PDA

View Full Version : The Next Star Trek movie.



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Droid
02-28-2007, 07:11 PM
I tried to find a thread where we discussed the new Star Trek movie and I could not.

I know this is old news:

Paramount Pictures announced today that Lost creator J.J. Abrams will co-write, produce and direct the eleventh Star Trek film, set for release in 2008.

According to an article in the Daily Variety, the new film will be a prequel to the original Star Trek series, featuring younger versions of characters like James T. Kirk and Spock. The movie will chronicle events such as their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first mission into outer space.

The as-yet untitled new film will be written by Abrams together with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Abrams is the creator of television series such as Felicity, Alias and Lost, and will soon be making his debut as a feature film director with Paramount's Mission Impossible: III. He's also written the scripts for films such as Regarding Henry and Armageddon. Kurtzman and Orci cooperated with Abrams on the MI: III script, and were previously part of the Alias writing staff, as well as writing the scripts for films such as The Island and the upcoming Transformers movie.

Besides Abrams, the film's producing team will include Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, who both also produce Lost. The Variety article made no mention of the fate of Rick Berman, who has been heading the Trek franchise for the past two decades.

According to Variety, the decision to produce a new Trek film is part of an effort by new Paramount head Brad Grey to try and raise the profile of Paramount by producing several "high-profile tentpole" movie, and having them developed by some of the most talented people in Hollywood.

The Starfleet Academy concept is an idea that has been floating around Paramount for several decades now. In February, former Trek movie producer Harve Bennett told the Trek Nation that as recently as two years ago he had a discussion with the then-current regime at Paramount about reviving the idea. Variety confirmed Bennett's statements, writing that several years ago Rick Berman was asked by Paramount to develop a Starfleet Academy feature together with Jordan Kerner and Kerry McCluggage. Presumably this idea evolved into the Star Trek: The Beginning concept, which now appears dead in the water (story).

I got that from this site:
http://www.trektoday.com/news/210406_01.shtml

However, I also got this from Wikipedia about Abrams plans for the Superman franchise:
Former music video director McG, fresh off the previous year's success of Charlie's Angels, was signed to direct the film as WB execs were hoping to appeal to a young audience. At this point, Burton left as producer, citing a lack of interest in the proposed film. Writer/producer J. J. Abrams, however, approached McG about writing and producing the film. Abrams, a fan of the characters, believed that not only should the franchise be revitalized for a new generation, but that a character as important as Superman shouldn't be introduced as a "second-string" co-star in the Batman vs. Superman movie. He expeditiously wrote a script, which he insists is the first of a trilogy, that he and McG presented to the Warner brass, simply titled Superman I.

[edit] Plot
The story opens with a massive battle on the streets of Metropolis between Superman and a Kryptonian named Ty-Zor and his army. Ty-Zor leads Superman to an airplane hangar made entirely out of lead (the only material his X-ray vision cannot see through) and taunts him over the loudspeaker. Superman sees something off-screen and falls to the floor in pain.
The story then flashes back to Krypton years earlier, where Ty-Zor's father, Kata-Zor, is staging a coup d'état on the planet's government and its leader, Jor-El. Jor-El manages to send his infant son, Kal-El, away in a rocket before he and wife Lara are captured. There is a Kryptonian prophecy that says a "son of Krypton" will face a great trial on another world, only to return to his homeworld and become its savior. Kata-Zor believes Jor-El is trying to evoke the prophecy, so he orders Kal-El's rocket sought after. The rocket lands on the farm of Jonathan and Martha Kent, who hide the rocket and raise the child as their own son, naming him Clark. His powers manifest themselves immediately. A toddler Clark witnesses a man attempt to rape Martha, and Clark beats him within an inch of his life. In later years, Clark discovers a canister that came with his rocket. It opens to reveal a magical suit (the classic Superman suit) that stands on its own before jumping onto Clark (like the alien symbiote of Venom from Spider-Man) and attaching itself. Although it doesn't fit, Clark flies in the suit and crashes into a barn. The Kents tell him to never wear the suit again and emphasize the restraint of his powers from then on. This leads to Clark becoming an introverted youth. During a college party, he is bullied and almost gets into a fight. The fight is
broken up by Lois Lane, a girl Clark has a crush on.

Back on Krypton, Kata-Zor has spent the last 20 years as dictator of Krypton, who revels in torturing Jor-El and Lara because they won't reveal where Kal-El was sent. Young Ty-Zor, who is the same age as Kal-El, tortures Lara to death, much to the delight of himself and his father. On Earth, both Clark Kent and Lois Lane are now adults and work for The Daily Planet newspaper in Metropolis. Lois has been following a rogue CIA agent named Lex Luthor who investigates extraterrestrial activity and recently claimed to be able to prove the existence of a Kryptonian on Earth. Perry White assigns Lois to interview the President of the United States on Air Force One. During the interview, the plane is near-fatally damaged. Clark, who hears about it on the radio, grabs the canister with his suit. It fits his adult body perfectly and he pulls off a daring rescue of the plane, thereby introducing himself to the public. This event is witnessed on Krypton and Ty-Zor is sent to kill Kal-El.

Roughly a week after Superman's debut, Ty-Zor and his army arrive, bringing the story full circle. In the lead hangar, the shocking image Superman sees is Lois under water in a glass tank, tethered to chain wrapped around a kryptonite boulder. He saves her, but loses his own life in the process. A national funeral is held. On Krypton, the imprisoned Jor-El senses his son's death and kills himself. His spirit travels to Earth and informs Kal-El that he cannot die, as the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Superman's body regains consciousness and climbs from the grave. The resurrected Man of Steel secretly meets with United Nations leaders (who now live in fear of the Kryptonians) to organize a counter-offensive. This leads to a massive aerial battle of the Kryptonians against Superman-styled fighter planes from 40 nations armed with kryptonite missiles.

After Ty-Zor and his army are dead, Superman visits Lois. He explains to her that he will return to Krypton to save the planet. Before he can leave, he is confronted by Agent Lex Luthor, who assisted the Kryptonians in their take over of Earth. Luthor reveals himself to be Kryptonian. After a battle with Superman, he is defeated and imprisoned. Superman leaves for Krypton, setting up the story for what would have been the next entry in the trilogy.
In the later drafts of Abrams' Superman script, several elements from this initial draft were changed, perhaps due to fears of fan backlash. Most significantly, Krypton did indeed blow up, but not completely as fragments of Krypton survived, no doubt to be featured in the planned sequels. Also, Lex Luthor was no longer revealed to be a Kryptonian sleeper agent, but was now a failed businessman who happened upon a dying Kryptonian sent to Earth by Kata-Zor and uses the dead alien's technology to become a billionaire.

[edit] Development
Warner Bros. greenlighted the film and within a few weeks, British composer Edward Shearmur had joined the project, promising to use the themes from the original series. Rumors flew as to which young Hollywood stars would play the lead roles. Every name from Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher, and Smallville star Tom Welling was mentioned as being up for the Man of Steel, while Lois Lane was linked with every young female star from Kate Hudson and Liv Tyler to Natalie Portman and Beyoncé Knowles.

Furthermore, Abrams had gotten his wish of beating Batman vs. Superman to the screen as, in 2002, this film was given priority, cancelling most of the other projects (although Batman: Year One became Batman Begins). As the casting buzz heated up, Warner Bros. insisted on starting the film there and then. As McG was scheduled to shoot Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle first, he therefore became unavailable to start Superman when the studio wanted him to. Thus, Warner Bros. quickly replaced him with Brett Ratner, and preparation began anew. Around this same time, Lorenzo di Bonaventura was ousted from position as head of Warner Bros. and replaced by Alan Horn.

[edit] Brett Ratner and Ain't it Cool News
After McG left in 2002, he was replaced by another former music video director, Brett Ratner (who would later direct X-Men: The Last Stand). Ratner brought the project its first official piece of casting when he gave the role of Jor-El to his Red Dragon star, Anthony Hopkins.[3] The project continued to move at a slow-but-steady pace as the gossip mill went out of control with casting rumors. But the project was dealt an unexpected blow when a copy of Abrams' script was released on the internet.

