# Star Trek XI Discussion Forum -- Read Intro Before Posting!



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

_*PLEASE READ: * The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue through which “open-minded” Trek fans may discuss the forthcoming JJ Abrams Trek film without having to fend off charges that the film will suck from those whose minds are already made up. The point is not to stifle legitimate questions and concerns re: the film’s plot, designs, cast, etc., but to provide a sort of “safe zone” in which the cautiously optimistic among us can talk Trek with like-minded fans without the vehement pessimism and negativity found on other threads. If you fall into the open-minded category as far as Trek XI is concerned, please post away. If, on the other hand, you’re convinced the new film represents yet another nail in the Trek coffin, please go here…

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235813

*I’m generally a pretty lenient moderator, but anyone caught trolling for a fight on this particular thread will be banned, and the offending comments expunged.* _
_
Thanks for you attention, and welcome to the thread._


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I have no illusions about the new movie replicating TOS, much less replacing it. I do however believe Trek XI has the chance of presenting an intelligent, entertaining, and epic adventure that will be closer in spirit to TOS than any other installment of Trek, with the possible exception of TWOK.

One thing I can guarantee: In terms of big screen sci-fi adventure, Trek XI will deliver the goods on a scale unmatched by any other film series, with the exception of Star Wars. Now that Lucas’ saga has concluded, Trek stands to become the go-to franchise for film fans looking to experience sci-fi spectacle of an epic scope.

Now, the dramatic dangers of spectacle are obvious, and I for one have no desire to see Trek become an empty-headed exercise in cutting edge CGI at the expense of a good story and well-developed characters. It’s a slippery slope, but Abrams is not a stupid man, and for the time being I’m going to grant him the benefit of the doubt. I for one thought MI:3 was a terrific film; fun, smart, entertaining, and one which perfectly captured the style and tone of the TV series. If Abrams can do for Trek what he did for MI:3 (creatively speaking), there’s no doubt in my mind he’ll capture a broad audience comprised of both new and old fans.

Here’s hoping.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Thanks Carson, for opening the optimistic forum.

I watched and loved TOS as a kid in it's first run, then memorized every frame of three seasons in the 70's syndication age. I've always loved it and still do. And yet, I'm excited about the Abram's film more than I've been excited about a ST film since Wrath of Kahn. Perhaps it's the optimism that Abram's has discussed, or the fresh look, or the times we live in, or all of the above. 

Some of what we've seen so far was a little jarring at first blush, but I see where Abrams is going with the film. Big. Big like Star Wars. Big like ST never was. I'm ready to see my old friends portrayed like that. I'm ready to see a new vision, and to my mind it will take nothing away from the classic. 

The canon-slips I will tolerate, especially if the characters and story are well-executed. My kids are totally stoked about the film, outraged that they have to wait until May. It's fun sharing the anticipation with them. I took the family to the see the Bond film, with only me knowing that it would include the new ST trailer. What fun it was to watch the young audience go nuts when the kid on screen says "My name is James Tiberius Kirk."

And so, I have high hopes. In my opinion it looks good so far. It would be very cool to see the franchise catch on again with a new audience, in a new age where perhaps, if we don't screw up, anything is possible.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

My feeling is that for too long, Star Trek was used as a punchline. 
And Trekkies turned into the worst kind of stereotype.

If it takes some adjusting of canonical elements (or the occasional Corvette off the cliff moment ) to make Trek "Cool" again, or to be taken seriously that's a small price to pay.

Plus we all know that the Ringers are the _Real_ Dorks

I keeeed, I keeed:wave:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

This separate thread reminds me of Tina Fey's take on Sarah Palin; 'Okay everybody keep yer voices down, I'm goin' rogue!' Good idea though for those of us with an open mind about this film. I've heard concerns raised about this being all action and no story but I strongly doubt that will be the case. If anything, I'd rather have it a bit heavy on the action and not as ponderous as TMP' but I think it'll be a good blend. And since when was a movie being 'cool' ever a bad thing as a few have suggested? There's a factor of 'cool' in everything that a person likes!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

It's hard to tell a lot from a trailer, but the guy who plays Spock looks amazingly like Nimoy in the few shots he's in.

I'd really like to see a _good_ Star Trek movie, it's been a long time since _First Contact_, which, while not perfect, is _Citizen Kane_ compared to most of the Trek movies, especially the last couple.

And I totally agree about _MI3_, if Tom Cruise hadn't been such a putz I have no doubt there would have been a MI4. And Abrams obviously knows you need a good actor for a good villian, and if he's playing against type, all the better! Philip Seymore Hoffman in MI3, Eric Banna in ST.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG said:


> T I've heard concerns raised about this being all action and no story but I strongly doubt that will be the case.


And you'd be right.

From what I've seen and read, Trek XI devotes ample time to developing the characters. The action set pieces, while HUGE in scope, are not unduly protracted in length. 

My main concerns re: the plot have to do with XI's reliance on yet another time traveling villain embarked on yet another bloodthirsty quest for revenge. That sort of thing is getting pretty stale by now, and I'm hoping it won't prove too great a shortcoming. 

The good news is Trek XI will have had a lot of time in post-production, and it's amazing what a clever editor can do to improve a problematic screenplay. Factor in appealing actors delivering compelling performances, and there's a good chance the obligatory time travel nonsense won't be as intrusive as it might otherwise have been.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I saw the new Bond film this afternoon and they had the new Star Trek preview. It looks awesome on the big screen. I am eagerly looking forward to seeing this movie in May. The preview is really exciting and dramatic to watch!

I'm really hoping we see another shot of the new Enterpise from a different angle soon, maybe from 3/4 rear view. Paramount needs to add a few more ship shots as wallpapers preferably up to 1680x1050 widescreen


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I admit that I have a tepid opinion of using time travel again. When I first learned that elements of the story were to be a time travel McGuffin I had hoped that Nimoy Spock would employ the Guardian for Forever to accomplish his time traveling. Looks like it's going to be another fancy ship, however. Plus side, might make a cool model!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

The time travel this time makes scientific sence. That's because if you could travel back in time (to a point after you are born) then it holds true that your interaction in the past would alter the future course of events. It seems this is what happens this time around on purpose! In most other stories of this type, they always fudge a way to not change the future. This shows what could happen.

The new ST ship models will be cool to have. I kind of want to get ahold of a 1701-A too from Polar Lights to light up but it will be luck to track one down at a store with an original pricetag. It would be cool to also have a 1/1000 model of that as well. I hope we don't have to wait too long to get a 1/350 (and 1/1000) model of the new Enterprise and Kelvin for lighting.

But most of all I want a 1/350 model of the TOS Enterprise. I probably won't do this but I'd like to see someone take that kit and just add movie quality surface details al la TMP just to see what that would be like. I'd add the ribbing around the saucer edge, little bits of raised surface blocks, etc.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

FYI, information re: the Trek XI marketing and publicity strategy can be found in today's international edition of the Hollywood Reporter...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i3727898fb2739b04b2de6351ac990e26


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Interesting read and that last Abrams quote is a tease!

"Oh, there's a whole crazy campaign that is going to ...," Abrams said, trailing off. "It's insane. We have a life-size Enterprise, but I'm not allowed to talk about it."


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Top idea for a thread.... :thumbsup:I've generally avoided the other threads for fear of being misunderstood in a post. 

Firstly I will say that I have been a stoic fan of the origional series for just on forty years from when it first aired here in oz. I have all the novelised scripts that James Blish penned and many of the novels based on Kirks crew and era. The dvd's of all the movies and TOS. I wasn't a fanatical fan of next gen nor DS9. I really felt like voyager leant itself more to the origional and was hooked on Enterprise by the end of the first season.

As for the ships... The origional Enterprise is in my sole. she is clean lined and a very clever design break from the stereo typical sci-fi craft of the era. I fell in love with the refit when I saw the first B&W pic published in a weekly here back in the late 70's thoughI just couldn't get my head around it being just a refit and not a rebuild. The big 'D' was a great ship and when the saucer seperated in the pilot I went all warm n fuzzy...

I was alittle spooked by the replacement 'E' in the movies I ended up liking its more streamlined and had that 'I mean business' look. I could never understand the fuss over the NX-01 I believe it's a great looking ship for pre TOS. But what I would really dearly truly want to see is a R2 doing a could clean model of the new pre-fit Enterprise. I agree with Carson dye that this new ship lends itself better to the whole 'Re-fit' concept.

I am certainly very open minded about the new flick. I really had no illusions that things would change as I said in one of the other threads that 
're-boot' usually means 're-invent' As long as the script and ability of the actors can keep the essences of the origional characters and concept
of what G R wanted then I'll be one happy little vegimite eating koala.first and formost I actually like the new look Enterprise, well the exterior 
any way. The jury is still out on the interiors. Though there are aspects of certain things that crept in from the first pilot episode. 
If you look at the console that Uhura it has what looks like a desk type light similar to Pikes TOS bridge.

I must have watched the new trailer a dozen times so far this week on my pc at home and at work (sorry boss). We're off to see Quantom of Solice tonite 
and I hope the new trailer is showing cause I so want to see it on a big screen. The cgi looks very credible and I am hoping the story is that way also. Cause I sooo want star trek to really move into the future and not get bogged down and stay staggnet because trekkers are to old n stayed to accept what we can't change... which is hollywood in the 21st century. My wife saw it on the pc the other night and was suitably impressed and she is not a nor couldbe considered to be a trekker. 

So bring it on :woohoo:

Cheers,

Alec. :wave:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Here's an interesting article posted on one of the other threads from someone who saw the 20 or so minutes of footage that was previewed from the film.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/17106/1/STAR-TREK-FOOTAGE-THE-WRATH-OF-CHUD/Page1.html

Keep in mind that this is one person's opinion which is fine, but in my opinion his credibility-at least for me-went right out the window when he calls Mission Impossible III sub-par! Now, if you simply don't like JJ Abrams for whatever reason or Tom Cruise reminds you of the guy that your girlfriend left you for that's one thing. But to say MI:3 was sub-par? C'mon. Now I want to see Trek more than ever!


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

I'm going to have to say that I have a feeling that this film will be fun to watch. My wife HATES Trek, she won't watch the existing films or shows and yet she strongly wants to see this one.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

JeffG said:


> Keep in mind that this is one person's opinion which is fine, but in my opinion his credibility-at least for me-went right out the window when he calls Mission Impossible III sub-par! Now, if you simply don't like JJ Abrams for whatever reason or Tom Cruise reminds you of the guy that your girlfriend left you for that's one thing. But to say MI:3 was sub-par? C'mon. Now I want to see Trek more than ever!


The reviewer must not have seen the first _MI _or_MI2_.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Now, if you simply don't like JJ Abrams for whatever reason or Tom Cruise reminds you of the guy that your girlfriend left you for that's one thing. But to say MI:3 was sub-par? C'mon. Now I want to see Trek more than ever!


Yeah, I agree that's a pretty good barometer of where someone's coming from perspective-wise. 

