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.
posted
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.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
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
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.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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
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
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).
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Seal your destiny!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