Drew "Moriarty" McWeeny, a film critic and failed screenwriter, reviewed the script for Harry Knowles' Ain't it Cool News.com. Although he heaped high praise on key sequences and most of the dialogue, he then gave the script a very negative review as a whole. Moriarty's review of a work he knew to be a discarded first draft was taken by readers as what would be used for filming. Abrams later sat down to an interview with Harry Knowles where he explained that the reviewed draft was a "work in progress" written in haste. Knowles received a copy of the script, and while he cited several aspects that he felt needed improvement, he gave a comparatively more positive review.

A year later, intense disagreements with producer Jon Peters over casting and other matters combined with an escalating budget led Ratner to leave the project. Abrams, however, stayed on while director McG returned. Preparation thusly continued, with the studio still intending to shoot the film in Australia to save costs. Stan Winston was hired to produce a molded-muscle Superman outfit, and casting choices were further narrowed down. Eventually though, McG succumbed to his on-the-record fear of flying, refusing to leave the country and demanded an American shoot, preferably in New York City. The execs stuck with the Australian locations and McG left the project again, taking his crew with him. The project appeared in danger of shutting down completely, until a few weeks later when trade papers announced the signing of Bryan Singer to direct the film.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Superman_films

Now my question is this: do we trust this man to revisit the early days of Kirk and Spock if his good ideas for Superman included Krypton NOT being destroyed, Jor-El and Lara NOT dying, Kryptonian prophecies, a magic suit in a can that seemingly helps Superman fly, and Lex Luthor being a Kryptonian?

Cue Tycho with his amusing ideas for what Abrams may "reveal" to us about the origins of Kirk and Spock.

Droid
03-02-2007, 03:52 PM
I'm going to try to get this thread going:

He planned to not destroy Krypton and to have Lex Luthor be a Kryptonian and now he's going to educate us on the early days of Spock and Kirk?

Maybe Amanda was Kirk's mother too! Maybe Kirk and Spock are half brothers.

Maybe Spock was raised on Earth for a time and he and Kirk were boyhood friends.

Maybe Spock helped Kirk program the ""Kobayashi Maru".

I am concerned about what may become Star Trek canon.

lee gray
03-12-2007, 02:46 PM
Although not a big star trek series fan ..I do love the movies

Tycho
03-25-2007, 05:29 PM
Half this thread should be copied into a Superman Thread. I'm interested in Supes, as well, but the title of the thread is misleading and others like JetsAndHeels won't know to look in here unless we tell them. I'd rather the two topics be separated. Or the thread could be retitled "JJ Abrams."

Anyway I recently read in the Star Trek magazine that Director J.J. Abrams will start filming Star Trek 11 this summer, supposedly starring Matt Damon as Lt. Jim Kirk.

William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy have signed off on their characters being re-casted and they're in the know on more of the deal and think it's a good idea. That gives me some hope.

Rumor is, they might reprise their roles briefly in the movie as well somehow.

JediTricks
03-25-2007, 09:38 PM
"Hey Spock, remember when for 2 hours we were put in the bodies of guys who couldn't hold our boots and couldn't convey any of the emotions and personalities that make up who we are for crap but folks knew who they were which was good enough for a few people who didn't know us anyway?"
"No Jim, I do not."
"Yeah, me neither. What was I thinking?"
"Too much Romulan ale, Captain."
"Must be it Spock, must... be it."

Tycho
03-25-2007, 09:43 PM
JT, that was already an episode :D

TOS: "Return to Tomorrow," also starring Dianna Muldaur (TNG's Kate Pulaski).

Droid
03-26-2007, 10:06 AM
I don't know why Shatner or Nimoy would have to sign off on anything. They don't own the characters.

I also can't imagine how Shatner and Nimoy would fit into this film. Would it take place post Star Trek VI and pre Generations even though Kirk would look older than he did in Generations and Spock would look older than he did on the Next Generation?

If Matt Damon plays James Kirk I will not see this movie.

I guarantee you that they will have Spock emoting all over the place even though Spock wasn't even in touch with his emotions in the TV show. They will have Kirk and Spock make grand pronoucements about how they feel about each other that are totally out of place for their friendship.

I would think a pre TV show Spock should be portrayed as very, very cold and logical.

Tycho
03-26-2007, 10:58 AM
I don't know why Shatner or Nimoy would have to sign off on anything. They don't own the characters.

They were smart enough to have it in their casting contracts that they get approval powers over any recasting / re-imagining of the roles. True story.

I imagine the story might be told in flashback, should Shatner and Nimoy also portray Kirk and Spock in this film. Their appearance will be used as a marketing ploy to sell it to TOS fans and ensure that audience. They CAN still act and work creatively as Shatner's emmy award (?s) for Boston Legal demonstrates.

Meanwhile, major novels (which might not count - not sure) as well as hints from TOS and the movies drop clues to what we SHOULD see:

1) Kirk and Spock are not friends, but might not really know each other.

2) Kirk's best friend is Gary Mitchell, who he uses considerable influence to get as his First Officer later when he gets the Enterprise.

3) Spock gets on board the ship first, with Capt. Christopher Pike in command. Spock is Second Officer and would presumably expect the promotion to First Officer, but is snubbed because Kirk favors Mitchell. If Spock and Kirk knew each other well, or were close friends then, it might not have gone down that way.

4) Kirk may or may not like Vulcans at the time. Back in Archer's day, many StarFleet officers did not care for their imperialistic attitudes. That might've changed in the 100 years or so since Archer's day and the formation of the Federation, but it hadn't changed completely as emphasized by Lt. Styles (TOS "Balance of Terror" when the crew found out that Romulans were actually Vulcan colonists).

5) Kirk's father was the tactical officer or helmsman on the Enterprise 1701 under its first captain, Robert April. His father's heroics (George Samuel Kirk) was part of the reason Kirk got the Enterprise so young (he was 29 when he became Captain - the youngest ever at the time). BTW - I don't know how old Matt Damon is, but I'd think he'd be in his 30's.

6) Kirk and Mitchell served on the Farragut sometime after the Academy. At Axanar (the aliens from there were shown on Enterprise), Klingons attacked and killed her captain. Kirk assumed command of the evacuation, yet somehow he and Mitchell were able to delay or destroy the Klingons in the process. Kirk was severely wounded and spent months at StarFleet medical recovering before being promoted afterwards - and awarded the Enterprise 1701.

7) At StarFleet Medical, Kirk met his doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy and his therapist, Carol Marcus (Wrath of Khan) - who would be an intern at the time. He might have known McCoy earlier, but Mitchell might've had a hand in steering Marcus towards accepting a relationship with Kirk. It wouldn't be the first time in their friendship that this happened.

8) Mitchell is younger than Kirk, but should be a character in this movie. He died later in TOS' "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

9) Carol Marcus should / could be the likely love interest.

10) McCoy should appear in the film.

11) If Pike is in the film at all, as Captain of the Enterprise, Scotty should be one of his ranking engineers.

See the novel, "Enterprise: The First Adventure," TOS, WOK for further details.

BountyHunterScum
03-26-2007, 11:09 AM
If Matt Damon plays James Kirk I will not see this movie.


You and I both, according to trek movie damon isnt on for the movie neither is brody or any other rumored hollywood idiots whos names were throw out before. Hopefully they pick real actors(IE: No-one currently in hollywood).

Droid
03-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Tycho, I bet they make everything up. I seriously doubt they are going to pay any attention at all to Star Trek novels. Heck, Enterprise never paid a bit of attention to the original series!

Tycho
03-26-2007, 01:45 PM
Heck, Enterprise never paid a bit of attention to the original series!

That's not true actually. An Enterprise Apologist can (I can) demonstrate how it did not infringe badly on the continuity at all.



I seriously doubt they are going to pay any attention at all to Star Trek novels.

Probably, however, that novel "Enterprise: The First Adventure," was strongly based on information from TOS and WOK, both of which can't really be ignored unless intentionally - which I don't think they'll see as worth the risk in doing.

Droid
03-26-2007, 03:30 PM
Gary Mitchell should be in the movie. He was Kirk's best friend, not Spock. That was in the original show.

Tycho, you are an apologist for the prequels too! Just admit it - Enterprise and the prequels don't match up with the original series or original trilogy!

Tycho
03-26-2007, 03:31 PM
What happened? Did Stillakid take a vacation and put you in charge, Droid? ;)


Just admit it - Enterprise...[doesn't] match up with the original series....

OK, Hotshot: prove it!

Droid
03-26-2007, 07:06 PM
JediTricks, you wanna get in on this? Just give Tycho one or two examples of how Enterprise did not match up with the original show.

BountyHunterScum
03-26-2007, 07:48 PM
JediTricks, you wanna get in on this? Just give Tycho one or two examples of how Enterprise did not match up with the original show.

I could probably give more than two reasons. Phasers way too early and photons way too early plus the transporters didnt exist back then either I don't think. The Klingon genetic thing was stupid.

Blue2th
03-26-2007, 08:17 PM
There are a few good tie-ins though. How about the Borg story. Though that ties in with TNG First Contact. The green Slave girl story is one of my favorites. A nice tie-in with TOS and expansion of those characters.......I too hope they don't use any of the actors rumored for the new Star Trek movie.

Tycho
03-26-2007, 11:45 PM
The Klingon genetic thing was stupid.

Says you. ;) That's not disrespecting continuity though!


Phasers way too early and photons way too early plus the transporters didnt exist back then either I don't think.

Were you time traveling and just forgot to tell us? When did they say on TOS that phasers, photons, and transporters were invented? Did someone slip on the toilet and invent the flux capacitor?

You're using arguments based on your own estimates and tastes, not any facts.

Droid
03-27-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm pretty sure the original series made it clear that a Vulcan serving with humans was groundbreaking, that a human and Vulcan being together was unheardof, that time travel was unknown before the original series, and that there had not been contact with the Romulans before. But no there's T'Pol serving on the ship, mating with Trip, emoting all over the place even though she is a pure Vulcan.

And how is it that Archer and the gang met up with the Borg and Feregi without continuity errors?

And wasn't their ship just a tad maneuverable and powerful compared to what was the Enterprise of the TV show? The Enterprise NX or whatever it was seemed like a ship out of the Next Generation.

pbarnard
03-27-2007, 11:37 AM
...that there had not been contact with the Romulans before. ...
Not so true. They did fight a war sometime between Enterprise and TOS because of the Treaty of Algeron, while true it was negotiated via radio, and no face to face communications (another little continuity slip there). While some of the underlying causes were touched on in the very end of Enterprise, there obviously had to be some contact before going to war with each other.


And how is it that Archer and the gang met up with the Borg and Feregi without continuity errors?
Yet they never knew who they were or what, again, leaving it for later. I believe in the case of the Ferengi specifically they weren't even conscious while the little trolls did their thing.


And wasn't their ship just a tad maneuverable and powerful compared to what was the Enterprise of the TV show? The Enterprise NX or whatever it was seemed like a ship out of the Next Generation.

No argument there.

Tycho
03-27-2007, 01:07 PM
I'm pretty sure the original series made it clear that a Vulcan serving with humans was groundbreaking,

Spock was the first Vulcan to serve in StarFleet (Academy graduate, etc.) T'Pol was not in StarFleet. She was an officer of the Vulcan High Command. Archer chose to make her First Officer of the ship, but she did not have command authority over any StarFleet personnel that were not attached to Enterprise.


that a human and Vulcan being together was unheardof,

If you're referring to sex, T'pol did not conceive Trip's child by conventional sex. Genetic material was taken from both of them and used in a Cloning process. However, the couple were exploring romantic feelings. As noted many times, Vulcans have feelings, they just repress them. The repression is an important part of their psychological well-being.


that time travel was unknown before the original series,

The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible. Furthermore, each time Archer time-travels, Daniels, the Suliban, or something external helps him. Kirk, Spock, and Scotty discovered they could slingshot around the sun and force their way into time travel, in addition to discovering the Guardian of Forever.


and that there had not been contact with the Romulans before.

StarFleet personnel made no contact with the Romulans on Enterprise (in person anyway). They saw their ships - heard their voices. That was about it. The Romulans were very secretive. That tradition might have continued during the Romulan War, or the viewscreen might have been destroyed as it was towards the end of Nemesis - rendering visual communication impossible.



But no there's T'Pol serving on the ship,

She's not in StarFleet.


mating with Trip,

Her genetics were cloned, and if it went THAT far anyway - (yeah, I think it did) I'm rewatching the series and on the 3rd season now - she was using Trillium-D that they'd mined or bartered for, like a narcotic to break down her inhibitions as her constant contact with humans left her too curious about emotions.


emoting all over the place even though she is a pure Vulcan.

She was inebriated from the Trillium-D. They used her resistance to emotions to help Jolene Blalock ACT versus use a dry, emotionless delivery (like Qui-Gon, many say - and there also for a reason, as Jedi are supposed to suppress their emotions as well). But this was all part of selling her as a sex symbol or "Vulcan love slave."


And how is it that Archer and the gang met up with the Borg and Feregi without continuity errors?

They didn't know who the Borg were - and Picard created a time loop sending them back. In fact, since Q can see the timeline differently, he might have shown Jean-Luc the connection when he "introduced" the Borg, as it was already going to happen and he secretly didn't want to see humanity destroyed.

The Ferengi did not identify themselves, and they were all thieves and pirates, not formally representing any Grand Nagus' administration policy other than "Greed is Eternal." Hehe. As Pbanard pointed out, most of the crew was unconscious during the episode. Furthermore, Picard fought and destroyed a Ferengi ship while captain of the Stargazer (killing Daimon Bok's son) and he never knew who they were back then, as by "Encounter at Farpoint," they still didn't know what Ferengi looked like.


And wasn't their ship just a tad maneuverable and powerful compared to what was the Enterprise of the TV show?

It's called modern special effects. There is an effort underway to redo all the special effects of TOS - and broadcast the shows even now - and eventually release them on DVD, with all updated effects. The new argument is should they mess with a classic and do that, rather than what the ship, technology, etc. was actually capable of.


The Enterprise NX or whatever it was seemed like a ship out of the Next Generation.

The new TOS ship will be updated in the "new and improved" version, so some folks can claim it always was just as advanced. (It's looking much more like the TOS Movie Ship, but prior to the refit that adapted the nacelles, etc.)

So there! Keep trying. Keep losing. Hehehe. :D

Droid
03-27-2007, 01:39 PM
It's called modern special effects. There is an effort underway to redo all the special effects of TOS - and broadcast the shows even now - and eventually release them on DVD, with all updated effects. The new argument is should they mess with a classic and do that, rather than what the ship, technology, etc. was actually capable of.

The new TOS ship will be updated in the "new and improved" version, so some folks can claim it always was just as advanced. (It's looking much more like the TOS Movie Ship, but prior to the refit that adapted the nacelles, etc.)


Well isn't that an interesting argument - Enterprise didn't screw up the continuity with the ships - the original series did! A paradox worthy of Q. So now we'll redo the original series so it better fits with Enterprise. Wow.

So they better get to work revising the original trilogy to fit with the prequels:

Luke: Tell me about your mother, your real mother.
Leia: Sorry, I can't remember her. She died giving birth to me.

Luke: There's still good in you. You can't do this. Come with me.
Vader: Your mother once thought as you do.

To bring this thread back on topic, I can't wait to see how much of the established Star Trek movies and TV shows will have to be redone to match Abrams' new vision of Kirk and Spock's early days.

Tycho
03-27-2007, 03:01 PM
So they better get to work revising the original trilogy to fit with the prequels:

Luke: Tell me about your mother, your real mother.
Leia: Sorry, I can't remember her. She died giving birth to me.

I can handle this one, too:

Luke: "Leia: do you remember your mother - your real mother?"
Leia: "Just images (holograms?) really. She died when I was very young."
Luke: "Tell me."
Leia: "She was kind, very beautiful, but sad."

(correlated with the prequels: - Padme "My fate will be no different from that of my people." indicating kindness. Natalie Portman - indicating beauty. The issue with the Separatists secession and the suspension of civil liberties by Palpatine and the dilemma that put Padme in - sad). Leia could have seen the holo reports and studied and learned about her mother's career in the Senate. The EU is hard to correlate with this however, since Leia knew Luke was her brother through much of the New Republic stories, but would have little reason not to fill her brother in on everything if she knew about it. So I'm not sure what she saw of her mother in recordings. But one can point out omissions, create bridges for them in the EU and so forth, but they are not bald inconsistancies.



