posted
Well for good or bad, the fans don't have much say in any production, unless some of them manage to pass even abortion-clinic bombers in angsty rage.
I still get a chuckle out of Tolkien "purists" whining about the "failure" of the LOTR trilogy in certain shadowy internet forums. The strangest thing is that most fans (who react negatively to a new offering in a given franchise) seem to react as if this new disrespectful offering can somehow destroy the older incarnations retroactively, like that Q timerape-phenomenon in "All good things" (and also damn you for making me use that reference).
If you liked the book/original series/computer game, how nice. Anything new is just icing on le cake. If it's bad, too bad, what's for lunch?
With that said, I do hope they make the photon torpedo animations really damn sweet. Not kidding. The weapon FX get better in every movie, scaling depending on amount of years between movies (ST-V being exception to the rule, using fucking sprites), and the franchise has been recharging for so long now that the torps should damn well jump off the screen and pulverize Comic Book Guy in the audience.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why do people keep saying this is a reboot? I have not seen anything from anyone actually invloved with the picture to suggest that. As a matter of fact, every statement I have seen from TPTB in reference to this issue seems to suggest the opposite...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the notion of it being a "visual reboot" is a good one. Yes, the look of TOS was very iconic of its time. But it will not work today. And so what if the bridge looks different? All the actors look different! Notice how no-one's exactly been falling over themselves to offer The New Voyages (is that the one? with the Elvis impersonator as Kirk?) a big-screen film contract?
Zachary Quinto has enough of a distinctive look to pull off Spock, but he really doesn't look that much like Leonard Nimoy. What he reminds me of is David Gautreaux as Xon, when they tried to cast someone to be almost-but-not-quite exactly like Spock. Or in "Amok Time" when they had to make a lot of extras look like Vulcans and just gave them all the same wigs so that they all looked almost-but-not-quite exactly like Spock. But I'm basing that on one image we've seen so far, and ignoring the looks-hideously-photoshopped EW cover.
posted
Nobody is giving the New Voyages crew a contract because their acting is crap. But the Kirk/Elvis guy did get to be an extra in this movie.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Obviously, we don't know the details yet as to how close/far into the TOS timeframe the film will go, but as long as there's some gap then we can just chalk up the visual changes to refits, uniform changes, experimental technology, etc. Just as we've always done when these things happen...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Like Kirk and Spock meeting Romulans face to face before TOS... and that everyone's roughly the same age, regardless of their rank, and that Kirk leaps from being a cadet to Captain...
Besides, is it so hard to believe that I think the new bridge set sucks completely on its own merits (like an Apple store barfed) rather than comparing it to the TOS set, which I honestly DO find superior and more believable?
quote:Like Kirk and Spock meeting Romulans face to face before TOS... and that everyone's roughly the same age, regardless of their rank, and that Kirk leaps from being a cadet to Captain...
We don't know yet that Kirk and Spock meet Romulans face-to-face. Who said that? That idiot EW reporter? And BTW, twenty years passed during "The Shawshank Redemption," and none of the characters aged there either, but it still worked.
And Checkov and Sulu are younger, and Scotty is older. Spock is obviously older than Kirk and McCoy, but just looks the same age. The only vibe I'm getting that people are supposed to be the same age is Kirk and McCoy.
quote:Besides, is it so hard to believe that I think the new bridge set sucks completely on its own merits (like an Apple store barfed) rather than comparing it to the TOS set, which I honestly DO find superior and more believable?
No, it isn't hard to believe at all that you think the new bridge sucks...'cause that's what you said you thought :-)
-------------------- "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
Well, there's 8 years difference between Urban and Pine... Which works as according to Trek canon there is only 6 years between McCoy and Kirk (although there was 11 between Kelley and Shatner).
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
1. We have virtually no specifics at all about the movie's plot or timeline yet. All we really know are that Romulans are the baddies, there is time travel involved, and the film will be set partly in the 24th century and partly during Kirk & the gang's Academy days.
2. Remember the uproar we all got into about things on ENT that we thought were continuity errors but actually turned out to not explicitly contradict anything in the canon, but just force us to re-interpret our view of it? I suspect there'll be a lot of that stuff in this movie. That doesn't make it any more of a reboot than ENT was.
3. Also as with ENT, I'm sure there will also be some genuine continuity errors. (Though, as per #1 above, it's premature at this point to try to determine what they may be.) Has there EVER in the history of the franchise been an instance of a prequel/time travel story that didn't have at least a few? That doesn't make it a reboot either.
I have no idea whether the movie will be great or suck. I tend to suspect the latter, (I hate the bridge too) but it's immaterial. It may be totally implausible to some of us and utterly believable to others. But there is no evidence that I know of at this point to suggest it isn't intended to be part of the already-established continuity.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic