# Star Trek XI apparently in the works



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/leisure.startrek.reut/index.html


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

They're gonna need some serious retooling as far as the characters. After watching how fleshed out and realistic the characters are in the new Battlestar Galactica, it's painful when you go back and watch shows in the Trek series. The characters are largely stiff, flawless crewmembers that stand around consoles most of the episode and recite pages upon pages of techno babble and mumbo jumbo readouts. Most of which lacks the spirit of action and adventure present even in TOS. Sorry, I'm just callin' a shoe a shoe.

Still, much as the James Bond franchise realizes it can't forever do business as usual (Bond and a semi nude girl blowing up control rooms in the finale.), I believe the Trek franchise is aware of the same shortcomings. Still, despite the hit or miss quality of Trek, there is still enough there to keep fans and newcomers attracted and there is still plenty of potential with the right people helming the project. Let's keep our fingers crossed because I'd love to see them hit their mark this time and really do a hard edged, kick ass film instead of one filled with lame inside jokes and gags that only fans get. I've got high hopes upon hearing about this, and the franchise is back at bat yet again. Let's hope it's not another strikeout.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

This is very interesting. I like the idea and hope they can pull it off by keeping some sense of "continuity", although I think it will be difficult.

One thing I will be most curious about is the "style" of the set and costumes. The original pilot was closer in style and color to the later shows, in particular, ENTERPRISE, but TOS had that whole 60's "free love", "flower child" coloring. In terms of today's movie going public, I think they will have to re-write history a little and ditch that aspect of it...which might anger some people but would be fine with me.

I am hopeful the director will honor the legacy, but also break new ground. It will be difficult to strike the right balance.

Let's hope it's done for the right reasons and not strictly for the "money". If it's done for the right reasons, there's a good chance it will be a movie we can all be proud of.

BTW...although Nemesis didn't do well at the box office, I thought it was a decent movie. Surely not the best the Star Trek universe has given us but certainly not the worst either.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

If B&B have anything to do with it, the word "canon" will be out the door. I hope Paramount gets rid of these two morons before the script is ruined.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Admiral Nelson said:


> If B&B have anything to do with it, the word "cannon" will be out the door. I hope Paramount gets rid of these two morons before the script is ruined.


They aren't involved ... J.J. Abrams (_Lost, Alias, Mission: Impossible III_) is set to produce and direct, and apparently also help craft the story.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Can't wait to see it. I mean if it's pre-TOS then all the effects shots should be done manually with no CGI and green screens. It'll be exciting to see if we can spot the wires the model spaceships and hanging on.

Jim
(who thinks this whole giant step backwards didn't work for "Enterprise" and probably will annoy the hell out anyone who likes the word "canon")


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Berman and Braga are not involved. That's definitely a positive sign.

José


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

BB not involved can only be a good thing. As far as continuity, it may be already out the window as I recall, Kirk and Spock didn't "meet" in their academy days.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Ignatz said:


> BB not involved can only be a good thing. As far as continuity, it may be already out the window as I recall, Kirk and Spock didn't "meet" in their academy days.


I was trying to remember whether it was ever explicitly stated that they never _met_, or could it be they just never _served_ together until Kirk took command of the _Enterprise_? The story could certainly change drastically -- I'm not putting any money on any actual film being exactly what is being described as yet. The creative team here has me very excited, though.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Arronax - I would definitely be up for more "old school" FX. Check out Zathura if you haven't and watch the extras about the FX. Although they used CGI, they did things in such a way that they utilized as many real props as they could. I think the results are noticeable and desireable (but who am I?).

ENTERPRISE was decent but I think a step back in the "time line" like that is a tough sell unless you have established characters. I think the show (changing the story line of course) would have been more successful if the characters had been those we know from the TOS era, but frankly, I think they were afraid to take that BOLD of a step at the time.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I found out about this a couple of weeks ago but was afraid to post anything until an official announcement was made.

This is really good news for STAR TREK fans. The series could not ask for a better creative helm than J.J. Abrams. I saw MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III last week, and it's easily the best entry in that series, proving conclusively that Abrams has the chops to direct a big screen Event Movie. More importantly, the guy's a good writer with a knack for striking just the right note tone-wise; his stuff has an edge without taking itself too seriously. 

"S.T." fans are an opinionated lot and there's no way of pleasing them all, but if anyone can revitalize this tired but beloved franchise it's Abrams.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Carson, haven't seen MI:III yet but looking forward to it. I've always been a Tom cruise fan, think he's an awesome actor and in my opinion, what he does in his personal life is his own business and the MI movies have been getting steadilly better (although they did stretch things a bit with the masks in MI:II). That said, I think that's exactly what Trek needs is someone cutting edge behind it-a breath of fresh air. Personally, I have no gripes at all if they want to alter the 'look' of the designs either. We all know why TOS looked the way it did-no matter how much they try to reason why. It was the '60's/70's and that's that! I really liked the production design of the sets and costumes of Enterprise and realistically, I don't think you can go back to the look of TOS. We all loved it for nostalgic reasons, but way to cheesy to work for audiences today. Looking forward to it.