Luke: There's still good in you. You can't do this. Come with me.
Vader: Your mother once thought as you do.

I'm sure Obi-Wan thought to observe Anakin's reactions to Padme's predictable protests of her husbands plans to take over the galaxy, so by a stretch, that is true. Besides, if Vader mentioned Luke's mother at that time (on Endor) it would have opened up a whole 'nother protracted discussion that I'm sure he didn't want to get into - because the next logical step would be for Luke to ask his father about his mother.

It wouldn't work for the drama in the scene if Darth Vader started talking about how beautiful Padme was, how much he loved her, and went all emo on Luke. The next thing you know, he'd try to nurse Luke on his control box :rolleyes:

The way it was done, kept most of Vader's hard edge to him so it was more dramatic when he turned on the Emperor at the end and saved his son.

El Chuxter
03-27-2007, 04:19 PM
One way Enterprise doesn't match up to the original lies in the fact that the original rocked, but Enterprise sucks like a gigantic Hoover.

Tycho
03-27-2007, 04:44 PM
One way Enterprise doesn't match up to the original lies in the fact that the original rocked, but Enterprise sucks like a gigantic Hoover.

Why?

TOS........................................ENT

Capt.

Militant....................................Dork turns into militant (character development)


First Officer

Vulcan - cool............................Vulcan - babe - you get a catsuit as a bonus


Pilot

Sulu - martial artist, cool............Mute - you can't hear him


Engineer

Unconventional genius...............Unconventional genius and action hero


Doctor

middle of the road aged pervet....Dr. Doolittle with a turn on the dorkatron


Comm Officer

she's OK, good singer................hottie that's awesome in a half-shirt or topless

Tactical Officer

Russian Monkey (the band)........British snob who's hard to believe in a fight

Ship

Cardboard being re-CGI'd..........smoothe ride expected from ILM these days

stories

original then, politically poignant... repetative of much, some new turns when poss.

BountyHunterScum
03-27-2007, 04:48 PM
Says you. ;) That's not disrespecting continuity though!



Were you time traveling and just forgot to tell us? When did they say on TOS that phasers, photons, and transporters were invented? Did someone slip on the toilet and invent the flux capacitor?

You're using arguments based on your own estimates and tastes, not any facts.

You forgot in the cage they were using laser pistols so yes Enterprise broke continuity and the klingon forehead thing was obvious because at the time there were no prosthetics like we have now. They didnt need to bring in some bs about a virus they could have made the klingons humanoid again very easily by forgoing the prosthetics in the interest of continuity. The humans back then had primitive nuclear weapons as mentioned in Balance of Terror. So the Enterprise should have had simple lasers and nuclear missiles but install rail gun like magnetic accelerators to speed them up.

Tycho
03-27-2007, 05:02 PM
You forgot in the cage they were using laser pistols so yes Enterprise broke continuity

Possibly. You might have me there.


and the klingon forehead thing was obvious because at the time there were no prosthetics like we have now. They didnt need to bring in some bs about a virus they could have made the klingons humanoid again very easily by forgoing the prosthetics in the interest of continuity.

On DS9 they already made mention that something happened to the Klingons to make some of them (in the Defense Force) look more human. Worf said "it is a deeply embarassing thing." I think this was a creative way of doing it as well as escalating the tensions between Klingons and humans.


The humans back then had primitive nuclear weapons as mentioned in Balance of Terror. So the Enterprise should have had simple lasers and nuclear missiles but install rail gun like magnetic accelerators to speed them up.

During the Romulan War, all phasers and photon torpedoes might be expended, and as a last resort the crew crafts something of a nuclear weapon, as might the Romulans. Sensors might be able to detect an arms race between either vessel. Or perhaps the properties of space they're in render phasers and photon torpedoes ineffective, and someone like Trip or Scotty has to invent something on the fly - hence a nuclear weapon is used in a time of desperation. It's easy to get around that.

People fight wars over literal interpretations about everything. The earth was created in 6 days, too...

Blue2th
03-27-2007, 05:35 PM
If you watch Enterprise often enough, rarely does the NX-O1 do much damage with it's lazer cannons when in a fight. Too often is it out-gunned, suffering quite a bit of damage with only it's hull plating. (I like the episode where you actually see bodies flying out when it gets hit) The quarters are cramped, it only goes to warp 5. It doesn't even have a tractor beam, but rather grappling hooks. How primitive can you get?

JediTricks
03-27-2007, 10:09 PM
I don't know why Shatner or Nimoy would have to sign off on anything. They don't own the characters.If nothing else, in terms of the public's consciousness they do, and the characters of Kirk and Spock were in large part steered by their actors. Paramount could try to go ahead without their blessing, but at best it'd still be divisive enough to rip their fan base apart before a second of film was captured.


I also can't imagine how Shatner and Nimoy would fit into this film. Would it take place post Star Trek VI and pre Generations even though Kirk would look older than he did in Generations and Spock would look older than he did on the Next Generation?Voice overs, or CGI animation, or CG manipulation? They youthized Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in X-men 3 with some success after all.


If Matt Damon plays James Kirk I will not see this movie.I feel similarly, though visually he's probably as close as the big movie actors get to Shatner's look back then, same for Gary Sinise with DeForest Kelley and Adrien Brody with Nimoy.



I would think a pre TV show Spock should be portrayed as very, very cold and logical.There's 3 routes for that, there's the "how might he have acted before TOS" route which falls into what you're saying pretty well; there's the somewhat brash Spock from "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" which is technically how he should be from a purist standpoint; but I think there's also a 3rd angle with an uncomfortable half-breed Spock who is clearly putting on a facade of emotionless logic but not yet good at it - it was Nimoy during TOS' production who said that his character and Vulcans in general SHOULD have feelings and they should just act like they're hiding them. Plus, Spock isn't quite as emotionless as everybody remembers him being, the stereotype is what we saw most of the time but there was dry humor and even a somewhat easygoingness about how the character was portrayed at times: for example in "The Naked Time" before Spock is infected and just after he subdues Sulu (which I just now realized is a continuity error! :p) he tells security to "take D'artagnan down to sickbay" even though Sulu never specifically said which musketeer he was emulating.



They were smart enough to have it in their casting contracts that they get approval powers over any recasting / re-imagining of the roles. True story.I heard that was just rumor. Either way, my argument at the top of this post fits.


They CAN still act and work creatively as Shatner's emmy award (?s) for Boston Legal demonstrates.Shatner is the first actor to win an emmy for portraying the same character on 2 shows no less (The Practice and Boston Legal), he's the co-main star of the latter to this day. Nimoy is in retirement.


Meanwhile, major novels (which might not count - not sure) as well as hints from TOS and the movies drop clues to what we SHOULD see...Paramount and Producer/Director Abrams have made it clear that this won't be so closely tied to Star Trek canon, it'll be even more of a reimagining than Enterprise was.


5) Kirk's father was the tactical officer or helmsman on the Enterprise 1701 under its first captain, Robert April. His father's heroics (George Samuel Kirk) was part of the reason Kirk got the Enterprise so young (he was 29 when he became Captain - the youngest ever at the time). BTW - I don't know how old Matt Damon is, but I'd think he'd be in his 30's.Kirk's age is in question to this day, the official site says he was 32 when he became Captain of the Enterprise (it intentionally jives with Shatner's real birthdate except 300 years in the future), but there's material showing as low as 29 and as high as 34.

Matt Damon turns 37 this year, he looks pretty young for it though.



Hopefully they pick real actors(IE: No-one currently in hollywood).I hope they abandon this folly altogether once and for all and pick a different Trek tale avenue altogether, but I doubt they will.



That's not true actually. An Enterprise Apologist can (I can) demonstrate how it did not infringe badly on the continuity at all.And notice how it TAKES an Enterprise apologist to do it, the show sloppily stomps all over TOS lore - hell, the original starship Enterprise the show is portraying is more like the Vulcan ships seen on the series, the ones with the rings in the middle (seen in ST:TMP).