MI:3 far and away the best entry in that otherwise ill-conceived trilogy, and a terrifically entertaining film -- one which effectively captures the tone and spirit of the original series. Trek fans should be so lucky to have the next Trek film turn out so well.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

You better believe it! MI:3 was 'off the hook' good. Easily the best of the series and in fact one of the best action films to come out in recent years. In my opinion, it's in a similar category to the recent Bond and Bourne films. In that respect alone I'd take some of his criticisms with a grain of salt.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, I agree that's a pretty good barometer of where someone's coming from perspective-wise.
> 
> MI:3 far and away the best entry in that otherwise ill-conceived trilogy, and a terrifically entertaining film -- one which effectively captures the tone and spirit of the original series. Trek fans should be so lucky to have the next Trek film turn out so well.


Not trolling here (ok I am) but as one who honestly felt underwhelmed (wife included) why did the film bomb (or at least do poorly) compared to expectations? Wasn't Cruise's couch-bombing done when WotW came out?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

JeffG said:


> You better believe it! MI:3 was 'off the hook' good. Easily the best of the series and in fact one of the best action films to come out in recent years. In my opinion, it's in a similar category to the recent Bond and Bourne films. In that respect alone I'd take some of his criticisms with a grain of salt.


When a Tom Cruise film can make me like it, in spite of Tom Cruise, I know it's a good flick!  

I thought MI:3 was the best of the three. And, it really had a sense of danger built into it. I really wasn't sure if Cruise's special lady friend was going to kick the bucket or not. That kind of sense of peril is something, imho, that's been lacking in Trek for a long time. Hopefully Abrams can put the danger (and fun) back into Star Trek.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

hubert said:


> Not trolling here (ok I am) but as one who honestly felt underwhelmed (wife included) why did the film bomb (or at least do poorly) compared to expectations? Wasn't Cruise's couch-bombing done when WotW came out?



Iirc, _MI3_ did great overseas, but didn't do well domestically, which most attributed to Cruise's antics on _The Today Show_ and on _Ophrah_. The awfullnes that was _MI2_ didn't make Abram's job any easier either. 

Not to mention Cruise picked on Brooke Shields.

I think the most impressive thing about MI3 was I forgot Cruise was Tom Cruise for 90 minutes. Unlike say, _The Last Samauri_, and just about every movie Cruise has been in except _The Color of Money_.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Well, the big guy has weighed in. William Shatner thinks the new Enterprise design is just fine...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoaF...uss-enterprise-get-ready-for-shatcember-more/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

hubert said:


> Not trolling here (ok I am) but as one who honestly felt underwhelmed (wife included) why did the film bomb (or at least do poorly) compared to expectations? Wasn't Cruise's couch-bombing done when WotW came out?


The damage, as far as Cruise's career is concerned, was done. It also didn't help that MI:3 followed on the heels of two very lackluster films. 

In any event, good films often fail at the box office. The best should-have-been-a-Trek-movie ever made IMO is Master & Commander, which is as good an adventure film as you're likely to see. Needless to say, it tanked.

Ditto Blade Runner...

Ditto Carpenter's The Thing...

Ditto Citizen Kane...

Etc.

Just because a film fails to open doesn't mean it's bad.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Just to clarify, the problem with MI:3 isn't that it didn't make money. The problem is that it didn't live up to the insane expectations of an entertainment news media falling over themselves to write off Tom Cruise as a has-been. The critical response, on the other hand, was generally positive, and the DVD has been a huge money maker.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Krako said:


> Well, the big guy has weighed in. William Shatner thinks the new Enterprise design is just fine...
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoaF...uss-enterprise-get-ready-for-shatcember-more/


Wow, that's the most cogent and focused Shatner I've ever seen talk about, well...anything. And it's nice he's not dumping on it just because he's not in it, ala' Dirk Benedict.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Classy of him


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Antimatter said:


> Long live the real and only..............


hmmm... well, since there's now a new cast, they aren't the "only" anymore... Nice pic, though.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Well, there it is. Straight from THE captain of the Enterprise!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I really liked 'Master And Commander' as well but it seemed to go thoroughly unnoticed.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Nevermind................:freak:


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

This from the SAME actor who cried because he didn't have a part in it gee what was he SUPPOSED to say.  That sounded like a "classic " text book on camera answer.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, despite an oft-demonstrated talent for sticking his foot in his mouth, Shatner must know it's not in his best interest to rain on this particular franchise. Who knows, maybe Abrams will find a way to resurrect Kirk in Trek XII (although I'm not advocating such a thing). 

I realize there's a lot of anger in certain quarters re: the creative course JJ Abrams seems to have charted with this franchise, but I have a hard time empathizing with those who want Trek XI to fail simply out of spite. Like it or not, having yet another bad Star Trek movie bomb at the box office isn't going to do _any_ of us any good.


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

Make just enough $$ to keep the kits coming,new or reissue. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

At first I was resistant to this whole re-imagining Star Trek thing but now I'm onboard. I hope this is a good Star Trek movie. If JJ Abrams can do to Star Trek what Ron Moore did with the new Battlestar Galactica re-imagining then it will be a success.

After all, BSG turned a leading male character into a female and it survived! But the acting, camera work, and special effects are great plus the back story plot arcs make you want to follow the episodes just like a soap opera to see what happens next. The same style was used in Babylon 5 although that was an original series.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I have to admit that while I generally don't mind ongoing storylines and plot arcs, once you miss an episode or two it can be like falling off a train! I kind of miss the style of storytelling where you knew most of the back stories, but each episode is it's own little self contained adventure that you can drop in on and enjoy without having to keep a score card. Of course this depends on the nature of the show however.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

JeffG said:


> Here's an interesting article posted on one of the other threads from someone who saw the 20 or so minutes of footage that was previewed from the film.
> 
> http://chud.com/articles/articles/17106/1/STAR-TREK-FOOTAGE-THE-WRATH-OF-CHUD/Page1.html
> 
> Keep in mind that this is one person's opinion which is fine, but in my opinion his credibility-at least for me-went right out the window when he calls Mission Impossible III sub-par! Now, if you simply don't like JJ Abrams for whatever reason or Tom Cruise reminds you of the guy that your girlfriend left you for that's one thing. But to say MI:3 was sub-par? C'mon. Now I want to see Trek more than ever!


Agreed. MI3 was a very tightly scripted movie with lots of great scenes and interesting character development. I was particularly impressed that it was so good considering how BAD the first two were. I think Tom C. is mad as a hatter, but he is no slacker. When he makes a movie he never phones it in, so I respect that.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

1711rob said:


> Make just enough $$ to keep the kits coming,new or reissue. :thumbsup:


The heart of the matter. 

If this movie fails, we will have no more new Trek. 

EVER.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Sorry, wrong thread.

Larry


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

*I just read the 'Piss on Trek XI' forum*

It's already up to five pages of 'this abomination'...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I hear you Jodet, I hear you, but I must respectfully request that we limit our comments to Trek and not take shots at other HobbyTalkers. Even if we disagree with their opinions, they do have a right to voice them (indeed, that's exactly what the criticism thread was started for). My advise would be to simply avoid the other thread if it bugs you.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> And you'd be right.
> 
> From what I've seen and read, Trek XI devotes ample time to developing the characters. The action set pieces, while HUGE in scope, are not unduly protracted in length.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about more time-travel stories either. BUT....if you want to 'reboot' the franchise and yet you want to 'respect canon' a time-travel story is pretty much the only way to do that. 

What I suspect (and hope) is that the end of this movie will see significant enough alterations to the 'timeline' that the young crews future will 'not yet be written'. What fun is it re-living the same events over? And having a portly old Kirk fall off a bridge and say, 'oh my' before he dies? Forget that, I want it all to be new....


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

When TNG came out, I kept comparing it to TOS. The exterior of the ship seemed okay; at least it had the same general shape as the Enterprise. The layout of the bridge bothered me. Why the counsel-of-three chairs instead of a captain's chair at the center? Why was there no prominent science station? Isn't exploration and science a big part of Trek? Where's communications? Why does everyone from the weapons officer to the helmsman (oh, excuse me, "con") seem to be answering the phone? Why no prominent Vulcans aboard? What's up with that? 
I eventually came to love TNG, and now I realize that all my objections where superficial compared to the strides the series made in terms of story and characterization. Now, when I watch TNG, all seems as it should be. (Except for Wesley, but that's a different story.)
My point is, this new Trek may seem a bit jarring at first. This is especially true since the crew is supposed to be new versions of the original crew that we all know and love. However, ever I think if we give it a chance we may begin to love it on its own merits. I hope the movie is a success and spawns two or three more great films. 
(Yes, I'm an optimist.)


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Jodet said:


> The heart of the matter.
> 
> If this movie fails, we will have no more new Trek.
> 
> EVER.


HIGHLY Doubtful...

Trek is Paramount's cash cow.

Look what Batman and Robin did to that franchise and yet Warner made another stab at the franchise. ( iknow it's a different studio, but the mentality is the same)

Trek might take a hit IF this movie doesn't do well, but you are naive to think it would kill the franchise.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

The reason I have high expectations for this movie is really very simple; Paramount and all involved know full well that they can't afford to make another Trek film that only the most hardcore fans will enjoy. Plain and simple. Sorry if anyone get's offended. Nor do they want to hear 'It was okay...if you're into Star Trek.' Grading a Star Trek film on a fan friendly class curve ain't gonna cut the beans this time.

For those who have seen 'Amok Time' or 'City On The Edge Of Forever' 247 times or read a passage from a Trek novel every night before they go to bed or know what Kirk had for breakfast on stardate 3465.1...you may well wanna sit this film out. You most assuredly will be disappointed. Sorry but most of the general public haven't memorized 'Mr. Scott's Guide To The Enterprise' and just want to see a good film that you don't have to be an insider to enjoy, and personally I don't see anything wrong with that. The galaxy is big enough for all of us.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

> ...or know what Kirk had for breakfast on stardate 3465.1...


Uh... Chicken sandwich and coffee. Chicken sandwich and coffee?? 

Oh waitaminut.... That's the Stardate that Yeoman Rand tossed his salad.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Jodet said:


> It's already up to five pages of 'this abomination'...


Just goes to show... that the "glass is half empty" thinking is strong with in the human being. I would like to see more of what we have hear... Only a few pages of structured response, open minds and a twinkling of eagerness. I scanned the critisism thread out of curiosity but satisfied now. I think I'll just avoid it and give them the respect of letting them be. As for JJ's work about the only thing I haven't grown to enjoy is lost... Everything else has been todate good, so though I'm guarded I'm still keen as for the new edition to the franchise. 
I was like a kid at christmas on Sat night when we went to see 007 really wanting to see the new trailer on the big screen. But obviously the distributors here is oz didn't link up with the rest of the world. I was so shattered on not seeing it that the first few minutes of bond were a bit flat for me.

And on sunday when I was out playing skirmish my wife quickly thru on the vcr to record it when a breakky show aired it as an exclusive look. And as luck would have it the power went out about 45 seconds into the clip...

Also I can't say enough about how the new 'E' would look great as a solid sized kit. :thumbsup::woohoo: Not to mention the Kelvin as well. 
On a side note fellas... Building models is by far safer than my other hobbies n activities :freak:


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

It's really nice in here. What a great idea Carson!

I am looking forward to the new Enterprise model as well. I'm slowing getting used to the new design. I hope the initial negative reaction doesn't stop R2 or whoever gets the license for the new movie model merchandise from developing a kit. 

BTW my wife looked at the picture when it came out and said, "Yup, it's the Enterprise."
I tried to explain the differences, but she wasn't buying it. To her, it looks like it should.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Woo Hoo! 
I just read that Trek will be shown in IMAX (like Dark Knight was)

I know my local IMAX will have it The only thing better than new Trek? New Trek in IMAX
:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

oh man... it's gonna look stunning on IMAX!