One more thing; don't expect cheesy FX-that ain't gonna happen either!


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

JeffG...not "cheesy" FX, just a little less CGI, hopefully.

John Favreau's approach is what I am talking about....if you get a chance, read this article...

http://www.juicycerebellum.com/200563z.htm


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

We fans aren't hard to please if there is a good story to watch. Also, just because Kirk and Spock "meet" at the academy doesn't have to mean they met while still attending. Checkov won't be in it that's for sure but Scotty and Sulu served on the Enterprise during the early years as they were on during "Where No Man Has Gone Before".


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

I won't go see MI:III because I can't stop thinking about how creepy Tom Cruise is.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I would love to see the TOS Enterprise not redesigned... but detailed to bring her up to film standards while maintianing the ORIGINAL design. THAT would be cool. Aztek and pearl with a light touch.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG said:


> \ I don't think you can go back to the look of TOS. We all loved it for nostalgic reasons, but way to cheesy to work for audiences today.


Agreed.

I grew up watching TOS, and am a huge fan. All things considered it's probably my all-time favorite TV show. That said, I think it would be creatively wrongheaded and financially suicidal to attempt to replicate the design aesthetic of a 40 year-old science-fiction series. For the new TREK to "live" a certain amount of latitude must be granted with regard to issues like art direction, costume design, SFX technique, etc. Those fans demanding strict adherence to the look, style and continuity of what's come before are liable to be disappointed. No one can replace Gene Roddenberry, Matt Jeffries, Bill Thiess or Alexander Courage, but I suspect Abrams & Co. will do their damndest to be faithful in spirit to the world they envisioned, the themes they explored, and the ideals they believed in.


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

Yahoo!

I see new models in the future?!


Hope it's good.

Rob


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Hmmm, I should start looking for work at whatever studio is doing the VFX!


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

I have heard that small rodents will not see any film with Richard Gere in it :freak: 

*Lets hope for the best!....BB have alraedy killed ST in a bad way....what can be worse?*


----------



## lisfan (Feb 15, 1999)

'Star Trek' Franchise Set for Revival
2008 Film to Be Directed by Man Behind 'Lost'
Reuters
LOS ANGELES (April 21) - More than three years after the last "Star Trek" movie crashed at the box office, the venerable sci-fi franchise is being revived by the director of the upcoming "Mission: Impossible" sequel, Daily Variety reported in its Friday edition. 

Time to Tune Up the Enterprise 


*'Star' Power: *
*· *'Trek' Movies on DVD 

*The Director to Be: *
*· *Abrams' 'Mission' 
*· *His 'Lost' TV Smash 

*Talk 'Trek' *
*· *React to Movie News 






The as-yet-untitled "Star Trek" feature, the 11th since 1979, is aiming for a fall 2008 release through Paramount Pictures, the Viacom Inc. unit looking to restore its box-office luster under new management, the trade paper said. 

The project will be directed by J.J. Abrams, whose Tom Cruise vehicle "Mission: Impossible III" will be released by Paramount on May 5. Abrams, famed for producing the TV shows "Alias" and "Lost," will also help write and produce. 

Daily Variety said the action would center on the early days of "Star Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer-space mission. 

The paper described "Star Trek" as Hollywood's most durable performer after James Bond, spawning 10 features that have grossed more than $1 billion and 726 TV episodes from six series. 

The 10th film, "Star Trek: Nemesis," bombed at the box office on its December 2002 release, earning just $43 million in North America. Last year, Viacom-owned broadcast network UPN pulled the plug on the low-rated series "Star Trek: Enterprise" following a four-season run. 

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

klgonsneedbotox said:


> ENTERPRISE was decent but I think a step back in the "time line" like that is a tough sell unless you have established characters.


It might have worked, but the problem was *Enterprise* never had a "time line."

Their constant time-hopping nonsense undermined the entire idea that the early pioneers of Starfleet were even pioneers - muchless boldly going where no man has gone before.

Instead we were told by B & B that early Starfleet and a boring, bureaucratic federation of the future both survived because of the time - hoping interference from their Big Brothers from the Future.

Enterprise didn't have a "time line." The picture it gave us of the Pre-TOS era was more like one of those ridiculously complicated Chinese string puzzles that most people are more likely to loose interest in and discard before solving it, then any single "time line."

Good episodes made good by good writing without resort to gimmicks like time-travel would have been bold.

B & B are neither that bold nor that talented.

The fourth and last season was unfortunately the best due to the efforts of Many Coto.

It's a crying shame that B & B only dumped Trek in his lap after they knew it was too late for it to be saved.

