Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Sun, May 10, 2009 - 11:59 AMI loved it. However, my current thought has been about TNGs "Yesterdays Enterprise" because it involved time travel, a pivotal point in history, and Romulans. In that Ep, Guinan was very focused on restoring "proper history." Never mind, I think I understand that she didn't want to be stranded in a splinter timeline. Of course WE really can't be stranded in a splinter timeline because none of us have been born yet. (remember that angry fans) Oh yeah, thoughts on the movie. Spock stranded himself, chasing Nero. He knows that, but it sucks to outlive your friends. On a personal level, the many rarely outweighs the few or the one.
So fun. I want to see it again. -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Sun, May 10, 2009 - 12:12 PMWait, I said we haven't been born yet! See how bad I am with time. We were born and died and possibly reincarnated.
-
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 11:49 AMNot bad, for a ripoff!
J. Michael (Babylon 5) Straczynski approached Paramount in 2004 with a proposal to "re-boot" Star Trek to save it from the clones and cliched scripts which had corrupted the original premise. You can read the proposal via this link: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:5HSy3ttOGhUJ:bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf+J.+michael+straczynski+star+trek&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us . There's also a link at the top to see it in pdf.
The new Trek movie is Straczynski's idea in a different suit of clothes. Of course, by calling it an "Alternate Reality", they can still go back to the Nixed Generation, or Star Bleech Second-Prize whenever they want to.
More offal from the Paramount butcher! -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 12:14 PMEnterprise already happened. It would be the only show not affected by the new timeline, though an older Archer could conceivably show up and ask Scotty about his beagle. JMS is a arrogant jerk and a whiner. He accused DS9 of ripping off his ideas as well. They didn't, and he's not the only person to think of a reboot, an idea that they kept going back to - which is not a brilliant idea in the first place. What made the movie good was how well it was executed. -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 2:06 PMActually, it was. They've admitted it.
-
-
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 2:08 PMGo see it! It's an enjoyable movie for a sci fi fan, Star Trek fan or casual movie goer.
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 3:00 PMI liked it.
It was different than I expected, and a few things were changed around, but it was fun.
-
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 5:15 PMI loved it, and I consider myself a Treker.
But then there are those "purists" who are just bashing it because their lives are officially over.
Check out this SNL skit on "Weekend Update" - pretty much sums it up on my take on the "purists".
www.nbc.com/Saturday_Nig...trek/1099561/ -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 6:50 PMYeah, I've heard a few people who have some bit of angst over it, but (shrug) what can one do. They certainly have a right to dislike it.
But, speaking as a person who has been watching since the first episode broadcast, I enjoyed it.
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 8:14 PM>>my take on the "purists".
Hehe, you sound like someone who prefers the new Star Wars series... :) -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 9:01 PMHey now, no need to be a dick... (snicker) -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 9:55 PMHey, I don't care. I like 'em all and I don't have a problem with "change". -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 4:09 PMI like the suggestion by one critic I heard that Lucas should let such make-over crews like Abrams take on the Star Wars movies… -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 4:40 PMThe problem comes in with the way people look for entertainment. Some folks are the "slap anything pretty on the screen" types who just want a good show. Others look for continuity, over-reaching plots, etc, and look at stuff like Star Trek: Enterprise as the ramblings of an old man who can't keep his facts straight. Unfortunately, this new movie seems to be based on Enterprise, and not on the main continuum, so it can almost be called "not Star Trek".
I'm holding off on the movie until I've watched the entire Enterprise series, first, just so that I can speak coherently on the topic.
However, I would like to mention that the commercials always remind me of the 200th episode of Stargate SG-1:
"The producers want to replace the entire crew with younger, edgier versions"
"Dude, you know she was totally a Gua'uld, right?"
"yeah, but I was totally gonna tap that first." -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 6:12 PM>>>I'm holding off on the movie until I've watched the entire Enterprise series, first, just so that I can speak coherently on the topic.
All I can say, Tedward, is that you won't be disappointed with season 4 of Enterprise (except the finale episode).
The rest is 'meh'. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Fri, May 22, 2009 - 11:46 PMAlmost there. I will say that I'm quite satisfied with the whole Klingon/augment sub-plot. A well-thought out explanation. And, ya know, when you're one click away from skipping the opening credits, this aint a bad show..... -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Sun, May 24, 2009 - 3:00 AMI was satisfied with the "Klingon explanation" in ENT. I'm just glad that it was finally put to rest.
-
-
-
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 6:19 PM* Well that's what Lucas did with Clone Wars. He's letting someone else take the reigns and he's only approving the storylines. (As he's doing with the novels, games and everything else). The next rumor I heard was that Timothy Zahn's books on the "Thrawn Trilogy" might be next under consideration.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Fri, May 22, 2009 - 3:11 PMI think overall this was not the best Star Trek movie, it wasn't the worst either. With Ambassador Spock being stuck in a new timeline, I think one could argue this story is more about him than the rest of the characters. I think if they use this kernel as a jumping off point for the next potential movie, it could turn into something quite exciting. Are they going to just leave events the way they are? Hopefully not.
The set design the white bridge looks like a sanitorium and I would have never thought to go spray paint a bunch of pipes in an abandoned warehouse and call that the inside of a starship. That's just kind of lazy if you ask me. But again, it depends on where this story is going. Maybe we're not supposed to like this dystopic future that reminds me of Starship Troopers™ more than Star Trek.
At least the acting was pretty strong. A little overdone on the skinny white Chekov, but overall convincing acting. -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Fri, May 22, 2009 - 10:19 PM
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Sun, May 24, 2009 - 11:10 AMThe actor is teenager, Anton Yelchin who met with Walter Koeneg to learn how to create a fake version of his own accent. If someone asked you to create an exaggerated American accent, what would you do? OK, I might laugh at them, but if the paycheck was good, I could mutter out something.
-
-
Lost in Trek
Sun, May 24, 2009 - 1:09 PMOkay, been there, kinda want my $12 back. I'm really glad I watched Enterprise all the way through, I think it buffered a lot of the shock of this movie.
1) Of course Nimoy had to be on it. Without a main cast character gracing it, this would have been to Trek what the new Lost In Space movie was to that show.
2) Reboot. Yeah, they cranked up the show a bit so that the tech was better than some of the original movies, but I kinda liked Engineering looking like a machine room rather than temple of people worshiping "the pulsing light". Could have done without the Willy Wonka water ride. Quite happy with the added shuttle count, though escape pods would have been sufficient. Thought the double doors to the bridge were a nice touch. Kinda curious about the morphing deflector array.
3) The gathering. Sometimes there's corn, sometimes cheese, this was corny cheese. The Spock/Uhura love affair really did look a lot like the SG1 clip in the 200th episode of the cast getting replaced by younger, edgier versions. There was no need for scotty to beam up to the ship. And checkov didn't arrive on the ship until after the first full refit in the original series. WoK did a ret-con and had him aboard for Space Seed, but he never made it to the bridge. In all, "getting the band together" was one of the worst bits of writing in the show.
4) The drill. As "extreme" as it was to parachute onto the drill, that whole situation could have been resolved with a single photon torpedo. Hit it and run.
5) The Romulan. Okay, yeah, so sorry about your planet. Ever think that being back in time, you could just romp on over to Romulus, show them all your tech, and give them the records of the super nova? That way, the planet is empty and your wife watches the whole thing from another colony while eating popcorn. Then there's the 25 years of "waiting for Spock". First off, how the heck would they know Spock was gonna make it at all? Next, what exactly were they doing that whole time? Not like their ship is exactly inconspicuous. Third, how about a plan to get back? 25 years and the only plan they could come up with was to strike back at the federation?
6) Kirk. Okay, we sneak him on the ship, yay. Okay, the old softie Pike gives him a title without a position (First officer does NOT mean he has a JOB on the ship). And, yes, he spent a little time in the captain's chair. But, to be placed in charge of the the FLAGSHIP of the federation before GRADUATING from Starfleet? No. Sorry, No military, anywhere, ever, has or will do that. Not to mention that I seem to remember him having some previous experience on other ships. Are they going to just brush that aside too? [reaching for the original series DVDs]
Okay, so the first movie was unwatchable but pretty (for it's time) and had a consistent plot. So this rates lower. The 5th movie, In Search of God, wasn't pretty, pulled new ret-cons out of it's arse, AND was unbelievable. So this rates a little higher. Not the worst ST movie, but damn close. Because of the pretty pictures and cheesy plot, I'm personally going to suggest:
See it in a theater (cheap), but turn off as many brain cells as possible. You DON'T want to be thinking while you watch this. 8 bong rips should do it. -
-
Re: Lost in Trek
Sat, May 30, 2009 - 9:44 PMNow, now, no more spoilers.
When I make my science fiction movie, I'm going to make sure to acceunate everyone worshiping the 'pulsing light' in engineering. I want my old Star Trek back.
-
-
Re: Lost in Trek
Sat, May 30, 2009 - 11:23 PMI figured by the title of the thread that spoilers would be okay, particularly more than a week after opening.
I remember reading this essay entitled "If I ever become a bad guy" that focused on the general kinds of mistakes movie and TV bad guys make. My favorite was:
#8: I will have two, average, 10-year old boys preview each of my plans for blazing errors in judgement. -
-
Re: Lost in Trek
Mon, June 1, 2009 - 12:29 AMYea I was kind of just joking anyway, I wasn't too impressed with the movie, I thought the Battlestar Galactica finale was much more provocative and cohesive. And sadly, I haven't seen any good Star Trek™ fan movies, either.
-
-
-
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 1:26 PMThe truth of the matter is that the latest from the Paramount studio was not done well by Abrams. The central actors did their homework as far as the characterisations were concerned, but that was as far as it went. SFX teams always do their best for realism when they have the equipment to do it on. Please tell me, how close was that ice world that Spock & Kirk were stranded on to Vulcan?? The original Enterprise had a view screen, not a window. The layout of the ship's bridge was nothing like the original, the engine room and in fact most of the nether reaches of either starships made much sense. it's like they didn't have enough money to build proper sets. Hell, why didn't they just use the old BSG sets instead of factory back-lots!
What idiot decided that they would be building starships that shape on Earth. The design says that they are space built. And wheeled vehicles!!!
Sorry guys, you really have to do a near perfect job with me. -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 4:35 PM>>>Please tell me, how close was that ice world that Spock & Kirk were stranded on to Vulcan??<<<
Yea, I found that especially funny.
Those two worlds that close would have such massive tidal effect on each other; that both of there surfaces would look like that of Jupiter’s’ moon IO...
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 1:30 PMI think it was well-done. What, you've never driven a vintage (300years?) vehicle that somehow survived WWIII off a non-existant canyon (I've heard the quarry theory but it showed significant signs of erosion), past ship yards that just don't seem feasible. This just means you're not as cool as Kirk. - I can't tell you what didn't fit after that because I turned off the critical part of my brain. I liked the costume and bridge design very much. The engine room was design by a factory or waterpark designer rather than an engineer - that was more for cheap laughs than "reality." Very good character dynamics. -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 1:54 PMYeah, and that's the thing, most "trekkies" prefer to keep their brains engaged while watching a movie. That's why they so often have differing opinions and apparently nit-picky issues with plot and writing. If you /can/ turn off the critical part of your brain, then harry potter is coming out in a couple weeks. -
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 1:07 PM"That's why they so often have differing opinions and apparently nit-picky issues with plot and writing."
Meh.
Whether or not someone wants to be nitpicky about something has zero to do with whether or not they're a fan, and everything to do with whether or not they want to be nitpicky.
It's like the folks who just can't get behind BSG because for them, Starbuck has a penis, and it's critical to them that Starbuck has a penis in order for it to be BSG. Or Doctor Who fans who can't get behind the new series because it's missing all the Running Through Corridors scenes, and hours and hours of Stumbling Over Rocks In A Quarry. If one is a fan of Starbuck's penis, or an hour of stock footage of woods, or planets that all look like Vasquez Rocks and sound like windchimes, then one is going to lose one's stiffy at BSG, DW, and ST, respectively.
Oh well.
-
-
-
Re: JJ Abrams's STAR TREK
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 2:23 PM> The truth of the matter is that the latest from the Paramount studio
> was not done well by Abrams.
Actually, all of your concerns are addressed here:
www.youtube.com/watch
-