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

finally, a thread for people with OPEN minds.
I hope this film out does every trek film ever in the box office.....
looking forward to a new story not a reboot, rehash, retelling as some would say.
a NEW story!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I was intrigued to hear Shatner's positive comments on the new Enterprise. are the folks in the mirror universe where everyone is evil (AKA, the Criticism thread :jest aware of that? Is there a diplomatic way to break the news?

Huzz


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Trekmovie has posted some interesting analysis on the new Trek footage. I especially found John Tenuto's look at the mythological elements emphasized in this new Trek to be intriguing.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/23/deep-thoughts-on-star-trek-trailer-from-trekmovie-contributors/

Despite all the initial griping about the new film pandering to a younger audience, it seems as if Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams have really tried to give the script some mythological rooting. It might just pay off...


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Ah, yes, I remember the first time they re-invented Star Trek . . . right after they made "The Cage."

I'm looking forward to "Star Trek XI." It'll be fun to relive those early days as seen through a different pair of glasses. All I'll be looking for is an entertaining, well-made movie not a trip down memory lane. If I want to see the original Star Trek, all I have to do is pop in a DVD . . . even though they've been digitally re-invented.

Jim


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Dave Hussey said:


> I was intrigued to hear Shatner's positive comments on the new Enterprise. are the folks in the mirror universe where everyone is evil (AKA, the Criticism thread :jest aware of that? Is there a diplomatic way to break the news?
> 
> Huzz


Yes Dave, we've heard and believe it is all part of the conspiracy. We're moving a little slow though as we work on our tin-foil hats 



Arronax said:


> Ah, yes, I remember the first time they re-invented Star Trek . . . right after they made "The Cage."
> 
> I'm looking forward to "Star Trek XI." It'll be fun to relive those early days as seen through a different pair of glasses. All I'll be looking for is an entertaining, well-made movie not a trip down memory lane. If I want to see the original Star Trek, all I have to do is pop in a DVD . . . even though they've been digitally re-invented.
> 
> Jim


I just want a great quality recording of TOS. No major enhancements please. They screw it up every time. Watched 'Court Martial' again last night. Love how they have people walking around in the starbase tower that would make them 30 ft tall. Some things are just best left to the imagination. Sorry, wrong thread...


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Personal Comments Deleted


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner are both profusive in their praise for this project.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Fans are often far more hardcore and geeky than the parties responsible for creating a project. There is some truth to the famous Shatner Saturday Night Live skit. I'm pretty sure the actors don't remember all the details about certain episodes that we do. Whatever they might bring to that character, it's still a job and later they'll have to be fully invested in some other character. So it's no surprise that they would be a little more receptive to the changes made than a hard wired fan because they see it more like the average viewer. At least that's my theory and I'm stckin' to it. Other than that, maybe it's just as simple as they liked what they saw!


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> It won't matter, some people are so stuck in their ways that NOTHING is going to budge their opinions, I'm sure they'll say Shatner is just another "shrill" for the motion picture agency.:freak:
> 
> I take great comfort in the fact that most of the folks who insist it's going to suck have been wrong frequently in the past.


Goes to show what you know, the word is "Shill"...


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I understand the difference between shill & shrill.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Personal Comments Deleted


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

*Tell Hubert it's no go!*



hubert said:


> Goes to show what you know, the word is "Shill"...













*" Hubert! Hubert! Hubert! Hubert!!*


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

*More bad news for the haters....*

Mark Altman, author and journalist and one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on 'Star Trek' has just written an excellent article about the new film: 

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/24/mark-altmans-take-on-the-jj-abrams-star-trek-preview/


Short version - he was very excited about it and had LOTS of good things to say. 

"Obviously, I’m a high priest in the church of Shatnerica and, to me, there’s no way you can recast Kirk. He’s an icon of popular culture that’s sacrosanct. It’s like Rick Blaine. David Soul can’t play him, George Raft can’t play him, only Bogart. There’s only one Shatner, the only man who could get away with asking god what he needed with a starship. But, truth be told, Pine is pretty great in the movie from what I could tell. He captures the bravado, humor, heroism of Shatner’s Kirk without being Shatner which is pretty impressive."

"At the end of the day, this movie looks expensive and epic whereas all the original Trek movies looked cheap and, well, cheap."


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

*Best Line Yet!*

From that article:

"_Any movie with Kirk sleeping with Rachel Nichols as a Green Orion Slave Girl has to be great"._

_Huzz_


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Even the space hippies were hardly an original idea:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I thought this thread was for talking about the movie. I still see, mostly, in the last page or two, people still getting off on insulting folks with different opinions.



> "Any movie with Kirk sleeping with Rachel Nichols as a Green Orion Slave Girl has to be great".


Now THAT's good casting!! 
She may make the film worth seeing after all!


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Did everyone see that there's going to be a comic book tie in? it's a four issue series that tells the back story of Nero. They will be released from January to April. 

Apparently, Abrams and company have written the stories for these. And looky who shows up in the promotional artwork...

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/merchandise/idwcountdown_b.jpg

Pretty cool, imho...


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

John P said:


> I thought this thread was for talking about the movie. I still see, mostly, in the last page or two, people still getting off on insulting folks with different opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see clearly what the 'other forum is for: 


"This movie will stink and it will bomb. No question about it, JJ has stuck one clear up the you know what of all Trek fans." 

"It seems a large portion of this thing was made solely to piss off the fanbase."

"I for one hope true fans will boycott this abomination." 

"If there is a boycott, it will be a naturally occurring boycott due to the movie reeking to high heaven"


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Krako said:


> Did everyone see that there's going to be a comic book tie in? it's a four issue series that tells the back story of Nero. They will be released from January to April.
> 
> Apparently, Abrams and company have written the stories for these. And looky who shows up in the promotional artwork...
> 
> ...


How the heck does Jean Luc figure into this?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> Now THAT's good casting!!
> She may make the film worth seeing after all!


Okay then!

Now I see the revolutionary means to once again unify these two camps of rabid sci fi fans and model nuts.

*HOT CHICKS!!!
*
There ain't no arguing the merits of that!!!

Huzz


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Jodet said:


> I see clearly what the 'other forum is for:
> 
> 
> "This movie will stink and it will bomb. No question about it, JJ has stuck one clear up the you know what of all Trek fans."
> ...


Yes, as_ clearly stated _in its first post, that thread is for people who don't like what they've seen. Where was it stated that _this _thread is for insulting people in the other thread?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Hey John! :wave: 

Aren't those statements quotes that are copied and pasted from posts on the criticism thread? If so, how are they insulting?

Huzz


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

John P said:


> Yes, as_ clearly stated _in its first post, that thread is for people who don't like what they've seen. Where was it stated that _this _thread is for insulting people in the other thread?


COMMENTS DELETED


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Krako said:


> Did everyone see that there's going to be a comic book tie in? it's a four issue series that tells the back story of Nero. They will be released from January to April.
> 
> Apparently, Abrams and company have written the stories for these. And looky who shows up in the promotional artwork...
> 
> ...


Well…I hope this will be available outside the US also! 

Because if I remember correctly “I am Legend” also had comic strips telling the fore story… but I learned of this when I bought the special DVD, since those comics never showed up in Germany. 

And since JJ and Paramount are so eager to create this fancy new young fan dome overseas, he better makes sure those comics are published in Europe too.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Well…I hope this will be available outside the US also!
> 
> Because if I remember correctly “I am Legend” also had comic strips telling the fore story… but I learned of this when I bought the special DVD, since those comics never showed up in Germany.
> 
> And since JJ and Paramount are so eager to create this fancy new young fan dome overseas, he better makes sure those comics are published in Europe too.


It's IDW Publishing that's putting them out. I bet you can order them online, if they aren't available in your local comic book store. 

If you can't get them, let me know. I'll pick up an extra set for you.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

John P said:


> I thought this thread was for talking about the movie.


It is.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

ALL OPINIONS RE: TREK WILL BE RESPECTED HERE.

PERSONAL REMARKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Comments Deleted


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

You guys are not making this easy.

I've deleted a number of comments seemingly designed to provoke those posting on the other thread, but obviously I can't police you people 24/7. I started this thread as a SAFE ZONE for "open minded" comments re: Trek XI; not as a place to criticize other members for voicing their opinions. 

It's really not a lot to ask. If you can't play nice I'll have no choice but to shut the thread.

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

THIS IS MY LAST WARNING.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

*Funny William Shatner video*

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/007463.html


I liked the second one, pretty funny.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Jodet said:


> http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/007463.html
> 
> 
> I liked the second one, pretty funny.


LOL... Something very similar may have happened when Shatner found out he wasn't going to be in the new movie...


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Krako said:


> LOL... Something very similar may have happened when Shatner found out he wasn't going to be in the new movie...


I think not being in the new movie is barely enough penance for his agreeing to be in 'Generations'. Now if you want to talk about a Star Trek movie that's an abomination.....


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Jodet said:


> I think not being in the new movie is barely enough penance for his agreeing to be in 'Generations'. Now if you want to talk about a Star Trek movie that's an abomination.....


I'm with you on that Jodet!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

*10 Reasons the Abram's film won't suck:*

1)No boy genuis who's saving the _Enterprise_ on the days his science experiments aren't actively threatening to destroy the _Enterprise_.

2)Spock won't be hawking IDICs onscreen.

3)No bald chick 

4)No recycled TOS plotlines about unmanned space probes repaired by superior intelligences.

5)Uhura won't do a fan dance.

6)No characters played by twenty-something supermodels who are unable to resist the paunchy charms of a fifty year old man with no money and a bad toupee.

7)No recurring characters based on famous characters from bad musicals.

8)No androids being embarrassingly sung down by supposedly serious characters singing Gilbert & Sullivan.

9)No phasers will be awkwardly and expositively demonstrated in the kitchen.

10)No rock climbing scenes with rear projection apparently done by the FX genuis's that did _Land of the Lost_.


The idea Abrams is going to destroy or ruin _Star Trek_ with his movie seems really unlikely, no matter what the _Enterprise_ or the movie itself looks like, we've probably seen worse.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

*The real reason it won't suck*

No Rick Berman.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Jodet said:


> No Rick Berman.



All of the above are good reasons but remember (because I certainly do) there was a time when many considered Berman the genius of ST. I'm just saying...


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Jodet said:


> No Rick Berman.


*Amen.*


After all the years outlining the sins of Berman and Braga through Voyager and Enterprise, after steadfastly declaring that I was emphatically _not tired of Trek_ but simply asked for comepetent stewarship and intelligent, imaginitive writing, I'm not going to recant that now because of continuity issues (yes, I acknowledge them) or bad design work. If the characters have not been faithfully ralized, well, we'll see. But I'm hopeful and keeping an open mind. 

More than anything, I simply want at long last to see the _spirit _of Star Trek alive again. I have a reasonable hope that Abrams may accomplish this (belonging to neither a "love him" nor a "hate him" crowd).

I understand where some of the criticisms are coming from. I've had the same misgvings about other properties. I simply don't share them where this film is concerned. It's all personal and subjective. All this invective is doing more to smother my enthusiasm than anything we've seen or read of the film itself.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> *10 Reasons the Abram's film won't suck:*
> 
> 5)Uhura won't do a fan dance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> *Amen.*
> More than anything, I simply want at long last to see the _spirit _of Star Trek alive again. I have a reasonable hope that Abrams may accomplish this (belonging to neither a "love him" nor a "hate him" crowd).


That's really where I'm at too. It's been too long since that spirit of optimism, unity and adventure was fully realized in on-screen Star Trek. 

Being a long-time FASA and Star Fleet Battles fan, as well as a big fan of the novels, I can appreciate that the spirit of Trek can be realized without being a slave to 'canon'. 

Heck, one of my all-time favorite "official" Star Trek books is the "Spaceflight Chronology" and that thing is a big heaping pile of train wreck when it comes to continuity. Still an awesome book, imho, and still a part of my personal Trek universe. And, its a great example of the axiom that something is only part of 'canon' until it's not.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Krako said:


> That's really where I'm at too. It's been too long since that spirit of optimism, unity and adventure was fully realized in on-screen Star Trek.
> 
> Being a long-time FASA and Star Fleet Battles fan, as well as a big fan of the novels, I can appreciate that the spirit of Trek can be realized without being a slave to 'canon'.
> 
> Heck, one of my all-time favorite "official" Star Trek books is the "Spaceflight Chronology" and that thing is a big heaping pile of train wreck when it comes to continuity. Still an awesome book, imho, and still a part of my personal Trek universe. And, its a great example of the axiom that something is only part of 'canon' until it's not.


Isn't a canon just something you blow stuff up with?


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

hubert said:


> All of the above are good reasons but remember (because I certainly do) there was a time when many considered Berman the genius of ST. I'm just saying...


Maybe in 20 years J.J. will have had his glory days and have run Trek into the ground. I'll post funny pictures of him then, too.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Jodet said:


> Isn't a canon just something you blow stuff up with?


That would be a _cannon_, with a double-N.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

*New Version Of The Trailer!!! With Nimoy!!!*

OH BOY!!!!


http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_720p.mov

THIS LOOKS INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I wish they'd cut the car chase scene and add some more of the Enterprise in space.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

There will be additional trailers featuring more FX footage as the release date draws near.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

WOW! Nimoy looks awesome as old Spock! 

Can't wait!!!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> There will be additional trailers featuring more FX footage as the release date draws near.


Looking forward to it!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

The guy that plays McCoy looks right. Nice to see Bruce Greenwood on the bridge, he's done good work in a lot of mediocre movies and TV.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> The guy that plays McCoy looks right. Nice to see Bruce Greenwood on the bridge, he's done good work in a lot of mediocre movies and TV.


Both the actors you refer to are well cast, and give terrific performances.

I love this shot of McCoy...










"Space is death and disease wrapped in darkness and silence..."


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

This does look like quite a rush! Too bad we have to wait until May!!!

Huzz


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Both the actors you refer to are well cast, and give terrific performances.


I'm curious about your opinion on the new Spock, to me he looks right in the photos & clips, but the scuttlebutt on the net suggest his acting is less than stellar.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> The guy that plays McCoy looks right. Nice to see Bruce Greenwood on the bridge, he's done good work in a lot of mediocre movies and TV.


I've been a fan of his for a long time. He always does a good job. I think the casting on this across the board is stellar (no pun intended). I was a little unsure of John Cho (Sulu) because I've never seen him in anything but comedies, but I'm keeping an open mind.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I'm curious about your opinion on the new Spock


He _looks_ great, but I'm not thrilled with what I've seen of his performance. 

That said, I'll withhold rendering a final verdict until all the facts are in.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Carson Dyle said:


> He _looks_ great, but I'm not thrilled with what I've seen of his performance.
> 
> That said, I'll withhold rendering a final verdict until all the facts are in.


I've heard the same thing. Now Pegg as Scotty to me looks wrong in the clip. But how would you rate his performance?

Huzz


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> I've heard the same thing. Now Pegg as Scotty to me looks wrong in the clip. But how would you rate his performance?
> 
> Huzz


_Hot Fuzz_ was the movie that made me think Pegg isn't only a funny guy, he's a good actor too. A big reason that movie worked so well is Pegg was so convincing playing the worlds most uptight and by-the-book cop, without any Jim Cary-ish mugging or winking at the audience,which made the movie even more hilarious.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> _Hot Fuzz_ was the movie that made me think Pegg isn't only a funny guy, he's a good actor too. A big reason that movie worked so well is Pegg was so convincing playing the worlds most uptight and by-the-book cop, without any Jim Cary-ish mugging or winking at the audience,which made the movie even more hilarious.


I think it would be a big mistake to 'mimic' the original actors. It's a fine line re-casting a famous role like any of the original cast. Do we want Chris Pine to do 'William Shatner' impersonations? Nah. We want him to bring the qualities of the character forward in his own way. 

I see Simon Pegg as being someone who will be particularly good at that.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Pegg makes a great Scotty, IMO.

I've heard some complain over the idea of Scotty being used as comic relief in Trek XI, as if this is something Roddenberry wouldn't have stood for. 

What nonsense. My favorite James Doohan Scotty performance is probably the one on display in The Trouble With Tribbles. The fact that it qualifies as comic relief does nothing to demean the dignity of the character.

I mean, if watching the dignity get sucked of a beloved character is your idea of a good time go check out Shatner's buffoonish post-TWOK performances as Kirk. The one member of the Enterprise crew who _shouldn't_ be used for comic relief is Kirk, but that didn't stop Shatner. To his credit, Roddenberry understood this very well; too bad no one was listening to him by the time The Voyage Home rolled around.

Honestly, Chris Pine's performance as Kirk is a helluva lot more respectful of the original TOS character than many of Shatner's performances are -- a point conveniently lost on those who can't imagine anyone other than Shatner in the role.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

That may be so, but in the tiny snippet of film I've seen of him in the trailers, he comes across as a goof and certainly not someone I would entrust the care of the ship to. I hope that he brings more to the character than that. Time will tell.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Fair enough. All I'm saying is don't pre-judge Pegg based on 100 frames of trailer footage.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Pegg makes a great Scotty, IMO.
> 
> I've heard some complain over the idea of Scotty being used as comic relief in Trek XI, as if this is something Roddenberry wouldn't have stood for.
> 
> What nonsense. My favorite James Doohan Scotty performance is probably the one on display in The Trouble With Tribbles. The fact that it qualifies as comic relief does nothing to demean the dignity of the character.


With dyed hair, I can totally see Pegg as Scotty.

I always liked Scotty best as a kid, I liked how how he was the good natured guy who always managed to get in trouble on shore leave. His love of drinking and carousing seemed more "real" than the rest of the crew to me back then.

My favorite Doohan bits were him trying to use a PC in Voyage Home, and his reaction to finding out Laforge gives accurate repair time estimates on TNG.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Carson Dyle said:


> Fair enough. All I'm saying is don't pre-judge Pegg based on 100 frames of trailer footage.


I don't intend to. I've read some interviews with Pegg over on Trektoday.com and he seemed very sincere in his desire to present a darn good Scotty and he was earnest in his desire to not do a caricature of James Doohan's Scotty. And I do believe him. It just seems odd to me that the very tiny bit of Scotty that we do see in the trailers comes perilously close to the very thing that Pegg set out to avoid. In that respect, the selection to showcase Pegg is a poor one IMHO. I bet he's more than a little disappointed in it, in light of everything he has said about his goal of portraying Mr. Scott. I fully expect that Pegg's Scotty, when one sees the film in its entirety, will hit Pegg's target and turn out to be the type of fellow we would expect him to be.

Huzz


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Checking in. I don't know if it's because I'm really loving what I'm seeing so far or if it's because the haters have ticked me off with their negative prejudgment of a movie they have yet to see (or will never see even on DVD according to some of them), but I'm getting excited over this. 

My favorite musical/play is _Les Miserables._ I've seen it at least 4 times in different venues (from traditional stage to a 360 stage). I can sing you my favorite song, though you probably don't want to hear it. There's something about the characters that move me. But I'm not tied to a particular actor's take on a character. Instead, I enjoy watching other actors have their own take on them. I'm looking forward to seeing how other actors take on the Trek characters. After all, if _Star Trek_ Lives beyond our lifetime, there will be other actors who will play the characters. It's time we get used to that fact, so we might as well get over it now.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Dave Hussey said:


> This does look like quite a rush! Too bad we have to wait until May!!!
> 
> Huzz


You'd think an XMas release would have been better from a butts on seats aspect... Not to mention we wouldn't have to wait as long either


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

The trailer does look seriously awesome.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I think the industry is realizing that Christmas releases are very risky. Folks have a lot of demands on their time and money. Sure, they may very well go see a movie, but I think that audiences will tend to focus on one movie. If that's not Trek, you'r sunk. Plus, the after XMas period is that dreaded period before the bills come in and folks may tend to be more frugal then.

A summer / late spring release avoids those risks.

Huzz


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I wonder how much the writers strike had to do with the move to summer as well. It does seem like Paramount has other summer releases lined up, though. 

A summer opening does make me a bit nervous. Was the last summer Trek release "The Final Frontier"?


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Krako said:


> I wonder how much the writers strike had to do with the move to summer as well. It does seem like Paramount has other summer releases lined up, though.
> 
> A summer opening does make me a bit nervous. Was the last summer Trek release "The Final Fronter"?


I know the best Trek movie ever made (IMHO) was released on Christmas day. Anyone know what it was? Here's a hint - it didn't star William Shatner OR Patrick Stewart. :wave:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Someone posted this over in one of the Trekmovie talkbacks. I thought it was cool, and decided to share it...

If you want to hear what appears to be the full music cut for the trailer, it's available on the trailer music composer's website:

http://www.nickphoenix.com/index.php?page=mp3

The cut is titled "Down With the Enterprise"

Makes me wonder what the movie's soundtrack will be like...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Jodet said:


> I know the best Trek movie ever made (IMHO) was released on Christmas day.


Galaxy Quest isn't the best Star Trek film ever made. That would be Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Seeing old spock was great!!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Krako said:


> Someone posted this over in one of the Trekmovie talkbacks. I thought it was cool, and decided to share it...
> 
> If you want to hear what appears to be the full music cut for the trailer, it's available on the trailer music composer's website:
> 
> ...


Menacing!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

El Gato said:


> Checking in. I don't know if it's because I'm really loving what I'm seeing so far or if it's because the haters have ticked me off with their negative prejudgment of a movie they have yet to see (or will never see even on DVD according to some of them), but I'm getting excited over this.



So, you're _positively _prejudging a movie you have yet to see?


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Krako said:


> Someone posted this over in one of the Trekmovie talkbacks. I thought it was cool, and decided to share it...
> 
> If you want to hear what appears to be the full music cut for the trailer, it's available on the trailer music composer's website:
> 
> ...


It does sound very "Trek" with a full orchestra. At least there are no tamborines or electric guitars to be heard.... :tongue:

Rob


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

One thing I have been pondering. It's not a complaint, just a question. If this film is making a change to the timeline, does this mean that The Cage, TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voy effectively no longer exist? If that's true, that makes the whole "Kirk can't come back 'cos he's dead" spiel bunk. It also makes Ent the only TV series canon in JJ's world.

Rob


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*timey-wimey stuff*

Rob,

yes, you are correct. in this "JJ-verse" those shows don't exist because they haven't happened yet. And the ONLY Kirk there is is being played by Chris Pine.