Had Many Coto had control of Enterprise from the start we would likely still be looking forward to another couple of years of the series.

Instead it is dead and buried.

I sincerely hope this new guy gets Many Coto to help him do this movie.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Actually, people are missing the obvious. It'll be a bad movie because it'll be an odd-numbered one... :hat: 

José


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I have a feeling that in Star Trek 10 B & B were practicing the principle of "Paying it forward." :lol:

So maybe this one will be good after all...


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I dunno, there are so many things that can go wrong with this movie its not even funny. I love the idea of going back a meeting the original crew (or parts of it) at the Academy... but 90% of the sucess of that idea will be in the casting. If its not done just right it will fail utterly... nothing will save it. Not story, not special effects, nada. 

These are characters who are so deeply engrained in our culture and so heavily identified with the former actors that to portray them with other actors has got to be the hardest thing that has ever been attempted on film. Seriously. And Hollywood could so easily screw it up in an attempt to attract some stupid demographic, like teenage girls or something. Could you see Ben Affleck or Keanu Reeves as Kirk? I mean c'mon!

Even if they story rocks... which I hold little if any hope for... they had better cast this right or people won't even give it a chance.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I would think the TOS Enterprise would look like the Capt. Pike days if it is supposed to be when Spock and Kirk first meet. Unless the background story is they knew each other before Spock served with Pike. It's about them in Starfleet Academy? Then whatever ship they use on their first space mission could end up being just about anything. Khan's sleeper type ship design would be cool. But I do like Pike's bridge decor with the black wall panels, etc.


----------



## connon (May 30, 2005)

My first reaction was complete dismay, since I thought that the franchise needed several years of rest before something new was attempted. And then on top of that they hire a mere TV producer who's just now completed his first big film?

But now I'm taking a wait and see position. After all, weren't Harve Bennett (a TV producer) and Nick Meyer (an relatively unknown director) newcomers to Trek when they gave us the best Trek film of them all - Star Trek II?

This could be just what the doctor ordered....


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

I seem to recall reading a book called Star Trek: Final Frontier which dealt with Kirk's early days. In fact, when the fifth movie came out, I thought the story would be based on the book (I wished it was, since Star Trek V was so bad I left the theater half way through the film!). I read the book in 1990 or so and don't remember much.


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

Nova Designs said:


> These are characters who are so deeply engrained in our culture and so heavily identified with the former actors that to portray them with other actors has got to be the hardest thing that has ever been attempted on film. Seriously. And Hollywood could so easily screw it up in an attempt to attract some stupid demographic, like teenage girls or something. Could you see Ben Affleck or Keanu Reeves as Kirk? I mean c'mon!
> 
> Even if they story rocks... which I hold little if any hope for... they had better cast this right or people won't even give it a chance.


There was a thread not long back with suggestions on who could play certain characters. It was very interesting - some of the ones people suggested were spot on, and everyone seemed to agree!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Arronax said:


> Can't wait to see it. I mean if it's pre-TOS then all the effects shots should be done manually with no CGI and green screens. It'll be exciting to see if we can spot the wires the model spaceships and hanging on.


Actually all the _Enterprise_ flyby shots in TOS _were_ done using bluescreen, with the studio model firmly mounted on a stand and the camera doing all the moving. The Irwin Allen and Gerry Anderson shows used models on Lydecker flying rigs (wires and overhead tracks). But I agree, definitely no computer-generated stuff!

A bit OT, but I'm still waiting for a _Making of Star Trek_ TV-movie. So far there have been MOW's about _Batman_, _Gilligan's Island_, and _Three's Company_ — why not _Trek_? Imagine the auditions for the part of the young Shatner/Kirk: dozens of hopeful young actors on an empty soundstage, all doing their best Shatner imitations. Like the Hitler tryouts sequence in _The Producers_.

I know I mentioned this a few months ago, but I'm still waiting!

BTW, doesn't this entire thread belong on the MOVIES board?

IS THERE A MODERATOR IN THE HOUSE?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

For whatever reason, I always thought that Russel Crowe would make a great film version of Kirk-but is even he too old now?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scotpens said:


> BTW, doesn't this entire thread belong on the MOVIES board?
> 
> IS THERE A MODERATOR IN THE HOUSE?


We're not very anal retentive(no offense intended) about that sort of thing around here. We often discuss sci-fi/trek subjects that might be discussed elsewhere, but we might prefer to talk about amongst our own little group.

It might have deserved a slightly OT subject designation, though, as it is only very loosely relatable to 3D and physical modeling - although those topics(very on point to this group) have been discussed in relation to the subject.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

JeffG said:


> For whatever reason, I always thought that Russel Crowe would make a great film version of Kirk-but is even he too old now?


