posted
I don't mind that it's a new continuity, as I can forgive that.
What I -do- mind is that Abrams, who is on record as not liking Star Trek is getting to do his "I'm remaking it so Star Wars fans will like it" schtik.
posted
Hey, I'm all for it. If Abrams successfully reboots the franchise and draws a lot of interest, we may get more movies and/or a new series. The present methodology regarding Trek and its implementation in a series format has gone stagnant. The injection of Manny Coto into ENT s4 was just too late to save the show.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But if it's not STAR TREK in any other way but names, then what's the point? Read that Entertainment Weekly article, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
This isn't being made a "Star Trek" adventure, it's a 'dumbed down' adventure with lots of Star Wars and NuBSGisms and pretty-faces (and those are the men). At least, according to Abrams and EW.
posted
Honestly, I don't know where you're getting this negativity from. JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have repeatedly stated that they value Star Trek and are honestly trying to make a movie that will reinvigorate the show, and that everybody will be happy with, with a few exceptions (the ultranerd faction of Star Trek fan who will constantly obsess over every single minute detail of the original series, and who think Abrams is the new Antichrist because he's (God forbid) ignoring certain things about a show made in 1966 so that his new movie in 2009 will actually make sense).
quote:This isn't being made a "Star Trek" adventure, it's a 'dumbed down' adventure with lots of Star Wars and NuBSGisms and pretty-faces (and those are the men). At least, according to Abrams and EW.
So you're basing this on what the EW reporter had to say? Could it be possible that the reporter has probably never seen an episode of Star Trek in his life, and is just getting paid to write a bunch of crap that he has no knowledge about other than his interview with Abrams & Co.?
I'm sorry, but Berman/Braga "Enterprise" Trek was dumbed-down Trek. This is not.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm basing this on what ABRAMS said in the interview... I'm not remotely asking for anything from the 90s in Trek, and I'm not a guy who either expected or wanted TOS to return.
But, I don't want a guy who admits he didn't watch or like the old show to claim to 'respect' it, and then brags about he made everything look like an iPod... :S
(Remember, though, I caveated, this is all based on the information from EW)
posted
I think that this film has the capacity to split current fans right down the middle - those that are truely excited about a brand new adventure with their childhood heroes after it seemed that Trek had finaly died, and those that think that despite all of the talk by Abrams, the film is simply a reboot walking over all they love about Trek.
It's started all ready, and the film is eight months off still. The trailer is not even out yet, but this film is still splitting people.
Abrams has said he's not making this film for Star Trek fans, but for movie fans. I doubt that this film will inspire people to go back and watch old episodes of Star Trek, unless they would have before. The cynic in me says it's a self-serving ego trip on the part of Abrams and Paramount, which will, I'm sure, say to many fans "up yours if you don't like it, this is what Star Trek is today, deal with it".
Fine. But frankly I think its a bit crass, and am begining to wonder if it wouldn't be better if they did just let Star Trek die. This film will come out next summer, and I will go to see it. I expect I will be disapointed and feel pissed upon, but I am going to have to reserve my final judgment until I've seen it.
I realy am excited by the way about this film, it's just that nothing I have seen or heard yet has done anthing to quash my gut feeling.
Edit - or fix my spelling.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Honestly, I don't know where you're getting this negativity from. JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have repeatedly stated that they value Star Trek [Because in this PC world, PC suckage-up sells to the public and the sponsers and the folks who pony up the $ for future projects] and are honestly trying to make a movie that will reinvigorate the show, and that everybody will be happy with [The old effort of pleasing nobody as a result, usually], with a few exceptions (the ultranerd faction of Star Trek fan who will constantly obsess over every single minute detail of the original series, and who think Abrams is the new Antichrist because he's (God forbid) ignoring certain things about a show made in 1966 so that his new movie in 2009 will actually make sense).
quote:This isn't being made a "Star Trek" adventure, it's a 'dumbed down' adventure with lots of Star Wars and NuBSGisms and pretty-faces (and those are the men). At least, according to Abrams and EW. [Follow the cash flow---> feed the PR machine more bullshit for the pulbic to eat please]
So you're basing this on what the EW reporter had to say? Could it be possible that the reporter has probably never seen an episode of Star Trek in his life, and is just getting paid to write a bunch of crap that he has no knowledge about other than his interview with Abrams & Co.?
I'm sorry, but Berman/Braga "Enterprise" Trek was dumbed-down Trek. This is not.
