# Trek Xi Criticism Forum -- Read Intro Before Posting!



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

*Trek XI Criticism Forum -- Read Intro Before Posting!*

_*PLEASE READ:* The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue through which skeptical Trek fans may critique the forthcoming JJ Abrams Trek film without having to fend off charges that we’re being “too negative” from those who can’t handle the criticism. The point is not to create an anarchic Angry Mob climate, but provide a “safe zone” in which the pessimistic among us can critique Trek XI with like-minded fans without fear of being attacked for our views. If you fall into the skeptical category as far as Trek XI is concerned, please post away. If, on the other hand, you believe the new film just might represent A New Hope for Trek fans, please go here…

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235812

*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._


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

I think this was a great idea Carson.

I'm of this group. I would have welcomed a SOMEWHAT modified Enterprise, more along the original with more detailing, rather than the toilet of a ship we are getting. I didn't like Gabe's redesign at all, but would have accepted it better that this. And that bridge? Makes me want to go get a haircut.

As for the cast/story, I'm not so sure. Zachery Quinto almost seems dead on as Spock, I'll grant that. I'd be curious about how much Captian Pike is shown. But in the end if I see it at all, it will be either DVD or Verizon on demand. I'm not going to waste the time in the movies.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

TGel63 said:


> I'd be curious about how much Captian Pike is shown.


He features prominently in the film, and Bruce Greenwood gives a good performance. Problem is, the time travel plot basically erases Pike's backstory as previously set forth in TOS. Whether or not this will be "corrected" in future installments remains to be seen.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Provided there ARE future installments. Guess we will see.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

TGel63 said:


> I think this was a great idea Carson.
> 
> I'm of this group. I would have welcomed a SOMEWHAT modified Enterprise, more along the original with more detailing, rather than the toilet of a ship we are getting. I didn't like Gabe's redesign at all, but would have accepted it better that this. And that bridge? Makes me want to go get a haircut.
> 
> As for the cast/story, I'm not so sure. Zachery Quinto almost seems dead on as Spock, I'll grant that. I'd be curious about how much Captian Pike is shown. But in the end if I see it at all, it will be either DVD or Verizon on demand. I'm not going to waste the time in the movies.



<flame>

Thanks for starting us off. I'm hoping the movie does well but I don't buy any of the CRAP I've read so far for the need of back story changes, updates to characters because this is the 2000's, etc. I'm primarily pissed that they decided they want it both ways, old and new - reboot or re imagining. 

There are fascinating visuals in the new movie and I will see it. I just won't give JJ and Paramount their money until AFTER I've decided its OK. As written before, I think I'll either pay for 'Sex in the City - Part Duex' or wait until it hits the cheap theaters in town. I've never done this before and even went to see that abortion known as Nemesis after swearing off Trek with Insurrection. 

If Nimoy's comments are that ST is dead it's only because they (producers, suits, management, even the actors) killed it. We've only asked for decent treatment of the material. Time and time again they've failed us... 

Should have contracted Will Smith to play Kirk. Thats more updated, right. He could have delivered the same treatment that he did in another 60's remake - Wild Wild West.

</flame>

BTW, 

- I always assumed the corvette sequence was for us, since Shatner used to drive a corvette why trolling for chicks...

- I will be impressed if they show the big 'E' float into the skies during launch or commission like a great Macy's balloon. I have problems if they now are telling me that the ship is capable of this. We all know the reason the 'transporter' concept was brought forth, however now we can just land that bad boy anytime we want to.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I'm starting to look at this as a completely different animal from TOS Trek. It really does seem to be a reboot, and as such, there will be new backstories, etc. And if that's really what it is, then I guess that's what it is. Whether I like it or not remains to be seen (though I'm still not keen on the ship and the bridge).


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Dr. Brad said:


> I'm starting to look at this as a completely different animal from TOS Trek. It really does seem to be a reboot, and as such, there will be new backstories, etc. And if that's really what it is, then I guess that's what it is. Whether I like it or not remains to be seen (though I'm still not keen on the ship and the bridge).


I think that sums it up for most of us.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson wrote in the other Thread...

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.

--------------------------------------
Again, I think this speaks for most of us.

(I disagree with his assessment of MI:3 however. I thought it was interesting but nowhere near as enjoyable as he did. I wasn't surprised when it failed to deliver (past Tom Cruise's paycheck) at the box office.

I don't know whether Abrams is stupid or not. That remains to be seen. At one time, Chris Carter (X-Files) was labeled a genius but I think I passed him on the sidewalk at lunch looking for a handout.

JJ wanted to bring us our version of Godzilla and he delivered with Cloverfield. Maybe he can bring life to the party, but everyone seems to agree that ST:TWOK was one of the best of the breed, so why not examine what made it so successful and return this subject to its roots!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Returning Star Trek to its roots means returing it to television.

And since that's where Star Trek has had its greatest successes, that's not a bad idea at all.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

hubert said:


> ST:TWOK was one of the best of the breed, so why not examine what made it so successful and return this subject to its roots!


Well, part of that film's artistic success has to do with the fact that Nick Meyer had a strong if creatively divergent take on the material, and was given a lot of latitude in terms of departing from the edicts of Gene Roddenberry and the TOS Writer's Guide. Almost twenty years later TWOK has not only been accepted as canon, but is widely regarded as being the best of the Trek films. Back in `85 some of the more ardent TOS fans bemoaned the stylistic and philosophical departure from the more cerebral "let's explore the cosmos" hard science ethos of TOS, but these days it's rare to find a Trek fan that doesn't enjoy TWOK. Why? Because it's a good story, well told.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

I don't know what planet some of you were living on, but I was fairly in to the Sci-Fi scene when TMP and TWOK came out (I still have the old Starlogs if you want a peeing match  ) and I don't remember any controversy surrounding either with the fans.

The main deal with TMP was Brick Price not being able to produce the effects after eating up a huge amount of the time allotted and Trumbull and Dykstra having to split the job to save the day (with wet prints being delivered to the theaters at the last minute).

The only controversy with TWOK was having to change the name from the Revenge of Khan due to Lucas having a fit because of the then titled Revenge of the Jedi. TWOK brought back a classic villain from TOS and allowed the fans to see what a battle between starships, which they could not afford to show us on the small screen, would look like.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

That's true Carson... and I think that the fans would be willing to accept that level of divergence... but this new movie seems to be so far beyond that, that it will be an extremely bitter pill that most fans won't be able to swallow. The time travel plot basis alone has me so disappointed. I was really hoping they would put that at the top of their list of things to avoid.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I have all the old Starlogs too Edge, and I'm having a really hard time finding any negative fan reaction that approaches anything close to what we've seen since Voyager.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Oh and Kirk having a son? Not a surprise character wise, after all the babes, both human and non, he had to pulled his boots on after being with. 

Kirk feeling old, look at him, he was getting there!

The small gaff of Chekov not having been in 'Space Seed', can easily be forgiven or explained away by saying Chekov was on the crew, just not on the bridge crew at that time.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> this new movie seems to be so far beyond that, that it will be an extremely bitter pill that most fans won't be able to swallow.


You may be right, as least as far as us older TOS fans are concerned. It's just too early for me to make that call with any degree of certainty. My gut tells me the fans will forgive _a lot_ continuity-wise once they come face to face with a good story well told, but it's too early for me to be able to tell if XI will qualify in that regard.



Nova Designs said:


> The time travel plot basis alone has me so disappointed. I was really hoping they would put that at the top of their list of things to avoid.


Boy, you and me both. 

Thing is, Trek has, on occasion, used time travel to very good effect in the past, so it's not like it can't be done. Still, I remain very skeptical with regard to this aspect of the plot. I know why Abrams chose to go in this direction (literally bridging the gap between TOS and XI), but I still find it troubling for the same reasons you do.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The original show used time travel very sparingly. It was the Bragaberman that wore out the cliche and bordered on turning Star Trek into Doctor Who.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I have all the old Starlogs too Edge, and I'm having a really hard time finding any negative fan reaction that approaches anything close to what we've seen since Voyager.


Starlog has always been notoriously studio friendly, so I wouldn't be surprised by the lack of on-the-record complaints to be found in its vintage issue pages (and yeah, I too have all my old back issues).

Believe what you will, but the idea of a Roddenberry-less Trek film did not sit well with many TOS fans, and for reasons that are obvious and completely understandable. 

For what it's worth (perhaps not much ) my memory of the controversy stems from angry missives in Roddenberry-friendly fanzines (i.e. "Those Paramount idiots have kicked GENE RODDENBERRY off Star Trek! Roddenberry _created_ Trek! Who does this Nick Meyer person think he is?!," etc). I was also present at many, ah, spirited debates at local (LA area) sci-fi cons in which many an angry fan voiced outrage over Paramount's seeming disrespect of the franchise. And then there was that article regarding fan disharmony in the LA times, an article I cut out and _may_ still have tucked away somewhere. If I can find it I'll be sure to post it.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Edge said:


> I don't know what planet some of you were living on, but I was fairly in to the Sci-Fi scene when TMP and TWOK came out (I still have the old Starlogs if you want a peeing match  ) and I don't remember any controversy surrounding either with the fans.
> 
> The main deal with TMP was Brick Price not being able to produce the effects after eating up a huge amount of the time allotted and Trumbull and Dykstra having to split the job to save the day (with wet prints being delivered to the theaters at the last minute).
> 
> The only controversy with TWOK was having to change the name from the Revenge of Khan due to Lucas having a fit because of the then titled Revenge of the Jedi. TWOK brought back a classic villain from TOS and allowed the fans to see what a battle between starships, which they could not afford to show us on the small screen, would look like.


Right on Edge, I don't have ANY of those old Starlogs nor would it matter. You are correct, wasted money (not Big E redesign) was the only major problem (and reason for TWOK lower budget). I remember the final two E designs and no one complained (and yes we did have electronic BBs back then). 

NM and HB may have had some behind the scenes disagreements with GR on II but not with the fans. Most fans consider this the best work, a return to the nautical theme, the small hints of TOS. It was the first time non-fans told me they liked a Star Trek.

BTW - it was funny that the Naming problem would be moot when Lucas decided that Jedi's don't 'Revenge'...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The original show used time travel very sparingly.


True, but in episodes like Assignment:Earth, City on the Edge of Forever, and that one with the captured Air Force pilot I can never remember the name of, TOS used time travel to very effective ends. My only point being, it _can_ be done well in the right hands, and with the right touch.

Come to think of it, one of the few Next Gen episodes I can stand is Yesterday's Enterprise.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I agree on both counts... I do hope the story is good enough that it can transcend the massive sweeping changes we've seen so far, AND that canon won't matter. I know I for one am really having a hard time with the changes I've both seen and read about. Not so much because of any zero-tolerance attitude for chages to canon, but because of the _types_ of changes and the reasons behind them.

When I see that iBridge, I just cringe. Change it if you must to make it more modern... but it could've been much more like the TMP style bridges and still been quite effective. Hearing that the Engineering decks look like a steampunk nightmare to me is just ridiculous and not very wise. I'm all for making things functional, but lets still at least _try_ to keep it in the spirit.

The changes are so jarring that I find myself distracted by them, to the point of not really paying attention to the sublties of the actors or even the story. 

You know I get these kinds of comments in dailies when I show my effects shots. The CG sup will say, "Yeah that's beautiful, but its too interesting. I think it will distract from the story points in this shot." And they are ususally right... we can get so caught up in the cool factor of our effects that we lose sight of the fact that its not about the effect, the effect is supposed to support the story and not pull you out of it to blow your socks off. (most of the time )

I think maybe the re-designers of this could have taken that particular lesson a little more to heart and keep things closer to what we expect from the TOS universe so we _could_ focus on the story without being dragged out of it by all the discontinuity.


BTW, "Tomorrow is Yesterday" is the ep you were thinking of.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> Starlog has always been notoriously studio friendly, so I wouldn't be surprised by the lack of on-the-record complaints to be found in its vintage issue pages (and yeah, I too have all my old back issues).


I have a bunch of Starlog back issues too from the original days. Back then they were a sci-fi fans best friend. I'm going to have to dig them out of my basement and see if I can find any old TMP stories to review what the first impressions were back then.

I remember I wasn't fond of the 1701-A or its interiors. I didn't like their uniforms either. But at least it was a Star Trek movie after all the years since the TOS series ended and the cast hadn't aged all that much looks-wise yet. (It was cool when NASA named their first drop flight test Shuttle the Enterpise too!) Then the new ship grew on me and my the time of Wrath of Khan (my favorite) I was sold on the new E and the bridge interior looked better too. Also the Reliant was great looking in STWOK.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> "Tomorrow is Yesterday" is the ep you were thinking of.


Thanks. Can't remember that title to save my life. Hell, I've already forgotten it.

With regard to angry fan letters, _Cinefantastique_ was generally less shy about locking horns with the studios over matters of bad publicity, much to publisher Fred Clarke's occasional regret. Alas, since Clarke loathed TOS and avoided covering it, I doubt we'll find any evidence of fan dischord in its pages either.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Hey Steve, didn't it become the -A at the end of Trek IV - Tootsie Roll in Space? Regardless, you are right. The uniforms they used in the TMP, the belt (bio-monitors), the wrist communicators AND THAT PIECE OF CRAP THROTTLE were all 'suppose' to be updates of that older series from the previous decade. They slowly moved back to the old props to where in STIII they had a phaser that was like TOS.

These are stupid (and trivial) examples of changes made for no reason that have hurt the franchise overall.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The fun with Trek and its fans, especially the more hardcore, has been to see the way things fit together. It all tends to draw people in. Fans frequently start out being fairly casual but, after reading and discussing items, the can become more intense and detail oriented. 

The art direction is a very important part of the series of ST series that has kept things tied together. This movie is just plain WRONG on the art direction. Established looks have been _arbitrarily _changed. The fans are not fickle in this regard. 

For example, the uniforms from _TMP_ were not generally held in high regard and they were changed back to something more familiar in _TWOK_ and most fans seemed to really like the new uniforms. 

The reason everything has been changed in this movie is supposedly to update the look. I don't get it. I could understand changing some details. Say, if there were obviously anachronistic details like a wire going from a speaker or microphone on some of the equipment or the insides of the underneath of the communications console or some such were to changed--yeah, that makes sense. But the entire look of the ship has been been changed--for what??

It all comes down to one person in charge wanting it changed. His personal taste has overridden all that has come before. This reeks of an arrogance found only in Hollywood or D.C.

I might be tempted to see the movie just for the story, but then they've gone and put in the usual old time traveling garbage so I can't get excited about that either. WTD were they thinking?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

hubert said:


> Hey Steve, didn't it become the -A at the end of Trek IV - Tootsie Roll in Space? Regardless, you are right. The uniforms they used in the TMP, the belt (bio-monitors), the wrist communicators AND THAT PIECE OF CRAP THROTTLE were all 'suppose' to be updates of that older series from the previous decade. They slowly moved back to the old props to where in STIII they had a phaser that was like TOS. These are stupid (and trivial) examples of changes made for no reason that have hurt the franchise overall.


I forgot that the A designation wasn't there originally. For some reason (I'm getting old) in my head I thought it was always the 1701-A refit. Thats right, I just read the first movie 1701 was destroyed before they made the 1701-A to replace it. My mind is going!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> True, but in episodes like Assignment:Earth, City on the Edge of Forever, and that one with the captured Air Force pilot I can never remember the name of, TOS used time travel to very effective ends. My only point being, it _can_ be done well in the right hands, and with the right touch.
> 
> Come to think of it, one of the few Next Gen episodes I can stand is Yesterday's Enterprise.


I agree about some of the TV episodes regarding time travel being really good. 

I didn't care much for time travel being used in _STIV_ though I liked it okay in _Generations _but then they go and use it again in _First Contact_ and I was totally underwhelmed by the tired old plot (though the movie wasn't too bad otherwise).

I think the point about time travel being, at least on the surface, a not so great idea is the fact that, by now, it has been used _so many times_, especially in the movies, is that we grow fatigued.:drunk:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think the point about time travel being, at least on the surface, a not so great idea is the fact that, by now, it has been used _so many times_, especially in the movies, is that we grow fatigued.:drunk:


Amen.

If you're going to use time travel, you better have either a really fresh take or a really big need (i.e. a story that can't be told any other way).


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It all comes down to one person in charge wanting it changed. His personal taste has overridden all that has come before. This reeks of an arrogance found only in Hollywood or D.C.


Worked for Nick Meyer on TWOK.

Hey, I'm just sayin... :hat:


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think the point about time travel being, at least on the surface, a not so great idea is the fact that, by now, it has been used _so many times_, especially in the movies, is that we grow fatigued.:drunk:


Isn't that the truth... Besides, I think they are trying to pull one with this movie. General public, overseas market, lots of effects... but the most general of the public will have problems with the concept of Time travel (unless done like the Back to the Future movie, which I thought treated TT better than that crap that was ST-IV)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Worked for Nick Meyer on TWOK.
> 
> Hey, I'm just sayin... :hat:


Uh-huh! Just trolling, eh? :jest:

There's a lot about that movie that was probably just fortuitous. For whatever reasons, coincidence or not, it works. It, perhaps accidentally--just due to budget restraints, good wardrobe choices, etc.--brought _Trek _back on track.

I've read about and really liked what Nick Meyer brought to that movie. I also liked _Star Trek VI_ tremendously. There was a really good blend of thinking and action to both movies--great fun. Stylistically, both really fit into the Trek universe and expanded upon it very well.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Uh-huh! Just trolling, eh? :jest:


Good-natured trolling by your well-intentioned and benevolent moderator is allowed.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

hubert said:


> Isn't that the truth... Besides, I think they are trying to pull one with this movie. General public, overseas market, lots of effects... but the most general of the public will have problems with the concept of Time travel (unless done like the Back to the Future movie, which I thought treated TT better than that crap that was ST-IV)


I absolutely LOVE a great time travel story (especially NON-_Trek_ ones) but they have mostly been such cheats in _Star Trek _series', especially as used in _ENT_ as a _deus ex machina_ sort of contrivance, that they usually make me puke now. I can't expect much from the new movie in that regard.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Good-natured trolling by your well-intentioned and benevolent moderator is allowed.


Okay, just for that, I'm going to start a new thread and then close it myself just to be cantankerous! :devil:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Well since time travel is in this movie, all the other times didn't happen because of it. So they no longer count


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well since time travel is in this movie, all the other times didn't happen because of it. So they no longer count


Now _that's_ the best excuse for time travel I've ever heard of! :thumbsup:


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well since time travel is in this movie, all the other times didn't happen because of it. So they no longer count


LOL Steve, you made my night...

I agree with you, PerfesserCoffee, on the time travel issue. It became a cheat so long ago for Star Trek. Personally, I blame this on lazy writing. 

Guys, when I use to really enjoy the Franchise, I read (any) books of the Trek, like some of you. Did any of you every read a short story about kirk, kidnapped at a space port (by the klingons), tortured, minds(h)ifted and sent back to current day earth to be lost forever. He is committed to a mental hospital unaware of who he was. Sounds strange but it was so impressive even to this day how well written that story was (to me). Did anyone ever read that story?


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

*Good Read from Someone Who Has Seen the Clips*

Here is a really good clip from this article:

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

If this film had been called JJ Abrams' Space Adventure I might have walked out of that screening plenty excited, and I think that people with no connection to Trek will probably like this film as a disposable summer entertainment.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

hubert said:


> Guys, when I use to really enjoy the Franchise, I read (any) books of the Trek, like some of you. Did any of you every read a short story about kirk, kidnapped at a space port (by the klingons), tortured, minds(h)ifted and sent back to current day earth to be lost forever. He is committed to a mental hospital unaware of who he was. Sounds strange but it was so impressive even to this day how well written that story was (to me). Did anyone ever read that story?


I do remember such a story, but I while I can't remember the title, I'm sure that story was written and published back in the 70's - when Trek was still young. I've read so many Trek novels over the decades, frankly I'm surprised that one stood out. It must've been the quality of the writing!

Oh my god....I found it! It's a short story - I found it on the net. It's called "Mind Sifter" by Shirley Maiewski:

http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/showcase/show02/showcase-mind-sifter.html

Bryan


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

TWOK was the best as it was the only one with any genuine character growth. With any empathy. Apart from TMP, they were all simple 'adventures', that not only dragged the audience along, but the characters themselves. All the others had their moments of course, but without any deeep connection.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Gemini1999 said:


> I do remember such a story, but I while I can't remember the title, I'm sure that story was written and published back in the 70's - when Trek was still young. I've read so many Trek novels over the decades, frankly I'm surprised that one stood out. It must've been the quality of the writing!
> 
> Oh my god....I found it! It's a short story - I found it on the net. It's called "Mind Sifter" by Shirley Maiewski:
> 
> ...


Thanks Bryan, I'm off to pickup my little girls from 'kids' night out. Then I'm going reading...

-Hue


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Edge said:


> Here is a really good clip from this article:
> 
> http://chud.com/articles/articles/17106/1/STAR-TREK-FOOTAGE-THE-WRATH-OF-CHUD/Page1.html



Wow, that article is great! That guy is definitely on the same wavelength as I am. I'm very glad to see someone who's not a blind worshipper of Abrams and his cabal too. Some "critics' just kiss too much booty for my taste.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Gemini1999 said:


> I do remember such a story, but I while I can't remember the title, I'm sure that story was written and published back in the 70's - when Trek was still young. I've read so many Trek novels over the decades, frankly I'm surprised that one stood out. It must've been the quality of the writing!
> 
> Oh my god....I found it! It's a short story - I found it on the net. It's called "Mind Sifter" by Shirley Maiewski:
> 
> ...


It was originally published in an anthology of short stories in paperback around '73 or '74 I think. I remember it because I have a copy packed away. For a time, from about 1979 well into the '90s I bought the Trek paperbacks and have most of them from the James Blish episode adaptations to 'Spock Must Die' and so on. For the most part, good stuff. I think I'll dig these out and go back and re-read them.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

It was in STAR TREK:THE NEW VOYAGES edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath...IIRC it was stories by fans...


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

deadmanincfan said:


> It was in STAR TREK:THE NEW VOYAGES edited by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath...IIRC it was stories by fans...


Yep that's it. It might have been published as late as '77 or '78. I'd have to rummage to find my copy, but it's an oldie.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Good call, everyone. You are better than the computer... Mine keeps calling me 'Dear' for some reason... I had to re-read this story. When I first read about this new movie, I thought this might have been the story it was based on (I'm still trying hard to stay away from too many spoilers on the new movie). This story would have made a great episode and overall I think it is better written than many 'pro' ST writers. As several of you mentioned, it was before TMP, we were waiting for anything. I believe it was before the first novel Spock Must Die and all we had were Blish's adaptations. 

As we've also stated, it was before the overuse of TT in future ST. 

Although two dimensional, that's just the way I must like my characters. :freak:

I had tears in my eyes just being able to read it again. I was 16 the first time. I felt taken back and more emotional over that short story than I believe I will be over the new Movie. 

Thanks again Bryan, everyone. :thumbsup:

Back to the Criticism... Why were Romulans used again? Just to piss-off the fanbase?


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Ok got to bump in again 



Carson Dyle said:


> Additional info re: the Trek XI marketing and publicity strategy can be found here...
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...de6351ac990e26
> 
> So much for the studio being "afraid" of giving fans a taste of what's in store.



Those are previews held for a selected PRESS audience who apparently are NOT allowed to engage in to discussion with JJ after the viewing! At least I have not read a single summary of the 25 minute preview, where the audience was allowed to ask questions and criticise any of the seen scenes. Apparently JJ never stood tall to hear them out on what they thought about the changes made to characters and porps, but was always giving his “I never was a Star Trek fan” speech and left as soon as he was finished showing the clips! Also no one is allowed to get some footage of the showed material to help underline the rumoured “awesomeness” of these scenes! So I’d say neither JJ nor Paramount are willing to face the fire of real criticism yet! No they are hiding form it! 

So far Paramount and JJ seem to deliberately AVOID the Fans like they are some kind of a disease! Instead of trying to explain why they changed what they changed, they seek the streets like a cheap hooker who desperately needs a client! So Paramount and JJ are trying to catch the eyes of someone, some not sure to attract “Non Fans”. Also how is this campaign spurring interest in the “myspace” and “youtube” crowed? He’s holding 25 minute previews to the press! Not openly to the supposedly “target audience” at some convention or something! To me this shows pretty clearly they ARE being afraid of negative reactions! 


Also why do they have Nimoy in it? What does the Non Fan crowed care about Nimoy being in it? Heck they won’t even know who this guys is when he shows up on that icy planet! This scene will be boring and stupid for the non fans, much like “Casino Royal”s poker scene is stupid to ppl who have no clue how poker works! Therefore, Nimoy is in Trek XI for ONE single reason only: to lure the FANS into this movie!! No other reason! So please JJ, Paramount stop this BS about the new audience and all because it’s not the truth! 

And don’t get this wrong! Am not saying this movie should not attract new ppl and that Star Trek doesn’t need to change to survive. It does need change since it has become lame by repeating itself over and over (NEM was a miserable TWOK rehash and that’s why it failed, we all know this). But I can’t stand this “it’s not made for fans, it’s made for fans of movies” bullshit anymore since obvious things show pretty clearly that this movie IS also trying to appeal to the fans. One such thing I just said: the inclusion of Nimoy as Spock, others are:


- keeping the uniforms the same although they look ridicules in this otherwise supposedly “realistic” setup. 
- keeping TOS sound effects.
- recreating the TOS transpoter room 
- Keeping the Alexander Courage theme. 
- keeping the basic layout of the Enterprise, which non Fans give nothing about, since they can’t even tell the difference between the TOS and iEnterprise. 
- the supposedly inclusion of lots of hints to previous Trek instalments, like..
- Sulus Sword fighting. “Why” asks Billy popcorn “can’t this dude fire a laser pistol?” This scene is a clear reference to “The Naked Time”! 
- a baddy and a TOS character that stem from the original Star Trek timeline, which only Fans will truly understand

etc.

All these things plus what we do not know about yet are all catering to the Fans… but they are not the audience Paramount or JJ seeks.. so why include them? 
Why go through all this trouble to keep TOS and previous Star Trek elements in this Movie alive if this is a movie that is NOT supposed to target the fans? Because neither Paramount nor JJ can afford to lose this guaranteed audience!! But then why are they hitting the fans on the head again and again with not really necessary changes? And am not strictly talking the ship here!! Am talking background information the “non fan” audience doesn’t care about.

Why is Kirk suddenly such a punk? Only so teenage Billy can identify with this guy when he eats his popcorn? Wouldn’t he also be intrigued by a guy that stands for being nice from the start, with no lingering alcoholism involved?

Why is the building site of the 1701 shifted to Iowa? What does Billy and his popcorn care about where the corn field is the ship is build at? So why not keep it at San Francisco?

And these are only two examples. What Paramount is achieving with this crap can be seen on this very board very clearly: they are splitting up their fan base and create unnecessary turmoil!! I guess three little things would have been enough to avoid most of it:

Don’t change the character origin stories already established! 
Keep the Enterprise as she was, but update her to stand out on the silver screen! 
Don’t dump Trek down with action, action, and funny remarks/moments to appeal to the masses like George Lucas did with EP 1-3!


Oh and once more…. Star Trek XI gets virtually NO PR outside Fandom here in Germany! All I found recently was a 10 line paragraph in a TV magazine which had that Pine/Quinto side by side on the bridge shot and it already showed what they think about the flashy design changes by calling the bridge the “iStore Bridge”! Some may see these “iBridge” and “iEnterprise” remarks to be good… but I think we all know it’s not meant in a good way at all. 


Regards


Edit:



Edge said:


> Here is a really good clip from this article:
> 
> http://chud.com/articles/articles/17106/1/STAR-TREK-FOOTAGE-THE-WRATH-OF-CHUD/Page1.html
> 
> If this film had been called JJ Abrams' Space Adventure I might have walked out of that screening plenty excited, and I think that people with no connection to Trek will probably like this film as a disposable summer entertainment.


Thanks for that! It’s refreshing to read a review about those 25 minutes that doesn’t turn from “wtf is JJ talking about?” to “wow... that’s so damn great!!!” in a few paragraphs! And like I said above, he confirms that a dialogue between JJ and criticism of the scenes in his presence apparently is not allowed.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I get so wrapped up in the back-and-forth in the other threads that I tend to forget the "it may be a good story" aspect. Okay, if it's a good story well told, then I may end up half-liking it. Maybe. Half.

But being a Trekkie, Trek modeler, and Trekkie tech-head for 40 years, getting caught up in the technical stuff and the "history" of the Trek universe, I just can NOT get past the horrible, ugly and pointless remodeling of my beloved starship, and the pointless, continuity-shattering use of Romulans as villians.

And I am SO. Fed. Up. With time travel. In Trek. I mean to the point of _anger_. It actually _pissed me off _when I first heard about it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I am with you,John. 
Just hearing that new actors will be playing TOS character, just killed this movie for me. I have never missed seeing a ST movie before, until now!
I might go if they include my favorite SW character, Jar Jar Binks....







.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

hubert said:


> Right on Edge, I don't have ANY of those old Starlogs nor would it matter. You are correct, wasted money (not Big E redesign) was the only major problem (and reason for TWOK lower budget). I remember the final two E designs and no one complained (and yes we did have electronic BBs back then).


Electronic BB's in 1979 and 1982? 

Ok, if you say so. 

Like the all positive reaction of fans to _ST:TMP_, that's not my recollection.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Garbaron said:


> Ok got to bump in again
> 
> 
> Why is Kirk suddenly such a punk? Only so teenage Billy can identify with this guy when he eats his popcorn? Wouldn’t he also be intrigued by a guy that stands for being nice from the start, with no lingering alcoholism involved?
> ...


Doesn't the world want to see barbed wire bound Iowa? The only precedence I can imagine here are that some civil aviation aircraft are still made in (Iowa like state of) Kansas. This fails however, since almost all larger aircraft (think Boeing field outside seattle) are not. The biggest problem is logistics. All subassemblies, parts and suppliers would want easy access. This is what made San Fran (or the Alameda ship yards) more viable, IMO.

Really, I think the Iowa thing is a cheat. The Special effects (from what I know) are much easier on that barren sky line, than filming and replacing (in detail) someone's vision of a city in the future. Same goes for the Paramount desert cityscape on Vulcan. In fact, we'll just copy/paste that rock a few times now...

Kirk as the punk, is more interesting don't you think? Grabbing Uhuru's breasts, a drunk and a rebel make this play better for young Billy and more in the line of 'keepin-it-real', like you wrote. These original characters were something of a vision of the future, almost supermen themselves. They easily could have been comic book characters because of what they represented on the small screen. Why make them more like us? I don't get it. They continue to water down what was. 

TOS was about a journey, striving to be better. We were watching a McArthur of the stars (top of his class), not a Custer (goat of his class) in the making.

Like someone else wrote before, this may be entertaining (and I hope it is) but it is not ST. Regardless of what some have said and all the spin they have tried to put on it, the real ST never died and it has never been shown on big screen, yet. TWOK gave us a glimpse of that world, then it was yanked away. One day someone will make this. I just may not be around to see it.



PhilipMarlowe said:


> Electronic BB's in 1979 and 1982?
> 
> Ok, if you say so.
> 
> Like the all positive reaction of fans to _ST:TMP_, that's not my recollection.


I guess some people didn't know this, but there were computers (think Apple II, TI-99/4a, Commodore Pet (like would be in Kirks place in STII)) back then, along with BB's and Compuserve in the late 70's and early 80's. I remember having access to the HS's Radio Shack models and we joined BB of others when the new movie was coming out. Nothing better than an accoustic coupled 300 baud modem (30 char/sec without correction, yeah baby)


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

*I'm sorry but....*

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. I'm tired of mencing words so here are my thoughts. Canon means nothing to this guy, nor does tradition and the feelings of the old school fan. The ship being built on the ground and now in Iowa should be a sign that there is no thought to even simple things. Kirk was not raised entirely on Earth and he didn't meet Pike until he took over the Enterprise. Now I read the engine room looks like a chemical plant and Scotty is just comedy relief. B&B couldn't have screwed this movie up any worse. I can't believe Nimoy didn't have anything harsh to say during filming. How could this Starship Troopers story have happened? Sorry guys, I won't be seeing this train wreck.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Antimatter said:


> Kirk was not raised entirely on Earth ...


 I never knew that, interesting!



Antimatter said:


> B&B couldn't have screwed this movie up any worse.


 Here I disagree with you. I think they have constantly screwed US and is one of the reasons we are here.



Antimatter said:


> I can't believe Nimoy didn't have anything harsh to say during filming.


I can, Carson (and others in the business know this better than most) - This is one of the most kiss-ass businesses on the planet. Never diss someone, you may end up needing to work with (or rely on) them again. Its part of their 'unwritten' (or maybe written) rules. It's not like the real world. Its all about the showmanship and pumping a product (maybe it is like the real world). Very few make up the 'A' list and egos abound. Now, don't think for a moment people won't stab you in the back afterward if it fails (worse than the real world).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

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


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

hubert said:


> I guess some people didn't know this, but there were computers (think Apple II, TI-99/4a, Commodore Pet (like would be in Kirks place in STII)) back then, along with BB's and Compuserve in the late 70's and early 80's. I remember having access to the HS's Radio Shack models and we joined BB of others when the new movie was coming out. Nothing better than an accoustic coupled 300 baud modem (30 char/sec without correction, yeah baby)


I checked, and you're right, the first official electronic BB debutted in 1978.

You must have been more on the cutting edge than I was, I didn't touch my first computer (a trash-80) till years after WOK, and didn't use one networked till years after that.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> You must have been more on the cutting edge than I was, I didn't touch my first computer (a trash-80) till years after WOK, and didn't use one networked till years after that.


No, not at all. Just a geek growing up. My first personal machine wasn't until the Ti994/A and then the commodore series. Hard to believe (this being typed on a Quad-core 3+ GHz server with 8 Gig of RAM and 5 TB of diskspace)

Hey everyone, check this link out...

http://io9.com/5095255/blame-time-travel-for-kirks-scarred-psyche


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

My first "computer" was a CommodeDoor VIC 20. 300 baud was the rate and programs were on tape, (cassette).


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

John P said:


> I get so wrapped up in the back-and-forth in the other threads that I tend to forget the "it may be a good story" aspect. Okay, if it's a good story well told, then I may end up half-liking it. Maybe. Half.
> 
> But being a Trekkie, Trek modeler, and Trekkie tech-head for 40 years, getting caught up in the technical stuff and the "history" of the Trek universe, I just can NOT get past the horrible, ugly and pointless remodeling of my beloved starship, and the pointless, continuity-shattering use of Romulans as villians.
> 
> And I am SO. Fed. Up. With time travel. In Trek. I mean to the point of _anger_. It actually _pissed me off _when I first heard about it.


As more details come to light about the film I find myself agreeing with John (hey John, room in your camp for one more? :wave

Why do they feel the need to cast aside everything that's already been established about the characters, if not on-screen then in generally accepted and built-upon over the past 40 years Star Trek lore, and reimagine it?

Really have to wonder who the intended audience is - the fans who've stuck with the franchise over the years, or the "wow, space battles and explosions" gee wizz crowd who care not one iota about Trek in general?


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

I for one hope true fans will boycott this abomination.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Antimatter said:


> 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.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Those are previews held for a selected PRESS audience who apparently are NOT allowed to engage in to discussion with JJ after the viewing! At least I have not read a single summary of the 25 minute preview, where the audience was allowed to ask questions and criticise any of the seen scenes. Apparently JJ never stood tall to hear them out on what they thought about the changes made to characters and porps...


Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance in which a film director has decided it would be a good idea to debate the details of an unfinished work with a group of fans. Speaking as a fan myself, I have no such sense of entitlement.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Captain April said:


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


LOL again. Isn't it the truth. 

It would be funny to see if this movie could survive a boycott. I think it would, however. As Carson writes, its all about the demographics and they will start pumping this thing soon enough. They will probably come close to buying their gross (first weekend returns will be high). I won't be surprised if it is in the 50-70m first weekend. However, that alone won't make the movie. This will have to have several weeks running to payoff. As Carson also writes, it will live a second life in DVD sales....


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Since this movie is being made for younger audience, not the fans of TOS, they most likely advertise on I-Pods, text messaging, and other youth outlets. As for the DVD, who needs another coaster?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Earlier today, I managed to see the trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which opens the week before Star Trek, and it looks _*DAMN*_ good. Good enough to easily take the number one spot opening weekend, and not give it up to this half-baked attempt at a Star Trek movie.

And if Star Trek doesn't win its opening weekend, it'll be declared a failure right off the bat.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance in which a film director has decided it would be a good idea to debate the details of an unfinished work with a group of fans. Speaking as a fan myself, I have no such sense of entitlement.



And again you failed to see what the meaning behind what I said was! Mr JJ Abrams so far NEVER discussed the 25 minutes with his audience! He NEVER asked for feedback. And he has NOT yet appeared in front of a Star Trek Fan group to show off for example the 2nd trailer, which alone holds so many things that go against what is known about that time period Trek IX plays at that he should wear a protective flame prove suit to face the fire!

Why? 

Why is JJ not going into dialogue with the press he shows the 25 minutes to? Why is he not stepping in front of visitors of a Star Trek convention and starts talking to the ppl who have helped to keep this franchise a live he is going to continue? Wouldn’t it be far more helpful to get the acceptance of the fans then to push them aside?

But of course you’ll tell me something clever again why he cant do this and that its best for this new trek to not have the fans behind it, since its aimed to restart interested in this series and is attempting to attract new fans old fans be dammed.


----------



## BrianM (Dec 3, 1998)

I'm trying to balance skepticism and optimism on this film. I'm excited to see Trek resurrected. Of course there will be changes. It will be hard enough accepting younger actors in these roles. The "New Enterprise" is another issue. I want to see JJ tell a story, not just action and eye candy. I actually walked out of " MI 3". When Cruise and Zoe tried to run each other off the road, that was it. My intelligence was insulted and I had no desire to see the rest of the film (yes I got my money back). 

Two things make me optimistic. First of all, Leonard Nimoy does not need to do this film. I seriously doubt he would be involved if it was crap. Also, a young JJ Abrams wrote a very fine film called "Regarding Henry". It wasn't a big hit, but was a nice story about personal redemption. I think it was Harrison Ford's finest performance as an actor (not an action star). So, I'll wait and see if the new Trek dissapoints...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I liked _MI:3_ better than the previous 2 _MI_ movies. It was a lot more like the originals in having a true team effort. This is coming from someone who watched all of the original series recently on cable (I never regularly watched it as a kid but did remember several of the episodes). 

HOWEVER, there's nothing to indicate that this _Trek_ movie will be anything like the original series, so I'll probably be taking a pass on it.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

BrianM said:


> Also, a young JJ Abrams wrote a very fine film called "Regarding Henry". It wasn't a big hit, but was a nice story about personal redemption. I think it was Harrison Ford's finest performance as an actor (not an action star). So, I'll wait and see if the new Trek dissapoints...


No offense, but I always thought _Regarding Henry_ was Abram's & Harrison Ford's _Simple Jack_. (_Tropic Thunder_ rocks!)

I think it was Roger Ebert who said, "The movies advertising tag line should be, "It'll make you want to get shot in the head!".


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Garbaron said:


> Why is JJ not going into dialogue with the press he shows the 25 minutes to? Why is he not stepping in front of visitors of a Star Trek convention and starts talking to the ppl who have helped to keep this franchise a live he is going to continue? Wouldn’t it be far more helpful to get the acceptance of the fans then to push them aside?


Well, regardless of what Carson may say, you are correct. He may 'owe' the fans nothing but, in return, we are obligated to nothing as well. Some form of dialog would have been helpful. 



Garbaron said:


> But of course you’ll tell me something clever again why he cant do this and that its best for this new trek to not have the fans behind it, since its aimed to restart interested in this series and is attempting to attract new fans old fans be dammed.


Captain April and Lloyd Collins are correct here as well. Young blood can be attracted into the theater but be careful what you wish for... this demographic is also the largest group responsible for 'sharing' movies on the internet. Make no mistake about it, they MUST HAVE FAN SUPPORT. This movie will not succeed without it. They simply expect fans to submit to their vision (while being vague in public statements). 

Nimoy and Shatner have never had to make public comments before regarding their 'approval' of a ST, the ship design, etc. (Yes, to be accurate, they talked about handoff when Generations came out). This is called backlash. Some of it can be good (i.e. no such thing as bad publicity). I assure you though, if fans quietly didn't support this movie they would be in another familar world, called Hurt.

PerfesserCoffee, what made you like the third over the other two? I thought it was ok and that was it. I ask this again because I asked it in the 'other' thread. The answer from Carson made him sound like that guy they quote every week on Movie numbers - Paul Dergarabedian, president of Media By Numbers - Hollywood Shrill. Sorry Carson


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

hubert said:


> PerfesserCoffee, what made you like the third over the other two? I thought it was ok and that was it.


I always liked the coming together of the "plan" on the original series and it all depended on cooperation from ALL of the players. I detested the first two movies as "MI" movies (though the first one was an okay action flick) due to the superman aspect of Tom Cruise.

The third MI movie was much more in keeping with the series and I really liked the adversary in this one and really got into the flick. It was still action oriented, of course, but kept enough of the structure of the series to make me enjoy it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

So, Zephram Cochrane was a carousing ols alky, which supposedly made him a more interesting character than the square-jawed Glenn Corbett version.

Now Kirk is a carousing young alky, which is....

Not exactly original.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

hubert said:


> > Originally Posted by *Antimatter*
> > _ Kirk was not raised entirely on Earth ..._
> 
> 
> I never knew that, interesting!


When Kirk was around 12, he was living on Tarsus IV, when Governor Kodos executed half the population. It was there and then that Kirk's parents were killed. See "Conscience of the King."


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Edge said:


> I don't know what planet some of you were living on, but I was fairly in to the Sci-Fi scene when TMP and TWOK came out (I still have the old Starlogs if you want a peeing match  ) and I don't remember any controversy surrounding either with the fans.


There was all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the death of a major character. A script was leaked and some fans went ballistic. Lots of 'lets boycott the movie' and 'I'll never go see this' talk. LOTS of it. this all evaporated the day the movie came out.

I suspect this little bit of fan history will be re-written next May.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

hubert said:


> - I will be impressed if they show the big 'E' float into the skies during launch or commission like a great Macy's balloon. I have problems if they now are telling me that the ship is capable of this. We all know the reason the 'transporter' concept was brought forth, however now we can just land that bad boy anytime we want to.


Someone please indicate to me exactly where the Enterprise has thrusters capable of lifting that mass off the ground, much less the how it survives the effects of gravitic stress upon the secondary hull bearing the weight of the saucer and nacelles. . . Roddenberry ran scripts by advisors as to the scientific validity of story concepts. As with today's culture, this 'reboot' looks to give science, engineering, education, and TOS canon the middle finger. America is far too 'dumbed down' as it is. 

Howard Beale was right, and omg this was 32 YEARS ago !!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> And again you failed to see what the meaning behind what I said was! Mr JJ Abrams so far NEVER discussed the 25 minutes with his audience!
> SNIP
> Why is JJ not going into dialogue with the press he shows the 25 minutes to? Why is he not stepping in front of visitors of a Star Trek convention and starts talking to the ppl who have helped to keep this franchise a live he is going to continue


I don’t know, maybe it is the language barrier, but from my perspective you’re the one who isn’t listening to what’s being said. I’ll give it one last shot.

You seem to think filmmaking is a democratic process in which the audience should be allowed to provide “feedback” during production and post. Given the obvious fact that no two Trek fans can agree on anything, this would be an invitation to disaster. Surely you can see that.

By treating the press and a select audience of fans to a work-in-progress, Abrams and Paramount are gambling the footage will prove appealing enough, or at least interesting enough, to generate the sort of advance buzz that will put butts in seats on opening weekend. The fact that Abrams has chosen not to engage in a post-screening debate or discussion simply means he’s decided to let the footage speak for itself. 

As the release date nears, and especially after the film is finished and in theaters, I’ve no doubt Abrams will “stand tall” and discuss his artistic choices in detail. At this stage however, it’s just too early to do so.



hubert said:


> PerfesserCoffee, what made you like the third over the other two? I thought it was ok and that was it. I ask this again because I asked it in the 'other' thread. The answer from Carson made him sound like that guy they quote every week on Movie numbers - Paul Dergarabedian, president of Media By Numbers - Hollywood Shrill. Sorry Carson


The word is “shill.” 

Sorry for being unable to answer your question in terms you could understand. To be honest, I’m not even sure which question you’re referring to, but based on the above remark I probably shouldn’t have bothered.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> The fact that Abrams has chosen not to engage in a post-screening debate or discussion simply means he’s decided to let the footage speak for itself.


Nope don’t agree! 

I know that filmmaking is not a democratic process. But if you show your work in progress to the public you do it for ONE reason only: you want to get feedback if what you did is good or bad! So you can still change things that did not hit with your audience! Simply showing off without accepting criticism to me is exactly that… showing off, as in bragging, patting ones own should, fishing for a compliment… that sort of thing. 

And the reason why JJ isn’t staying for a debate is a very simple one, he even gives it at the beginning of the presentation: he never was a Star Trek fan! As in, he doesn’t know what he is dealing with! He doesn’t really know the facts and Fans in the know would roast him if he engaged in a debate why the ship looks so different and why the building site was shifted to Iowa. IMO he simply could not give a plausible explanation! Since there is no real reason because these things have been changed for the sake of change! And to avoid this kind or public demolition … he simply leaves!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Not wanting to necessarily engage in the debate - but, isn't it possible that in the context of the film, that all of the "canon" history of the original Star Trek timeline did indeed take place, but the Romulan incursion into the past has altered it to such a degree that the movie timeline has been fractured and disrupted to the point that "historical" events have been shaken and juxtaposed, resulting in out-of-order and alternate sequences of events taking place that are totally "wrong" to the fan viewing the film, but through the course of events in the storyline, would end up being "restored" by the end of the movie. It would then conclude with the restoration of the established "canon" timeline and the crew would be shown at the end in their classic uniforms, on the classic bridge, of the classic ship. All would then be just as it should.

Perhaps?


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> The word is “shill.”
> 
> Sorry for being unable to answer your question in terms you could understand. To be honest, I’m not even sure which question you’re referring to, but based on the above remark I probably shouldn’t have bothered.


Thanks. I've got to get a spell checker on this thing... don't take it personnally. It's just you started spinning the 'overseas sales thing, the DVD sales thing then did an about face with Blade Runner and The Thing ... uh... thing.':freak:

I'm always glad you answer and am just poking fun....



PerfesserCoffee said:


> I always liked the coming together of the "plan" on the original series and it all depended on cooperation from ALL of the players. I detested the first two movies as "MI" movies (though the first one was an okay action flick) due to the superman aspect of Tom Cruise.


Thanks, that's the most valid reason I've read and was the most enjoyable aspect of the original series...



John P said:


> So, Zephram Cochrane was a carousing ols alky, which supposedly made him a more interesting character than the square-jawed Glenn Corbett version.
> 
> Now Kirk is a carousing young alky, which is....
> 
> Not exactly original.


Thanks John, I would have never remembered it but I still believed you...



RonH said:


> Roddenberry ran scripts by advisors as to the scientific validity of story concepts. As with today's culture, this 'reboot' looks to give science, engineering, education, and TOS canon the middle finger. America is far too 'dumbed down' as it is.


But you aren't suppose to think, remember. This is a 'Feast for the Eyes' kind of movie... (I agree with you)




Trek Ace said:


> ... would end up being "restored" by the end of the movie. It would then conclude with the restoration of the established "canon" timeline and the crew would be shown at the end in their classic uniforms, on the classic bridge, of the classic ship. All would then be just as it should.


I would exclaim 'genius' but a quick look at the cast/crew designs really shows me that they are interested in a series of movies based on this look. Besides, JohnQpublic would be thrown by that kind of ending, the suits at paramount would throw it out because it wouldn't work well with test screenings, blah, blah, blah...


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Not wanting to necessarily engage in the debate - but, isn't it possible that in the context of the film, that all of the "canon" history of the original Star Trek timeline did indeed take place, but the Romulan incursion into the past has altered it to such a degree that the movie timeline has been fractured and disrupted to the point that "historical" events have been shaken and juxtaposed, resulting in out-of-order and alternate sequences of events taking place that are totally "wrong" to the fan viewing the film, but through the course of events in the storyline, would end up being "restored" by the end of the movie. It would then conclude with the restoration of the established "canon" timeline and the crew would be shown at the end in their classic uniforms, on the classic bridge, of the classic ship. All would then be just as it should.
> 
> Perhaps?



Ahhh the 'Monster a Go-Go' approach. After having the viewer sit through a 2 hour 'experience', tell them in the last 2 minutes that it all didn't happen. Brilliant! /s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_A_Go-Go


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Edge said:


> Ahhh the 'Monster a Go-Go' approach. After having the viewer sit through a 2 hour 'experience', tell them in the last 2 minutes that it all didn't happen. Brilliant! /s]


Sounds about like every other episode of Voyager!


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Boy, I never thought I'd say this, but as the discussion goes on about this movie, and valid points are made concerning potential pros and cons about it, I find myself caring less and less about it. I may or may not see it in the theatre. But the one thing I am certain of is that for me (and please note that said "for me"), "Star Trek" 1.0 will always be the Trek of the 60s and even the movies. This will be "new" Star Trek, or Star Trek rebooted, of whatever. And it may thrive and do well - that's great if it does. 

But here's the thing. I liken this whole thing to taste in music. I will never, ever like a lot of the music that's pumped out today. Doesn't mean that music doesn't have artistic merit (though some certainly doesn't have much), but it's not my music. This new movie, with its Enterprise and Pine, Quinto and Urban might be fine (or not) to a whole new generation. I just don't think it will ever really be my Trek. It's a new tune, for a new generation. We'll see if they like it, or even if the new and old can like it together.

"My" Trek is the TOS trek (and even some of the later Trek series, set in THAT universe). If I don't like the new stuff, but many people do, I guess that's okay. Nothing I can do about it anyway. If I don't like it, I'm sure JJ and co won't lose any sleep over it. But if I do like it, then I'm sure they'll be okay with that too.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

So Kirk was never off-world (no Kodos) and never served on another ship (_Republic_ or _Farragut_). Guess he doesn't have a god-daughter named after him now (Jamie Finney) and never hesitated in firing at the cloud creature that killed Capt Garrovick.

And where's Gary Mitchell? He took a couple of poison darts meant for Kirk.

This is starting to sound like the Smallville version of Star Trek... (I don't want to say it's an alternate universe).

At least we've still got TOS-R.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> I know that filmmaking is not a democratic process. But if you show your work in progress to the public you do it for ONE reason only: you want to get feedback if what you did is good or bad! So you can still change things that did not hit with your audience!


While it's true studios often screen unfinished films for test audiences in order to get feedback, the point of screening the Trek XI footage was to generate positive advance word-of-mouth. Period.

Peter Jackson used the same tactic to create buzz over the first LOTR film. This sort of thing can be risky, because if fans don't like what they see the approach can backfire. In the case of Trek XI (as with LOTR) the studio had enough faith in the material to take that chance, and it appears to have paid off. Not _here_ of course, but the fact remains plenty of Trek fans have liked what they've seen -- at least enough to maintain a wait-and-see attitude.

Test screenings, by contrast, are not conducted in order to publicize movies (far from it), which is why reporters are not invited. When the time comes, Paramount will no doubt test screen Trek XI, but those expecting radical changes (like the sudden appearance of the TOS Enterprise) are likely to be disappointed.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

LOTR also had the advantage of having so many hardcore fans of the books on hand, not just Jackson, but a number of the cast members (most notably Ian McKellan and Christopher Lee; Lee even goes so far as to point out the proper pronunciation of "Gandalf" in the DVD extras).

In this case, we've got a director who practically brags about how he was never a Star Trek fan (gee, _that_ sounds familiar...Brannon Braga, anyone?) and a couple of writers whose fan credentials are seriously in question, thanks to their putting the entire timeline into a Cuisinart and calling it a screenplay that "honors canon."


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

John P said:


> When Kirk was around 12, he was living on Tarsus IV, when Governor Kodos executed half the population. It was there and then that Kirk's parents were killed. See "Conscience of the King."


Don't mean to pick you up on this John, but are you sure his folks were killed there?
IIRC fandom (and some of the novels) had it that Kirk's father was on a ship that disappeared without a trace when JT was a kid, and that his mother carried on living at the family farm in Iowa.

Of course I may have missed the line about it in the episode


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> Not wanting to necessarily engage in the debate - but, isn't it possible that in the context of the film, that all of the "canon" history of the original Star Trek timeline did indeed take place, but the Romulan incursion into the past has altered it to such a degree that the movie timeline has been fractured and disrupted to the point that "historical" events have been shaken and juxtaposed, resulting in out-of-order and alternate sequences of events taking place that are totally "wrong" to the fan viewing the film, but through the course of events in the storyline, would end up being "restored" by the end of the movie. It would then conclude with the restoration of the established "canon" timeline and the crew would be shown at the end in their classic uniforms, on the classic bridge, of the classic ship. All would then be just as it should.
> 
> Perhaps?


It is my understanding that this is the general idea of the plot, yes.

The destruction of the Kelvin appears to be the focal point where TOS Trek and JJTrek diverge. But as the "Spock on icy planet meets Kirk” scene suggests, old Spock does nothing to restore the original timeline. Perhaps he can’t for some reason. So he ensures that James T. Kirk, a pain in everybody’s bud to this point, takes command of the Enterprise. 

So this movie does not end with the reset button, as you suggest, but leaves all the changes in tact but manages to get the 7 Samurai in position they where meant to take. 

If the movie is successful it might lead into a new series (TV or theatre) using this new designs and cast. If it tanks, they can still make one more movie with this gang that saves the Kelvin and by this re-establishing the original timeline.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Frankly, the look of the Kelvin would imply that any screwing up of the timeline happened a lot further back than Nero's machinations.

As far as Kirk's time on Tarsus IV goes, the only thing that's been established is that he was there when Kodos did his little "heads you live, tails you die" routine, and while it might be a bit unusual for a thirteen year old to be offworld without his parents around somewhere, in Star Trek's world, it wouldn't really be any different than sending your tyke off on an elaborate overseas field trip today, which happens all the time (and when things go very very wrong, it makes the news). Parents back home, ready to welcome back their traumatized little munchkin and help him deal with the memories of having a ringside seat an a global genocide.

In fact, that's pretty much the approach that Shatner took in his last novel.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

RonH said:


> Roddenberry ran scripts by advisors as to the scientific validity of story concepts. As with today's culture, this 'reboot' looks to give science, engineering, education, and TOS canon the middle finger. America is far too 'dumbed down' as it is.


For the record, the science advisor for this movie is NASA's Carolyn Porco.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24728
As for America being dumbed down...step into my classroom, and you'll find a large number of very bright young people...scary bright.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> LOTR also had the advantage of having so many hardcore fans of the books on hand...
> SNIP
> In this case, we've got a director who practically brags about how he was never a Star Trek fan (gee, _that_ sounds familiar...Brannon Braga, anyone?) and a couple of writers whose fan credentials are seriously in question...


The suggestion that Trek XI would be better if directed by a "fan" is pretty iffy IMO. I've seen some of those fan films, and while the production values can be impressive the writing leaves _a lot_ to be desired.

Point being that a writer/director's talent will ultimately have a greater bearing on a movie's artistic value than his fan credentials (which is why a non-science-fiction fan like Stanley Kubrick was able to make the best science-fiction movie ever made). 

As for Trek Ace's timeline question, Trek XI gives no indication of Nero's incursion having the sort of wide-ranging effect he suggests. Of course, that's not to say this won't have proven to be the case by the time Trek XII rolls around (if it ever does).


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

mikephys said:


> For the record, the science advisor for this movie is NASA's Carolyn Porco.
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24728
> As for America being dumbed down...step into my classroom, and you'll find a large number of very bright young people...scary bright.


Mike, I don't doubt you have some very bright people in your classroom but that's not the target Ron was addressing (but you knew that). I see it all the time and I'm amazed. Most people get 'dumb' around tech, for instance. They can use a computer but can't understand how a computer works. 

One of my favorites is a of a Dr. / Astronaut I work with. He brings a thumb drive over asking why he can't read his files. The thumb drive has about a 45 degree angle on the connector (he stepped on it). Stupid but true. 

One of my favorite Byte Magazine covers was artwork of the crew of the TOS standing around a guy trying to figure out a PC.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RonH said:


> Roddenberry ran scripts by advisors as to the scientific validity of story concepts.


That explains Spock's Brain.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> That explains Spock's Brain.


Ummm Roddenberry had walked away at the end of the 2nd season . . .


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Can't say I blame him.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

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

Interesting! Shatner thinks the new ship is just fine. He seems so benevolent and generous regarding a movie that he's not actually in. Of course, he's probably hoping that everyone forgets that he gets a "piece of the action." IIRC, he is part owner of the original series as part of his contract to get him as the lead in the show back in the sixties.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> That explains Spock's Brain.


Legend has it that Gene **** wrote that as a joke, which Fred Freiberger didn't get.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Nimoy's role in the movie, is that he wake's up at the end of the movie, and says while shaking, "Only a dream, only a dream."


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> I don’t know, maybe it is the language barrier, but from my perspective you’re the one who isn’t listening to what’s being said. I’ll give it one last shot.
> 
> You seem to think filmmaking is a democratic process in which the audience should be allowed to provide “feedback” during production and post. Given the obvious fact that no two Trek fans can agree on anything, this would be an invitation to disaster. Surely you can see that.
> 
> ...


What do you do? Script writer? I see no Carson Dyle in imdb.com.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> So Kirk was never off-world (no Kodos) and never served on another ship (_Republic_ or _Farragut_). Guess he doesn't have a god-daughter named after him now (Jamie Finney) and never hesitated in firing at the cloud creature that killed Capt Garrovick.
> 
> And where's Gary Mitchell? He took a couple of poison darts meant for Kirk.
> 
> ...


Yea, where is Mitchell?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Antimatter said:


> What do you do? Script writer? I see no Carson Dyle in imdb.com.


Carson works in marketing, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong -- not that _that_ ever happens!). And "Carson Dyle" is no more his real name than "Antimatter" is yours (I hope). It is the name of a character from the 1963 Stanley Donen film _Charade_, which starred Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, Walter Matthau, James Coburn and George Kennedy -- among others.

For the significance of the name, either see the film or read its entry on Wikipedia.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Just for that, I'm going to stop calling him "Car" for short!


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Antimatter said:


> Yea, where is Mitchell?


He was a figment of your imagination, don't you know that by know. 

Stop Questioning...
Start Following...

Just Kidding. 

I don't know why the other side (forum thread) seems to take this personally. I expect the movie to be entertaining and believe most of us expect the movie to do well - we just don't like being screwed with. 

My opinion - most of their 'threats' such as 'you'd better support (certainly not question) it or we'll get nothing more in ST land' have brought us here. It's allowed the studio/production houses to shovel an almost endless series of TV episodes and movies, most of which were crap. We should have stood up before now and made our collective voice heard. Got that 'Bogie'?


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Antimatter said:


> What do you do? Script writer? I see no Carson Dyle in imdb.com.


Rent 'Charade' with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Nimoy's role in the movie, is that he wake's up at the end of the movie, and says while shaking, "Only a dream, only a dream."


 
*Star Trek: The Dallas / Bobby Ewing Years*. Spock has a shower...


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Captain April said:


> In fact, that's pretty much the approach that Shatner took in his last novel.


Which one? Haven't read anything newer than _Captain's Peril_. Think that was the one, where his son is revered as the new Shinzon.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

mikephys said:


> For the record, the science advisor for this movie is NASA's Carolyn Porco.
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24728


That's a good sign! I've been kind of a fan of Dr. Porco since the Voyager missions.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oh, and, I can't say I really care whay Shat and Nimoy think of the design of the ship. I doubt they ever really cared about things like that. It takes a Trek model builder and blueprint lover to get this worked up.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

In the other thread, someone kindly pointed out a review (of the JJ Tour) that is useful.

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

He compliments the cast, writing that they did a great job...

He complains about the iBridge...

He writes that the rest of the ship reminds him of the Titanic...

He states that the film looks expensive and epic compared to almost any other ST movie...

All things we knew. 

He complains that the other movies suffered from pitiful budgets (except for TMP). So JJ's been given the budget we would have loved being given Nicolas Meyer or other competent director. To be fair, its not JJ as much as the writers hired for this project that disappoint me. Maybe they're friends of JJ (it's pointed out that he is intensely loyal).


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

If they had made the movie to take place, after NG time line, with new crew, I could except this movie. I had no problem with NG. I was really forward to it in 1987, because it was all new crew and ship in the TOS future. Sure Kirk and crew is well known all over the world, but their time has gone. 

I still like the new ship, but it ain't pre-TOS, so if a model comes out, I will rename it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> So, Zephram Cochrane was a carousing ols alky, which supposedly made him a more interesting character than the square-jawed Glenn Corbett version.


I can watch "First Contact" but James Cromwell's version of ZC makes me want to nearly puke every time. It's not so much the fact that he was re-imagined but the fact that they re-imagined him *that* way! :drunk:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

BTW: On the other thread whose name shall not be spoken, my comment about the movie "reeking to high heaven" was quoted as if I were jumping the gun in judgement on how the film will perform (not that there's anything wrong with that). 

For my own pursuit of clarity, I'd like to point out that there is an "If" at the beginning of that statement--no declarative statement was intended--a purely conditional statement was meant as should be obvious.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I can watch "First Contact" but James Cromwell's version of ZC makes me want to nearly puke every time. It's not so much the fact that he was re-imagined but the fact that they re-imagined him *that* way! :drunk:


I should have written that the biggest problem I have is the way they (producers/studio) have trashed our future time line, so the past was the only thing we had left. 

Perfesser, I agree with you. Bumbling, drunk ZC made me feel the same way. His age, the 'location' where a warp ship were developed and that the vulcans are shown discovering us were all a huge mistake. It was ZC's 'discovery' that allowed us to travel much further than before, NOT join some 'nuclear/warp' boys club. This is an example of an entertaining movie, that is remembered and that SCREWED canon. 

I think they just screwed themselves for no reason on that. I mentioned this before on another thread (where the chastising started) but it doesn't matter. There was a reason why the (entire) series has a US military theme, with (at least) starships built on or around earth. 

I expect JJ's movie, since it has a much greater budget to be something like a super version of FC. In 10 years from now, we will remember it fondly. We will still have the problems that we have with First Contact. Now with this movie, they also have an additional problem - why would earth be building the battleship of the fleet ... in Iowa (ass of the universe) when we should be using some other facility as established in FC. These are the reasons I stopped caring about trek many years ago. The flippant treatment of the material has brought us the crap we've deserved and made trek irrelevant today.


I also saw your quote on the other thread, taken entirely out of context mind you. It's to be expected and the reason (sing it with me ... 'If you don't accept it, we'll get no more ST') why we are, where we are. I went fishing yesterday and caught a carp that had been in our pond. I threw it back...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Good points, Hubert--especially the ones where you agree with me 

I had always thought of a much more positive future involved in _Trek _implied from the original series. Despite wars alluded to after the 1960s and before the 2260s, it seemed that man had made overall progress in the technical and getting along departments. To have been suckled by a bunch of Vulcans as shown in_ ST:ENT_ was quite insulting--another reason that show reeked and it was canceled.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Oh, and, I can't say I really care whay Shat and Nimoy think of the design of the ship. I doubt they ever really cared about things like that. It takes a Trek model builder and blueprint lover to get this worked up.


Yep! Shat and Nimoy just don't have the_ bona fides!_ 

They are (seriously) rank amateurs compared to a lot of folks on this board.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> Carson works in marketing...


For the record, I'm creative director at an ad agency. 

And, no, "Carson Dyle" is not my real name.

And, yes, Charade is a terrific flick.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

COMMENTS DELETED Not really!


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I had always thought of a much more positive future involved in _Trek _implied from the original series. Despite wars alluded to after the 1960s and before the 2260s, it seemed that man had made overall progress in the technical and getting along departments. To have been suckled by a bunch of Vulcans as shown in_ ST:ENT_ was quite insulting--another reason that show reeked and it was canceled.


You are 100% correct on that. That was part of the allure of TOS and (unfortunately) for now, is the only evidence we have left.

Bogie, in the other thread stated we are revisionists over here. I don't buy it. We are strict constitutionalists (pun intended). I do agree with him that the Motionless Picture was slow. However, he seemed to forget that it was a space opera and more of the way some were made in 1979. It was ST however, regardless of the problems already discussed. It also made a huge amount of money. Most of those fans are still there. The new movie will have to make around $450 million to top what TMP did. 

Here is another real story... involving two of my closest friends. They enjoyed the trek and all was good. They became bigger fans of TOS because of TMP and TWOK. I'm talking rent/buy the VHS tapes for review kind of fan. Again, all was good.

Then ST:V came out...

Trek lost one (he walked out of the theater) 30 minutes into the movie (heresy, I would at least sit through it). Afterward we found him in the lobby of the theater and he explained his reasons. He was right. He didn't need to see any more. 'Heros' of TOS don't sit around campfire telling fart jokes and singing 'row, row, row your boat'. He has never seen another trek movie in the theater since. 

Trek lost the other, Perfesser, over our very point of contention with the story changes of ZC. Couldn't stand it. He doesn't watch ANY Star Trek movies, period.

Finally there was me. After wanting my money back for watching 'Insurrection', I also gave up on Trek. I had heard the small voices singing 'If you don't accept it, there will be no more ST' for too long. I could defend (at least to myself) ST no more. ST had 'jump the shark', and there was no going back. It was dead in my eyes. My friends were right. I no longer cared if they made another movie, no longer tracked its progress or went those opening nights. I could no longer be proud of what it was or stood for. There was no more talking about the subject. 

Wow! Got it Paramount? People who used to see a Trek movie 3 or more times in first run, now zip. People that had the money to spend hundreds (or even thousands) on props, models, etc. Gone. This is just from one person's perspective. I can only imagine how many times this occurred...



John P said:


> Oh, and, I can't say I really care whay Shat and Nimoy think of the design of the ship. I doubt they ever really cared about things like that. It takes a Trek model builder and blueprint lover to get this worked up.


Amen, brother.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

_ST:TMP_ was slow. I knew it then but there was enough excitement for me that I took a buddy of mine who was going through some tough times to go see it and we both (I for the second time) enjoyed it anyway. It was good stuff, good entertainment. 

I remember one of the reviews of it in one of the many books being printed at the time (_Best of Trek_ I think) said the best way to look at _ST:TMP_ was that it was another episode. Surely there was better to come and all was not lost. The author was right. There were things wrong with the movie but, on balance, a heck of a lot was right with the movie as well.

But, of course, all that was in the context of keeping everything in context. If you go and change everything around what is the fall back position? Turn off a serious portion of the fans and what is gained? If it works, maybe everything. If it doesn't work so well, there could be catastrophe. 

That's why this whole "change for the sake of change" just doesn't make sense to me. If you appeal to the fans AND make a great movie with mass appeal as several of the movies have done, you've got a winner and new fans IN ADDITION to the old fans. I haven't heard of ANY hardcore fans here that have said the new movie should have ridiculously archaic features of the old series. But that could be easily cured without a huge reset button being pushed.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ... I haven't heard of ANY hardcore fans here that have said the new movie should have ridiculously archaic features of the old series...


And you won't!



Lloyd Collins said:


> ...I still like the new ship, but it ain't pre-TOS...


And it's not. 