We can presume that the universe as we know it thru the events shown in Enterprise go as we remember them (the silver lining is that this might negate the events of that horrible last episode...just maybe)

if the "JJ-verse" continues on it should spawn it's own version of events covered in the following series...but not for another 80 years (in movie continuity)

see, it'll drive you nuts


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

The alternate timeline discussions make me think we need a scene inserted of Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown explaining it all at a chalk board. 

But seriously...as a very long time Trek fan, I almost don't care what kind of continuity flip flops they do if they can make a good, engaging film that brings space adventure back to the equation. So many of the incarnations have had good casts and design but terrible storytelling that has drifted far from real, mind-blowing s-f. The movies have had plots that are stunningly mundane (even TMP) and cheap-looking productions. I still enjoy them, but they have never lived up to the potential of the original concept (and Harlan Ellison and David Gerrold would both chime in that the original series rarely did, either).

I personally don't love the new ship design, but all that stuff is window dressing. I mean, the original Twilight Zone was done very cheaply with cheesy f/x, but we love it for the stories, performances and IDEAS. When the story is there, I can suspend my disbelief very willingly.

I am cautiously optimistic. Movies are Frankenstein monsters made of many pieces. Will they all add up? The weekend before WonderFest '09 we'll find out.

Lee

P.S. - Rob, I was in Trek mode all the way through Master & Commander!


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

I think the TOS timeline went horribly wrong starting with TMP. What an expensive, but bad movie that was. And WOK was great, but they should have left Spock dead. It all became a sort of joke after that. And 'Generations' was the most pathetic ending imaginable for our beloved Captain Kirk. 

So yes, I want to see all that left where it is...on dvd's. But for the future, yes, I want NEW Trek, NEW Kirk, and NEW adventures.

I still have old Trek. But you cannot have new 'old' Trek...they ran it into the ground. Or as Leonard Nimoy says, 'it ran its course'. 

Well, now we have a new thing to start fresh with. It's too good to be true.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

They've released such high resolution images of the cast and crew, why aren't we getting to see a high resolution shot of the Enterprise?


----------



## hell_fighter_8 (Oct 4, 2005)

PixelMagic said:


> They've released such high resolution images of the cast and crew, why aren't we getting to see a high resolution shot of the Enterprise?


Because they want you to go to the movies and see it! Why do you think they only released one picture? Its a tease. It wouldn't even surprise me if this was NOT the enterprise but merely an advertising ploy. It does have people talking, good and bad, just look at this site. And its not just this site. Even on sites that have nothing to do with star trek or sci-fi, its being talked about. If it wasn't making waves they wouldn't have asked William Shatner about it!


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

John P said:


> So, you're _positively _prejudging a movie you have yet to see?


No, I'm keeping my mind open to the possibility that the movie won't suck.

And hey, if I get positively optimistic along the way, that may increase my enjoyment factor. Or lead to a serious let down. Doesn't matter. I don't know enough about the movie to make a call one way or the other.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Lee Staton said:


> I mean, the original Twilight Zone was done very cheaply with cheesy f/x, but we love it for the stories, performances and IDEAS. When the story is there, I can suspend my disbelief very willingly.


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Brand new turnable 3D views of the Kelvin on the Intel site. It's a lot longer than the 3/4 view screenshot makes it look. The saucer looks slender too. You can click on different areas that highlight for information. The bridge highlight info shows 4 bridge crew members including George Kirk. There is also a Intel laptop contest too!

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/28/intel-launches-new-star-trek-contest-site/


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Brand new turnable 3D views of the Kelvin on the Intel site. It's a lot longer than the 3/4 view screenshot makes it look. The saucer looks slender too. You can click on different areas that highlight for information. The bridge highlight info shows 4 bridge crew members including George Kirk. There is also a Intel laptop contest too!
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/28/intel-launches-new-star-trek-contest-site/


The Kelvin in that 3D rotated view is squished vertically. Those are not correct proportions. I corrected some ortho views in Photoshop...










































And the bridge, impulse, and hangar. J.J to ILM..."Give me more lens flare."


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Thanks for correcting the vertical sizing.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think they need to make those orthos a little darker. :freak:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

John P said:


> I think they need to make those orthos a little darker. :freak:


Maybe you meant for this to go in the criticism thread?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I think the dark ortho comment was done in jest 

Now if they put the new Enterprise up as a 3D model then we will get a fair assessment of her.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

He's just telling them to lighten up.

Yeah, we have yet to see a shot of the E that mitigates the first impression.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I like that ship--USS Kelvin--a lot! I'd buy a model kit of it in a heartbeat! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Krako said:


> Maybe you meant for this to go in the criticism thread?


Why would I respond to a post from this thread in another thread?

Do you NOT think those orthos are too dark to see well?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

John P said:


> Why would I respond to a post from this thread in another thread?
> 
> Do you NOT think those orthos are too dark to see well?


They looked fine to me.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

I've said it before...the future is underlit.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

maybe that's why the new bridge is so bright! :hat:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

The Kelvin looks better in orthos than it does in the screencaps we've seen. The site is cool though...


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

There is one thing I'd like to express that's in the form of a criticism of Star Trek - as a franchise. I'll start off by saying that I've watched every film, every epsiode of every series, so I've seen it all - both good and bad. Here's where the criticism starts...When Voyager came out, I enjoyed it for the most part, but I started hearing from other folks that watched it that they thought that Voyager was a missed opportunity and they didn't make the most of what they had. To some degree, I would agree with that and I watched some folks start to turn away from Trek for the first time. When it came to the films, most were pretty good with the major exceptions of The Final Frontier and Nemesis. Nemesis was considered the nail in the coffin in terms of the film end of the franchise. When Enterprise came onto the scene, some people had hope that it would reinvigorate the franchise as a whole, but when fans saw what they considered "history" being rewritten, more of them turned away in even larger numbers. When Enterprise was cancelled, there were some that were afraid that Trek was dead and over, but others still had hope but said that Trek deserved a long rest before being resurrected.

Now, faced with a film that takes place in the TOS era with younger versions of TOS characters....but largely changed, has some folks in an uproar. Will this film be the one to reinvigorate the franchise as a whole? If so, what of the folks that are already showing skepticism and scorn? Without the die-hard Trek audience to support such a film, is the "untapped" audience that Abrams is seeking enough to keep it flying?

It's interesting, because we've seen a decline in interest over recent Trek efforts. With the new film apparently turning away from what most folks feel makes Trek great, it makes me wonder who came up with this formula for success and why they think it will work.

I guess only time will tell, eh?

Bryan


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

Harve Benett had this idea of using younger trek people back before Generation's but Paramont blew him off an he walked. I wonder if this is his story?


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Gemini1999 said:


> ...When Voyager came out, I enjoyed it for the most part, but I started hearing from other folks that watched it that they thought that Voyager was a missed opportunity and they didn't make the most of what they had.


By 'missed opportunity', you might be referring to the way it failed to live up to it's premise. Not to rehash old arguments, this is directly relevant to the reaction to this new film - Rick Berman has actually boasted about how he hated the premise and actively killed it right out of the starting gate. He stated this with the air of someone who believes he did fandom a favor. Not everyone agrees, to understate the matter. That was the beginning of a schism right there.

I had to that point enjoyed TNG and adored DS9. I'd had no doubt that Voyager would be equally good. When it wasn't, that's when I began to pay some attention to the names in the credits. Waddya know - turns out the people behind a show make all the difference in the world. A great many fans (myself included) contend that the quality of the writing dropped below acceptable levels under the watch of Berman and Braga. The last four films meanwhile were not of cinematic caliber and ranged from entertaining to soulless, with unhealthy doses of cringeworthy. Personally, I refuse to acknowledge the existence of Nemesis. 

This is the reason Trek lost many of us - after the departure of Ron Moore, Rene Ecchevarria, and others the franchise ended up in the hands of people with no vision and no bravery. No spirit. No imagination. A placeholder mentality ruled, and it came through on screen. Writers with no life experience were hired, and they had to fake their way through any attempt at real human drama.

Enterprise, on the other hand, actually improved dramatically in it's final year. Why? Stewardship of the series changed hands from Berman to Manny Coto. 

That's what makes me hopeful for this new film. I'm not a fan of Abrams by any length but neither do I loathe his work. Most relevant to his handling of Trek, his Mission:Impossible was the only one of the three to recapture some of the sensibility of the series. My hope is that he can do the same for Star Trek - I'll forgive the esoterica if the spirit and writing are there. Enterprise had already trampled all over Trek history, didn't stop me enjoying the fourth season.

I still enjoy Lost, but gave up on Fringe after two episodes. Someone brought up "Regarding Henry", and I'm afraid I have to agree with - who was it, Phillip? Lloydd? - the movie was all syrup and no pancake. Still not got around to Cloverfield yet - waiting on a library copy to show up.

I am _also _skeptical. Coto went on to one great year of 24, and then one so dismal it killed the series for me. (I won't discuss that _other_ show he created, not on these BBs...) Abrams' Alias I never saw...but do I understand correctly that this was a series about espionage which eventually brought in _Satan_ as an adversary? Excuse me?

Bottom line for me: we can argue about the history of Trek all we want, but it's in new hands now and we have only out-of-context indicators what the new people are capable of. Some of it is worrying, but god help me I_ like_ the look of the trailer.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> Abrams' Alias I never saw...but do I understand correctly that this was a series about espionage which eventually brought in _Satan_ as an adversary?


Nope. Never happened.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

I do remember something of the sort, though. What was it? 

Wrong show? An espionage series that suddenly turns to the supernatural? Talk of angels and demons, anything ringing a bell with anyone? I remember being glad I never got into it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Gemini1999 said:


> ...With the new film apparently turning away from what most folks feel makes Trek great...


This alleged turning away from greatness may be apparent to those who frequent to criticism forum, but I'm far from convinced such is the case. 

But since the question has been raised, what _does_ make Trek great?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

What I think makes Trek great, is the very human bond between the characters, which helps us relate do them. Also, Kirk, Spock and Bones are very charming, but in different ways. The play off each other is wonderful. Add on top of that a sense of epic adventure among friends, and you have what makes Star Trek great.

Not ship designs, not technobabble, and not canon.

I hate the new Enterprise, but that will not take away from my enjoyment of the new installment of Trek. I'm still excited for the movie, and hope they can catch that wonderful dynamic among the characters.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

What made Star Trek great? Lots of things, but foremost among them was the promise of a great future for humans. We were in the grip of a war that seemingly had no end, and very little support at home. Riots in our major cities killed thousands and made millions more uneasy. Our young people (including me at the time) were turning away from traditional values and substituting drugs and "free love". The Soviet Union, the only power in this world able to threaten us, was making moves in many areas, and taking over nation after nation.

Yet, this tiny little TV show dared to show us that we HAD a bright future. That we would survive this turbulent time and emerge wiser, stronger, and able to explore new worlds, new civilizations...to boldly go where no man had gone before!

That, Charlie Brown, is what Star Trek is all about!

Larry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> I do remember something of the sort, though. What was it?
> 
> Wrong show? An espionage series that suddenly turns to the supernatural? Talk of angels and demons, anything ringing a bell with anyone? I remember being glad I never got into it.