I certainly hope you're correct. What my brother lamented about ENT was how un-original the series was during the 2nd and 3rd season (It was Doug who coined the term i use to describe such idea-Thievery: Battleship Yamato/Starblazers! The ENT! Is off to outer space! To face! The evil Xindi! To Save, the human race! Our! Star! Treeeeeeeeekkkkkkkk! (Da-Daah-Daaaaaaaahhhhhh! Da-Daah-Daaaaaaaahhhhhh!)
that being said, what i've seen in the stills for Nutrek pleases me. I'm cool with new shit. been saying for years that once you go back in time, you always fuck it up, even IF you think you fixed it. It's a plot device and a excuse to intruce new mechantice/products/tampons/etc...
*sigh* i just wished they produced a sow, not for the expressed goal of profit, hand over fist. Ent could have lasted 5 seasons (to be certain, 5 years = 5 years worth of sindication $) had the PTB listened to the customers instead of the [This rant brought to you by :Nebisko!]
quote:I think that this film has the capacity to split current fans right down the middle - those that are truely excited about a brand new adventure with their childhood heroes after it seemed that Trek had finaly died, and those that think that despite all of the talk by Abrams, the film is simply a reboot walking over all they love about Trek.
But you see, that's where you're wrong. You are basing this thought on the flawed idea that this movie is being made for Trek fans and Trek fans only. It's not. It's being made for the average moviegoing public, of which Trek fans are a tiny minority. If Abrams catered solely to the Trek fans, only Trek fans would go see the movie, and that wouldn't help anything because they were going to see the movie anyway. He has to cater to a wider base of people than just the guys who post at TrekBBS, if he wants his movie to make any money. However, what I've seen so far doesn't indicate that he's "walking all over" what the fans expect Trek to be. He's doing his best to make a film with 2008 production values that will reintroduce Star Trek to the masses, and hopefully create a whole new generation of fans.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
This reminds me a lot of what was being said about the Transformers movie last year, with Michael Bay at the helm. And, yet, as it turns out, the film didn't completely rape people's childhood memories, because it respected what was already there, and built off of it. Honestly, that's what I expect this film to do.
If it means that Star Trek has a chance to live on into the 21st century ( because let's face it, ENT was stillborn.), I'd be willing to live with a few continuity fudge ups, or even having to accept that this is an alternate continuity. As long as it still has Star Trek's ideals at heart, you could paint the Enterprise pink and make it the first vessel of the Lollipop class for all I care. Although, now that I think of it, that would disappoint me a bit, because everyone knows that the first vessel of the Lollipop class is the USS Lollipop...
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
I appreciate your enthusiasm Dukhat, but I don't share it. I think there are a quite a number of people (and flareites) who are on either side of the fence. We'll just have to wait and see.
I just think that this film will dick on TOS, and that the Star Trek fan in me will notice. I expect it will be a good film, and that I'll like it.
I even expect nuTrek fans to be made, allthough I doubt they'll go and investigate TOS. The film will make a fortune, there will be lot's of sequals, and well all either be very happy, or very miserable.
I just have mixed feelings and strong doubts.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, I think that Transformers was a horribly-written movie, but that no one expected otherwise. It was a fun robot romp, and 'rewriting Transformers mythos' has been done since, well, it first started. The original cartoon was a different story than the original comic which preceeded it!
Trek's a different beast, but I really don't think that the 'canon' issue is going to be what makes it unwashable for a lot of people. I actually just don't see it succeeding all that well.
It's being compared to the 'runaway success' of NuBSG already. Yeah... tell me again how great NuBSG really did and how well it's doing now?
posted
I am personally in favor of a reboot. And I wish they would've just had the balls to call it a reboot, or at least a visual reboot. Whatever it is, it seems clear to me that it can only properly work as a new continuity, which is actually quite a refreshing thing.
Yes, I will always stay a TOS fan, and I won't suddenly start drawing 2009-style starships. But I don't mind a fresh approach at all.
For me, Star Trek is not truely about the visuals. As ENT showed, you can have a completely new setting and new ships, new technology, but when you have the same production team churning out the same old stories.. very little exciting happens. ENT only found its soul when Coto came on board and turned it into something new.
All in all.. I can't bring myself to be negative about this new movie. It is definitely the most exciting Star Trek project since "Series V".
posted
I'll be honest with myself, I'll go see the movie, be all pumped up about it, then say it was okay in the forums. Cause I'm sucker for starships.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic