
D/P (attempting to fix bad spelling. failed)
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