There were some supernatural/psuedoscience elements running thru the show. There were ancient writings and prophecies by a DaVinci-like character. The prophecies kept coming true, and the bad guys were always trying to use his wierd ancient (slightly supernatural) inventions.

Alias had a lot of eye rolling moments, and the third season was almost unbearable, but aside from that I really enjoyed 90% of it.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Okay, thanks for that. As a rule, I hate watching an established genre suddenly switch on me without at least properly setting the stage for it. I've had enough time letting it settle that I'll probably give it a shot eventually - your taste in television pretty much always turns out to be impeccable.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> There were some supernatural/psuedoscience elements running thru the show. There were ancient writings and prophecies by a DaVinci-like character. The prophecies kept coming true, and the bad guys were always trying to use his wierd ancient (slightly supernatural) inventions.


Yes, and the Rambaldi elements were there from the very beginning (although they use a different name in the pilot episode, which is explained later). In the commentary from Abrams on the DVD, he mentions that he knew he wanted that psuedo-sci-fi to be an element of the show, so it had to be there at the start or the audience might not buy in to it later.

But there's no Satan in the show.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Fair enough, but that was the buzz going around at the time - angels, the devil, and "what's _that_ doing in this show?" I think, actually, that was the very question everyone was asking, "Where is this show going, Is the devil going to show up?" I asked another Alias fan on another board last week and his answer was to name Rambaldi - didn't give any details as to who or what Ramballdi was, so it read like a confirmation.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> Fair enough, but that was the buzz going around at the time - angels, the devil, and "what's _that_ doing in this show?" I asked another Alias fan on another board last week and his answer was to name a character and say "it didn't last more than a few episodes". Kinda uninformative, but it did make me think I'd heard right.


There _was_ an angel image that plays a very small part in a couple of episodes (it is in a vision that Sydney has, and it turns out to be a fragment of a memory she has -- it has no supernatural connection at all). There was an episode or two that had strong overtones of vampirism, but there's nothing supernatural about that either.

It is partly an update of _Mission: Impossible!_, with a more modern focus on character (Sydney's attempt to live something resembling a normal life while being a secret agent is a big part of the show). It has a lot of the teamwork aspect of _Mission: Impossible!_. There's a little _X-files_ (or _Fringe_) in it, and a bit of Jackie Chan (Sydney has a habit of grabbing whatever is in reach to beat on bad guys -- my favorite is probably the episode where the bad guy has a priceless Samurai sword, versus Sydney with a meat-hook). But the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> This alleged turning away from greatness may be apparent to those who frequent to criticism forum, but I'm far from convinced such is the case.
> 
> But since the question has been raised, what _does_ make Trek great?


I think one of the biggest problems will all the recent incarnations of Trek is they aren't fun anymore. Yes, the TOS had important issues and themes, but you had a real sense of not only was exploring the universe cool and interesting, it was exciting and fun.

All the recent movies and most of the various TV episodes have never quite captured the mix of serious and fun that made the TOS such a success, imho. They've all tended to be either too grim, too talky, or silly and/or demeaning at the expense of serious characters.

The TOS wasn't perfect by any means, but the best episodes of the TOS I still enjoy far more than the "best" episodes of TNG, DS-9,Enterprise, and especially Voyager. And they're more fun to watch, even with awfully familiar looking paper mache' rocks, hammy guest stars, and bad matte lines.

I'd also like to see one Trek movie where they do something besides solve a crisis that's threatening the Earth and/or the entire universe.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I think one of the biggest problems will all the recent incarnations of Trek is they aren't fun anymore.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

They're idea of fun was having Data sing at a wedding....yippy.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think what made Star Trek what it is, is that it was, primarily, an intelligent show that asked important questions and made you think. Sure, you could sit back passively and enjoy the spectacle of the phaser fights and scantily clad alien chicks, but for those who insisted on some intellectual meat on their sci-fi bones, it was there, and you weren't made to feel like a fool for demanding that their space opera be delivered on something higher than an third grade level.

I think that's also why Paramount's quest to turn Star Trek into a Star Wars kind of epic is a fool's errand, _because Star Trek just doesn't work that way!_ Star Trek at its best would make for lousy cinema (case in point: Insurrection; fine Star Trek story that would've been right at home in any season of TNG, but as a movie, it fell kinda flat).

Frankly, this movie by JJ is looking more like something where you'll have to check your brain at the door, and *that* is about as anti-Trek as you can get.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I didn't see anything in the new Trek trailer that suggests that "fun" will not be present in appropriate amounts in the new film.

Huzz


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Lots of space-battley action does not always equal fun.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Lots of space-battley action does not always equal fun.


Yea, WOK sucked


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> I didn't see anything in the new Trek trailer that suggests that "fun" will not be present in appropriate amounts in the new film.
> 
> Huzz


Me neither, in fact Abram's TV shows and movies have all had that sense of clever fun and not taking themselves too seriously. 

Well, except for that piece o' drek _Regarding Henry_.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Captain April said:


> I think what made Star Trek what it is, is that it was, primarily, an intelligent show that asked important questions and made you think. .


I disagree, I think Star Trek was a fun show with some good ideas here and there. I also think the TOS is placed on too high a pedestal by some, the TOS addressed some serious issues with some really goofy executions that probably looked _really_ deep on paper after a couple of good joints, but......


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Lots of space-battley action does not always equal fun.


Certainly not all by it's self.

As far as Trek is concerned, my idea of "fun" places dramatically compelling characters in a sci-fi/ action-adventure setting and engages them in liberal amounts of physical, emotional, psychological, and intellectual conflict.

Trek XI is trying very hard to deliver all of the above, but it remains to be seen how well it will accomplish this. 

In any case, no one is going to mistake Abrams' Trek for Star Wars (however desperately Paramount's marketing department might want them to).



PhilipMarlowe said:


> Well, except for that piece o' drek _Regarding Henry_.


I hasten to point out that Abrams wrote this screenplay while still in college, and did not direct the unintentionally hysterical filmed version.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I hasten to point out that Abrams wrote this screenplay while still in college, and did not direct the unintentionally hysterical filmed version.


I'm not letting a little reality ruin my enjoyment of proclaiming it's Abram's and Harrison Ford's:


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Frankly, this movie by JJ is looking more like something where you'll have to check your brain at the door, and *that* is about as anti-Trek as you can get.


You can't make that assumption by just watching a trailer. Trailers are edited to make maximum impact in 2 minutes. They have to sell the film in two minutes.

The Trek XI trailer does show alot of action, but that's to get attention of movie audiences. That does not mean that it will be a check your brain at the door action movie.

Go watch the trailer for The Dark Knight. It shows a lot of action in it's trailer, just as Trek XI does, but we know TDK is not a brainless action flick.

The same could be true of Trek XI, which I suspect it is.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I'm not letting a little reality ruin my enjoyment of proclaiming it's Abram's and Harrison Ford's (Simple Jack).


Yes, indeed... a proud member of a noble genre. :thumbsup:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> Trailers are edited to make maximum impact in 2 minutes. They have to sell the film in two minutes.


Agreed. I thought the trailer showed just enough to keep me interested and excited. And I did not have to check anything at the door


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Star Trek: The Motion Picture didn't require us to check our brains in at the door. Maybe we should have and instead brought in our pillows.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

JeffG said:


> Star Trek: The Motion Picture didn't require us to check our brains in at the door. Maybe we should have and instead brought in our pillows.


QFT. My gosh what a boring movie.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

PixelMagic said:


> Go watch the trailer for The Dark Knight. It shows a lot of action in it's trailer, just as Trek XI does, but we know TDK is not a brainless action flick.


Heck the TDK trailer made it look like a rehash of the 89 Burton Batman. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, just goes to show that you shouldn't jump to conclusions about the quality of a movie when all you know is who the director is, a few stills and a trailer.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The rather detailed accounts of those twenty minutes of footage is what's particularly damning in my estimation.

This isn't Star Trek, it's some mundane's twisted concept of Star Trek.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The rather detailed accounts of those twenty minutes of footage is what's particularly damning in my estimation.
> 
> This isn't Star Trek, it's some mundane's twisted concept of Star Trek.



Seems like this thread is slowly being consumed by those who have a beef with the new movie. I'm pretty sure that's why the moderators created a "criticism" thread...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235813

I liked the decision by the mods regarding splitting up the discussion. I hope the two threads can be kept distinct, as it's nice to be able to discuss aspects of the new movie without having the thread diluted by comments like the above.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Well Jeff, 

you do have to remember the incredibly short production cycle for TMP. they barely had any footage at all to make a trailer from except for some character shots. They almost didn't have the film prints made in time to get to the theatres. (hence the over plodding pace..the re-edited version flows much better).

Plus they had Orson Welles to do the narration. That just screams "gravitas" in a way that "in a world..." doesn't


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeeeesss, we can't have a discussion diluted by honest opinions....


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

John P said:


> Yeeeesss, we can't have a discussion diluted by honest opinions....


The first post in this thread is interesting! 

_"PLEASE READ: The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue through which “open-minded” Trek fans may discuss the forthcoming JJ Abrams Trek film without having to fend off charges that the film will suck from those whose minds are already made up. The point is not to stifle legitimate questions and concerns re: the film’s plot, designs, cast, etc., but to provide a sort of “safe zone” in which the cautiously optimistic among us can talk Trek with like-minded fans without the vehement pessimism and negativity found on other threads. If you fall into the open-minded category as far as Trek XI is concerned, please post away. If, on the other hand, you’re convinced the new film represents yet another nail in the Trek coffin, please go here…

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235813

I’m generally a pretty lenient moderator, but anyone caught trolling for a fight on this particular thread will be banned, and the offending comments expunged."_


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Krako said:


> Seems like this thread is slowly being consumed by those who have a beef with the new movie. I'm pretty sure that's why the moderators created a "criticism" thread...
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235813
> 
> I liked the decision by the mods regarding splitting up the discussion. I hope the two threads can be kept distinct, as it's nice to be able to discuss aspects of the new movie without having the thread diluted by comments like the above.


I think you're right. This is the "enthusiastic thread" and the other is the "not-so-enthusiastic thread."

IMHO, we need to be a wee bit more disciplined and help Carson and the other mods out here and keep our criticisms over on the other thread.

Likewise, there's no need for folks to defend the movie on the other thread which has also occurred.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

John P said:


> Yeeeesss, we can't have a discussion diluted by honest opinions....


That's why as Krako has graciously pointed out, there are 2 threads for discussion. So we can discuss our honest opinions


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

My opinion is that this movie is more likely to be good than bad.

Its been established that:


The folks making the movie are very talented people.
The folks making the movie are also trying hard to do justice to the spirit, fun and adventure of Star Trek.
It follows logically that talented people working hard are much more likely to produce a quality product than a group where either talent, hard work, or both are missing from the equation.

It is also my opinion that much of the criticism of the new movie was triggered by the initial view of the Enterprise. I believe that if the Enterprise photo that was released had looked more like the 1960's TV ship, then much of the criticism would not have occurred. In fact, I believe that is what folks are really upset about - the look of the ship, more so than the merits of the yet unseen movie.

Huzz


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The grumbling had been going on well before that pic of the ship was released, but the look of the interior sets started kicking things into high gear, the detailed accounts of those canon-busting scenes shown to the press kicked it up another notch, and the look of the ship constitutes a last straw.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The grumbling had been going on well before that pic of the ship was released, but the look of the interior sets started kicking things into high gear, the detailed accounts of those canon-busting scenes shown to the press kicked it up another notch, and the look of the ship constitutes a last straw.


Are you talking about ST:TMP, Next Gen, or Trek XI?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

One thing that I note in terms of the reference to the so called sacred "canon" is that critics of the new film point to "40 plus years" of Trek canon. However, in my view, that is not correct. 

If Star Trek had aired continuously for 40 years, then yes, one could point to that as a 40 year period. However, Shatner et al had only three years on TV before they were cancelled, followed by six movies. That is certainly not 40 years, although TMP seemed to run about that long. Moreover, the look of the ship and the uniforms changed several times between the TV show and the movies. Why all the fuss now?

Huzz


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> One thing that I note in terms of the reference to the so called sacred "canon" is that critics of the new film point to "40 plus years" of Trek canon. However, in my view, that is not correct.
> 
> If Star Trek had aired continuously for 40 years, then yes, one could point to that as a 40 year period. However, Shatner et al had only three years on TV before they were cancelled, followed by six movies. That is certainly not 40 years, although TMP seemed to run about that long. Moreover, the look of the ship and the uniforms changed several times between the TV show and the movies. Why all the fuss now?
> 
> Huzz


Definitely on the same wave length as you Dave. You bring up very interesting and accurate points. This new change to Trek is anything but new as we have had practically the same changes thru the years. However, we never did get a series with new actors playing our beloved Kirk and crew.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, let's count 'em up, shall we?

We start off with three seasons of TOS and another 22 episodes of TAS (technically, it ran two seasons, but the total number of episodes only amounts to a somewhat short season of the live action version, so for the purposes of this discussion, TAS counts as TOS' fourth season).

Then we get the movies, ten in all, which built upon the foundation of those four seasons' worth of episodes (yes, even the TNG ones), with varying degrees of success.

Then we got seven seasons each of TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and four seasons of Enterprise, which, again, in their own sometimes bumbling way, _built upon the foundation established with TOS._

Now, here comes JJ and his merry band, who aren't building up anything. Rather, they're apparently going to raze the ol' place to the ground and build condos and a Walgreeens on the lot. Which is particularly galling since all the old place needed was a fresh coat of paint.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Isn't this the forum where we discuss the positive aspects of the film?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Post TOS Trek didn't build upon the foundation of TOS so much as micturate upon it.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Capt,
even the folks who made 'em don't count the animated series as canon... I happen to, but that's not the point.

The following series built upon the foundation that there is a starfleet, a federation, certain characteristics of named races - logical Vulcans, honorable Klingons, deadly Borg, altruistic Humans.... 

the truth is that the Berman era Treks were much more dependent on each other for plot history than they ever were to the original series (except for the "Relics" episode of TNG which was contradicted by Star Trek Generations, the Spock two-parter, the Tribble episode of of DS9 and the "Flashback" episode of Voyager which replayed the events of Trek 6 with Tuvok on the Excelsior.) Think of how many shows referenced the Borg battle at Wolf 359. (heck, Sisko's whole character was defined by it)

while they all agree there was a Kirk and that he played an important role in the early decades of the federation, whether he was raised on Earth or ever visited Tarsus 4, or if he ever drove a stickshift is of minor consequence.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Captain April said:


> Then we got seven seasons each of TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and four seasons of Enterprise, which, again, in their own sometimes bumbling way, _built upon the foundation established with TOS._
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Great points Lou. I never agreed with the notion that Later Trek built upon TOS.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

here's something for the "white bridge" haters

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=70751&d=1228250685

care for some cheese to go with that whine?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

In fact, TNG rewrote quite a few canonical elements of TOS almost immediately. Witness the trouble FASA got into when it attempted to update its RPG system for the TNG era. FASA had a pretty robust timeline built upon elements considered canon until TNG rewrote them.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Which is particularly galling since all the old place needed was a fresh coat of paint.


I suspect the only new Trek film some folks would approve of would also require some girdles,some Bro's (or Manssieres if you prefer) and toupee's.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> here's something for the "white bridge" haters
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=70751&d=1228250685
> 
> care for some cheese to go with that whine?


Its the TMP bridge relit and painted in white colors… where as the Trek XI bridge no where near looks like the TOS Bridge …. so your point was?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

my point was that folks have been "commenting" on the all white bridge or the "iBridge" as if there had never been a precedent for it.

Marlowe..
don't forget the "Ouiji" board, too


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I think there's also an interesting precedent for the "ibridge" in this Phase II bridge design...

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/8/83/Bridge2.jpg


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dave Hussey said:


> One thing that I note in terms of the reference to the so called sacred "canon" is that critics of the new film point to "40 plus years" of Trek canon. However, in my view, that is not correct.
> 
> If Star Trek had aired continuously for 40 years, then yes, one could point to that as a 40 year period. However, Shatner et al had only three years on TV before they were cancelled, followed by six movies. That is certainly not 40 years, although TMP seemed to run about that long. Moreover, the look of the ship and the uniforms changed several times between the TV show and the movies. Why all the fuss now?
> 
> Huzz


I think it's pretty obvious that the phrase means that the established TOS backstory has _existed _for 40 years.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I think that some of ya'll are getting to the point of where you're arguing the definition of the word "is"! :freak:

And no John, I'm definitely _not_ talking about you.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I hate the canon/not canon debate as much as the next guy but I will say that alot of what is cited as "established" is from non canon sources. (novels, faux reference books and chronologies and tech manuals)

I'm no Lemming, but I'm also no Ostrich


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

I thought the bridge in the Motionless Picture looked pretty blah compared to Jeffries' color-TV-sellin' original. But it sorta went with the gray pajamas.

Let's face it, there's NOTHING they could do that would please us all. Which makes the debate all the more fun and humorous. It's all stage sets, after all, and maybe it'll seem workable in context.

Lee


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> I think it's pretty obvious that the phrase means that the established TOS backstory has _existed _for 40 years.


Perhaps. But I think it may have been used in a manner which would suggest that there are 40 years of continuous TOS stories with Shatner et al. I'm pointing out that the history is not continuous over that period, its spotty and quite sporadic.

"The Motionless Picture" - good one! :thumbsup:

Cheers!
Huzz


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I hate the canon/not canon debate as much as the next guy but I will say that alot of what is cited as "established" is from non canon sources. (novels, faux reference books and chronologies and tech manuals)



Well, I agree the only thing "canon" is what's on screen.

The ship being built in SF is established in the writers' guide and borne out by the dedication plaque seen on the bridge in many episodes.

Kirk serving on other ships before the E was established as plot points in at least one TOS episode.

Kirk's bookish demeanor in the academy was mentioned by a classmate in an episode.

Kirk living on Tarsus IV aat the age of 13-ish was established in_ Conscience of the King._ But it was never said how long, so that could still fit in with whatever age he is when he crashes his uncle's 'vette.

Romulan backstory points were major plot points in Balance of Terror (not "throwaway lines" like many people use to dismiss it, but concrete plot points).

Other than all those canon violations and the look of the ship, I don't think there was anything else that bothered me about the trailer.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Kirk was a "stack of books with legs" up to the moment that Nick Meyer decided to make him a "cheater" when he rigged the Kobyashi Maru test so he could "win"

I remember the storm that when thru the fan community when that happened. "how dare they assasinate Kirk's character like that" was a common complaint. 

Now we embrace the "win at all costs- maverick" Kirk.

give it a chance


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Kirk's bookish demeanour was only mentioned by Gary Mitchell, If I recall. In a new script, it's possible to invent a situation where, after getting his butt kicked for being a hellion at school, Kirk knuckled down and hit the books before meeting Mitchell. Also, I think Kirk's reaction to the comment was rather sheepish, possibly indicating that he wasn't _always_ bookish. Or maybe he pretended to be that way around Gary for some reason.

So it's possible to respect canon and have some fun, no?


----------



## Quantum (Mar 17, 2006)

Dave Hussey said:


> It is also my opinion that much of the criticism of the new movie was triggered by the initial view of the Enterprise. I believe that if the Enterprise photo that was released had looked more like the 1960's TV ship, then much of the criticism would not have occurred. In fact, I believe that is what folks are really upset about - the look of the ship, more so than the merits of the yet unseen movie.
> 
> Huzz


Agree 100%. Its a remarkably shallow (by Trek standards) criteria to judge by, and what I believe is wrong with Star Wars: too much tech, not enough theme exploration (for example, _The Mark of Gideon_).
If you really care about the story and characters, put them in a space-borne 1977 Cadillac.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

John P said:


> Well, I agree the only thing "canon" is what's on screen.
> 
> The ship being built in SF is established in the writers' guide and borne out by the dedication plaque seen on the bridge in many episodes.
> 
> ...



All of these "canon violations" presuppose that the new movie takes place within the same time line as all this stuff. 

Everything I've read regarding this movie indicates it will not.

New time line = no canon nitpicks

Now, your point about the design of the ship is not as easy to dismiss. My opinion is that it doesn't fit in because... well... 

...this is a work of _creative fantasy_ made by artists. 

And to paraphrase a wise man, "I know artists... they love to change things."


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Quantum said:


> If you really care about the story and characters, put them in a space-borne 1977 Cadillac.


What! That's way too futuristic!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

> And to paraphrase a wise man, "I know artists... they love to change things."


They do indeed!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

A gentle reminder...

THIS THREAD EXISTS TO SING TREK XI'S PRAISES, NOT TRASH IT'S PERCEIVED SHORTCOMINGS. if the latter is your intention, kindly go here...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235813

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> They do indeed!


So do Wifes!!!  Move the furniture, move it again, paint the dining room, paint it again!!! 

Huzz


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

SteveR said:


> Kirk's bookish demeanour was only mentioned by Gary Mitchell, If I recall. In a new script, it's possible to invent a situation where, after getting his butt kicked for being a hellion at school, Kirk knuckled down and hit the books before meeting Mitchell. Also, I think Kirk's reaction to the comment was rather sheepish, possibly indicating that he wasn't _always_ bookish. Or maybe he pretended to be that way around Gary for some reason.
> 
> So it's possible to respect canon and have some fun, no?


That's nice job of fan rationalization. Rings perfectly true, too (IMO, of course) - Kirk sees his undisciplined passions starting to spin his life in destructive directions and knuckles down at the Academy to make something of himself. I've seen that happen in real life at least twice that I can think of...both teenagers needed a change of scenery to accomplish it. They change schools to get their acts together = Kirk enrols in Starfleet. I could never imagine someone of Kirks' demeanor and streetsmarts as bookish in the first place anyway, and apparently neither could Meyer and Bennett.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> I could never imagine someone of Kirks' demeanor and streetsmarts as bookish in the first place anyway...


I disagree. Although no one would know what the curriculum would be like at SFA in 200 years this was based on knowledge of the existing military academies today. The 'book-worm' may have a high GPA but (an even larger portion) of their CGPA will be based on other metrics, such as 'leadership'. Although cadets are on overloaded schedules academically, military subjects such as 'ship's weapon systems', 'combat tactics/maneuvers', and 'propulsion system' slowly replace earlier emphasis on subjects such as (painful) Navigation and general sciences. Kirk's character is very much in the keeping of this (IMO).

Then again, the new Kirk isn't ruled out of this as well...