Tycho, you are an apologist for the prequels too! Just admit it - Enterprise and the prequels don't match up with the original series or original trilogy!The great thing is, he's so predictable about this stuff that he doesn't need to admit it, the moment he says something on the matter we know what time it really is. :p



JediTricks, you wanna get in on this? Just give Tycho one or two examples of how Enterprise did not match up with the original show.On-screen canon, as I just mentioned, says that the original starship Enterprise that the NX-01 is portraying looks 100% different. Also, phasers, transporters, photon torpedoes, Romulan cloaking devices, Vulcans serving with Starfleet, starship shields, humans meeting klingons, subspace communications, holodecks, and visual ship-to-ship communications were all not around 100 years prior to TOS - that visual ship-to-ship thing is STRAIGHT out of TOS and a rather big deal about the Romulans. And then you have things like the behavior and sizes of tricorders, computers and computer terminals, communicators, and ship's sensors which are more advanced than TOS's. And that doesn't count all the awkwardly shoehorned-in material like the Vulcans having vastly different behaviors and customs just 100 years prior to TOS, the Klingon smooth-heads, etc..



Were you time traveling and just forgot to tell us? When did they say on TOS that phasers, photons, and transporters were invented? Did someone slip on the toilet and invent the flux capacitor?

You're using arguments based on your own estimates and tastes, not any facts.Here's canonical facts to back up what he was saying, smartass. :p http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/22nd-cent-tech.htm



I'm pretty sure the original series made it clear that a Vulcan serving with humans was groundbreaking, that a human and Vulcan being together was unheardof, that time travel was unknown before the original series, and that there had not been contact with the Romulans before. That time travel one is a good point I forgot to cover, Spock essentially is the one who "discovers" time travel could be possible at all in The Naked Time, and the other Time Travel methods the 1701 goes through Spock eventually brings to Starfleet (this is from the books).


And how is it that Archer and the gang met up with the Borg and Feregi without continuity errors?Yeah, totally.


And wasn't their ship just a tad maneuverable and powerful compared to what was the Enterprise of the TV show? The Enterprise NX or whatever it was seemed like a ship out of the Next Generation.Well, largely because it was, they took the TNG-era Akira-class and gave it "old" touches, but it jinked and fought like a Voyager-era starship.



Not so true. They did fight a war sometime between Enterprise and TOS because of the Treaty of Algeron, while true it was negotiated via radio, and no face to face communications (another little continuity slip there). While some of the underlying causes were touched on in the very end of Enterprise, there obviously had to be some contact before going to war with each other.Actually, I thought one of the canonical book sources said their initial first contact ended with nuclear missiles flying to start the war, so there'd be no pre-war contact that way. And the Romulans didn't have cloaking devices or warp drives during that war either, all of which came AFTER Enterprise.




TOS........................................ENT

Capt.

Militant....................................Dork turns into militant (character development)Wow - that is shocking how badly you understand Kirk's character. Hell, strictly speaking, in TOS Starfleet is not a military organization based on what Kirk says about it, but tossing that aside, Kirk is one of the future's finest forward-thinkers, he detests fighting and behaves as an explorer as much as possible.


Tactical Officer

Russian Monkey (the band)........British snob who's hard to believe in a fightThat's incorrect, Chekov is not the 1701's tactical officer, he's the ship's navigator. Sulu is the one who pushes the buttons when a weapons order is given, but Sulu is the ship's helm officer.

BountyHunterScum
03-27-2007, 10:17 PM
On DS9 they already made mention that something happened to the Klingons to make some of them (in the Defense Force) look more human. Worf said "it is a deeply embarassing thing." I think this was a creative way of doing it as well as escalating the tensions between Klingons and humans.



During the Romulan War, all phasers and photon torpedoes might be expended, and as a last resort the crew crafts something of a nuclear weapon, as might the Romulans. Sensors might be able to detect an arms race between either vessel. Or perhaps the properties of space they're in render phasers and photon torpedoes ineffective, and someone like Trip or Scotty has to invent something on the fly - hence a nuclear weapon is used in a time of desperation. It's easy to get around that.


Let me know if you find the text showing exactly what Wof said and no they did not have phasers and photons back then. Nor did they have transporters. I looked it up to be sure and yes its stated on many sites that Worf in "a matter of time" said phasers didnt exist until the 23rd century. Enterprise broke so many rules it is not funny.

Tycho
05-18-2007, 05:24 AM
The New Star Trek Movie Preview is Here! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KXsBWgWmj8Q&mode=related&search=)

This looks like it is going to be an awesome movie. All the original cast returns for on-screen appearances! Check it out. It's really clever how they got Bones into it.

General_Grievous
05-18-2007, 10:37 AM
Heh. Jim Carrey's a hoot. What's that from? In Living Color?

Tycho
05-18-2007, 01:49 PM
Heh. Jim Carrey's a hoot. What's that from? In Living Color?


I don't know. I ran across it on YouTube and thought folks here would enjoy it. I laughed so hard I watched it like 3 times.

JediTricks
05-18-2007, 11:07 PM
Heh. Jim Carrey's a hoot. What's that from? In Living Color?
I disagree about Jim Carrey, but yes, ILC.

Tycho
05-26-2007, 04:08 PM
Casting Call:

Jim Kirk - age 18-24 most likely (think barely older than Shia LeBouf). Matt Damon just seems too old to play "Dawson's Kirk."

Carol Marcus - Rachel Taylor (blonde from Transformers). She should be 18-24 as well.

Spock - age ? approximately 30-something in Vulcan years, which would look like a human in their later 20's.

Leihla Komaeni (spelling) blonde human girl who was Spock's "pon far." TOS "This Side of Paradise" references this.

McCoy - someone suggested Gary Sinese. He could be great as a McCoy in a remake of TOS. But as somone younger? I think McCoy would be in his early 30's in this (if that old). He might be married and have a baby daughter.

Scotty - Orlando Bloom with short hair could bring in the girls. He'd actually do well in the role I think. Though it would be a small role for someone growing in popularity as Bloom is.

Sulu and Uhura would likely be too young to have even entered Starfleet Academy.

Chekov would be in Junior High School somewhere in Russia. Haha.

Rand and Chapel don't need to be in it.

Captain Garrovick? Depending upon exactly when this movie takes place, the Captain of the USS Farrogut could be quite important. Maybe we'll get to see him killed by "The Cloud Entity?"

Finney? Kirk's pal on the USS Republic?

Finnegan? Kirk's tormentor at the Academy?

Gary Mitchell - very important character to include. Kirk's best friend.

George Samuel Kirk? - Jim's dad was probably still alive during this era. I don't think Kirk's parents were killed when the mass executions happened on Tarsus IV when he was 13. We know his older brother Sam was NOT killed then. I think there were just the 2 Kirk boys.

Sam Kirk? - I'm not sure the character is important to this movie.

Christopher Pike? Age? Probably in his 30's in this film.

Robert April? - Maybe we'll meet him.

Tycho
07-26-2007, 07:04 PM
Leonard Nimoy was at Comic Con only hours ago and confirmed that he will be in this movie as Spock! Another actor will be playing the younger Spock (the guy from Heroes I think).

JJ Abrams joined them on stage.

Leonard Nimoy (who turned down appearing in Star Trek: Generations) said this movie is going to be awesome and it is very LOGICAL that he should appear. The former director of 2 Star Trek films, Nimoy has the experience and good taste that gives me a little more confidence in this project.

They claim to not be ready to officially announce who's playing Kirk at this time.

Mad Slanted Powers
07-26-2007, 11:12 PM
Leonard Nimoy was at Comic Con only hours ago and confirmed that he will be in this movie as Spock! Another actor will be playing the younger Spock (the guy from Heroes I think).Yes, Zachary Quinto who plays Sylar. I've been watching the coverage on G4. Lots of cool stuff. I'm definitely interested in seeing this Star Trek movie.

JediTricks
08-02-2007, 05:14 PM
I am still bummed that I missed this panel for the Sideshow panel. Luckily someone got me the preview poster, and Tycho brought me this news as soon as the panel left out (which only made me even more annoyed that I missed it).

General_Grievous
08-02-2007, 05:50 PM
So what will this movie be, exactly? I thought it was to be a retelling of the Star Trek original series, but now that Nimoy is involved...is it a flashback story?