I like anything well designed and so far like this. It is not a predecessor to TOS Enterprise, however. Several of us have problems with it. It looks like something afterward. Hell, the TOS Enterprise probably shouldn't even be built until Kirk was commissioned (and probably on another ship). Its thrusting the characters (and the big 'E' is a character) together for no reason (other than convenience) that I have qualms about. This is truly a re-imagination, re-boot or new origin story. But they've kept the crap that will make the fans show up right... uniforms, red-alert Klaxan, etc. 

That, as Perfesser has correctly pointed out, is an 'abomination'.

Looks like it's just me and you Perfesser...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I would have had no problem with this one from Vektor:










Full size here:
http://www.vektorvisual.com/projects/TrekXIEnt/gallery/wip_002.jpg

More of his fine work here: http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/3d-wips/37615-conjectural-trek-xi-enterprise.html

But then, the interiors they've used in the new film suck as well.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I would have had no problem with this one from Vektor:


That's certainly more along the lines of what I was hoping Abrams would go with. I know why he didn't stick closer to the TOS design (he listened to the wrong people), but in this instance it was a bad call IMO.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Has it been made public who the individual(s) was who designed the XI reincarnation of the 1701?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Yes, Ryan Church.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/big-reaction-to-new-enterprise-new-designer-responds/

Huzz


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I would have had no problem with this one from Vektor:
> 
> But then, the interiors they've used in the new film suck as well.


Thanks for the links, I'm off to see the wizard... I've seen a couple of shots from Vektor and agree with you. I personally like this more than Gab's(?).



Carson Dyle said:


> That's certainly more along the lines of what I was hoping Abrams would go with. I know why he didn't stick closer to the TOS design (he listened to the wrong people), but in this instance it was a bad call IMO.


Didn't they come forward on one of the other sites with the 'we built you a fine ship' comment? I'm sure that the effects artists didn't govern overall ship design, just think it is a mistake. Then again, the engine room brewery, the titanic look or the new bridge will still be tough to take. My only hope is if they are shown really quickly, we may overlook the problems. Like the neon lighting used on the October's missile deck in 'The Hunt for Red October'.



Dave Hussey said:


> Yes, Ryan Church.
> 
> http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/big-reaction-to-new-enterprise-new-designer-responds/
> 
> Huzz


Thanks Dave...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether Trek XI represents a prequel or a reboot. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Paramount considers it a reboot, and is determined to market it as such (the basic message being "This is not your father's Star Trek").

Which raises the question, at what point was it stated or inferred by Abrams (or anyone else involved with the production) that XI would be something other than a reboot? I'm not looking for an argument here; I'm genuinely curious to know where and how the confusion started. If it was something Abrams said, I'd be grateful if somebody would be kind enough to direct me to the quote in question.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> There's been a lot of discussion as to whether Trek XI represents a prequel or a reboot. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Paramount considers it a reboot, and is determined to market it as such (the basic message being "This is not your father's Star Trek").
> 
> Which raises the question, at what point was it stated or inferred by Abrams (or anyone else involved with the production) that XI would be something other than a reboot? I'm not looking for an argument here; I'm genuinely curious to know where and how the confusion started. If it was something Abrams said, I'd be grateful if somebody would be kind enough to direct me to the quote in question.


I came to this dance late and wouldn't know. I can see how it has been inferred, however. Why not just say that from the beginning? Some might have accepted it at that. It's the hybrid nature of this thing that has some worried, a dilution of the brand... (you already know this though). 

In addition, most of the canon problems come across as a big FU (Nimoy included) to the devoted following. If we are talking about a story that spans years, great. I'm all for it. Even less of a reason to introduce these inconsistencies.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Asking Nimoy to reprise Spock doesn't exactly clarify the issue of being a reboot, does it?


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> There's been a lot of discussion as to whether Trek XI represents a prequel or a reboot. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Paramount considers it a reboot, and is determined to market it as such (the basic message being "This is not your father's Star Trek").
> 
> Which raises the question, at what point was it stated or inferred by Abrams (or anyone else involved with the production) that XI would be something other than a reboot? I'm not looking for an argument here; I'm genuinely curious to know where and how the confusion started. If it was something Abrams said, I'd be grateful if somebody would be kind enough to direct me to the quote in question.


I think it's a 'reboot in place'. In other words...it starts in the classic trek 'timeline', but by the end of the movie.....it's changed enough so that we don't know what's happening in the future. In other words....a setup for more new movies (Yeah!). 

I'm looking forward to the inevitable 'Making of Trek XI' book. I want to read all the gory details of who contacted who. Did Paramount approach J.J. for this, or did he go hat-in-hand begging for the opportunity to do this? Should be interesting reading....


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> Asking Nimoy to reprise Spock doesn't exactly clarify the issue of being a reboot, does it?


I guess I can see how that might muddy the waters for some, but viewed within the context of the story (Nimoy/Old Spock passing the baton to Quinto/Young Spock) I find it to be an acceptable break in "reboot protocol."

In any case, I'm more interested in statements Abrams may have made (or not have made) suggesting the new film is something other than a reboot.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Jodet said:


> Did Paramount approach J.J. for this?


Yes. The topic was broached during the making of MI:3.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Ya know, for a bunch of slavering demented monsters, we're having a very nice, rational, calm and logical discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of this new movie. Carson, thanks for dividing the thread. I was insulted at first, especially with the naming of them - "Discussion Forum" for the Pro-movie bunch, and "Criticism Forum" for we nay-sayers. I see your wisdom now, and proudly stand and applaud your efforts. 
Larry :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> There's been a lot of discussion as to whether Trek XI represents a prequel or a reboot. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Paramount considers it a reboot, and is determined to market it as such (the basic message being "This is not your father's Star Trek").
> 
> Which raises the question, at what point was it stated or inferred by Abrams (or anyone else involved with the production) that XI would be something other than a reboot? I'm not looking for an argument here; I'm genuinely curious to know where and how the confusion started. If it was something Abrams said, I'd be grateful if somebody would be kind enough to direct me to the quote in question.


Google and ye shall receive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)



> Development of the film began in 2005 when Paramount Pictures contacted Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman for ideas to revive the franchise. The creative team contrasted Orci and Lindelof, who consider themselves "Trekkies", with casual fans like Abrams, who all aimed to create a film that would interest a general audience. *They wanted to be faithful to Star Trek canon*, but also introduced elements of their favorite novels, modified continuity with the time travel storyline, and modernized the production design of the original show. Filming took place from November 2007 to April 2008 under intense secrecy. Midway through the shoot, Paramount chose to delay the release date from December 25, 2008 to May 2009, arguing the film would perform better in the summer.


http://www.craveonline.com/articles...o_orci_and_alex_kurtzman_on_fringe__trek.html



> Alex Kurtzman: It's insane. It's just insanity. The fact that somehow we've inherited that mantle is insane. It's such a responsibility. We take it so seriously and between all of us, Bob and me and Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk and J.J., there are different degrees of fandom and different degrees of knowledge and different perspectives on what Trek is. *It's a really good mix of people because I think it will ultimately allow us to stay very true to canon *and also bring something new. . .
> 
> Crave Online: How did you conceive of it and how was it never explored before?
> 
> Alex Kurtzman: We did a lot of reading of the books. I think we consider the books canon to a large degree so it's very important to us to stay consistent. But there is a bit of a hole and there's actually different mythologies about their history so *it's a matter of staying consistent but also figuring out how you can play around a little bit anchored by the rules . . .*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> Ya know, for a bunch of slavering demented monsters, we're having a very nice, rational, calm and logical discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of this new movie. Carson, thanks for dividing the thread. I was insulted at first, especially with the naming of them - "Discussion Forum" for the Pro-movie bunch, and "Criticism Forum" for we nay-sayers. I see your wisdom now, and proudly stand and applaud your efforts.
> Larry :thumbsup:


COMMENT DELETED (NOT REALLY!)


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> In any case, I'm more interested in statements Abrams may have made (or not have made) suggesting the new film is something other than a reboot.



Well I can’t give you links, since well… this discussions goes pretty long, right and am not spending hours searching the net for some comment made by JJ. But here is what I recall:

It was said this movie would be an origin movie. A movie set before TOS to show how the crew came together. It was said this movie was not to replace the old show and what happened. It was said numerous times that the story and look would respect canon. It was said even more often that for every change we see in the movie, the movie would give a canon explanation. AND (this I recall pretty clearly ) It was said by JJ that Nimoy as Spock was essential to this movie and would Nimoy have not liked the script they would have changed the script till he says “yes”. 

That’s it in a nut shell. 

Firs off if this was a reboot they would not need to care about canon. So why do we get this “will have a canon explanation”, "will respect canonn" alll the time? 
Secondly as was pointed out, the inclusion of Nimoy as Spock is a direct link to “our fathers” Star Trek. If they wanted a clean 100% reboot as you say Paramount sees this movie, Nimoy should not be in it.

And no this is not Like Judy Dench in Casino Royal since she never says “look Bond you are not the first Bond! The other died in XYZ and you take his palace now”. Seeing Dench was a nice add nothing more. But Nimoy was so essential to JJ that he would not have made the movie without him! Besides, I don’t know what the dialogue is Nimoy gives, but I read in the 25 minutes summary that he gives quite some hints to “our fathers” Star Trek. This alone makes this movie NOT a 100% reboot! 

BTW. you must really have some link to Paramount to be so confident about what Paramount thinks about the reboot issue. Kudos to you for having such high sitting friends. So why don’t you tell the brass that you happen to know that there is not just a slight bad mood in the fan dome about all this. Ah…. I know…. they know and they just don’t care, right? Too bad. 

Despite what impression you may have gotten form my previous posts, I support this movie and try to be optimistic about it. Since I want to be optimistic that when I leave the theatre I will have the knowledge and feeling I just saw a Star Trek movie. But. You see. This movie may have all the parts it needs to be “Star Trek”. The characters, the names, the organisations, the Ship…well sort of, etc. But… well lets say it this way: just because a chef has all he need for the recipe doesn’t mean he can cook the meal as it was intended! Meaning behind this colourful metaphor… am just not so sure I will recognise this new movie as a Star Trek movie even if it has all the parts needed! It’s already a big blow to the fans to replace the actors. So the familiar faces are missing. Then it’s another blow that they changed the design of about everything else besides the basic uniforms. And a third blow is that nothing we knew of those characters history is valid anymore! 

You know am an engineer and when we do something new and need to test it and have various parameters, we change one parameter at a time to see its effects. Once we are more confident we may even change 2 parameters. But three…. Nope, no serious scientist will change more then two parameters at a time since it will lead to chaos! And that’s the problem I have with this new Trek. Too many things have been changed at the same time. And the joke is. most of it could have been avoided! All it would have taken JJ, Oric and Church was to stick closer to the source material which includes: respecting 40 years of already established historical context of characters and objects!! 

Regards



Edit 

should have hit F5 before posting.. 
thx PerfesserCoffee for giving some quotes.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> COMMENT DELETED (NOT REALLY!)


That was great Perfesser!

Along with Perf's links I found some good reading material during the last hour...

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1565683/20070726/story.jhtml
(MTV article on Comic-Con 2007)

"As much as [Abrams] wants me to be [like Nimoy], I suppose ... I certainly intend to bring my own spin to it, and working with these guys, I'm sure I'll find it," he said.

While hesitant about many of the additional details of the film, Abrams and the writers did speak extensively about the two Mr. Spocks, as well as their hopes that "Trek" fans will embrace Quinto as they have Nimoy for five decades. - I'm reading the word 'fans' in there somewhere...

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1544350/20061030/story.jhtml
(Abrams in the hot seat) -
MTV: Have you decided yet if you will be directing it?

Abrams: It's too early to make that call, but we're all ridiculously excited about it. It's hard to talk about at this stage, because there's so much still left to do, but I can say that the story is incredibly cool. To be honest with you, I haven't been a follower of the more recent "Star Trek" films. I got to appreciate them and like them, but this is the movie I would be in line to see. 

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1553825/20070305/story.jhtml
(Open letter to JJ on the making of this movie)
Buck the Fanboys - funny, this fan boy always considered that stuff the sloppiest of writing and the reason we are talking about this now...

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/03/72914
(wired interview from March, 2007, not much detail but a good read)

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1554046/story.jhtml
(Yet another MTV article about the writers involved. Good read.)
Favorite quote ... Indeed, broadening the "Trek" base seems to be foremost on the filmmakers' minds. "The challenge of the movie is to be 100 percent true to the fanbase but also to bring in a whole new group of people who've never seen 'Trek' before," Kurtzman said. 

http://www.canmag.com/news/4/3/4700
(reprise of an interview of JJ with TV guide)
Favorite quote ... "Very much honors the canon of Star Trek." Now I call BS on that. "Pays lip service to canon of Star Trek"... There, corrected it for JJ.

http://www.cinematical.com/2006/08/21/star-trek-xi-update-screw-the-fans/2
(one hint of what we have coming)
And, if you are said Trekkie, you may not like the following statement: According to their "inside" source, "Trek fans were not able to keep the last show (Enterprise) on the air and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans. And if the old Trekkies like the new movie, great -- if not, too bad. We have to boldly go where no Star Trek has gone before."

Hey, I understand they want to re-invent the franchise, but to totally shut out fans like that -- I don't know -- it just seems wrong. Granted, this is not J.J. Abrams talking, but I'm starting to worry this film will resemble an episode of Alias and not Star Trek. Thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that last link from 2006 is very telling. As this project developed, less importance was placed on remaining "true" to Star Trek, that's all. Nothing more or less. They still need the fans, despite what they are telling us. Yes, it will be a 17-25 year old male's wet dream of a movie (Especially if they are 'misunderstood'). 

Nowhere did I see anything, though Carson, that says this is 'not your baby's daddie's ST'. (I think it is somewhat suggested...)


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Great links, guys. Thanks for posting.

What's hysterical about so many of these quotes (well, hysterical to me) is that they essentially say the same thing, i.e. "As fans, we plan to respect canon, except in those instances where we've come up with an angle we like which violates canon, in which case we won't be respecting canon quite so much." 

In other words, with regard to established Trek canon, the Trek XI writers will take as much artistic license as they deem dramatically appropriate, neither more nor less, in order to tell the best story they can.

In a perfect world they might have come right out and said that. Might have saved them some grief on HobbyTalk.

As for Nimoy's allegedly reboot-violating appearance, I'll give Abrams and Co. a pass. Granted Old Spock's role is pivotal, but it's also fairly small. More importantly, it's a one-time-only shot. Unlike, say, Judy Dench in Bond, Nimoy will not appear in any future Trek films. In terms of seeing Leonard Nimoy reprise the role he created, this will most probably be it. Reboot, prequel, whatever, who'd want to deny the fans that?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

To be perfectly fair, I would call all the tripe about respecting canon as being intentionally and deliberately misleading. In other words, they most obviously and outrageously *lied.*

Having pointed out the ludicrously obvious, I must say that their having lied with the most monetary of artistic motives does not in the least destroy my view of Hollywood and what low levels they're capable of stooping to.:drunk:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> To be perfectly fair, I would call all the tripe about respecting canon as being intentionally and deliberately misleading. In other words, they most obviously and outrageously *lied.*


Well, I'm not sure how intentional and deliberate it is. To me it sounds more like delusional but well intentioned writers trying to convince themselves they can concoct a formula capable of pleasing all Trek fans all the time. Little do they know!



PerfesserCoffee said:


> Having pointed out the ludicrously obvious, I must say that their having lied with the most monetary of artistic motives does not in the least destroy my view of Hollywood and what low levels they're capable of stooping to.:drunk:


Oh, please. Do you really think these dweeb screenwriters have hatched some sinister plot to get rich by "lying" to poor, naive Star Trek fans? Believe what you will, but I submit you're giving them too much credit, while not giving us fans enough.

Honestly Perf, all things being equal in this day and age, the big, bad Hollywood monster should be the _least_ of your worries.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'm posting this here because I know it'll be taken in the spirit intended...










As the proud 46 year-old owner of a plaid vest, I know I got a kick out of it. :hat:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

After reading through this thread one question remains in the back of my mind. Why does Hollywood seem to think that doing a remake and changing what made the original great in the first place is what will sell tickets? I think back on most of the remakes over the past few years and although some such as the New Battlestar Galactica, the movie version of SWAT have done very well we are left with mostly poorly executed attempts such as I SPY, Get Smart, Mchale's Navy, The Brady Bunch, The Wild Wild West, Beverly Hillbillies, Bewitched, etc. the list goes on and on. Please Hollywood, stick to what the fans enjoyed in the first place.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I am also 46 but I assure you that I do not own a plaid vest.

Although I am wearing a plaid shirt......

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Oh, please. Do you really think these dweeb screenwriters have hatched some sinister plot to get rich by "lying" to poor, naive Star Trek fans? Believe what you will, but I submit you're giving them too much credit, while not giving us fans enough.


Sinister plot? Did I say that? I mean, seriously, did I say that?

My only implication was that they're just like politicians: lying, toeing the company line, whatever, with the goal of being everything to everybody in their strategy of achieving as much money as possible--and they absolutely don't care if they lie. Whether they believe their own lies or not, they're frackin' idiots since their duplicity will be found out eventually.

Remember, I'm one of the fans, too. I'm not naive and I'm not poor--except in the financial sense. The only way the writers, etc. were able to fool some of the people some of the time was when they had the information and we didn't. 

They just piled on the garbage making happy talk with absolutely no respect for us--either that or they're self-deluded fools as you pointed out--I defer, sir, to your greater experience and knowledge with your brethren there in H-wood. :wave:



Carson Dyle said:


> Honestly Perf, all things being equal in this day and age, the big, bad Hollywood monster should be the _least_ of your worries.


I said I wasn't surprised by anything they'd do. I didn't say they're a threat--they're mostly harmless or I wouldn't be the least bit interested in their products. I suppose I may have pushed one of your buttons there since you're "in the biz." Sorry for upsetting you so

I'm also 46. Is this some sort of kismet at work?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

> =PerfesserCoffee;2597859Sorry for upsetting you so


No worries, Perf. The day I become "upset" over the "opinions" expressed on this particular thread is the day I become an Olympic triathlete.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I'm posting this here because I know it'll be taken in the spirit intended...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"I don't get hot chicks, but I do know how an escrow works"











I'm 46 too, this is almost getting eeirie <insert twilight zone music>


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> No worries, Perf. The day I become "upset" over the "opinions" expressed on this particular thread is the day I become an Olympic triathlete.


Same here :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yep! Shat and Nimoy just don't have the_ bona fides!_
> 
> They are (seriously) rank amateurs compared to a lot of folks on this board.


I bet neither one of 'em has so much as glued two pieces of an Ertl starship together! :lol:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> That's just a abominational reboot of super hero "middle-aged man" from Saturday Night Live.


Scott, I know you _claim_ to be 46, but is it possible you don't recognize Statler and Waldorf when you see them?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Dang, I'm only 44.

Actually, that dovetails into a big problem I have with this "not your father's Star Trek" crap. How old do these morons think we are? Forget "my father's" Star Trek, they're screwing around with *MY* Star Trek! My father's Star Trek was Gene Autry, fer chrissakes!

Whoever's doing market research for this thing needs to be fired, because anyone with half a brain stem could've predicted the blowback this crap is producing.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Dang, I'm only 44.
> 
> Actually, that dovetails into a big problem I have with this "not your father's Star Trek" crap. How old do these morons think we are? Forget "my father's" Star Trek, they're screwing around with *MY* Star Trek! My father's Star Trek was Gene Autry, fer chrissakes!


Very good point! We're not THAT old!




Captain April said:


> Whoever's doing market research for this thing needs to be fired, because anyone with half a brain stem could've predicted the blowback this crap is producing.


That's what I can't figure out--their motives are based on wanting to expand the audience but then they destroy the basis of attraction for a good chunk of the older fans who are familiar with the existing mythology.

Are we fans being expanded or _replaced?_


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Great links, guys. Thanks for posting.
> 
> What's hysterical about so many of these quotes (well, hysterical to me) is that they essentially say the same thing, i.e. "As fans, we plan to respect canon, except in those instances where we've come up with an angle we like which violates canon, in which case we won't be respecting canon quite so much."


Well that’s your interpretation of what stands there: To me it says “we don’t want to loos the fans since we can’t afford to loos them. Also this is a show with 40 years of legacy past on to us and its burden weights heavily on our shoulders. We better make sure not to screw this up! Therefore respecting canon is very important to us”

What troubles me is that self-proclaimed trek geek Oric considers the Trek novels canon…although we all, as well as he should, know that novels, with the exception of two I believe, are NOT considered canon!! What kind of a trek geek is Oric if he doesn’t even know what’s considered canon in Star Trek (all what’s on TV or in the movie) and what’s not (all secondary publishing’s)? 

Maybe Oric was thinking of Star Wars, where the books so called EU for some fans even ought weights what is shown in the movies. 



> Trek XI writers will take as much artistic license as they deem dramatically appropriate, neither more nor less, in order to tell the best story they can.


Well and they could not have told their “best story” about young Kirk without driving a corvette off a cliff? They want to tell a troubled back story to this Kirk? Fine with me. But couldn’t they have used his canon established experiences on Tarsus IV? Instead if Killing Kirks father on the Kelvin, why not have him get killed by Kodos? Perhaps Nero could have been behind Kodos actions? With this Oric would have had the same effect on young Kirk, with this stay within established canon AND even give a better insight why Kirk reacts the way he dos in “The Conscience of the King”! BUILDING on canon instead of ignoring it! But right…. a fancy CGI space battle is more action laden and appeals more to the “fans of movies” crowed then some boring ground massacre . 

Same with the Enterprise being build in Iowa now. You want to tell me that Oric and Kurzman where not able to come up with a good reason why 20 year old Kirk could have hit on Uhura while in a bar in San Francisco not Iowa and then drive off to the San Francisco Fleet yards after his heart to heart talk with Pike?? I mean.. for 40YEARS it says “San Francisco Earth” on the 1701s dedication plaque.. San Francisco....NOT Iowa!!!! But Nooo sir… because of laziness they had to shift the building site to Iowa so they can have these odd buildings in the background of the corvette scene foreshadowing what is to come.. wow .. what ingenious story telling! 

And to me especially the shift to Iowa shows what general disregard Oric and Co are having when it comes to Trek canon!! Since ignoring the information given on the dedication plaque for no reason at all shows they did not even attempt to get these things right! 

This is, to refer back to Bond, as if Casino Royal had established Bond wasn’t working for the Mi6 anymore but that he is now a GSG9 (German special unit) specialist and was born in Munich!!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

If you're not 46, you may not have enough experience to comment.

Have ya got either plaid shirt? If so, ya may have a point.

Huzz


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Well am not 46.. Am considerably younger. 

So I must be amongst the generation JJ and Paramount want to attract with this “new” Star Trek.. therefore am having more then enough reason to comment on this


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Carson Dyle said:


> There's been a lot of discussion as to whether Trek XI represents a prequel or a reboot. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Paramount considers it a reboot, and is determined to market it as such (the basic message being "This is not your father's Star Trek").
> 
> Which raises the question, at what point was it stated or inferred by Abrams (or anyone else involved with the production) that XI would be something other than a reboot? I'm not looking for an argument here; I'm genuinely curious to know where and how the confusion started. If it was something Abrams said, I'd be grateful if somebody would be kind enough to direct me to the quote in question.


Closest thing I found:
http://www.seenit.co.uk/jj-abrams-talks-star-trek/112367/



> “The idea is really to re-introduce these characters in a different way, but they are the characters from the original Star Trek. *It’s not a complete re-imagining… I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else*”


Which is a statement I agree with, but unfiortunately he didn't appear follow his own advice.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Scott, I know you _claim_ to be 46, but is it possible you don't recognize Statler and Waldorf when you see them?


They're just a lousy reboot of these guys:











How dare that hack Henson change those classic designs! And you _know_ those stupid studio suits made Henson get rid of those classic TOS wooden lines to appeal to the teenybopper crowd!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Well am not 46.. Am considerably younger.
> 
> So I must be amongst the generation JJ and Paramount want to attract with this “new” Star Trek.. therefore am having more then enough reason to comment on this


_
*No "BORN IN 1962" bumper sticker for you!*
_
(I'm the self-appointed 46-club NAZI!)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> If you're not 46, you may not have enough experience to comment.
> 
> Have ya got either plaid shirt? If so, ya may have a point.
> 
> Huzz


All my button-up nicer casual shirts are plaid.

Too much Celtic and Nordic blood in me to not wear plaid!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

LOL!!! :thumbsup: 
Huzz


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> But Nooo sir… because of laziness they had to shift the building site to Iowa so they can have these odd buildings in the background of the corvette scene foreshadowing what is to come.. wow .. what ingenious story telling!


Laziness? I don't think so. Quite frankly, Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise in Iowa is a fantastic and awe inspiring shot. In my opinion, this works much better than seeing Kirk fly around the half built Enterprise in a shuttle, and having to explain why he is in a shuttle.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

It's interesting how people who obviously are in to this 'reboot' have come in here and are trolling.

Once again those who claim to be tolerant show their true colors.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Ignore them and they'll go away.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> Laziness? I don't think so. Quite frankly, Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise in Iowa is a fantastic and awe inspiring shot. In my opinion, this works much better than seeing Kirk fly around the half built Enterprise in a shuttle, and having to explain why he is in a shuttle.


Raist, I agree with you, I really do. The shot is magnificent and I think this movie will be a 'feast for the eyes'. Today's CGI effects are most impressive. Most of us won't even care that its in the middle of nowhere but that's a huge amount of freight to be hauled into the middle of nowhere. Wouldn't it look even more impressive if it were being built in the desert? (I think that would break the suspension of disbelief). 

It's the effects for the sake of effects, many of us have problems with. If there were a logical reason for moving the construction site, then great, do so. Most fans would have no problem with it. 

I don't even care that much, myself. With each break of canon (for no logical reason), this franchise becomes weaker to me IMHO. It's like eating a candy bar. Sure the sugar rush gives you a boost of energy but then you are left off worse than before. 

But then, what do I know...



PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^Ignore them and they'll go away.


That only works with my wife...


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Are my comments about being 46 and wearing plaid shirts trolling? My intent was for all to have a chuckle regardless of your views on the movie.

I hope no one takes offence to being known as *gasp!* a plaid wearer!

Huzz


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Edge said:


> It's interesting how people who obviously are in to this 'reboot' have come in here and are trolling.
> 
> Once again those who claim to be tolerant show their true colors.


Were my comments regarding Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise taken as trolling?!?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

hubert said:


> With each break of canon (for no logical reason), this franchise becomes weaker to me IMHO.


And I can totally understand your position. For me, I have separated myself from TOS. I know this is not a TOS film. IMHO, it was never meant to be. And I am simply going to judge this film on it's own merit.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> And I can totally understand your position. For me, I have separated myself from TOS. I know this is not a TOS film. IMHO, it was never meant to be. And I am simply going to judge this film on it's own merit.


Fair enough.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Are my comments about being 46 and wearing plaid shirts trolling?


No, you get a pass due to being a Canadian




:jest:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> Were my comments regarding Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise taken as trolling?!?


COMMENT DELETED (Resisting urge to respond to trolls!)


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Are my comments about being 46 and wearing plaid shirts trolling? My intent was for all to have a chuckle regardless of your views on the movie.
> 
> I hope no one takes offence to being known as *gasp!* a plaid wearer!
> 
> Huzz


Only one in particular, and you ain't it. If you need a clue, look for the word 'WORD DELETED - UNACCEPTABLE FOR A FAMILY FORUM AND UNNECESSARY'.

Edge


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Edge said:


> I don't know what planet some of you were living on, but I was fairly in to the Sci-Fi scene when TMP and TWOK came out (I still have the old Starlogs if you want a peeing match  ) and I don't remember any controversy surrounding either with the fans.
> 
> The main deal with TMP was Brick Price not being able to produce the effects after eating up a huge amount of the time allotted and Trumbull and Dykstra having to split the job to save the day (with wet prints being delivered to the theaters at the last minute).
> 
> The only controversy with TWOK was having to change the name from the Revenge of Khan due to Lucas having a fit because of the then titled Revenge of the Jedi. TWOK brought back a classic villain from TOS and allowed the fans to see what a battle between starships, which they could not afford to show us on the small screen, would look like.


Actually, Brick (yes, I'm on a first-name basis with him, though his real name is Oliver) was merely the model-maker, along with Don Loos, on the 4-foot Enterprise made for Star Trek: Phase II, the aborted TV series.

The EFX house you're thinking of was Robert Abel & Associates.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Edge said:


> Only one in particular, and you ain't it.


Okay, I ran a word check and edited the post in question. 

Scott, KNOCK IT OFF.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> Actually, Brick (yes, I'm on a first-name basis with him, though his real name is Oliver) was merely the model-maker, along with Don Loos, on the 4-foot Enterprise made for Star Trek: Phase II, the aborted TV series.
> 
> The EFX house you're thinking of was Robert Abel & Associates.



Thank you for the correction! That's what I get for trying to pull something out of my hinder from 29 years ago! (Has it really been that long?)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> If you're not 46, you may not have enough experience to comment.
> 
> Have ya got either plaid shirt? If so, ya may have a point.
> 
> Huzz


I was wearing plaid pajamas when I wrote that, does that count?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Okay, I ran a word check and edited the post in question.
> 
> Scott, KNOCK IT OFF.


Don't really see how that was insulting to anybody but Mike Meyers, but ok


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

I showed the trailer to everyone I know. All of them after viewing it said....."That's not Star Trek".

This was coming from people who were already Trek fans. So, for a divergent opinion I showed the ship and the trailer to my thirteen year old brother. Who, I thought, this movie was catering to. Note, he is _not_ a Trek fan. He is a Star Wars fan. 

He said and I quote:

About the ship: 

"What the hell is that? The front of the engines look like (He named a part of the male anatomy, specifically, the berries) that looks really stupid."

About the trailer:

"That looks cheesy as hell, why is that kid driving a car? Isin't it (Star Trek) in the future?"

He then went on to ask what I thought of it, I told him I didn't like it and wouldn't be seeing it, but stated that shouldn't stop him from going to see it. He asked "Why make Star Trek and then piss off the fans?" I told him that they want more mainstream money. And that they seem to view the fans and the 40 year backstory as a hinderance. I then asked him if he thought his buddies would be interested in it. "Maybe, but most of them aren't really into sci-fi." There you go straight from a thirteen year old. 

I'll be skipping this one. I refuse to support reboots, I view them as I view a dog eating it's own vomit. Disgusting.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Seashark said:


> I'll be skipping this one. I refuse to support reboots, I view them as I view a dog eating it's own vomit. Disgusting.


Thanks, Seashark. I'll be laughing into the night with that one...


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> Thanks, Seashark. I'll be laughing into the night with that one...


Not a problem hubert, glad I could bring some mirth. :wave:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Seashark said:


> I refuse to support reboots, I view them as I view a dog eating it's own vomit.


Maybe so, but if the last couple of Bond pictures are any indication the world loves a good up-chuck.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Kinda makes me sad for the state of the world then. But that's nothing new.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> Maybe so, but if the last couple of Bond pictures are any indication the world loves a good up-chuck.



That's the world's perogative. At any rate, I don't base my enjoyment of movies on thier box office draw.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Seashark said:


> I don't base my enjoyment of movies on thier box office draw.


Nor should you.

I enjoyed the Casino Royale reboot because it's a terrific movie; one which represented a spiritual, if not literal, return to form for James Bond (it came as no surprise that Connery loved the movie). I also dug the first 2 1/2 seasons of Ron Moore's BS:G reboot, although it never achieved anywhere near the mainstream success of the Bond flicks.

My point being that the term "reboot" need not always be a four letter word.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> COMMENT DELETED (Resisting urge to respond to trolls!)


Care to take it to PM? Perhaps you can explain to me how my comments were trolling?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> Care to take to PM? Perhaps you can explain to me how my comments were trolling?


COMMENT DELETED


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

John P said:


> I bet neither one of 'em has so much as glued two pieces of an Ertl starship together! :lol:


Hmm... Baptism By... Testors. Tube. Orange. 19 cents back in the day.

Yes. I too have survived this test of Manhood. :woohoo:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Hand Solo said:


> Hmm... Baptism By... Testors. Tube. Orange. 19 cents back in the day.
> 
> Yes. I too have survived this test of Manhood. :woohoo:


Oooh! Reading your post just gave me one heck of a flashback! I can actually *smell *the orange tube glue!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> COMMENT DELETED


COMMENT DELETED


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> No, you get a pass due to being a Canadian
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
A Molson's for the good Perfessor!:thumbsup:

Huzz


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> I enjoyed the Casino Royale reboot because it's a terrific movie; one which represented a spiritual, if not literal, return to form for James Bond (it came as no surprise that Connery loved the movie). I also dug the first 2 1/2 seasons of Ron Moore's BS:G reboot, although it never achieved anywhere near the mainstream success of the Bond flicks


That's _your_ opinion. I happen to feel differently. BTW I didn't like either of your examples. 



> My point being that the term "reboot" need not always be a four letter word.



My point is that _I_ don't support reboots. Because _I_ have no interest in seeing the same ten movies and T.V. shows remade over and over ad nausium for the rest of time. I want something new! _I_ feel what the entertainment industry and the viewing public need are fresh stories and new ideas, Not rehashes. Unfortunately, both the studios and public would rather not take a chance on new and different.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Seashark said:


> _I_ feel what the entertainment industry and the viewing public need are fresh stories and new ideas, Not rehashes. Unfortunately, both the studios and public would rather not take a chance on new and different.


Thats a valid point, Seashark. The studios rehash material in the form of sequels and most of us can't stand it. This are often nothing more than that.

On the other hand, I have seen 'remakes' that I sometimes enjoy more than the original. Oceans 11 and the Thomas Crown Affair are examples of these.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Seashark said:


> I didn't like either of your examples.


That's okay, I'm not trying to sell you.



Seashark said:


> the studios and public would rather not take a chance on new and different.


So true.

Thing is, "new" is often overrated. Ditto "different." Charlie Kaufman's new film is both, and after sitting halfway through "Synecdoche, New York" I was ready to shoot myself.

Personally, I'll take a good story well told wherever I can find one. Even if it takes the form of a well conceived and competently executed reboot.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> A Molson's for the good Perfessor!:thumbsup:
> 
> Huzz


Come down here and I'll get you some grits and sour mash (not together, however)


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> Laziness? I don't think so. Quite frankly, Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise in Iowa is a fantastic and awe inspiring shot. In my opinion, this works much better than seeing Kirk fly around the half built Enterprise in a shuttle, and having to explain why he is in a shuttle.


I was imagining an identical scene as seen in the Trek XI trailer placed in San Francisco instead of Iowa. By this giving the exact same thing JJ wanted while simultaneously keeping it canon (it was never said if 1701 was build on ground or in space so what..) . …. I thought I made that clear in my post, seems I was wrong.

Edit:



Carson Dyle said:


> Maybe so, but if the last couple of Bond pictures are any indication the world loves a good up-chuck.



You are forgetting that Bond is being recast over rand over and over for years! Whom we had so far? Niven, Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig. That’s 6 actors taking a shot at the same character in 40 years. 

How many do you know who played Capt Kirk officially? Right, Shatner and now Pine in over 40 years. So please stop using Bond as a comparison. Since ppl are used to a new Bond showing up now and then where as William Shatner IS Captain Kirk. When ppl see a picture of Pine it doesn’t say “Kirk” … when they see Bill Shatner it does SCREAM “Kirk”. That’s the difference! 

And besides Bond and perhaps BSG, how man Reboots and especially remakes where truly successful and outshone the original?? 

“Time Machine”.. I guess noone will argue the original is far superior to the new one. 
“War of the Worlds”… same as above
”Planet of the Apes”… same as above
“Poseidon”… same as above
”Superman returns”.. same as above
”Hitch Hikers guide”.. same as above

Next in line is “The day the Earth stood still” which I guarantee you to be equally disappointing as the above examples. 

Hollywood has lost it! They are out of creative juices! There is no Glen A. Larson, no Gene Roddenberry any more who has risky new ideas about a TV series or movie we never seen before. They all play it save which leads to them rehashing old movies and TV shows in hopes ppls nostalgia on the original will make them go see the new version and by this keep a steady income flowing into the “dream factory” which has become a video tape of 20 movies stuck in a reboot/remake loop.
Sadly enough with Trek XI Star Trek has been caught in that loop too…


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I am not eager to see this movie because of the main concept.
The "Jim Hensen's Muppet Babies" approach was rejected in 1990.
When "STAR TREK V The Final Frontier" bombed so powerfully,
Paramount considered an Academy meeting movie for the next movie.
The idea was rejected.

When "STAR TREK Voyager" was nearing the end of its' run, 
the idea of the original crew's first meeting at the Academy was
brought up again. And, rejected again.

The idea was dredged up for this movie because Paramount has
nothing left in the movie concept pool.

It causes me concern for the new movie.
I'm sure this Abrams guy will make a successful movie, full of action,
that will appeal to the average movie-goer.
I just hope it turns out to be an entertaining story.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Seashark said:


> I showed the trailer to everyone I know. All of them after viewing it said....."That's not Star Trek".


My friend and fellow Trekkie saw it and said "Oh my. This really isn't for us, is it."



> I'll be skipping this one. I refuse to support reboots, I view them as I view a dog eating it's own vomit. Disgusting.


As gross as that is, that's a _great _way to describe most prequels and reboots.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> I was imagining an identical scene as seen in the Trek XI trailer placed in San Francisco instead of Iowa. By this giving the exact same thing JJ wanted while simultaneously keeping it canon (it was never said if 1701 was build on ground or in space so what..) . …. I thought I made that clear in my post, seems I was wrong.


My apologies, I missed your post. You did make this clear. I would agree that changing the location to Iowa makes little sense in the wake of canon. However, perhaps why might become more clear after seeing the film


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Seashark said:


> My point is that _I_ don't support reboots. Because _I_ have no interest in seeing the same ten movies and T.V. shows remade over and over ad nausium for the rest of time. I want something new! _I_ feel what the entertainment industry and the viewing public need are fresh stories and new ideas, Not rehashes. Unfortunately, both the studios and public would rather not take a chance on new and different.


Oh, I SO agree with you on that!
*applause*

I also happen to agree with Carson that CR and BSG were good, but I think of them as anomalies in the realm of reboots. Exceptions to the rule.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I gotta kind of agree with you guys on this one. I don't mind a reboot-if it's done well, but I'd rather see something entirely new. Ideally, I'd like to see a new film about a crew exploring space that has absolutely nothing to do with Trek, or Star Wars or anything we've seen yet. Something where it would be fun discovering new characters, ships, locales etc. Someday, hopefully sooner than later.

Much of Hollywood however is a pretty much monkey see, monkey do industry and all it'll take is one good new space film to break out, then watch...everybody will jump on the band wagon. Who knows, if this new Trek film is successful maybe that'll light a fuse and open the door for new sci-fi projects.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> “Time Machine”.. I guess noone will argue the original is far superior to the new one.
> “War of the Worlds”… same as above
> ”Planet of the Apes”… same as above
> “Poseidon”… same as above
> ...


_Ja wohl!_:thumbsup:

Here's another one for you:

"The Haunting"

I love seeing it on TCM since absolutely every time since it was "reimagined" that they've shown it, they mention how vastly superior it is to the remake. 
"The Haunting" is the perfect example of how extravagant special effects and arbitrary changes to the story completely RUINED a movie.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

'Never Say Never Again' and 'Thunderball'. Even though NSNA had Connery, what in God's name were they thinking? As for War Of The Worlds, the original was tops and can't be replaced but having said that, I also thought the remake was awesome. I'm not a Cruise hater...it can have Richard Simmons in the lead role for all I care-if it's good, it's good!


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Tom Cruise played a self-centered, unlikable jerk in WOTW. Did people have a problem buying him in the role?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

In the beginning, which he quickly put behind him and put his family first once the action started.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

Ah, don't mind me, that was an attempt at humor.  I actually don't mind Cruise himself - the guy can be a jerk sometimes, but he doesn't mean to be. And I hold the film in high regard.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Whew, that was close. Shields down! (lol):thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

WOTW sucked, I thought. Nearly put me to sleep. Now, if they'd stuck close to the book and placed the movie back during Wells' day, it might have been a new classic.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

As for remakes, Pete Jackson's King Kong was the worst. It did put me and my friend to sleep, at the first half of the movie. After that, I just didn't care. Still won't buy the DVD, or watch on TV.

STXI, won't get the chance to bore, or piss me off, as I won't see it, even if free!


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Now, if they'd stuck close to the book-



They did. Much, much closer than the Pal version. Nothing against the Pal version, of course, just sayin'.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> “Time Machine”.. I guess noone will argue the original is far superior to the new one.
> “War of the Worlds”… same as above
> ”Planet of the Apes”… same as above
> “Poseidon”… same as above
> ...


Hmm. The version of The Time Machine with Guy Pearce was quite good I thought. I will admit that I haven't seen the original so I can't compare the two but as a standalone film, it wasn't bad.

Poseidon has had a fair few remakes and, to be honest, I liked the recent big screen remake simply because they drowned Fergie in it!

Superman Returns is supposedly set after Superman II - relegating the events of II and IV to "vague history". So not a remake as such. More a tidying up!

Having been a fan of H2G2 for years and read the books, heard the radio show, seen the TV series and watched the film, you can't compare any of them. They were ALL written by Douglas Adams, the screenplay mostly completed just before his death and they all contradict each other. Can't wait to see the sixth HH book publisehed next year.

Rob


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

*Hollywierd is an apt term...*

The one thing I was thinking about while out walking (as far as STAR TREK is concerned) is...

_WHY does Star Trek HAVE to be the ENTERPRISE & her crew?_

(Don't even get me started on why THIS series of movies couldn't have been the E under Pike and maybe the 4th down the road they could bring in Kirk as captain...)

If you're going to set a ST movie in the OS era, you have AT LEAST 12 other Constitution class ships and crews to play with...But you also have all the smaller, defense ships, like the Corvettes and the Akyazi class...

HE!!, what about the DREADNOUGHTS?

I agree that they have NO imagination...they're just like trained monkeys slapping stuff together!

That said, I don't mind them re-casting the OS crew...as long as they get GOOD actors that can do it RIGHT. I don't REALLY mind the updated sets or props...my beef...like a number of you have said...is this...THING...they're calling the Connie-Class E...and them arbitrarily changing characters histories because they're apparently 'not cool enough.'*coughKirkcough*

Needless to say, I'm going to just watch & listen these next few months. If/when JJ destroys Star Trek...I'll mourn here with y'all... 

and then go back to the DVDs...

My 2 bits.

Happy and Safe Thanksgiving to all here who celebrate it!:wave::wave:

Be Well.

Greg

p.s.: if J.J. is a Star Wars man, WHY didn't he go to Lucas for employment? WHY direct Star Trek? WHY direct something he DOESN'T care about?

GAH!!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Couldn't agree more! Very good points, all! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> They did. Much, much closer than the Pal version. Nothing against the Pal version, of course, just sayin'.


Maybe closer but, not to this stickler, nearly close enough--and I really like the Pal version--the story they cooked up was exciting though different and they pulled it off very well. I think a lot of folks got really excited to begin with and hoped the remake would be a period piece which would have been a grand spectacle. As it was, it was just ho-hum.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

robcomet wrote:


> Having been a fan of H2G2 for years and read the books, heard the radio show, seen the TV series and watched the film, you can't compare any of them. They were ALL written by Douglas Adams, the screenplay mostly completed just before his death and they all contradict each other. Can't wait to see the sixth HH book publisehed next year.


Douglas Adams is dead?!!
How did I miss that piece of bad news?!
That sucks! 
His original "Hitchhiker's Guide" books were hilarious.
I never laughed so hard reading a book until I read those.


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Maybe closer but, not to this stickler, nearly close enough--and I really like the Pal version--the story they cooked up was exciting though different and they pulled it off very well. I think a lot of folks got really excited to begin with and hoped the remake would be a period piece which would have been a grand spectacle. As it was, it was just ho-hum.



Fair enough. I was surprised how much of the novel made it into the film, and for me it was highly effective...but the Pal version has a permanent place in my heart.

Cappy - this "Young Kirk" idea, sadly enough, was inevitable. It was the idea that wouldn't die, it kept being brought back. If it wasn't Abrams, sooner or later someone else would have approached Paramount and it would have been accepted. Remember what happened with BSG - Moore was balmed for doing a reboot, but it was the owners of the property who had already rejected a revival for starting from scratch. The question wasn't which version to do but which showrunner to go with. Moore wanted a reboot, so he was the attractive proposition. Not to the fans, mind. I think we got lucky the thing turned out well. I expect this was similar - Abrams was the one greenlit because he was the director who floated the idea someone at Paramount thought was the safest bet for success: bring back the most popular characters but with a young cast who'll stick around for a while.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It's been said that Star Trek is like a foreign language, and it's really easy to tell a native speaker from someone who's pulling phrases from the Berlitz book.

JJ is still having problems with the translation for "Where may I find a nice hotel?" Keeps coming out "Please fondle my buttocks, Sir Reginald."


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

:lol:


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

CaptFrank said:


> robcomet wrote:
> Douglas Adams is dead?!!
> How did I miss that piece of bad news?!
> That sucks!