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

I agree with all of that, certainly. I was thinking more of his knack for reading and navigating the people he has to deal with in a dilemma and his out-of-the-box improvisational bent. He has social instincts that I don't think can be taught, though of course I acknowledge that one needn't have had a turbulent adolescence to possess such talent. It's easier for me to see, that's all. I also expect that he could have been naturally troubled after what he witnessed/survived under Kodos. (I do not, however, have any hope that that bit of history will survive the new script.)


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> He has social instincts that I don't think can be taught,


I agree completely...



dreamer 2.0 said:


> though of course I acknowledge that one needn't have had a turbulent adolescence to possess such talent. It's easier for me to see, that's all.


That's were we diverge, however. For me, superior leadership potential (and social instincts) must be developed like any other skill. Those people are not likely to be 'loners', show up one day and proclaim... "I am here now follow me". Again, this is just my opinion.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

hubert said:


> That's were we diverge, however. For me, superior leadership potential (and social instincts) must be developed like any other skill. Those people are not likely to be 'loners', show up one day and proclaim... "I am here now follow me". Again, this is just my opinion.



I understand. That's where I was thinking that the Academy experience would be the transformative one - he _has_ the street smarts as a reckless youth, but it's Starfleet where he finds direction. Like I said, I knew a couple of people who changed themselves, honed themselves, when they changed venues and became determinedly studious. It was no overnight process. 

Kirk is a swashbuckler, which for me doesn't jibe with 'bookish'. His adventurous spirit comes so natuarally to him that I can't see his _not_ having been spirited, reckless, as a youth. A little bit more than we've seen is needed to make that metamorphosis click with me. (shrug) But that's just me.

Perhaps I should amend this for the sake of clarity - I'm not saying the younger Kirk was a hellion, but that it's not unknown for a teenager to go through an angry or troubled phase. I imagine it might be even more likely after seeing a holocaust and moving back to the tranquility of home.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> Perhaps I should amend this for the sake of clarity - I'm not saying the younger Kirk was a hellion, but that it's not unknown for a teenager to go through an angry or troubled phase. I imagine it might be even more likely after seeing a holocaust and moving back to the tranquility of home.


Fair enough.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

From Trektoday.com (http://www.trektoday.com/news/051208_01.shtml):

*From Sci Fi Pulse comes the word that Leonard Nimoy wants online fans to know that the new Star Trek movie won't disappoint. After reading negative comments from fans on a Star Trek, Nimoy had this to say: "About two months ago my wife, Susan, and I saw a near finished version of the new 'Star Trek' movie. Some special effects and new score were not yet in place. Susan can be a very honest and tough critic. When it was clear that the story was wrapping up she turned to me and whispered, 'I don't want this movie to end!' There are some directors who can manage a grand scale and some who can deliver great personal character elements. Not many can do both. JJ Abrams is one of the few. He has given us a wonderful film." *

Personally I find the views of people who have seen the film to have significantly more weight than those who have not, regardless of their opinion of the film. And when those people are Mr. and Mrs. Nimoy, well, I rest my case.

Huzz


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Dave Hussey said:


> From Trektoday.com (http://www.trektoday.com/news/051208_01.shtml):
> 
> *From Sci Fi Pulse comes the word that Leonard Nimoy wants online fans to know that the new Star Trek movie won't disappoint. After reading negative comments from fans on a Star Trek, Nimoy had this to say: "About two months ago my wife, Susan, and I saw a near finished version of the new 'Star Trek' movie. Some special effects and new score were not yet in place. Susan can be a very honest and tough critic. When it was clear that the story was wrapping up she turned to me and whispered, 'I don't want this movie to end!' There are some directors who can manage a grand scale and some who can deliver great personal character elements. Not many can do both. JJ Abrams is one of the few. He has given us a wonderful film." *
> 
> ...




And personally, I find that people who have a 'stake' in a film (i.e. salary contract and backend points) to be completely biased in 'said' opinions and least reliable when referencing opinions. Lets face it, it's known as show 'business' for a reason.

Look, it may or may not be a good film. I don't know. Most people will give it a fair shake. People like myself may even go after reading reviews and hearing from others. They've simply lost many who would go simply because the name Star Trek was on it. I still want my money back from the last two movies and at least a couple of more throughout the series. 

I respect that and hope you will also. I don't disagree with your enthusiasm over the film, I've simply have run out of it myself.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

How dare Leonard Nimoy speak favorably about this film! Who does he think he is? Oh, wait...never mind. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Hubert, I was told in no uncertain terms by the moderator to keep my positive views off of the Criticism thread. I have done that. Per Carson's post here, please show supporters of the film the same courtesy.

Huzz


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nimoy also grossly underestimated the fan reaction to destroying the Enterprise in TSFS.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Captain April said:


> Nimoy also grossly underestimated the fan reaction to destroying the Enterprise in TSFS.


Again, please keep your negative posts elsewhere!!!!

Huzz


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just adding some context....


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> please keep your negative posts elsewhere!!!!


What he said.

Kindly knock off the trolling and baiting.

If you're unclear on the rules for posting on this particular thread please consult post #1.

In the immortal words of Austin Powers...

B E H A V E


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm bopping between both threads and trying to remember which one I'm in .

This is a good experiment. But I gotta say, it's tough to have a discussion of real value without both viewpoints being expressed in one conversation.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> From Trektoday.com (http://www.trektoday.com/news/051208_01.shtml):
> 
> *From Sci Fi Pulse comes the word that Leonard Nimoy wants online fans to know that the new Star Trek movie won't disappoint. After reading negative comments from fans on a Star Trek, Nimoy had this to say: "About two months ago my wife, Susan, and I saw a near finished version of the new 'Star Trek' movie. Some special effects and new score were not yet in place. Susan can be a very honest and tough critic. When it was clear that the story was wrapping up she turned to me and whispered, 'I don't want this movie to end!' There are some directors who can manage a grand scale and some who can deliver great personal character elements. Not many can do both. JJ Abrams is one of the few. He has given us a wonderful film." *
> 
> ...


To read what I had to say about this quote please refer to the below link. 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2611938&postcount=343

Thanks so much for noticing a critical comment.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Having two threads is kinda like the Monty Python skit; 'Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse. You want arguments. That's down the hall.'


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> What ever version Nimoy and his wife saw.. or what ever rough cut Carson saw, it wasn't the one that ends up in theatres May 2009! Please keep that in mind!
> 
> And with the talk about "personal character elements" well ....somehow I really doubt that JJ can:
> 
> ...


Here we go again. Wrong thread.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Fair observation, though.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

JeffG said:


> Here we go again. Wrong thread.


I wasn’t flaming.
I wasn’t attacking anyone.
I wasn’t criticising opinions! 

I merely pointed out that the cut Nimoy and Carson saw is MOST DEFINITELY not what will end up in theatres and that I have doubts that with all things I mentioned this movie will have deep character moments! Thre just is not enough time! And I find it sad that posts are immediately attacked if it is not a “all honey and sweet” comment about this movie in this thread!! 


And pardon if I say so but the separate threads may have been a good I idea on paper but it does not work! You can’t discuss with one side of the coin only!

Because the way Carson planned it it would be like.


A: Hey Love how the bridge looks.
B: yeah me too it’s so nice and modern
C: yeah but I think it could be a little… oh wait….*writes comment in other thread* … please read comment 345 in criticism thread…. But overall it’s great. 

That’s stupid! 

And the two threads have spilt up this board about the movie even more! 
You cant says tad against or pro in either one if you are not “part of the body” 

Mostly grown ups are posting here and yet they can’t have a civilized argument and the topic must be spilt in “pro” and “Con”. That’s Kindergarten! 

If this means I get banned.. so be it. Since I don’t like to have to watch what I say at what thread all the time! If I feel I have to say something to what I read I do it at the thread I read it at! Simple as that. 

But for the sake of peace I’ll do like “C” above and copy my post to the other thread and give a link here….. my god what a f§$%&& up way to discuss!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Try decaf.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> I wasn’t flaming.
> I wasn’t attacking anyone.
> I wasn’t criticising opinions!
> 
> ...


Dude. it's not complicated. If people want to *discuss* the movie - its story, characters, style, the trailer, the ships, etc. - in a non-critical fashion, they come here. If people want to *criticize* the movie - express dismay regarding canon violations, express displeasure over the ship designs, indicate that their childhoods have been violated, etc. - they go to the other thread. 

This thread, imho, wasn't set up to have* any* type of argument - civilized or other- regarding the movie. 

There seems to be a real desire, by a few, to continually debate this movie. 

_Why?_ 

I don't care if you aren't excited about the new movie. I am. And I want a spot to freely share that enthusiasm with others who are like-minded. 

There are tons, TONS of places on the Internet where you can go to debate this movie. I'd be happy to list the links if you really need the emotional release of arguing over a movie that won't be out for five months.

Peace, brother.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Guys, peace. Calm down. I agree with him, it wasn't a criticism, just an observation. What's a discussion if we can't raise points worth discussing?

I'm optimistic about the movie, and I think he's got a good point.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

A *discussion* is talking or debating about pro and con of a given subject! 

What you want is “be nice and ONLY nice” here and ”be bad and ONLY bad” there and that simply is NOT how a discussion works! Since you can not discuss without listening to the other side! 

And as I said IMHO it was a bad idea to split up ONE and the same topic in to TWO different discussions. And it saddens me even more that apparently it’s NOT even allowed anymore to talk about that either! 

Perhaps all threads regarding Trek XI should be closed and this model builder discussion board and its members should refrain itself to discussing models … and models only.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Garbaron said:


> A *discussion* is talking or debating about pro and con of a given subject!
> 
> What you want is “be nice and ONLY nice” here and ”be bad and ONLY bad” there and that simply is NOT how a discussion works! Since you can not discuss without listening to the other side!


If people could Play Nice With Each Other, that wouldn't be a problem. However, too many folks on both sides of the argument CAN'T PLAY NICE WITH OTHERS. Thus, *Carson Dyle* set these two separate forums up to make it to where folks could bash the movie all they wanted and folks who wish to _discuss_ the movie could come here. I don't think that your post above was necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not the specific forum moderator here, so will let *Carson Dyle* decide what he wants to do. 


> And as I said IMHO it was a bad idea to split up ONE and the same topic in to TWO different discussions. And it saddens me even more that apparently it’s NOT even allowed anymore to talk about that either!


Because too many folks are perhaps getting off-topic and dragging these two different threads in a bad direction...? 


> Perhaps all threads regarding Trek XI should be closed and this model builder discussion board and its members should refrain itself to discussing models … and models only.


I'm all for that, actually! While there are a few threads here that are strictly model building related, the majority seem to be talking about modeling than actually doing much of it. That's all up to *Carson Dyle*, tho. I'm just a Super Moderator - i.e. Roving Trouble Shooter. I only stick my nose in to these sorts of sub-discussions when he's not around or it seems like something should be said early to keep things from getting fugly....


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

you gotta remember there not making this movie for the fans, its a money making project, so if they gotta update the ship to bring in new fans that what there gonna do. I was hoping to see our old ship on the big screen but ill wait and see if the story line well make up for all the things there changing.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> I'm not the specific forum moderator here, so will let *Carson Dyle* decide what he wants to do.


Thanks, Jeff.

Carson Dyle has decided he'd like to enjoy the rest of his weekend without having to babysit a bunch of Star Trek fans.


----------