Tycho
08-02-2007, 06:14 PM
So what will this movie be, exactly? I thought it was to be a retelling of the Star Trek original series, but now that Nimoy is involved...is it a flashback story?

We don't know. It's BEFORE TOS and likely when Kirk was a lieutenant or even an Ensign or Cadet. The Enterprise may not even be in the movie - in any event, it won't be his ship - it'll be April's or Pike's.

There were a lot of hostilities with the Klingons then and maybe even a war with them, so that's a likely subject it'll deal with.

Roberto Orci and Kurtzman (Transformers) are writing it and JJ Abrams is directing it.

BountyHunterScum
08-03-2007, 09:18 AM
This is soooo gonna suck. Emo Star Trek, pussify the world.

Tycho
08-03-2007, 11:03 AM
How is Trek going to be "emo?" What do you define as "emo" anyway?

And again, how is Trek going to go there?

BountyHunterScum
08-03-2007, 09:40 PM
How is Trek going to be "emo?" What do you define as "emo" anyway?

And again, how is Trek going to go there?

JJ Abrams is the guy who co-created lost alias and felicity, all a bunch of emo(emotional) crap. Alias was a feminist pseudo james bond tv show, lost was a ripoff of cast away. This is just another case of hollywood using "talent" we could do without. Star Trek needs a really trekkie not some idiot claiming to be.

Mad Slanted Powers
08-04-2007, 01:12 AM
I've not seen Cast Away, but I don't think it's anything like Lost. It had its genesis with Cast Away, but it is something entirely different. In fact, I was just reading about the person who was initially writing the pilot, and it ended up being different from his script.

I enjoyed Alias. Sometimes the mythology got a little convoluted, but it was a great show. I didn't lose interest with it as some others did.

I never watched Felicity, so I can't comment on that.

I'm looking forward to the new Star Trek movie. I think it will be better than the last two.

RooJay
08-04-2007, 04:02 AM
I've seen Cast Away. It was absolutely nothing like Lost. In fact, the only thing the two had in common was the plane crashing on and near a tropical island.

I'm also at a loss to determine where the notion that J.J. Abrams is (or is not) a 'real' Trekkie originated, and how that would matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure it can even be said that Nicholas Meyer was a huge Trekkie or not, and he still managed to give us two of the best Trek movies anyway (Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country.)

2-1B
08-04-2007, 08:54 AM
This is soooo gonna suck. Emo Star Trek, pussify the world.

Most people see Star Trek as "pussified" in the first place, so for a Trekkie to worry about that happening in the future is pretty comical.

El Chuxter
08-04-2007, 12:04 PM
Lost is more a ripoff of Gilligan's Isle anyway, with all the guest stars showing up and being to leave the island whenever they want. They just forgot the funny.

BountyHunterScum
08-04-2007, 05:17 PM
Most people see Star Trek as "pussified" in the first place, so for a Trekkie to worry about that happening in the future is pretty comical.

Yeah right, I don't know what most people are are talking about. A person claiming most people think star trek is pussified is comical too. Most people think it's scifi crap period. You sound like you have a healthy supply of kool-aid, drink up.

2-1B
08-05-2007, 05:27 PM
I Grok Spock.

BountyHunterScum
08-05-2007, 08:05 PM
I Grok Spock.

What is or does Grok mean?

JimJamBonds
08-05-2007, 10:38 PM
See "Night Live, Saturday" with the Priceline guy as host.

JediTricks
08-06-2007, 01:03 AM
I Grok Spock.
NO WAY! I can't believe anybody, Trekkie or not, would ever bring that horrible bumper sticker back to life after 35 years.


"Grok" means to know something very very deeply. It's from a Robert Heinlein '60s sci-fi novel, Heinlein was one of the big "hardcore" sci-fi writers of the era.

figrin bran
08-06-2007, 01:13 AM
I'm not much of a Star Trek fan at all but I feel sorry that you guys have to be subjected to Zachary Quinto's poor acting.

Then again, if it means less of him on Heroes, then I'm all for it!

JediTricks
08-06-2007, 02:52 AM
I'm not much of a Star Trek fan at all but I feel sorry that you guys have to be subjected to Zachary Quinto's poor acting.

Then again, if it means less of him on Heroes, then I'm all for it!
Heh heh, you have a good point, a little of his talent goes too far. :p He was best suited as Tori Spelling's gay best friend on her short-lived VH1 sitcom.

BountyHunterScum
08-06-2007, 12:56 PM
NO WAY! I can't believe anybody, Trekkie or not, would ever bring that horrible bumper sticker back to life after 35 years.


"Grok" means to know something very very deeply. It's from a Robert Heinlein '60s sci-fi novel, Heinlein was one of the big "hardcore" sci-fi writers of the era.

Ah I see thanks for the enlightenment and I won't be subjected to it since I will skip this prequel abomination. Down with all future prequels of anything!!! Hollyweird doesn't get it, prequels only worked for Star Wars. Star Trek should continue after Nemesis.

JediTricks
08-06-2007, 04:38 PM
Prequels worked for Star Wars?

JON9000
08-06-2007, 06:47 PM
Casino Royale is kind of a prequel.

I agree with Caesar, Star Trek has been kinda soft since... well, they started going camp in the 3rd movie. That's over 20 years ago! And V and VI? Sentimentality central, heaven help it- the music in places only lacked descending chimes in places to send it over the edge of sappiness.

Frankly, I don't think there is any way a movie about the adventures of young Kirk and Spock could be anywhere near as "emo" as those two films, or most of Trek since I was 8.

2-1B
08-06-2007, 08:22 PM
And I'm not trying to sound arrogant toward Trek, I'm on record as LOVING TNG and...well, only TNG because I think the rest of it was not so good...but TNG is still Trek so I respect it. I just don't think Trek in general has ever been seen as "manly" or whatever.

Tycho
08-06-2007, 09:52 PM
Caesar, you're on record having recommended "Little Miss Sunshine?"

What were you saying about "manliness?"

figrin bran
08-06-2007, 10:00 PM
Caesar, you're on record having recommended "Little Miss Sunshine?"

What were you saying about "manliness?"

I would recommend Little Miss Sunshine as well. :p

El Chuxter
08-07-2007, 12:21 AM
I've not seen it yet, but it has Steven Carrell, so I'd recommend it without having even seen it.

JediTricks
08-07-2007, 02:26 AM
DS9 was "manly" most of the time. They tried to butch up Enterprise for season 3 and it didn't really fit.

JON9000
08-07-2007, 08:48 AM
I just don't think Trek in general has ever been seen as "manly" or whatever.

Fellas, we must save Star Trek! What could we do to make Star Trek more "manly", less "emo", and less "sissified"? We could:

1. have the "boy-loving" Romulans attack, the Klingons and Federation dress up in capes and loin-cloths and stab them with phallic shaped weapons and then have a bunch of sweaty man-hugs.

2. all different alien races could have an open style combat contest on Vulcan, with no rules. All characters would have to be shirtless whilst locked in mortal, lascivious combat with another muscular, shirtless man. Sort of like UFC/Bloodsport to the stars, Paramount!

3. Redesign the hand-held phaser- every red-blooded 'merican male knows that gun-weapons should look like penii. That way, when you kill somebody, it looks as though you are killing them with one. Totally manly.

4. Kirk could wear a push-broom mustache as a young guy, sort of like Bennett in Commando.

5. You could have a mid-movie volleyball game on the holodeck with several crewmen oiled up and glistening under the faux-sun to the triumphant strains of (I'm not kidding here) "Playing with the Boys". Then Kirk, after getting appropriately worked up, could go to Carol's quarters and create David, appropriately naming his kid after a brazenly nude male statue. Then Kirk could accidentally get his male lover killed at the academy, which would then explain his narcissistic drive to bed as many babes as possible to make up for his youthful indiscretion.

Yep, that's manly, alright, not sissified at all. :rolleyes:

Apparently, based on my survey of manly movies, the more outlandishly homoerotic you are, the more manly you are. Wow, who'd a thunk?