Yes, sadly. A few years ago in, IIRC, a gym in LA.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> JJ is still having problems with the translation for "Where may I find a nice hotel?" Keeps coming out "Please fondle my buttocks, Sir Reginald."


:roll:


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

dreamer 2.0 said:


> ...Cappy - this "Young Kirk" idea, sadly enough, was inevitable. It was the idea that wouldn't die, it kept being brought back. If it wasn't Abrams, sooner or later someone else would have approached Paramount and it would have been accepted. Remember what happened with BSG - Moore was blamed for doing a reboot, but it was the owners of the property who had already rejected a revival for starting from scratch. The question wasn't which version to do but which showrunner to go with. Moore wanted a reboot, so he was the attractive proposition. Not to the fans, mind. I think we got lucky the thing turned out well. I expect this was similar - Abrams was the one greenlit because he was the director who floated the idea someone at Paramount thought was the safest bet for success: bring back the most popular characters but with a young cast who'll stick around for a while.



It's just TOO bad that they couldn't have paid Diane Carey and put 'Best Destiny' up on the big screen...THAT had a young Jim Kirk seeing the Enterprise bridge for the first time..."This place STINKS!"...and him matching wits with a young pirate genius who's a spoiled brat. It even shows the first Captian of the good ship Enterprise, the elusive Robert April...and Kirk's father (Head of Enterprise Security)
The only problem is that it has extended flashbacks...and Kirk, Spock...and McCoy...in the post-STIV Ent. A time period.

As the book jacket describes it: "_As James T. Kirk__ prepares to retire from a long and illustrious Starfleet career, events in a distant part of the Federation draw him back to a part of the galaxy he had last visited as a young man--a mysterious world called Faramond whose name takes Kirk on a journey back to his youth.__

At sixteen, Kirk is troubled, estranged from his father and has a bleak future. However, a trip into space with Kirk's father George and Starfleet legend Captain Robert April changes James' life forever, when a simple voyage aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise __becomes a deadly trap. Soon, Kirk and father find themselves fighting a vicious and powerful enemy.__

Before the voyage ends, father and son will face life and death together, and James T. Kirk will get a glimpse of the future and his own best destiny."_

I STILL think this would've played better than the drivel they're about to force down our throats... ...and it IS one HECK of a book!

Be well, gang.

Greg


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I have that book!
I love the battle between the two ships.
It was different.

Trying not to give away anything.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Cap,

I LOVE that book! I must find it in my library of ST novels and read it again. Thanks for bringing it up, as it would've made a FANTASTIC movie!!!!

Larry

:thumbsup:


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

BTW, here's a shot from another series that attempted to reboot TOS (and it STILL looks better than the USS PileO'Dung that Mr. Abrams would have us swallow):


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I have that book too... I thought it took a lot of liberties, but was pretty good. AND it stayed true to what a fan would expect of Star Trek.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> Thing is, "new" is often overrated. Ditto "different." Charlie Kaufman's new film is both, and after sitting halfway through "Synecdoche, New York" I was ready to shoot myself.


Well, they can't hit every one out of the park right? I don't agree on either being overrated, but I do empathize. When something sucks no amount of new and different will make it not suck. When I say new and different I mean like, Firefly/Serenity. They may not be for everyone, but damn, they were new and different. 



> Personally, I'll take a good story well told wherever I can find one.


I hear ya, I just have a real problem with reboots and, to a large degree; remakes. To me they represent the death of creativity. Although, I must confess their is one reboot I can appreciate. Batman Begins, I think it got just about everything right. TDK however, for me, not so much.

There are only two remakes off the top of my head I can stand. John Carpenters "The Thing" and Cronenberg's "The Fly". 



> but I'd rather see something entirely new. Ideally, I'd like to see a new film about a crew exploring space that has absolutely nothing to do with Trek, or Star Wars or anything we've seen yet. Something where it would be fun discovering new characters, ships, locales etc. Someday, hopefully sooner than later.


I absolutely agree. :thumbsup:



> Originally Posted by Seashark
> 
> My point is that I don't support reboots. Because I have no interest in seeing the same ten movies and T.V. shows remade over and over ad nausium for the rest of time. I want something new! I feel what the entertainment industry and the viewing public need are fresh stories and new ideas, Not rehashes. Unfortunately, both the studios and public would rather not take a chance on new and different.
> Oh, I SO agree with you on that!
> *applause*


Why thank you! *Takes a bow*


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

*Train Wreck XI: The Wrath of JJ...*



Captain April said:


> It's been said that Star Trek is like a foreign language, and it's really easy to tell a native speaker from someone who's pulling phrases from the Berlitz book.
> 
> *JJ is still having problems with the translation for "Where may I find a nice hotel?" Keeps coming out "Please fondle my buttocks, Sir Reginald."*



Hahahahahahahaha!

BULLSEYE! Exactly!

Gotta love Monty Python!

One other rant about XI: I HOPE they explain _convincingly_ how Kirk, who seems to be a cadet/ensign at the BEGINNING of the movie, is suddenly, rapidly...and unexplainedly promoted to CAPTAIN of the E by the ending battle scenes...

Even SPOCK would get a headache over the absudity of THAT!

"Hey, let's put this untested ensign in command of a crew of 430, bypassing, oh, say, the Vulcan second in command...

Heck, YEAH! What can go WRONG?!":freak::freak:

This is looking more and more like the stereotypical train wreck...
You don't want to look, but you CAN'T look away...:drunk::drunk:

BTW, If Pike's there, WHERE'S Dr. Piper? Where's Number One?

Hmmm...

Be well, guys.
Greg


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Darn good points, Greg! I hadn't thought about those!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Seashark said:


> There are only two remakes off the top of my head I can stand. John Carpenters "The Thing" and Cronenberg's "The Fly".


_The Maltese Falcon_ had been filmed _twice_ already before John Huston took a stab at it. And I believe you could make the point _Aliens_ was more a reboot of _Alien_ than a sequel.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> _The Maltese Falcon_ had been filmed _twice_ already before John Huston took a stab at it. And I believe you could make the point _Aliens_ was more a reboot of _Alien_ than a sequel.


Isn't the same also true of Jules Verne's _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_? While the Disney 1954 film is a much loved classic with a beautiful ship design, its my understanding that (a) its not the first time the story was filmed and (b) the design of the ship was different from that presented by the originator of the tale (Verne).

What if future generations see Abram' Trek film and ship in the same light as we currently see Disney's 20,000 Leagues and the Harper Goff Nautilus?

Huzz


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> Isn't the same also true of Jules Verne's _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_? While the Disney 1954 film is a much loved classic with a beautiful ship design, its my understanding that (a) its not the first time the story was filmed and (b) the design of the ship was different from that presented by the originator of the tale (Verne).
> 
> What if future generations see Abram' Trek film and ship in the same light as we currently see Disney's 20,000 Leagues and the Harper Goff Nautilus?
> 
> Huzz


Actually, 20,000 Leagues is an interesting example, the '54 version is far superior to the B&W silent version for many reasons, but the big difference is in budget and film technology.

Two advantages Abram's will also have with his Trek film.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Then again, there's the 1939 remake of _The Wizard of Oz_--far superior to the BW versions of which the author himself produced many. 

Unfortunately, there hasn't really been a successful reboot of that potential franchise of which there are many potential movies and they're, get this, _out of copyright!_

Different situation here, I believe. A LOT of folks who were fans in the sixties are still alive and would like things to stay--indeed, are _*used*_ to things staying--more consistent with the original--note that I did not say, "absolutely exact to" the original. 

The thing I liked about _ST_ for a long time was that it was _linear_. It grew with us. Each series advanced the time line and treated previous time lines with respect. 

When _ENT _came in, disregarded a lot of canon, upset the apple cart and flopped, I was looking forward to the movie to rectify things. 'Twas not to be, it turned out.

Unlike a lot of folks who didn't want to ever see anyone playing our favorite characters, I had absolutely no problem with that particular aspect. I just figured they'd have sense enough to keep the original spirit, back stories, and established time lines--more or less. 

_SW_ is so controlled that even the books and other aspects of the universe have to be approved as canon. That's going a bit overboard, I think, but it's a different situation with the original creator still living and, after all, it's his baby. Besides which, he violates his own canon at times (not a big deal in my opinion--I'm really not that much of a purist as to care very much who shot first though I prefer Solo taking the first shot).

They may yet convert me to the dark side of _ST_ but so far, the _TOS_ is strong within me. Most of what I've seen or heard about so far has been a turn-off. In particular:

1. The ship--the arbitrary restyling, exterior and interior, looks stupid to me.

2. The time traveling story makes me want to puke. It's like being on a thrill ride too long. It starts out fun and thrilling but then your equilibrium is ruined and there goes your dinner!

A couple of things I've liked or can live with:

1. The cast--choices look like reasonably good actors to give it a shot.

2. The uniforms--close to original look but updated.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Hey, at least Forbidden Planet was an original story.

Oh, wait... nevermind.

Of course, it's not like TOS owes anything to Forbidden Planet.






And so it goes.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

*False*



PhilipMarlowe said:


> _The Maltese Falcon_ had been filmed _twice_ already before John Huston took a stab at it. And I believe you could make the point _Aliens_ was more a reboot of _Alien_ than a sequel.


As far as Aliens go... ummm NO.

It was a continuation of the story using the only two characters who survived the original story (Ripley and the Alien). It paid respect to the elements of the movie that made the final cut and took liberties with some things that were left on the cutting room floor.

To say it is a reboot is ridiculous.

Yes I know the Alien in the first movie didn't survive, but there were plenty more like him left on LV-426.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Edge said:


> As far as Aliens go... ummm NO.
> 
> It was a continuation of the story using the only two characters who survived the original story (Ripley and the Alien).


That's not corect. The alien didn't survive _Alien_.



> It paid respect to the elements of the movie that made the final cut and took liberties with some things that were left on the cutting room floor.
> 
> To say it is a reboot is ridiculous.




New characters, new director, new number of aliens,new alien designs,different pacing, new settings, in fact other than both being science fiction movies and featuring Ripley, it's hard to find two movies much different from each other than _Alien_ and _Aliens_ in almost every possible way.

I like 'em both, but they're two extremely different films.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> That's not corect. The alien didn't survive _Alien_.


No, but Jonesy (the cat) did


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Transplanted from trekmovie.com, just in case a certain moderator gets delete-happy again...

* * * * * * *

303. *Captain Robert April - December 2, 2008*

If they’d just admitted from the get-go that this was going to be a ground floor reboot, there wouldn’t be nearly as much drama going on around here and other boards. The thing would be judged on its own merits and faults, without this implied threat to the already established continuity.


But this “not really a reboot” feldercarb, trying to reshuffle the deck while still claiming an attachment to what’s come before (and by doing so, _overwriting it_ in the official record), THAT is where we start getting into “fightin’ words” territory.


Allow me to just be blunt: *WHO IN THE HELL DO THESE BOZOS THINK THEY ARE!?!* Not even Berman and Braga at their most arrogant ever thought they could pull off something this far off the mark! And I particularly resent being expected to just shut up, get in line, and hand over my money for a product that, to every indication I can see, has about as much resemblance to Star Trek as an old episode of “The Real McCoys”.


Uh uh. Doesn’t work that way anymore.


You want my money, JJ? You’re gonna have to _earn it_, and from where I’m sittin’, it’ll be a cold day in hell before I plunk down anything to see a show that played a pivotal role in forming my views of the world and my fellow life forms be treated like a ratty old dishrag.

PS: Maybe "The Real McCoys" is a bad example.

"F Troop" is probably more apt.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> And I believe you could make the point _Aliens_ was more a reboot of _Alien_ than a sequel.


Excuse me .. WHAT? 

“Aliens” is a direct continuation of “Alien” and the film establishes that pretty clearly!

Or have you forgotten about the beginning of the Movie as the Narcissus, the escape vehicle of the late Nostromo, drifts through space? The scenes where Riply gets questioned about the occurrences that leads to the destruction of the Nostromo and the death of its crew? Noticed the Data Files on Kane, Dallas; Lambert etc at the view screen behind her? Remember the scene where Newts Family goes to the Derelict Ship, the very same we saw in “Alien”? 

In fact the movies first 30 minutes establish very well that this film is direct successor to “Alien” and wants to continue what was started in the original movie! There is not a single part that classifies as a “re boot”! 


And if you think of the Queen and that she was not mentioned in Alien… yah that’s right. But then Ridley Scott cut the cocoon scene in the original and re established it in his directors cut, because he wanted to show the Alien lifecycle when alone! How it could restart a colony by creating eggs out of its prey. This does not contradict that one of the eggs aboard the derelict ship could have held a Queen face hugger that when evolved and matured can lay eggs on itself.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I like 'em both, but they're two extremely different films.


I agree that besides one being an obvious sequel story-wise, they are two very different movies and both are enjoyable to an extreme degree in their own rights. However, the back story, the art direction, the characters, the entire context, etc. stayed very consistent in all the movies though their tones and directors varied wildly.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yes, _Aliens _was a pure sequel, not remotely a reboot (any more than _2010 _was). But _Alien_, itself, was a remake of _It: The Terror From Beyond Space._


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> Excuse me .. WHAT?
> 
> “Aliens” is a direct continuation of “Alien” and the film establishes that pretty clearly!
> 
> ...


You're missing my point. Of course _Aliens_ is a linear sequel to _Alien_. However, I'm sure there were at least a few hardcore Ridley Scott and _Alien_ fans in 1986 who were kevetching about how that no talent hack James Cameron got rid of the translucent domes, added that Queen, didn't have blue collar guys in Hawaiian shirts, edited it like a MTV video, and didn't even have Sigourney strip down to her panties.

However, most people didn't mind the changes because it's a darn good movie.

YMMV.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Yes, _Aliens _was a pure sequel, not remotely a reboot (any more than _2010 _was). But _Alien_, itself, was a remake of _It: The Terror From Beyond Space._


Okay, now you're confusing the issue!!

What was the issue again??


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Alien 3 made me ill. All the heroics of 2 down the drain and the autopsy of Newt was so sad and unessesary. The whole movie sucked.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Antimatter said:


> Alien 3 made me ill. All the heroics of 2 down the drain and the autopsy of Newt was so sad and unessesary. The whole movie sucked.


I concur completely. What a way to kill a franchise! Luckily it didn't quite.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Antimatter said:


> Alien 3 made me ill. All the heroics of 2 down the drain and the autopsy of Newt was so sad and unessesary. The whole movie sucked.


I never forgave them for killing off Hicks either.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> You're missing my point. Of course _Aliens_ is a linear sequel to _Alien_. However, I'm sure there were at least a few hardcore Ridley Scott and _Alien_ fans in 1986 who were kevetching about how that no talent hack James Cameron got rid of the translucent domes, added that Queen, didn't have blue collar guys in Hawaiian shirts, edited it like a MTV video, and didn't even have Sigourney strip down to her panties.
> 
> However, most people didn't mind the changes because it's a darn good movie.
> 
> YMMV.


So your real point was to create an analogy to „original” Star Trek versus „JJ“ Star Trek? Yes? 

Well to make that work James Cameron would have had to: 

Re locate LV 426 to different location and the planet looks completely different lets say it’s a dune like planet now ( hint to the San Francisco –> Iowa shift)

The Narcissus now looks anything but the one in Alien but keeps the canopy windows (1701 -> JJ1701) 

The strong and action taking Ripley turns into a whining and shock frozen figure (Kirk -> JJ Kirk)

Ripley is played by someone else and looks at least 10 years younger then her former self (Shatner in TOS -> Pine in Trek XI)

etc.


The point being: James Cameron did not change the basics that where established in Alien!He did not alter past Story about Ripley and the Nostromo which was given by the recent movie. No Cameron BUILD on what the recent movie had established and expanded upon it (Alien Queen, the dome less Warrior Aliens and of course the Marines look different then the Nostromos space truckers). Where in contrast JJ takes established looks and characters and changes the look of about everything save the uniforms, changes the characters and as an icing on the cake flushes background history established for objects and beings in over 40 years down the drain!!




PerfesserCoffee said:


> I concur completely. What a way to kill a franchise! Luckily it didn't quite.


Nope it took “Alien Resurrection” to be the death blow to the franchise. ..


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> The point being: James Cameron did not change the basics that where established in Alien!He did not alter past Story about Ripley and the Nostromo which was given by the recent movie. No Cameron BUILD on what the recent movie had established and expanded upon it


IMHO, this is possible because Aliens was a true sequel where as JJ's Star Trek is a re-boot of a franchise made in the image of past Trek as if Trek was first imagined today.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Which they originally where NOT set out to do! 

This was supposed to be the “get together” of the original crew which was to honour what was gone before aka respect canon and not re write the original history while giving the original Star Trek a needed overhaul look wise! But no, JJ and Oric took it further and change all that they can. And no its not enough to keep the characters if you change their known history! 


It’s a fact that Checkov and Kirk could NEVER have visited Starfleet Academy at the same time, since Checkov is an ensign in the second year of Kirks line of command. Yet JJ turns this completely around by Checkov getting a command post while Kirk is still a cadet!!

We know that Christopher Pike did NOT have Sulu, Uhura, Scotty or any of Kirks crew except for Spock under his command. Yet they all show up in this JJ version of TOS where Chris Pike is captain of the ship. 

We know that the 1701 was build in San Francisco not Iowa it says so on the dedication plaque seen on the bridge and Gene himself said that 1701 was supposedly build in a construction yard in synchronous orbit above San Francisco. 

And on and on. 


Those are all changes that would not have been necessary if Oric, JJ and everyone else would have put the effort into it!! Like I pointed out before, JJ could as well have young Kirk run up to the Enterprise construction site on his motorcycle in San Francisco not Iowa and still get the visually stunning picture of Kirk and the dry dock cradling the Enterprise. But why change that? What’s the point of the change to Iowa? The target audiences Joe Moviegoer does not care but the change obviously upsets the fans.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Which they originally where NOT set out to do.....Those are all changes that would not have been necessary if Oric, JJ and everyone else would have put the effort into it!!


I hear your frustration, and I do not disagree with what you have had to say regarding the new film. Actually, your spot on. The changes that were made were not necessary. However, they have been made. Thus for me I can no longer look at this in any way shape or form resembling anything TOS. I must treat this film differently and allow it to succeed or fail on it's own merits. In the end, this is JJ's Star Trek and not Roddenberry's.

It's possible that with all the negative fan reactions, this film will still succeed and almost guarantee a sequel within the time line established.

It's also possible that with all the negative fan reactions, this film will fail and almost guarantee a sequel that will restore the time line established in TOS.

As a fan, I can dream of possibility 2 where we get a return of established canon


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> IMHO, this is possible because Aliens was a true sequel where as JJ's Star Trek is a re-boot of a franchise made in the image of past Trek as if Trek was first imagined today.


Despite what he and his cohorts initially presented it to be. 

It is what a lot of us have seen so far in the art direction department and what a lot of us have read about so far in the story department that make us think this movie will not be our cup of tea, to be polite. 

Are the crusty old fans' reactions important? According to what Guy Schlicter posted in another thread, the apparently high negatives seem to have already decreased the probability of a new old 1701 model kit.

Again, it's the arbitrary nature of the changes--changes for change's sake--that are truly disgusting IMHO. The fact that it is a reboot does not excuse its unnecessary rejection of much of what made us like the original series.

BTW: if you want to see a really idiotic remake of "The Wizard of Oz" that encompasses what I'm talking about here, check out Larry Semon's 1925 version. What occurred to me while watching the movie last night was that it was so freakin' *unnecessary.* It had so few elements of the original that it was as if he just wanted to make the same old idiotic, slapstick comedies but in the guise of the scarecrow from the story with the "Wizard of Oz" title (a really popular franchise of books and movies) on the movie to increase ticket sales. I kept asking myself, "Why did he even bother?" 

The movie was such a flop when it had generated so much excitement, had so much potential (a great cast including my favorite Georgia boy, Oliver N. Hardy) and had so much money spent on it that it sealed Semon's financial doom. Semon was dead from TB (or faked his death to escape his creditors) just a few years later. 

(His wife--who appeared in the movie--was hot, though, so I have to give some credit to the ugly little bugger for having good taste in women.:thumbsup


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> But why change . . . [elements that do not need changing in terms of storytelling]? The target audiences Joe Moviegoer does not care but the change obviously upsets the fans.


I think you have just nailed down the crux of the frustration many of us have with this upcoming movie.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Despite what he and his cohorts initially presented it to be.


Can't argue with that. Apparently their idea of canon was always what they had envisioned and not what Roddenberry had created 



> It is what a lot of us have seen so far in the art direction department and what a lot of us have read about so far in the story department that make us think this movie will not be our cup of tea, to be polite.


And I can certainly respect such a position. Speaking for myself, I am not in love with the new design, but I do not detest it. I am not a fan of many of the changes they have implemented, but I do not detest them, and only because I have accepted the fact that this is not TOS. I simply want to experience what JJ has created.....good or bad. 



> Are the crusty old fans' reactions important?


Absolutely. Unfortunately, the question becomes important to whom? Each other or movie makers?



> Again, it's the arbitrary nature of the changes--changes for change's sake--that are truly disgusting IMHO. The fact that it is a reboot does not excuse its unnecessary rejection of much of what made us like the original series.


Again, I can respect this position, and I am inclined to agree with you. The changes were not necessary. However, I will still give the film the chance to succeed or fail on it's own


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> But why change that? What’s the point of the change to Iowa? The target audiences Joe Moviegoer does not care but the change obviously upsets the fans.





PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think you have just nailed down the crux of the frustration many of us have with this upcoming movie.


Unless of course we accept that this film was not made for the fans but for Joe the moviegoer


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Well I still go for the „alternate timeline due to Kelvin destruction“ theory which puts this Star Trek in to a alternate Universe which makes it easier to accept the changes. But am still not happy with them! 

JJ was given the holly grail of SciFi (Star Trek) which next to the Excalibur (Star Wars) bears an enormous responsibility to protect. And JJ busts it right from the start by changing things that where not necessary. 

I can live with the Enterprise looking the way JJ 1701 does. It needs to appeal to younger ppl and they like “flashy” which this version of the ship certainly is.

I can live with Kirk being a Rogue in his younger years.. we don’t know TOS did not establish this. And Kirk may turn to the person we know after the Faragut incident or some time before that. 

I can live with the new actors as long as I recognize the character as what they used to be. Pine doesn’t say Kirk to me, but Quinto says Spock how good they are remains to be seen. 

I can live with more action scenes as long as we get a balance to the character driven moments. 