 Russel is 40 this year. Kirk said he was 34 in "The Deadly Years." And obviously, Kirk would be 18 to 22 while at the academy.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Per "Obsession", Kirk's first deep space assignment was aboard the Farragut. The Enterprise shouldn't be involved at all, since this is supposed to take place at the Academy - before we'd even see the Farragut. Course, I doubt continuity will matter once again.

BTW, one of the ships that picked up Ent D's survivors in "Generations" was the Farragut. Nice homage to the late Captain.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

They won't be able to resist tarting things up with cgi, so that things won't look as they should. They can't resist making things 'better'.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

If only John Belushi were still alive, LOL.

Actually, Tim Allen remined me a lot of Kirk in his film Galaxy Quest role.


----------



## The Trekmodeler (Jul 21, 2005)

I can completely understand why many fans would not want to see a "revamped" version of TOS on the big screen but look at it this way, if CGI were available back in the 60s I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have taken advantage of it and used it for most of the FX shots just as film makers and FX companies excessively use it today. Granted staying completely true to TOS would add to the nostalgia but to be honest I would not object to seeing at least some CGI FX here and there just as long as it is blended seamlessly with the other FX.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

scotpens said:



> BTW, doesn't this entire thread belong on the MOVIES board?
> 
> IS THERE A MODERATOR IN THE HOUSE?





Chuck_P.R. said:


> We're not very anal retentive (no offense intended) about that sort of thing around here. We often discuss sci-fi/trek subjects that might be discussed elsewhere, but we might prefer to talk about amongst our own little group.


No offense taken. I was being semi-facetious. I'm not that anal-retentive either (at least, not in the context of these BB's). Believe me, I know the way things work around here by now!


----------



## The Trekmodeler (Jul 21, 2005)

Steve Mavronis said:


> If only John Belushi were still alive, LOL.


LOL! Good reference to that SNL sketch.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I think CGI will be used because supposedly it is cheaper 
than building a physical model and going through all the 
hassle of blue-screening it.

Plus, no "garbage matts" on the video transfer!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

The usual preconception that CG is used because its cheaper just isn't true. The _real_ power of CG is that you can do so many things that you just can't do with real physical miniatures and pyrotechnics. A director of supervisor can take the camera places it can't go in real life without destroying the camera or killing someone. You can blow up a model a hundred or a thousand times without it costing anything but time. You can orchestrate the movement of objects, even pixels, frame by frame to get the exact look you want. Even with a billion dollar budget you could never have that level of control with physical miniatures and pyro. You can ONLY do that in the computer.

You guys would be amazed by how much of what you see is _completely_ digital and you never know it. Its not just used for spaceship models and animated characters. If its done right you would never ever know it wasn't real. The problem is that the Enterprise doesn't really exist and we all _know_ that, so its much harder to be fooled. So whether or not they use CG or a model makes no difference. It could look really good or really _bad_ either way depending on how its filmed/rendered.

Its all in the talent of the team they hire to do create the visuals and the amount of TIME and MONEY they have to do it. Lots of time+lots of money=good quality. _Enterprise_ for example had lots ot talented people, but they were on a TV show budget and a very, very tight schedule. That means no time for certain types of high-end lighting and rendering techniqes that give a much greater sense of realism to things. Same thing with the models. Something that will be on screen ONCE may one get a day or two for its modeling and textures... So sometimes the visuals didn't look so great, even by today's standards. And even on a big budget movie, a lot of the budget goes to promotion and big-name actor and directors salaries. you don't think Russel Crow would easily suck $50 million out of a feature's budget? And guess where that money gets cut from? Visual effects. Sad but true.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

I don't mind if they use CGI so long as they remember that these ships have _mass._

José


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

And short skirts! ;D


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> And short skirts! ;D


Actually, it was established that female crewmen (crewpersons?) wore trousers until just before the beginning of TOS. And even then, there were women in pants in a few of the early episodes.


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

Nova Designs said:


> The problem is that the Enterprise doesn't really exist and we all _know_ that


Well, now you're just talking crazy.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Next you'll be telling us there are no such things as leprechauns!


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

Stop worrying about the ship and how it'll be made.
Characters, plot and acting are whats important. 
In TOS the ship was usualy briefly seen in recycled clips, used as establishing shots in the same way as the exterior of a house in a regular TV show.

I have high hope for what J J Abrams may achieve.

But in the back of my mind I know Paramount are really cheap about how they opperate!

Also it's along way from anouncement to 'product'. There's plenty of time for falling outs and hiring and firing yet. The history of the cinema is littered with many abandoned and mucked up projects.

Jim


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

I disagree. The _Enterprise_ was just as important to _Star Trek_ as the characters. Whether she's featured in this movie can be up in the air, but her value to the franchise should not be diminished. 