2-1B
08-07-2007, 06:54 PM
Jon, are you talking about James Kirk or Kirk Douglas?
You were already on a roll with those examples but when you went the Bennet avenue, you came close to earning post of the year ! :p

I was thinking more along the lines of a "jock" scenario, where football (or most other sports) are seen as 'manly' in today's world while things like Trek (or Star Wars, to be fair) are seen as geeky and thus not "manly." One could point to the more cerebral nature of something like Trek as evidence that is above such basic "manly" stereotypes but I think most of us would agree on that anyway.

I do have one to add to Jon's list though, that being King Leonidas from 300 kicking a dude down a hole and screaming " THIS IS STAR TREK ! "

JON9000
08-07-2007, 08:10 PM
I mean James Kirk!

God knows, having a brain and using it in good ol' 'merica by questioning conventional thinking is so threatening to the faux-populist that it gets attacked as effeminate and un'merican. I laugh at that.

You couldn't use that scene because Kirk already did that in Search for Spock!

Oh, and you can't use 300 because I did already, you have to use a different movie to get an idea... come on, there are so many absurdly macho movies some of our friends here probably love, although it speaks to them in ways they would probably want to deny, Nightmare on Elm Street 2, any Van Damme movie, any Schwarzenegger or Stallone flick, Lord of the Rings... the material for inspiration is very broad indeed!

Viva la Manly Star Trek!!!

Mad Slanted Powers
08-07-2007, 08:32 PM
Manly yes, but I like it too.

Tycho
08-07-2007, 09:08 PM
So is Caesar going to submit pictures of himself with his shirt off to exemplify "manly" next?

BountyHunterScum
08-07-2007, 09:26 PM
Casino Royale is kind of a prequel.

I agree with Caesar, Star Trek has been kinda soft since... well, they started going camp in the 3rd movie. That's over 20 years ago! And V and VI? Sentimentality central, heaven help it- the music in places only lacked descending chimes in places to send it over the edge of sappiness.

Frankly, I don't think there is any way a movie about the adventures of young Kirk and Spock could be anywhere near as "emo" as those two films, or most of Trek since I was 8.

Yeah it was kinda, they should have did Casino Royale first. I'm getting the impression they are turning the name James Bond into a euphemism. Kinda like what they do with Airforce 1, no matter what plane the president is on it's designation is Airforce 1. Including a friggin cessna.

JediTricks
08-08-2007, 01:21 AM
How can anybody say Trek isn't manly after First Contact? That movie was all angry and violent and had Picard acting like a maniac throughout the whole thing, then he got to show off his muscley arms while he melted people to death!

Blue2th
08-08-2007, 01:28 AM
Kirk is a man's manly man. Like Erroll swashbucklin' Flynn in space.

Picard is more cerebral like a man who thinks too much with too much responsibility drinking too much Earl Grey tea instead of flying by the seat of his pants, shooting first and asking questions later like good 'ole 'mericans Yet he is manly and not at all homoerotic. Though isn't he French? nevermind.


Speaking of the (manly) 300, did anyone know what the Spartans really did with their apprentices?

JediTricks
08-08-2007, 01:30 AM
Picard loses himself when shooting the Borg with a machine gun, phasers his own men begging for help, and rips body parts out of former crewmembers. The guy is a stone killah baby! What's manlier than that?

JimJamBonds
08-08-2007, 12:55 PM
So is Caesar going to submit pictures of himself with his shirt off to exemplify "manly" next?

If he doesn't I will (of Caesar of course).

Beast
08-30-2007, 02:04 PM
So, did you guys here the latest news about the new Star Trek film?

Not sure how I feel about it, especially given the nature of what they're doing.

The basics from Moriarty at AICN.

From what he hears, people will be surprised to find that Nimoy's Spock is actually the star of the picture. We start off late in the Trek era, when a group of Romulans wind up accidentally sent back in time. They find themselves in a situation where they can try to alter the future in order to give all Romulans an advantage. Best way to do that, of course - kill James Kirk, erasing him from the timeline.

Spock has followed them back, however, and sets out to protect humanity's future by keeping Young Kirk safe. Ultimately his actions create a new timeline - one that we can potentially follow for years to come as we see a NEW version of the Trek universe and the Classic Enterprise's voyages. And Spock opts to stay in the past, in order to keep a watchful eye over the development of the future.

Dramatic differences from the previous timeline are already set in motion by the script - for example, the Romulans literally blow up their enemy world of Vulcan, leaving the existing Vulans in the timeline as the last of their kind in the universe, a race without a home. This causes them to re-evaluate how they view emotions versus logic...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33832

Tycho
08-30-2007, 02:23 PM
A re-boot so TNG, DS9, and Voyager never happened the way we know that they happened?

I'm not comfortable with this.

Does Spock start out on Romulus after Trek: Nemesis? Will there be a cameo appearance of the USS Titan and Captain William T. Troi? (Not sure if it really happens that way, but I think Picard said Riker would take Deanna's last name as the Betazoid tradition).

But I don't know what to make of all this. Of course they can totally screw with the timeline for a series of movies, and then have Kirk and young Spock set the timeline back the way it was always supposed to be for TNG, DS9, and Voyage at the end of the movie series. So who knows?

But we're at the point where the biggest risk in Star Trek is its own fictional continuity. Isn't there something wrong with that?

Beast
08-30-2007, 02:31 PM
The first thing that popped into my head upon reading it... was basically that someone clearly was a fan of DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths. Or at least, Back to the Future 2. Because that's exactly what it smells like. Sure, it allows them to reboot the Trek Universe to start mining it all over again. But they're throwing some great babies out with this particular bathwater. Eh, it couldn't be worse than Enterprise.

BountyHunterScum
08-30-2007, 04:57 PM
I'll take Star Trek the way it is. They shovel this "star trek needs a break" bs then come up with this CRAP. How about cast me as Kirk, I show up in my boxers alot put my hands down my pants like Al Bundy and we'll call it a movie. Deal?

Tycho
08-30-2007, 06:42 PM
Just tell me what you think: I'm throwing this idea out there.

Star Trek on television has had a lot of 2-parters, cliffhangers, and what not.

How about taking those, converting them for widescreen projection on the big screen, and adding even better effects and a master composer's score (like John Williams putting original and new music to it)?

Then if you're nostalgic for Trek, IT WILL DEFINITELY BE as good as the original, since it is the original, but you get to look at it a whole new way.

There will be movie trailers for it and everything else. It may seem a lot like the remastered TOS, but it will go a step further than that. Plus if TNG was truly the most popular Trek, there you go:

Best of Both Worlds in the movie theater with a pro-soundtrack.

Redemption

Time's Arrow

The Gambit

Descent

and some of DS9's greatest put into The Dominon War movies.

If you've never seen them before (still) - you'll likely be impressed. If you have seen them, chances are that you like them anyway and you'll go back to see them presented this way. Add even more combat to Best of Both Worlds for example - like even the Wolf 359 stuff they used in DS9 - and you've got yourself some kick-butt stuff to show.

And guess what? You're appreciating the classics for what they are, not desperately trying to resuscitate something that's expired most of its options. (I've suggested stuff that is radically different, like a ship full of mercenaries in the 24th century, or a show who's main characters are the lower ranks on the USS Titan (post-Nemesis).

But before you discount the idea of re-issuing the old stuff - remember, you're already enthusiastically watching it anyway.

2-1B
08-30-2007, 08:18 PM
sounds cool, they can call it

Star Trek: Terminator 4

Droid
08-30-2007, 10:03 PM
Well if one bit of this is true I will NOT see it.

First, of all, Romulans can go back in time and the only thing they would do to change their lot in life is to kill Jim Kirk, give me a freaking break. Assuming in Star Trek canon Kirk stayed dead after Generations, at what point did he permanently screw up the Romulans enough that he would be the key to destroying the race? Why not go back and time and just give themselves advanced technology? Honestly.

And so Spock will create an alternate timeline that means even THE ORIGINAL SHOW didn't happen? This is how they are going to save Star Trek?

If this is true it will be the MOST controversial thing they have EVER done. Didn't they notice the way Enterprise alienated the hard core fans by brushing off continuity? And the rest of the public didn't care about Enterprise so it failed with the fans and the casual viewer. This will do exactly the same thing.

If you want to have Nimoy, just create a mystery that stretches across two time periods in Spock's life, or just have him remember something like that terrible episode of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles with Harrison Ford.