But what I can not live with are unnecessary changes that bear no real reason, the construction site being one of them! Since those will make it hard to look at this movie that is supposed to tell the story of how it all started with characters I have known since more then 25 years if right form moment one the movie says “screw TOS history!! “


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> However, I will still give the film the chance to succeed or fail on it's own


It will not excite me enough to get me to watch it in the theater but, I, too, will watch it at some point on TV and accept it or deny it in terms of its own story and the way it is presented rather than its necessarily being part of the _Star Trek_ I know and love.

The basic, irrational, emotional reaction of dislike of it is one thing, but, at some point, it will get a viewing on its own terms by me and many others. We shall see what we shall see. 

If I were a betting man, however, I'd bet money against it being anything worth my watching based solely on the statistics of how few Hollywood movies are worth watching and the _Star Trek_ franchise's record of late.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> Unless of course we accept that this film was not made for the fans but for Joe the moviegoer


They've done _*both *_in the past. Is that not the more financially logical strategy? Sounds like a definite lack of creativity or complete callousness on their part to me.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> They've done _*both *_in the past. Is that not the more financially logical strategy? Sounds like a definite lack of creativity or complete callousness on their part to me.


I can not speak for what is a more financial logical strategy. I am no expert. Apparently Hollywood does not think so which is why we got a new Enterprise and changes to canon. Perhaps they see more money in the creation of new fans who will carry the film forward than they did in established fans? 

Trek has become a bit stagnant as of late. Perhaps a re-imagining was considered a risk worth taking? I guess I am just talking out loud here 

I am left wondering how logical it was to create the Refit as opposed to finishing the half completed Phase II Enterprise which looked much closer to the original E than the Refit did?


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Antimatter said:


> Alien 3 made me ill. All the heroics of 2 down the drain and the autopsy of Newt was so sad and unessesary. The whole movie sucked.


Me as well. The Alien saga ended with Aliens as far as I'm concerned. It nullified everything good that came out of Aliens in, what, the first 5 minutes.

My other point remains, Alien->Aliens new director, new story, new direction. Using the established story and cast.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> I can not speak for what is a more financial logical strategy. I am no expert.


No need to be an expert. Your common sense would more than suffice here, I'm sure:thumbsup:



> Trek has become a bit stagnant as of late. Perhaps a re-imagining was considered a risk worth taking?


The movies that just about fizzled the franchise out have been ST:TNG movies. Let that series be rebooted and see how fans scream. 



> I am left wondering how logical it was to create the Refit as opposed to finishing the half completed Phase II Enterprise which looked much closer to the original E than the Refit did?


That was an interesting metamorphosis. I really liked the Phase II version better even though its basic curves and proportions were not in keeping with the original ship either--in fact, they were virtually identical to the refit.

I'm not a super-stickler in that regard. Jefferies did a very slight reboot of his own when drawing up the Phase II version in terms of proportions. He took an ideal of the original (the effects models varied some, after all) and upgraded the engines. 

Except for the engines and interior remodeling, however--for which there was a more than adequate explanation in it's being upgraded in the story with new warp nacelles and such--the ship was the same critter and, visually, more than close enough considering the explained obvious changes. 

The new old 1701 critter is another matter. I'd wager that none of us would have minded a super-detailed version of the original series ship. Instead we have the arbitrary make-over. Again I ask, why bother?


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Garbaron said:


> Well I still go for the „alternate timeline due to Kelvin destruction“ theory which puts this Star Trek in to a alternate Universe which makes it easier to accept the changes. But am still not happy with them!
> 
> JJ was given the holly grail of SciFi (Star Trek) which next to the Excalibur (Star Wars) bears an enormous responsibility to protect. And JJ busts it right from the start by changing things that where not necessary.
> 
> ...


Well expressed points, Gabaron. You have once again summarized what many of us have problems with. 

In addition, I wonder what it will do for the 'youth' for whom this movie is targeted. When a newly devoted following is created (what Paramount hopes for) and they become more involved in the franchise (Paramount hopes again), how will they feel when they find out their Trek is the re-imagination of JJ, has no basis and doesn't work well with TOS Trek. Will they feel marginalized? Will they care? Will they be friend or foe on this board? 

Personally, I feel this is very much a 'comic book' reboot and while I think you can get away with it in the short term, the long term effects to ST will be disheartening. I'm reminded by the trailer for the movie 'The Spirit' about to be released. It starts with the words something like 'Its time to believe in heroes'. How am I now to believe that Kirk's character 'evolves' to what we know?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> No need to be an expert. Your common sense would more than suffice here, I'm sure:thumbsup:


Then my common sense says that appealing to a newer audience makes sense 

It's a risk, but it does makes sense to me.



> The movies that just about fizzled the franchise out have been ST:TNG movies. Let that series be rebooted and see how fans scream.


I honestly think that is because there was nothing new to them. Same old, same old. They took another risk by introducing a new E as well. 

This new Star Trek seems fresh and new. Possibly why I may be so interested in seeing it.



> The new old 1701 critter is another matter. I'd wager that none of us would have minded a super-detailed version of the original series ship. Instead we have the arbitrary make-over. Again I ask, why bother?


Well they would bother if they though that by building a newer flashier star ship would appeal to a broader audience. Was it necessary? Probably not. 

I think in the end, many of us (myself included) are simply greatly disappointed that we did not get to finally see the original E in her glory. I am of the mind frame that this would not have worked well. The same mind frame that knew the phase II E would not work on the screen. 

I agree that many of the changes were not necessary and would not have detracted from the film. If JJ gave us a familiar film with simply a changed E, we may be sharing very different opinions


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> Then my common sense says that appealing to a newer audience makes sense


At the risk of the exclusion/rejection of the old audience, eh? 

That's not the way most folks' common sense works, I'd wager.

Seems riskier than it would be to appeal to both old and new audiences. Twice (for example) the audience, twice the money. Half the audience, half the money.

I think it would be the most ridiculous of false dilemmas for TPTB to think that it's an either/or situation when it could be a "both" situation.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> That's not the way most folks' common sense works, I'd wager.
> 
> Seems riskier than it would be to appeal to both old and new audiences. Twice (for example) the audience, twice the money. Half the audience, half the money.


Unless the old audience is made up of a bunch of grumpy old guys that don't go to the movies much anymore anyway.


Like me.

Is this going to be a perfect Star Trek movie that's going to please everyone? No, I think that would be impossible. But if it looks likes like it's going to be enjoyable, (and to me so far the trailers look that way), I'll drag my ol' 46 year old butt down to see it.

Preferably in Imax 3D!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> At the risk of the exclusion/rejection/ of the old audience, eh?


In my opinion, the only ones excluding the older audience is the older audience.



> That's not the way most folks' common sense works, I'd wager.


Then I am happy my common sense is unique 



> Seems riskier than it would be to appeal to both old and new audiences. Twice (for example) the audience, twice the money. Half the audience, half the money.


As I said, you or I are not experts. Speaking as a fan your position makes sense. Speaking as a film maker interested in making money, there are a ton more issues unforeseen by the fan I suppose that would need to be considered other than making fans happy.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> I think in the end, many of us (myself included) are simply greatly disappointed that we did not get to finally see the original E in her glory.


Agreed.



> I am of the mind frame that this would not have worked well.


I disagree.



> The same mind frame that knew the phase II E would not work on the screen.


The panel detailing of the movie refit definitely helped. The phase II had been built to TV resolution standards and would not have been as visually interesting up close. The movie refit was bigger and was much more amenable to close-ups. 

If the movie refit did not have the extra bridge structure, modified impulse deck, modified hangar deck doors, and a few other much smaller details, you'd have a ship virtually identical to the phase II ship with paneling detail. To my mind, the movie refit without those relatively minor structural alterations would not have made a critical difference if it had otherwise been paneled and detailed for close-up camera shots.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> . . Speaking as a film maker interested in making money, there are a ton more issues unforeseen by the fan I suppose that would need to be considered other than making fans happy.


Ah, there you go giving the benefit of a doubt to Hollywood insiders. I'm not really prone to do so considering their record.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Unless the old audience is made up of a bunch of grumpy old guys that don't go to the movies much anymore anyway.
> 
> 
> Like me.
> ...


Typically, this 46 year-old is right there in the easy chair myself. Movies such as _Star Trek_ would, however, get me out if there's the least chance of it being fun. 

Dang! That reminds me again of how awful _Nemesis _was.  I saw that one in the movie theater and felt like an idiot for spending my money so foolishly. 

I reckon I'm a bit more picky now: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Unfortunately, _Nemesis _was the second fooling:drunk:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

> I am of the mind frame that this would not have worked well.





PerfesserCoffee said:


> I disagree.


Fair enough. 

My opinion includes my observations of Enterprise. And perhaps this is the fault of the producers and makers of Enterprise. Seeing the Defiant and trying to accept that the 60's technology we saw was more advanced than the NX-01 bridge was simply impossible for me.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I never forgave them for killing off Hicks either.


They originally had a worse fate in mind for Hicks (I think a chestburster while in cryo), but since they used Michael Biehn's picture, i.e., his likeness, he had approval rights on what happened to his character, and he vetoed the idea (he wanted Hicks and Ripley and Newt to settle down as one big happy family, so the idea of killing off Hicks didn't go over well anyway, but at least he managed to salvage some dignity for the ol' boy).


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

BTW & this is just from me personally: thanks for keeping things calm, y'all. :thumbsup:

We should have been discussing things like this from the beginning and I think we would have been but for some passions running high.

We who are very critical of the new movie as revealed so far are not idiots for judging it as we do and the more enthusiastic folks have every right to be emotionally turned on by it without any hard feelings towards them (which I, and I'm sure most others, never had though some feelings were apparently hurt).

I've really enjoyed this discussion of late and the manners have been most pleasant.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Captain April said:


> They originally had a worse fate in mind for Hicks (I think a chestburster while in cryo), but since they used Michael Biehn's picture, i.e., his likeness, he had approval rights on what happened to his character, and he vetoed the idea (he wanted Hicks and Ripley and Newt to settle down as one big happy family, so the idea of killing off Hicks didn't go over well anyway, but at least he managed to salvage some dignity for the ol' boy).


Yeah, Biehn also made them pay his full actor's salary just to use his picture for a few seconds.

I was supposed to get to meet Biehn when he did some promotional stuff for the UDT-SEAL Museum in Ft Pierce years ago, sadly my oldest boy got sick and I couldn't go. Everyone said he was a helluva nice guy.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It will not excite me enough to get me to watch it in the theater but, I, too, will watch it at some point on TV and accept it or deny it in terms of its own story and the way it is presented rather than its necessarily being part of the _Star Trek_ I know and love.
> 
> If I were a betting man, however, I'd bet money against it being anything worth my watching based solely on the statistics of how few Hollywood movies are worth watching and the _Star Trek_ franchise's record of late.


This has nothing to do with 'Treks record of late'. This is NEW, NEW, NEW. New director, new budget, new actors, NEW. And it has to be because old Trek is box office death.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Typically, this 46 year-old is right there in the easy chair myself. Movies such as _Star Trek_ would, however, get me out if there's the least chance of it being fun.


I feel your pain about the last couple of Trek movies. On the other hand, I did catch _MI3_ and _Cloverfeld_ in the theater, and enjoyed them both immensely, both are good films to watch with an audience. I know other's have offered dissenting views on both films, but again, I thought both films were clever, smart, fun, and exciting.

All things I'd like to see in the next Trek movie.

I gotta admit, the _Enterprise_ being built in Iowa does kinda bother me a bit. But maybe just the hull is built in Iowa, and the computers and anti-matter engines are installed in San Francisco. 

Look at all the fuss after Phantom Menace about C-3PO not recognizing Luke in _A New Hope_, Lucas fixed it with one line of throwaway dialog in _Revenge of the Sith_.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I gotta admit, the _Enterprise_ being built in Iowa does kinda bother me a bit.


It may not be "canon," but the unexpected grandeur of the under-construction Enterprise rising majestically over the plains certainly gets points for dramatic effect.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> It may not be "canon," but the unexpected grandeur of the under-construction Enterprise rising majestically over the plains certainly gets points for dramatic effect.


I understand that, Rob. But at the same time it's been drummed into our heads for over four decades now that the Enterprise was built in San Francisco. New Enterprise, new crew, new look, I'm fine with all that. But the Enterprise should be built in San Frakkin Francisco. I visit the left coast as little as possible, but aren't there similiar terrains like that near SF? Or couldn't there be in the future?

It's not a deal breaker or anything. And as I stated before it may even be a non-issue with a little fudging and some creative writing. 

And the shot is pretty awesome. But still....this is the one issue I can understand some folks being dismayed by.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> this is the one issue I can understand some folks being dismayed by.


Me too.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Captain April said:


> They originally had a worse fate in mind for Hicks (I think a chestburster while in cryo), but since they used Michael Biehn's picture, i.e., his likeness, he had approval rights on what happened to his character, and he vetoed the idea (he wanted Hicks and Ripley and Newt to settle down as one big happy family, so the idea of killing off Hicks didn't go over well anyway, but at least he managed to salvage some dignity for the ol' boy).


Really? I always liked the imdb trivia that Biehn wouldn't have anything to do with it and was paid more for the 'screen' image displayed briefly than he made for the whole 'Aliens' gig.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I feel your pain about the last couple of Trek movies. On the other hand, I did catch _MI3_ and _Cloverfeld_ in the theater, and enjoyed them both immensely, both are good films to watch with an audience. I know other's have offered dissenting views on both films, but again, I thought both films were clever, smart, fun, and exciting . . .
> 
> Look at all the fuss after Phantom Menace about C-3PO not recognizing Luke in _A New Hope_, Lucas fixed it with one line of throwaway dialog in _Revenge of the Sith_.


Credit where credit is due: I really liked _MI3_ as well due to the fact that, of all the _MI _movies, it was closest to the old series which I've recently watched in its entirety on cable. In fact, the first movie was only kind of "okay" and the second one really sucked! The respect by Abrams and co. was there for the third movie's team effort that made the original such a cool series.

(I can't watch _Cloverfield_ due to the jiggling camera--my inner ear revolts at the thought so no judgement there by me.)

As for C3PO's _faux pas_, I love a simple solution as contrived as it may be--it's just too small of a nit to get too upset about.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> (I can't watch _Cloverfield_ due to the jiggling camera--my inner ear revolts at the thought so no judgement there by me.)
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> You need to do what my six year old does - jump up and down in your seat in time with the movie's jiggling and everything will look fine! Of course, folks will think, like my little fella, you've had too much fountain soda and need to go pee....:lol:


:lol: He sounds like a lot of fun to take to movies! 

Funny thing is, I don't mind a little shaking or whatever occasionally as in a car. But when I sit in front of the tracks watching a train go by, for example, I have to look away from the moving train or I'll get really dizzy after a while.:freak:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> (I can't watch _Cloverfield_ due to the jiggling camera--my inner ear revolts at the thought so no judgement there by me.)


I recently watched the new blu-ray DVD, while the movie's still enjoyable, it plays a LOT better with an audience. 

Still, when you compare it to the Matthew Broderick _Godzilla_ remake, or for that matter any Godzilla movie 'cept the original, it looks like _Citizen Kane_.

And I can definately see where the "shaky-cam" would put some folks off.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Just so there's no misunderstanding, JJ Abrams DID NOT DIRECT Cloverfield.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

That's right, he had to go pee!:drunk: 
Huzz
(Trying to get even more mileage on one silly joke!):wave:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> It may not be "canon," but the unexpected grandeur of the under-construction Enterprise rising majestically over the plains certainly gets points for dramatic effect.


As I pointed out: JJ could have created the exact same shot just a few miles out of San Francisco! There was no need to move it to Iowa.

And jup JJ did not direct Cloverfield as far as I recall next to MI3 Trek XI is only his second job as a director! His other jobs are as writer and producer and he is best known for LOST which he left in charge of someone else when he drove it into the ground and ratings dropped. 

So I don’t really get where all the fuzz about JJ comes from because plainly spoken JJ is a trainee when it comes to directing!!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> As I pointed out: JJ could have created the exact same shoot just a few miles out of San Francisco! There was no need to move it to Iowa.


I agree there was no need, but this point does not take away from the overall majestic feel that Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise gives off


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Agreed it’s a nice shot with Pine in it (sorry can’t see him as “Kirk” yet)


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Agreed it’s a nice shot with Pine in it (sorry can’t see him as “Kirk” yet)


And in all honesty, I can't see anyone as of yet as the characters I have come to love. I will need to see them in action.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Garbaron said:


> he is best known for LOST which he left in charge of someone else when he drove it into the ground and ratings dropped.


That is incorrect. Abrams co-created the show with Damon Lindelof, and he directed the pilot. Since then, he has served as a producer on the show, with little day-to-day involvement, if any -- although I suspect he reserves the right to step in if he felt the need. The people actually running the series -- Lindelof and Carlton Cuse -- have been there since the pilot.

Lindelof is also a producer on _Star Trek_.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

sbaxter said:


> That is incorrect. Abrams co-created the show with Damon Lindelof, and he directed the pilot. Since then, he has served as a producer on the show, with little day-to-day involvement, if any -- although I suspect he reserves the right to step in if he felt the need. The people actually running the series -- Lindelof and Carlton Cuse -- have been there since the pilot.
> 
> Lindelof is also a producer on _Star Trek_.
> 
> ...


Lindelof... right that’s the guys name! As far as I know Lindelof is the creative mind behind LOST for some time now. Sure JJ is still involved somehow, but the he left it in charge of the other guys. 



Raist3001 said:


> And in all honesty, I can't see anyone as of yet as the characters I have come to love. I will need to see them in action.


Hehe dito that.

I had a friend over here and he is a semi Star Trek fan, meaning he does not keep up with what’s going on but knows about the new movie. 

I showed him that bridge shot with everybody in it. He said he might identify the persons by the department colors since he does not recognise anyone by face.. they are just ppl in known uniforms to him. Who do you think he identified as Kirk? Yelchin because he has blond hair and wears the gold shirt. He identified everyone else but one! He could not figure at all who the dude in black is supposed to be! I think that speaks for itself how well they cast the New Kirk. Quinto as Spock he liked the most. 

Then I told him as unbiased as possible the premise of the 25 Minutes JJ toured through Europe and then showed him the 2nd trailer freezing frame at moments the 25 minutes contained.

He thinks its might be a good movie but is concerned about the changes that have been done (ship too modern, shift to Iowa, showing boobs… and that from a guy, but he said that was never part of Trek and it wasn’t missing). Mostly he doesn’t like that they again resort to a time manipulation / time travel plot since he thinks it is over used in Star Trek. 

Ah right… I freeze frame where the Enterprise is in front of the space station and he said “well if they can build that gargantuan space station why did they have to build the ship on the ground? Couldn’t they have build it in that station? Was the permit missing to build it there or what’s the reason?”

We both figure it might not be a construction station, but the fact remains.. if they can build that fat space station.. why not build a ship in space?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> . . . if they can build that fat space station.. why not build a ship in space?


[Foghorn Leghorn] "I say-I say, _son!_ It's the _gran-deur_, son! Don'tcha see the _gran-deur?_ I say-I say, _son!_ Take another look at that _gran-deur,_ son!"[/Foghorn Leghorn] 

(In other words, it's just pure H-wood! )



:jest:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I always liked this. Wish this variation made it to film.

http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/fakeenterprise/1000288326


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> [Foghorn Leghorn] "I say-I say, _son!_ It's the _gran-deur_, son! Don'tcha see the _gran-deur?_ I say-I say, _son!_ Take another look at that _gran-deur,_ son!"[/Foghorn Leghorn]
> 
> (In other words, it's just pure H-wood! )
> 
> ...




Probably. 

The real reason of course is that they could never recreate TMP drydock scene EVER without looking cartoonish. That particular scenen even today looks a lot more real than what most recent SciIf movies where able to do! Watch NEM and the Ent-E in space dock… there is a faint hint of the gran-deur of the TMP scene but it still looks cheap compared to the original… which came 30 years before the NEM re creation. Another proof of how much superior miniature effects can be. 





Raist3001 said:


> I always liked this. Wish this variation made it to film.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/fakeenterprise/1000288326


Its certainly a lot better then what Ryan Church produced for the movie. But it also has that odd obsession with the foreskin/hood detail covering the nacelles and secondary hull. What’s with that?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> As I pointed out: JJ could have created the exact same shot just a few miles out of San Francisco! There was no need to move it to Iowa.
> 
> And jup JJ did not direct Cloverfield as far as I recall next to MI3 Trek XI is only his second job as a director! His other jobs are as writer and producer and he is best known for LOST which he left in charge of someone else when he drove it into the ground and ratings dropped.
> 
> So I don’t really get where all the fuzz about JJ comes from because plainly spoken JJ is a trainee when it comes to directing!!


As compared with Gene Roddenberry's fine body of work BESIDES the TOS? Speaking for myself, TOS EXCLUDED, any of Abram's efforts far surpasses _any_ of the crappy TV movies and pilots Roddenberry ever did. How many time did he remake the tired ol' cliche where WOMEN RULE THE EARTH!

Not to mention Wesley Crusher, the bald chick who couldn't act, Roxanna Troi, and ST:TMP, the worlds only sleep inducer more powerful than Ambien.

(to be fair, _The Questor Tapes _wasn't that bad iirc)


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Could you maybe calm down again? 

I was merely pointing out that JJ is not an experienced movie director! That's a fact. 
But this does not rule out that he still might be a good director. But everybody seems so fuzzy about JJ because of MI3 and Cloverfield and give him immense credit for those two movies although JJ did not direct Cloverfield! 

I can tell you a lot of ppl will think Cloverfield when they hear that JJ is making Star Trek now. And although they don’t like Star Trek, its “the new JJ flick” and they will go watch it because they liked Cloverfield. Others will be his LOST and ALIAS Fans that will go see this movie even if they never saw the other Trek movies or didn’t even care but its from JJ so it must be good. And that's exactly what Paramount is counting on. JJ brings a build in Fan base to a build in Fan base of Star Trek… that’s the money Paramount wants. From a company standpoint that’s a logical decision. 

And you as well as we all know that Star Treks initial idea came from Gene but it took a whole lot more ppl to make it in to what we know... Gene **** being the most important when it comes to TOS. And we all know that Gene used to be a pain in the ass when it came to scripts and all. When it comes to Star Trek I don’t see Gene Ronddenberry only. But Gene ****, Matt Jefferies, Will Theis, Dorothy Fontana, and all the others who created what today is known as TOS. 

Regarding TMP.. that's a matter of opinion, since I happen to like TMP a lot.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> Could you maybe calm down again?
> 
> I was merely pointing out that JJ is not an experienced movie director! That's a fact.
> But this does not rule out that he still might be a good director. But everybody seems so fuzzy about JJ because of MI3 and Cloverfield and give him immense credit for those two movies although JJ did not direct Cloverfield!
> ...