José


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Star Trek as it was in the 60's was TV. TV had small budgets and with small budgets came technology that was TV. Look at the movie "2001" made in 1967 and watched in 1968 the same years that ST was on. 2001 watched today doesn't look cheesy because of the budget. The computer still looks futuristic and looks better than the real ones were in 2001. The computers of ST looks dated because of budget constraints. 200 years from now computers will be brains that will think for themselves and WILL be the ultimate computers. The old ST was fine for 1968 but won't hold up today. It's very hard to do ST retro. Look at "Enterprise". They took canon and threw it out the window. It looked more modern than Kirks Enterprise and it was. ST has to be repackaged and made to look like it's 200 years in the future but with the same tones as ST was in 1966. Remember the Klingon's of '66 and the Klingon's on 1979? What a shock, but it was accepted. They tried to sort of explain it away in STDS9 but they played it smart and didn't really explain anything. It may be too late for ST. People have grown tired of it and the Baby Boomers are staying home from the movies these days. Maybe it's time for ST to move to HBO or Showtime or straight to DVD. Who knows. The movies are kinda dying and the mega box office for ST is long gone. The kids control box office these days and ST ain't on their radar.


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Double post deleted.


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

Well since B&B aren't in this it will be very interesting to see how this turns out. I think it just might make it to be a good movie this time.Time will tell.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Not interested in seeing the characters recast, not at all. There'd've been a scintilla of interest if they'd done ACADEMY 15 years ago and cast Slater as Shatner, but even that would have been more for novelty than for good dramatic effect.

This isn't like the hatred issue I have over Craig being cast in CASINO ROYALE, where I feel like pissing in front of theaters running the movie. On this trek prequel, I just don't care (which might even be worse.) If they did the Enterprise-B era, where the sets look better and the timeframe is more inherently interesting (end of frontier/beginning of pseudoutopia), THEN I'd probably be first in line.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I've seen behind the scenes bits from Casino Royale. Let me say that I am a HUGE James Bond fan. My first reaction to Craig was 'nope'. Then I saw him in action and you know what-I think he'll do just fine.

For a part time job-and additional hobby money, I work at a hobby shop. I was talking to one of the customers the other week discussing sci-fi and the new Galactica came up. He said he wouldn't even give it a try. Wouldn't even attempt to watch it because 'it's not like the old show'. I found this disturbing. How do you know you won't like it? HOW DO YOU KNOW if you won't at least chill out and give something a try? I think sometimes we get too caught up in preconceived notions about things. 

I for one are more than willing to give this new Trek a try. If it sucks, then guess what-it'll just be another bad movie. If it's great then it'll still have a shorter lifespan than the buzz before and during it's actual production. As a whole, movies no longer have the lustre or box office staying power they once did. The days of 'Titanic' type blockbusters dominating the theatres for an entire year are long gone. 

From what I can see, Star Trek fans will never entirely be pleased, but as fans of the series we should at least be willing to see what the filmmakers will bring to the table. It could be the best thing that's been served so far. 

On a side note, I'd have to say that while the ship herself is a key part of the story, it should not be the focal point of the story. That should be the characters and situations. Once you start putting gadgets and tech ahead of the characters, you ain't got nothing but Knight Rider or Supercar.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

I didn't care if they did BSG again because except for some effects it was lousy the first time, so anything would be an improvement. Trashing Bond is something they already did with Moore, but they did it with crummy stories that seemed more like pastiche than Bond, so no biggie there. But they dare restart Bond and they kill it with the casting right off? Insane. They've already tried a good actor who delivered -- Dalton -- who also LOOKED the part, and it didn't work. So you do it again, but hire somebody who looks buttugly, like Tim Roth climbed into a telepod with Taylor Negron? as James Bond, f'chrissake?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

For God's sake give it a rest. Your pathological hatred of Daniel Craig has been duly noted. You think he's a hideous, disfigured, pustule-covered freak. We get the picture. Thanks for letting us know where you stand on an OT topic.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Hey, I'm answering the dude. He used caps at one point, he seemed serious about questioning me. I'm not one to duck out on a subject in mid-discussion. Clear enough?


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

JeffG said:


> For a part time job-and additional hobby money, I work at a hobby shop. I was talking to one of the customers the other week discussing sci-fi and the new Galactica came up. He said he wouldn't even give it a try. Wouldn't even attempt to watch it because 'it's not like the old show'. I found this disturbing. How do you know you won't like it? HOW DO YOU KNOW if you won't at least chill out and give something a try? I think sometimes we get too caught up in preconceived notions about things.


 I've been watching the old BSG for reference pictures and to "catch up". All I'll say is that I do not trust my taste as a ten year old.



JeffG said:


> On a side note, I'd have to say that while the ship herself is a key part of the story, it should not be the focal point of the story. That should be the characters and situations. Once you start putting gadgets and tech ahead of the characters, you ain't got nothing but Knight Rider or Supercar.


 I think you and I are on the same page, but I'll clarify my comments by saying that the _Enterprise _is a key component of Trek, but not the only one. You just have to give the ol' girl her due.

José


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> I found out about this a couple of weeks ago but was afraid to post anything until an official announcement was made.


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=129627

I remember finding out about it way back in november of last year LOL


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Agreed El Gato, wasn't trying to diss anybody for liking the old BG. You're also right about the Big E. In fact, IF we see the Enterprise in this movie, it'll be interesting to see how they handle it. I'm hoping it still basically looks the same, but just brought up to film standards with lots of subtle detailing to give it scale and mass. It actually seems wierd to be talking about ideas that are so old that they're new!

I just hope they don't entirely change the look of the ship. Though the Enterprise on the recent TV show was a bit of a design shock (it still looked cool, don't get me wrong), it made you realize that certain ships of the line in Picard's era were actually a throwback in design terms-like a PT Cruiser, Ford GT or the current Mustang are today.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

^ I'll be darned if I don't admit that the treatment given to the USS Defiant in _Star Trek: Enterprise_ did both things that you're talking about: retain the design while adding enough detail to satisfy a current audience. It's hard these days to make both old and new fans something to rave about.

José


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

El Gato said:


> ^ I'll be darned if I don't admit that the treatment given to the USS Defiant in _Star Trek: Enterprise_ did both things that you're talking about: retain the design while adding enough detail to satisfy a current audience. It's hard these days to make both old and new fans something to rave about.


You're exactly right! :thumbsup: 

It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if they were to do the _1701 _like they did the _Defiant_. 

It was my hopes that they would have done that with the _Enterprise _in the first movie before I saw the refit.


----------



## Starship (Mar 21, 2003)

Excuse me, but, after to see MI III, I have serious doubts about the success of J.J. involved in Trek. For me, MI III is just crap. Lost is interesting, but a bit confused too.
I hope that he got the success in bring back Trek to a good level, but, for may taste, Strasinski could be the right choice.
Just my 2 cents. 

To be honest, I would like to see Starship Exeter as a movie.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah, Mi III was pretty much Adams trying to be Wu and failing. It was OK for a mindless action flick... Star Trek is not like that... it will never work as a mindless action flick. Star Trek is ALL about thoughtfulness and intelligence. Especially when you're talking about Kirk and Spock.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> Yeah, Mi III was pretty much Adams trying to be Wu and failing. It was OK for a mindless action flick


Couldn't disagree more. It gave us a bit more humanity in Ethan Hunt and it brought back the team aspect, present in the series, that had been largely missing in the two previous films.

Plus, he created and guided _Alias_. That was a show with a fantastic and fanciful setting -- even mystical components -- that always stayed grounded in the human drama and the humanity of the characters.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

MI2 was a disaster, and although I liked the first one, it wasn't until his work on 3 that the series hit it's mark. If that's any inclination on the ability for him to resurrect a series then buy me a ticket and show me where the line forms.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I really liked MI3! Hoffman was great as was everyone else. Loved the story and the direction. I also thing Lost is great, but not really "for" the masses, in the sense that the masses don't like to be challenged and want instant gratification.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> Couldn't disagree more. It gave us a bit more humanity in Ethan Hunt and it brought back the team aspect, present in the series, that had been largely missing in the two previous films.
> 
> Plus, he created and guided _Alias_. That was a show with a fantastic and fanciful setting -- even mystical components -- that always stayed grounded in the human drama and the humanity of the characters.
> 
> ...


I loved and still love watching reruns of Alias.

But not because it's great TV.

If they took out the hot chick...

the one that they constantly bombard you with a half dozen different images of wearing everything from dominatrix gear to piggytails every 8 minutes...

(in my mind an *almost-should-be-illegal* use of a *not-so subliminal* attention grab that borders on the almost overtly hypnotic. If I didn't like it so much I would be upset with the tactic. :lol

the show would have fallen apart in the first season.

It would have been like The Avengers with the Mrs. Peel!

Lost has given us a few good episodes, but it has become so long-winded and convoluted in it's story telling that it's is rarely now more exciting then it is annoying.

That doesn't mean that the director can't do a fantastic job given good writers and screenwriters.

I'm hoping he does a great job, I just haven't been impressed by Alias yet. Hopefully the movie format won't allow the director to meander the way he has in Lost.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Yeah, Mi III was pretty much Adams trying to be Wu and failing. It was OK for a mindless action flick... Star Trek is not like that... it will never work as a mindless action flick.


I never considered _M.I:III_ a "mindless" film, anymore than I consider _The Wrath of Khan_ to be mindless. Both are successful action pictures with strong themes and well-written characters which manage to deliver a fun ride without insulting the audience's intelligence.

Which is more than I can say for the last few John Wu pictures.

Seems to me the _Trek XI_ nay-sayers have a lot in common with the recent _Casino Royale_ bashers in that they enjoy slamming a film without the benefit of having seen it. Certainly we're each entitled to our opinion, but when it comes to creative stewardship _Trek_ could do (and usually has done) a lot worse than J.J. Abrams.

And for the record, I've never see an episode of _Alias_, nor do I watch _Lost_.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> *>SNIP!<*
> 
> Lost has given us a few good episodes, but it has become so long-winded and convoluted in it's story telling that it's is rarely now more exciting then it is annoying.
> 
> ...


Never watched _Alias_, but have yet to miss an episode of _Lost_. Going by your comments, I'm going to have to guess that you're not watching _Lost_ regularly anymore, Chuck. It's really come around on the story telling. They've answered a LOT of the questions originally posited in the first 3 seasons - I'd argue that a VERY large number of questions. While they're still giving us even more questions, they're also answering questions as they move along. The storylines are still somewhat convulted, but if you simply pay attention and put a little thought in to what's happening you'll be rewarded with answers in relatively short order. 

As Rich said, _Lost_ isn't really for those who want relatively simple television - and no insult aimed at you or anyone else with that. I enjoy shows that I don't have to put a lot of thought in to and can just sit back and enjoy, as well. I also enjoy movies that are more cereberal than the average show on Television right now, too. 

And for the record, I've still not seen MI:3.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Ladies & gentlemen.............................VVV


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

While I actually like that design, I _do not_ like it as a replacement for our beloved TOS 1701. As an older ship from perhaps 50 years earlier, tho, I _like_! Thankfully that's just fan art and not what we will likely be getting if this movie goes forward.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Maybe it's just me, but the more busy and baroque the _Enterprise_ becomes the less aesthetically pleasing it is.

I blame _Star Wars_.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

...and if it ain't baroque, _don't_ fix it!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

^
That's a good one!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Never watched Alias, but have yet to miss an episode of Lost.
> Going by your comments, I'm going to have to guess that you're not watching Lost
> regularly anymore, Chuck. It's really come around on the story telling. They've
> answered a LOT of the questions originally posited in the first 3 seasons - I'd
> ...


I have no problem with Lost' being cerebral.

Nor with it's many intertwining plotlines.

I just think things developed at a lamely slow pace. I had some people tell me during the first and second season about how they thought it was a "fast paced" show, how things were happening so quickly.

I never felt that way about Lost.
Actually just the opposite.

I think a lot of people _confused having a ton of different storylines_ going with things happening at a fast pace.

Lost, during the first two years at least, always seemed to me to be a very slow paced show.

That fact was obscured by their constantly adding new storyline apon new storyline while never going anywhere with the existing storylines.

But every new storyline they introduced seemed to be just as incredibly slow paced as the already existing slow-paced storylines.

Maybe it's improved. I lost interest after a little more then two years.

A TV show can be cerebral, have many intertwining plotlines, and be excellently 
paced all in one.

Look at Babylon 5.

It was very cerebral, had many many many many intertwining plotlines...

but things moved at a tremendously different pace then the seperate(though 
numerous) plotlines on Lost.

Again, at least during the first couple of years, it seemed to me Lost' writers 
were trying to overcome their slow pacing by just starting new - but just as 
slowly paced - plotlines.

Babylon 5 proved that a series could be written that was cerebral, action-packed, and had multiple intertwined plotlines that actually moved and went places.

Lost writers could learn a lot from the writers of Babylon 5 about pacing.

Things happened a bit quicker on Babylon 5, even though many of the issues were "high concept."

I wasn't annoyed by Lost's complexity. It was its slow as molasses pace that bugged me.

Maybe that has changed since the second season or so.

If so I might eventually try to catch up, but I can see myself waiting until the entire series is finished before trusting their writers enough to get re-invested in it.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Babylon 5 proved that a series could be written that was cerebral, action-packed, and had multiple intertwined plotlines that actual moved and went places.


I feel the same way about B5 - that's what made it interesting. And I feel the same way about Deep Space Nine. Some of those plotlines ran through the whole series (the evolution of Nog comes to mind). Of course, DS9 is considered the bastard child of Star trek.

Jim


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

Arronax said:


> Of course, DS9 is considered the bastard child of Star trek.
> 
> Jim


I've noticed that too, Jim. DS9 had some great stories, character developement and a terrific cast. With all that going for it fans act like the series never existed. They'll go on about how great TOS and TNG were and how bad VOY and ENT sucked. DS9 just gets ignored.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I loved 90% of DS9 myself.

In a lot of ways I considered it a return to TOS style story telling.

Although everyone I've said this to has considered me nuts.

I think that DS9, more then any other modern Trek, became about what it means to be human and about the characters.

The other series were often too driven by the technobabble for my tastes.