Fuzzy has nothing to do with it. Cloverfield was a Bad Robot project, just like Alias, Lost,MI3, and Star Trek. While he may not have personally directed it, it was his idea and his company, and if you listen to the Cloverfield commentary, his fingerprints were all over it.

Rob is just more precise than I am. 

And I agree with you about the other talented folks associated with Trek. However, I watched a lot of crappy TV and theatrical movies in my youth because Roddenberry's name were on them. I think he got really lucky with the TOS, and milked that puppy into a lifelong career of mediocre work.

It's just my opinion, but if Abram's never made another film or TV show, his body of work is still waaaaaay more impressive than Roddenberrys. 

As always, YMMV.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Garbaron said:


> As I pointed out: JJ could have created the exact same shot just a few miles out of San Francisco! There was no need to move it to Iowa.


Why outside SF? It's supposed to be _IN _the SF Navy Yards.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Why outside SF? It's supposed to be _IN _the SF Navy Yards.


In orbit around earth, right?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That'd be preferable.

For that matter, since the Enterprise was supposed to have been launched in 2245, when Kirk was in junior high, I think they could've had just as much of a dramatic "hero sees his destiny" moment by looking at the ship under construction through a telescope of some sort.

To be perfectly honest, this is starting to inspire me to one day do my own set of fan films covering those first five years of the Enterprise under the command of Captain Robert April. In fact, I've already got a short story about that first trip out of spacedock, that would fit the bill quite well for a pilot.

I'll have to get ahold of Cawley one of these days...


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Capt April posted:


> To be perfectly honest, this is starting to inspire me to one day do my own set of fan films covering those first five years of the Enterprise under the command of Captain Robert April. In fact, I've already got a short story about that first trip out of spacedock, that would fit the bill quite well for a pilot.


There already was a story about the _Enterprise_'s launch.
It was in a novel called "FINAL FRONTIER" by Diane Carey.
It had nothing to do with the movie.

Then, "BEST DESTINY" had a second adventure with Captain April,
the newly commissioned _Enterprise_, and a sixteen-year-old James Kirk.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> In orbit around earth, right?


_Assembled _in orbit, according to Roddenberry's final series bible. Components bult at the SF Navy yards, and final assembly in orbit.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Captain April said:


> That'd be preferable.
> 
> For that matter, since the Enterprise was supposed to have been launched in 2245, when Kirk was in junior high, I think they could've had just as much of a dramatic "hero sees his destiny" moment by looking at the ship under construction through a telescope of some sort.
> 
> ...



Wasn't April only mentioned on the cartoon? Hardly canon.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

John P said:


> _Assembled _in orbit, according to Roddenberry's final series bible. Components bult at the SF Navy yards, and final assembly in orbit.


This has alway's been known. This is what makes me so mad with the new movie. It's just lazy and a slap in the face to the fans, to build it on earth and in Iowa of all places. Just plain moronic.:freak:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> _Assembled _in orbit, according to Roddenberry's final series bible. Components bult at the SF Navy yards, and final assembly in orbit.


Gotcha! Thanks!:thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> _Assembled _in orbit, according to Roddenberry's final series bible. Components bult at the SF Navy yards, and final assembly in orbit.


We see the Enterprise under construction on the ground; she's at an advanced stage of construction there but certainly not yet complete. Perhaps final assembly will still occur in orbit. One could envision that "final assembly" could entail installation of components that pose a danger to the general population on the surface, such as installation of the warp core.

Huzz


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Dave Hussey said:


> We see the Enterprise under construction on the ground; she's at an advanced stage of construction there but certainly not yet complete. Perhaps final assembly will still occur in orbit. One could envision that "final assembly" could entail installation of components that pose a danger to the general population on the surface, such as installation of the warp core.
> 
> Huzz


And that would still be a cop-out. I fully expect them to add (another cop-out) a couple of lines of dialog to explain this because of the backlash it has created.

The funny thing about this is if the ship just were in major pieces, separated by only a few feet for each piece, they could have had their cake and ate it too. No one knows 'what' is assembled in space. I would have thought it would be smaller components but it could have satisfied most fans and had the same awe inspiring visual (unless the real visual is watching it drift slowly up through the clouds).


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

You can call it a cop-out if you like. I think its a perfectly reasonable explanation. Of course, we haven't yet seen how the film will treat this issue, if at all.

Huzz


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> You can call it a cop-out if you like. I think its a perfectly reasonable explanation. Of course, we haven't yet seen how the film will treat this issue, if at all.
> 
> Huzz



Agreed. IMHO it is simply a different approach to how the Enterprise was built. And for me, as a fan, seeing Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise works so much better than the 3 hour flight around the Refit in TMP.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> Agreed. And for me, as a fan, seeing *Chris Pine* in the shadow of Enterprise works so much better than the 3 hour flight around the Refit in TMP



Corrected that for you.  

I don’t mind her being build on the ground. There is no canon episode telling us how 1701 was build. But thinking of the NX-01 which was assembled in space, one would assume, that a hundred years later space ships still get build in space. And as pointed out by a friend, its rather stupid if Starfleet is able to build a xyz times larger space station, which I guess WAS build in space, or do you think it was build in the desert Gobi and then gracefully lifted off in to orbit? Certainly not. So if they can do that why cant they build a much smaller star ship in space? It simply makes no sense. 

Then there is Gene who had it written down that the ships components where build on the ground, then lifted to orbit and the ship then was assembled in a geo synchronous orbit above San Francisco. I know ppl will jump in and tell me what screwups Gene has created over time and that he wanted a metal plate in Spocks tummy which he uses to absorb energy and what not but fact is that he wrote down this historic facts in the shows bible for authors to use in upcoming TOS episodes. Its there. Its what Fans always assumed had happened. Why not use it? 

But then again there is no canon source aka episode or movie that tells about the construction of the Constitution class Enterprise, registry number 1701. 

Therefore… she may as well have been build on the ground to lift off in one piece when she is finished. So .. no problem there.

The screw up of JJ was, as stated previously, to shift the building site for no apparent reason from San Francisco Calif. to Iowa! THAT’S the real screw up and you all know it. And you all know that JJ could have made that exact same scene with Pine taking place in or near San Francisco! This shift was only to NOT respect canon and hit the fans at the head! And if Oric and Kurzman don’t know that the 1701 dedication plaque says where she was build they are not worth their Spock ears! (yeah I know… it may be the launch site as with Titanic, but that’s not how dedication plaques have been established since TOS )


Edit. 

Since I love TMP I got to nitpick you… the drydock scene is 5:59 minutes long! That’s precisely the length of the “The Enterprise” theme on the soundtrack which plays throughout the scene. And don’t you tell me that you do not love that part of TMP! 

EVERYONE who loves the Refit, and I do know that you do, loves the dry dock scene! So don’t any of you start to dump that beloved scene down to make a point on why the JJ cornfield build of 1701 is so much better! And next time any of you attempts to build a Refit and you resort to that scene for reference…. remember how you said how endless long that scene was for you when defending JJs cornfield!


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> PLEASE READ: The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue through which skeptical Trek fans may critique the forthcoming JJ Abrams Trek film without having to fend off charges that we’re being “too negative” from those who can’t handle the criticism. The point is not to create an anarchic Angry Mob climate, but provide a “safe zone” in which the pessimistic among us can critique Trek XI with like-minded fans without fear of being attacked for our views. If you fall into the skeptical category as far as Trek XI is concerned, please post away. If, on the other hand, you believe the new film just might represent A New Hope for Trek fans, please go here…





> You can call it a cop-out if you like. I think its a perfectly reasonable explanation. Of course, we haven't yet seen how the film will treat this issue, if at all.





> Agreed. IMHO it is simply a different approach to how the Enterprise was built. And for me, as a fan, seeing Kirk in the shadow of Enterprise works so much better than the 3 hour flight around the Refit in TMP.


Why are you guys posting here? You have your own thread. This, if you were not aware, is the criticizm thread. C'mon Carson moderate this place will ya? What's the point of creating this if we're going to have everything constantly challenged by the local J.J. Abrams fan club.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Seashark said:


> Why are you guys posting here? You have your own thread. This, if you were not aware, is the criticizm thread. C'mon Carson moderate this place will ya? What's the point of creating this if we're going to have everything constantly challenged by the local J.J. Abrams fan club.


Wouldn't you be happy to have your opinions challenged in a fair way? If they are debated and you "win" the debate, that lends a lot of credibility to your view. By the same token, folks who are not fans of the movie are posting challenges to the supportive comments made over on the "Discussion" thread. That's fair ball on both threads as long as its done in a friendly way.

Huzz


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

> Wouldn't you be happy to have your opinions challenged in a fair way? If they are debated and you "win" the debate, that lends a lot of credibility to your view. By the same token, folks who are not fans of the movie are posting challenges to the supportive comments made over on the "Discussion" thread. That's fair ball on both threads as long as its done in a friendly way.


First, are you the mod? I don't think it's your place to decide what's "fair ball" here. Secondly, it says nothing in carson's intro about challenges as long as it's being fair. It says, in fact "but provide a “safe zone” in which the pessimistic among us can critique Trek XI with like-minded fans" Like minded. I guess I took this as read and decided not to add my own addendums to it, silly me. And no, I don't think people posting challenges in the supportive thread is fair, there's obviously a reason we have two different threads. i.e. because things degenerated to the point where it was necessary. Third, I don't feel the need to "win" any argument or challenge on the internet; that to me is the epitomy of pointless. Here, I'll post it again...



> PLEASE READ: The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue through which skeptical Trek fans may critique the forthcoming JJ Abrams Trek film without having to fend off charges that we’re being “too negative” from those who can’t handle the criticism. The point is not to create an anarchic Angry Mob climate, but provide a “safe zone” in which the pessimistic among us can critique Trek XI with like-minded fans without fear of being attacked for our views. If you fall into the skeptical category as far as Trek XI is concerned, please post away. If, on the other hand, you believe the new film just might represent A New Hope for Trek fans, please go here…


Now, is there a point to this intro carson? Again, why bother creating this stipulation if no one follows it?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Seashark said:


> Why are you guys posting here? You have your own thread. This, if you were not aware, is the criticizm thread.



I am not quite sure where exactly you or anyone were attacked, or feared attack for your opinion by my reply?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Corrected that for you.


LOL 



> But thinking of the NX-01 which was assembled in space, one would assume, that a hundred years later space ships still get build in space.


Can't argue with that. Makes perfect sense. However, there may be a reason that is explained in the film. Too much left too conjecture at this point.



> Then there is Gene who had it written down that the ships components where build on the ground, then lifted to orbit and the ship then was assembled in a geo synchronous orbit above San Francisco.


This is still possible.



> Since I love TMP I got to nitpick you…


Oh I love TMP as well. Sorry if my 3 hour shuttle fly by comment implied otherwise 



> And don’t you tell me that you do not love that part of TMP!


I do love it. I just think that this new scene from the film is better


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Seashark said:


> First, are you the mod?


Are you?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

No, I am not the mod. I'm just a guy interested in the topic and who is of the view that a free - but civilized and respectful debate is a good thing.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> civilized and respectful debate is a good thing.


Generally speaking I agree with you Dave, but this particular thread was not created to incite "debate" about Trek XI. 

For the record, this forum was created give those who wish to criticize Trek XI a place to do so without having to defend or justify their views and opinions. Period. If you don't agree with the negative comments put forth on this forum I respectfully request that you BITE YOUR TONGUE and respect the posted rules. If that proves too difficult I suggest you consider avoiding this thread altogether.

This goes for all of you.



Seashark said:


> C'mon Carson moderate this place will ya?


Gosh, sorry if I've dropped the ball. As much as I'd like to police these threads 24/7 I'm afraid I'm occasionally distracted by silly things like work and family. Pity, because moderating a bunch of bickering Trek fans is such rewarding work.

Once again, this is the CRITICISM forum. If you find yourself in desperate need of praising or defending Trek XI please TAKE IT TO THE TREK XI DISCUSSION FORUM...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235812

This is my LAST warning on this matter. I've bent over backwards to provide both sides with a forum for their comments. All I ask is that the rules at the top of each thread be respected. If this proves too much to ask I'll have no choice but to close the threads.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Quote:
Then there is Gene who had it written down that the ships components where build on the ground, then lifted to orbit and the ship then was assembled in a geo synchronous orbit above San Francisco.


Raist3001 said:


> This is still possible.


Possible, but not likely. Check your reference on geosynchronous. Those satellites you watch your DirectTV are parked (geosynchronously) at around * 32 thousand miles* up as opposed to the ISS, shuttle, references to space dock etc. where they are more like a few dozen miles up.

Still, I stand by my comment. It is established canon that the major assemble occurs in space after initial assembly on the ground in San Fransisco. Changes would be fine if there were a valid reason but just because it establishes a 'money' shot for some people is a mistake. 

I still suspect this is to compete with the star destroyer scene at the end of Ep. II showing SD in the atmosphere taking off... whatever. Star Trek chases Star Wars now, just great. 

Thing is, I feel that JJ will leave his mark and simply move on (fandom be damned).



Carson Dyle said:


> ... because moderating a bunch of bickering Trek fans is such rewarding work.


Don't you get paid for this?  While you are at it, my brother won't let me watch TOS on TV. Make him change it, please?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I've enjoyed the friendlier discussions I've had so far. I am under the impression if the threads are closed, there will be NO discussion at all allowed on the new movie in any other thread as well. 

I'd like to see both threads kept open if that is possible. 

Just talking out loud, not directed at anyone in particular. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I have no problem in complying with this and will do so. However, as there have been a number of recent posts on the Discussion Thread from folks who are critical of the film and who are challenging the supporting comments there, I think its only fair that a similar notice be posted on that thread.

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

hubert said:


> I still suspect this is to compete with the star destroyer scene at the end of Ep. II showing SD in the atmosphere taking off... whatever. Star Trek chases Star Wars now, just great.


I love the scenes of the big destroyers lifting off the planets with the hordes of clone troops aboard--perfect stuff for _SW_.

_Star Trek_ has always been more grounded in reality, so to speak, as a matter of style if nothing else. So, while I like such a scene in _SW_, it doesn't really work for me in _ST_.:drunk:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> there have been a number of recent posts on the Discussion Thread from folks who are critical of the film and who are challenging the supporting comments there, I think its only fair that a similar notice be posted on that thread.


Fair enough.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Belay that. I'm not afraid of a civilized debate over there and welcome it. However, this will be my last post on this thread.

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> I have no problem in complying with this and will do so.


You've been very "cool" about the whole thing, I think.:thumbsup: 

Of course, this time of year, ALL Canadians are cool, right?

Seriously, though, you can have a discussion without baiting or insulting--much to be admired. 

I imagine your being up there in the North Pole making toys and smiling the whole time. You must have an irresistibly optimistic disposition in order to cope with the cold and darkness this time of year. 





> However, as there have been a number of recent posts on the Discussion Thread from folks who are critical of the film and who are challenging the supporting comments there, I think its only fair that a similar notice be posted on that thread.


Agreed.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I love the scenes of the big destroyers lifting off the planets with the hordes of clone troops aboard--perfect stuff for _SW_.


I agree, for star wars. What I love more is that when Spartacus was filmed so much effort was made to ensure that extras marched together as one. Today so much effort is place making the clones NOT march together since everyone knows it is a /copy/paste job.




PerfesserCoffee said:


> _Star Trek_ has always been more grounded in reality, so to speak, as a matter of style if nothing else. So, while I like such a scene in _SW_, it doesn't really work for me in _ST_.:drunk:


Again, I agree completely. I don't even like the idea of welders working on a ship that ends up traveling 8 x 8 x 8 x SOL ~ about 100 million miles / sec. But hey that's me. Then again, JJ will probably change the other ship characteristics as well...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

hubert said:


> Again, I agree completely. I don't even like the idea of welders working on a ship that ends up traveling 8 x 8 x 8 x SOL ~ about 100 million miles / sec. But hey that's me. Then again, JJ will probably change the other ship characteristics as well...


I agree that welding, as we understand it today, seems anachronistic for such far-flung future technology.

I can remember as a teenager reading some fan written treatises on _Star Trek_ and imagining huge sections of outer hull platting being mixed and rolled out from machines as a solid unit of some lightweight, super strong metal/composite material.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Roddenberry created ST but left it to rot on the vine in season 2. He almost killed it with the "Changling" retread in STTMP. I do not hold Roddenberry in very high regard and B&B, I mean JJ is about to take the last wind from the Enterprise sails with this silly kiddie movie.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I do not want to know anything about a movie before
I go see it. I want to be surprised and entertained as I'm
sitting there in the theater. So, I try to avoid commercials,
columns, and spoilers. However, reading various threads here,
I have, unfortunately, learned a few things. I'm not complaining,
just setting up my next point.

From what I can tell, this new "STAR TREK" by JJ is a 
time-traveling-shoot-'em-up-with-bare-boobs.
Does that sound right?
I guess it won't be appropriate for children.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I doubt it will feature bare boobs. That tralier is misleading. I guess thats why they call it a teaser.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

They seem to be bare, from my freeze-framing efforts, but in silhouette only. It looks to be going past the rather tasteful limits set up by the _Star Trek _tradition so far.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> From what I can tell, this new "STAR TREK" by JJ is a time-traveling-shoot-'em-up-with-bare-boobs. Does that sound right?


Trek XI will almost certainly garner a PG-13 rating. The sexual content, what little there is, is limited to one scene -- and the content in question is only slightly racier than similar moments found in TOS. 

Contrary to what you may have gleaned from the trailer, there are no "bare boobs" in Trek XI.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Will Kirk pull on his boot? That was racy.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Will Kirk pull on his boot? That was racy.


Watch the boot references, fella! This is a family friendly board!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Will Kirk pull on his boot? That was racy.


He's so racy, he'll pull it on in the blink of an eye!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Will Kirk pull on his boot? That was racy.


Yes, but the foot will be bare just before he does. 


THAT's all I've got! :drunk:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Bare or not, they're Rachel Nichols' boobs, so I'll be happy.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Bear boobs? Wasn't that in a scene in ST:V while Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were camping?



Larry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Simpley "boobs" will do for that scene, without any adjectives. :lol:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> Wasn't that in a scene in ST:V while Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were camping?


Now THAT scene, maybe even the entire movie, could be booted or rebooted and I wouldn't care


----------



## EAGLE_01 (Sep 10, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Well, part of that film's artistic success has to do with the fact that Nick Meyer had a strong if creatively divergent take on the material, and was given a lot of latitude in terms of departing from the edicts of Gene Roddenberry and the TOS Writer's Guide. Almost twenty years later TWOK has not only been accepted as canon, but is widely regarded as being the best of the Trek films. Back in `85 some of the more ardent TOS fans bemoaned the stylistic and philosophical departure from the more cerebral "let's explore the cosmos" hard science ethos of TOS, but these days it's rare to find a Trek fan that doesn't enjoy TWOK. Why? Because it's a good story, well told.


 I know I don't post much: so what. However this statement is rediculous. "Back in '85 blah blah blah..." Ummm... there was no internet (as useless as it is), and there were trek fans wishing they had a decent model, or ANY model, for that matter, of the Reliant, thinking the new uniforms were pretty cool, and loving the graphics. 

So, you and a couple of dudes in a small town hobby shop didn't like the advances condoned by the CREATOR of Star Trek. Whatever. JJtrek sucks, and so do you. They won't get my money, and Star Trek is truly dead. 

Forgive me, I'm quite drunk ATM.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

EAGLE_01 said:


> Forgive me, I'm quite drunk ATM.


I never would have guessed.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

> Whatever. JJtrek sucks.....They won't get my money, and Star Trek is truly dead.
> 
> Forgive me, I'm quite drunk ATM.


You may be drunk, but at least you are in the right thread


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^:lol:

Very true!

I'm thinking that the adventure story in _TWOK _was very much in keeping with some of the more action-oriented _TOS _tales like _Arena_ that had a cerebral part to them as well. After all, Genesis wasn't just the creation of life, it was also the destruction of life as well. 

Then there was the whole "aging" thing being discussed in the movie. _TWOK _had its cerebral side, more along purely philosophical lines than some others, perhaps, and not quite as deep, but there to some extent,nonetheless.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

EAGLE_01 said:


> Forgive me, I'm quite drunk ATM.


Probably not the best time to build a model either!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Probably not the best time to build a model either!


I thought alcohol prevented the brain from being damaged by the model glue 

It _does_ make for more of a challenge to build while drinking. 

The problem comes when you wake up the following morning next to the model you built. If it had seemed like a ten to you the night before, it may not quite live up to your expectations in the morning. Could be a scary situation


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The problem comes when you wake up the following morning next to the model you built.


Hopefully just next to it and not *glued* to it !


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

The one workaround though is that if you get plastered again, the model will look correct once more! :hat:


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Dave Hussey said:


> Belay that. I'm not afraid of a civilized debate over there and welcome it. However, this will be my last post on this thread.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...


Huzz, It was not my intent to 'ruffle' any feathers in the other thread. I, for one, welcome all comments on the subject with open arms and even (God forbid) embrace some made in the other forum. 

My point was made without trying to be negative about the prospects of the film. 

I am sorry if this contributed to the demise of that thread...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

When he gets a chance, hopefully he'll be able to open it back up. Rob is very reasonable about such things. We just need to stay off that thread with anything negative.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> When he gets a chance, hopefully he'll be able to open it back up. Rob is very reasonable about such things. We just need to stay off that thread with anything negative.


In the immortal word of a little girl...

I-firmative


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Since it apparently was not appreciated in the other thread I post this here….





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." *
> 
> ...


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:


Introduce Nero and Spock in post NEM timeline
Introduce Kelvin and crew
Introduce Kirks parents and part of his childhood
Introduce Sarek and Amanda and Spocks childhood
Introduce the TOS Crew + Pike and support cast
Introduce Academy and what the cast is doing there
Introduce the political entities and worlds of the Federation (23th century Earth and Vulcan)
Introduce the ship
Introduce what Nero does and what Spock does to counter him
Find a clever way to stop Nero form doing what he is doing
Do all this with nice and deep character driven moments
Pimp it all up with lots of actions scenes so Joe Averagemoviegoer will like it.


With in the constrain of 120 Minutes and produce what Nimoy is talking about.

And we all know that character moments are the first things that end on the cutting room floor since these slow down the pacing of the movie and are usually not that necessary to explain and andvance the overall plot (think for example of the Data Picard scene, the alternate ending, Weselys part on the E etc in NEM).

This movie is aiming at the causal viewer! To the ppl that "like to watch movies" and as such it will have to entertain these ppl and don't bore them with talkie character moments!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I think this thread has run its course.

Those wishing to continue the Trek XI debate are invited to do so on the HT movie forum.

I'll be in the garage, working on my Galileo and Flying Sub.


----------