The thing that I think gives DS9 a bad rap is towards the end the storylines became far too detached and "big picture" oriented. It became grandiose in its themes.

I think that many of the later episodes went off the deep end in terms of being metaphysical to a ridiculous degree.

Though that was a very small number of the total episodes filmed,

I believe that the way they went off the metaphysical deep end towards the end of the series (including a lame attempt to try and turn Cisco into some type of Demi-God) is what turned off lots of fans.

It turned me off too at the time and left a bad taste in my mouth that the series ended that way.

However, when you go back and look at most of DS9 the overwhelming number of episodes were fantastic.

They were character driven but were action packed too. They never drifted(until the end of the series) from being rooted around the central characters, characters that were written and developed much better then were TNG's.

But all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo they piled on towards the end turned people off to the point that people forget that most of the series wasn't like that.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I have no problem with Lost' being cerebral.
> 
> Nor with it's many intertwining plotlines.
> 
> ...


Dude, you don't have to reiterate your point four or five times in the same post. I get it: 

By your standards, "Lost" is slow and B5 was fast-paced. 

By *my* standards B5 had 2-dimensional characters, inconsistant characterizations, plot points that made little sense and - more often than not - some of the lamest dialogue of _any_ SciFi series of the last 20 years. 

Don't get me wrong, 'cause I enjoyed B5, for the most part. However, most of the characters didn't interest me. I felt some sort of emtions when something happened to only a very few of them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Babylon 5's biggest problem was that it had a couple of bad actors that were from the start almost cartoonish and even as the writers developed them continued to be bad and cartoonish.

Those couple of actors often did detract from the storylines. Perhaps the director(s) should have had them written out of the series.

I won't make excuses for that(or Shatner's overacting for that matter). But I don't think that the series as a series had 2 dimensional characters.

A couple of bad actors who must have known someone to both get their jobs and keep them, but I don't agree they were all or even most were 2 dimensional. 

I can't recall too many non-sense plot lines. One or two I hated, I'll grant you that.

But I believe that most of it was well-written, thought provoking, and had characters that were not only interesting but with whom people could empathize.



Griffworks said:


> By *my* standards B5 had 2-dimensional characters, inconsistant characterizations, plot points that made little sense and - more often than not - some of the lamest dialogue of _any_ SciFi series of the last 20 years.
> <snip>
> I felt some sort of emotions when something happened to only a very few of them.


^^^^ Do you really feel this strongly and negatively about all those different elements of the show.

Yet...



Griffworks said:


> Don't get me wrong, 'cause I enjoyed B5, for the most part.


 
^^^Yet you really enjoyed it. Mostly bad acting, character development, stupid plots, characters you mostly couldn't care less about lamest dialogue in 20 years...

Yet you really enjoyed it?


I think there is a chance that like me, you found some of the acting painful, and didn't like some to the many many different directions and plot twists.

I didn't like a good deal of the plot twist that were occuring about the time B5 moved from broadcast to cable TV.

As a matter of fact I thought the series was going down the tubes at that point.

But I still liked most of it. I thought most of the countless plotlines were incredibly inventive and interesting; that most of the characters could be related to and either liked or loved, disliked or hated; and while some of the dialogue seemed ridiculous I think most of that had to do more with the particular actors' delivery then the actual dialogue.


If I hadn't like those things about it I would have stopped torturing myself and not watched it.

I know you're an extremely smart guy - Griffworks. 

You wouldn't have liked most of it, and yet thought it as lame as you paint the series to be all at the same time.

Was it the new version of BSG in terms of incredibly believable and gritty characters?

No.

But what other series has been?


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

I never had any interest in DS9 or B5. There was never anything to either one of them to hook me and keep me watching. I desperately tried to stay with the new BSG, but finally tossed in the towel with the "All along the watchtower" claptrap...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Didn't like the new BSGalactica?

Well...

To each their own.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> *>SNIP!<*
> 
> ^^^Yet you really enjoyed it. Mostly bad acting, character development, stupid plots, characters you mostly couldn't care less about lamest dialogue in 20 years...
> 
> ...


Where - _exactly_ - did I say that I "really" enjoyed it? 

No where. So, please do not put words in my mouth.  

What I _said_ was that I "enjoyed it for the most part". I never went out of my way to watch an episode, but with the SciFi Channel running it as long and as often as they did I managed to catch pretty much every episode that was produced. This was usually done when I was at work and we were slow enough for me to watch some TV over the course of several years. 

So, did I enjoy it? 

Sure, for the most part. It was a SciFi show and there wasn't a whole lot of selection at the time that was at least high in production quality. The CGI ships were great and most of the plot points were pretty well thought out. There were some excellent actors in the show which helped to prop up those that weren't so stellar. 

Did it totally suck? Obviously not or I'd have never watched it. That still doesn't excuse the lame dialogue that plagued at least half of the episodes.


----------