So the Vulcans lose their homeworld? So Amok Time never happened? Spock doesn't return to Vulcan for Star Trek: the Motion Picture? Are they able to put his soul back with his body in Star Trek III?

I warned how bad this could be given what Abrams wanted to do with Superman. Now I am just as afraid for Star Trek.

BountyHunterScum
08-31-2007, 01:37 AM
This sounds like some crappy did I do Lohan and Spears or didn't I. Go back in time bullsh-t some more alter the timeline bullsh-t some more. In the end I have F-cked up Star Trek! Ain't I a genius? :upset::mad:

http://www.aseclub.net/gallery/albums/album52/Al_Bundy.jpg
http://www.jameshetfield.de/extras/fans/albundy.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d161/aschnurlein/AlBundy.jpg

JediTricks
08-31-2007, 02:16 AM
This is a very bad idea, Beast's point of using Crisis on Infinite Earths as an analogy is painfully apt. This kind of reboot is shameful and crass and smacks of "to hell with Roddenberry's wishes and everything good about Trek, we need a new playground to tell edgy, modern stories that'll get modern audiences into modern multiplexes."

I am so sick of every great franchise getting older and looking backwards instead of forwards. Guess what? Deconstructing your material never works because you aren't the same geniuses that made it anymore, you're different in fundamental ways and you've already created your foundation and those around at the time are no longer together to make that magic recipe work that way anymore.

And the worst, WORST part of all of this is we could still have the ridiculous Voyager 30th-century time police swing by and retcon all of this back out of existence anyway. And I find it laughable that of all characters to usher it in, they use the one that absolutely would never do what they're making him do because it goes against every shred of sense and duty and honor.

My best guess is this is an elaborate smokescreen - it damn well better be.

BountyHunterScum
08-31-2007, 12:32 PM
This is a very bad idea, Beast's point of using Crisis on Infinite Earths as an analogy is painfully apt. This kind of reboot is shameful and crass and smacks of "to hell with Roddenberry's wishes and everything good about Trek, we need a new playground to tell edgy, modern stories that'll get modern audiences into modern multiplexes."

I am so sick of every great franchise getting older and looking backwards instead of forwards. Guess what? Deconstructing your material never works because you aren't the same geniuses that made it anymore, you're different in fundamental ways and you've already created your foundation and those around at the time are no longer together to make that magic recipe work that way anymore.

And the worst, WORST part of all of this is we could still have the ridiculous Voyager 30th-century time police swing by and retcon all of this back out of existence anyway. And I find it laughable that of all characters to usher it in, they use the one that absolutely would never do what they're making him do because it goes against every shred of sense and duty and honor.

My best guess is this is an elaborate smokescreen - it damn well better be.

Regardless, I found my new avatar.

JediTricks
09-01-2007, 12:43 AM
Al Bundy is a god!

BountyHunterScum
09-01-2007, 02:06 AM
Al Bundy is a god!

Toobad this board doesn't post images in threads I'd find a load of pics with Al's hand in his pants. :D

bigbarada
09-01-2007, 05:34 AM
This is a very bad idea, Beast's point of using Crisis on Infinite Earths as an analogy is painfully apt. This kind of reboot is shameful and crass and smacks of "to hell with Roddenberry's wishes and everything good about Trek, we need a new playground to tell edgy, modern stories that'll get modern audiences into modern multiplexes."

I am so sick of every great franchise getting older and looking backwards instead of forwards. Guess what? Deconstructing your material never works because you aren't the same geniuses that made it anymore, you're different in fundamental ways and you've already created your foundation and those around at the time are no longer together to make that magic recipe work that way anymore.

And the worst, WORST part of all of this is we could still have the ridiculous Voyager 30th-century time police swing by and retcon all of this back out of existence anyway. And I find it laughable that of all characters to usher it in, they use the one that absolutely would never do what they're making him do because it goes against every shred of sense and duty and honor.

My best guess is this is an elaborate smokescreen - it damn well better be.

This is awful news. I'm just now starting to get back into Trek thanks to Spike TV playing 4 hours of TNG and Voyager episodes Monday thru Thursday, now I hear this?

My appreciation of Star Trek is pretty much the polar opposite of my appreciation of Star Wars. First and foremost I absolutely love the Trek novels, primarily: The Romulan Way (the ancient history of Vulcans and Romulans), Strangers from the Sky (the story of Vulcans first contact with Earth), Final Frontier (the real story about the prototype Enterprise), and Enterprise (the TOS Enterprise's first mission).

Most of these stories predated TNG and Star Trek V and beyond, but have been completely written out of Star Trek continuity by the post-1987 TV episodes and movies. And that's a shame because those stories are many times better than what ended up on TV and movie screens.

Why is faithfully adapting a well-written novel so out of the question for Star Trek? It's worked really well for LOTR, Harry Potter and Chronicles of Narnia. Why can't they make a movie about the Vulcan/Romulan split that happened 2000 years prior to TOS, as described in The Romulan Way? It's an amazing story that could easily be told on the grandiose scale of films like Return of the King and 300; but it seems that the movie and TV studios prefer to just dumb the Romulans down into violent Vulcans with forehead ridges.:upset:

Why do they believe that secrecy and shock value are the keys to good storytelling? When Jackson made Lord of the Rings, he didn't set out to shock everyone with a dramatic re-imagining of the story. He made the films as faithful to the source material as possible, while taking only a few minor liberties with the story. Obviously, everyone knew how the story turned out years beforehand, so the movies must have been a failure.... no, they collectively grossed billions of dollars worldwide. He managed to create new fans while simultaneously pleasing the longtime fans of the novels.

Making the next Trek movie into a "destroy everything you thought you knew about Star Trek" kind of storyline just shows a tremendous lack of faith in the source material.

Plus, once they open the pandora box of rewriting continuity with time travel, it becomes too easy to just keep going back a little earlier and resetting everything again. Similar to what happened with Wolverine and the whole "memory implant" storyline. One writer would come up with an origin story for Wolverine and the next writer who took over the series would write a new origin and just chalk the old origin up as an intricate memory implant. Of course, a third writer would come in and relegate the second writer's origin story to the status of memory implant and write a completely new, third origin story and this went on and on....

If this is what is needed to make Star Trek popular again, then it's best to just let the series die and wait another 10-20 years to resurrect the original theme of TOS and TNG.

Droid
09-01-2007, 10:11 AM
This is a very bad idea, Beast's point of using Crisis on Infinite Earths as an analogy is painfully apt. This kind of reboot is shameful and crass and smacks of "to hell with Roddenberry's wishes and everything good about Trek, we need a new playground to tell edgy, modern stories that'll get modern audiences into modern multiplexes."

I am so sick of every great franchise getting older and looking backwards instead of forwards. Guess what? Deconstructing your material never works because you aren't the same geniuses that made it anymore, you're different in fundamental ways and you've already created your foundation and those around at the time are no longer together to make that magic recipe work that way anymore.

And the worst, WORST part of all of this is we could still have the ridiculous Voyager 30th-century time police swing by and retcon all of this back out of existence anyway. And I find it laughable that of all characters to usher it in, they use the one that absolutely would never do what they're making him do because it goes against every shred of sense and duty and honor.

My best guess is this is an elaborate smokescreen - it damn well better be.

1. I fear that they plan to use this movie to start a whole series of movies about the original crew with a different cast. And I am right there with you JediTricks, to act as though Rodenberry, Shatner, Nimoy, and the rest of the original crew brought nothing to the table is just shocking. To think they can just start telling new stories of the original crew in an alternate timeline and somehow that will "save" Star Trek is just absurd. I think we all would love to watch some "lost" (no pun intended) of the original series that had all of the elements in place with the orignal cast, but it will never happen so we need to move on. Like you suggest, if Star Trek is to continue it MUST boldly go where no one has gone before, not constantly sift through the past.

2. Yes, they could undo this fiasco any time they want. Maybe Q will say he liked the orignal timeline better and snap his fingers. And if the timeline gets altered, will the necessary elements be in place to prevent the Borg from over running humanity? Would the elements be in place to prevent Q from finding humanity guilty? Of course the genuises behind this project will probably feel as though they can pull anything they liked from the Next Generation era back into the Orignal Series era because the timeline got altered, much in the way Enterprise felt it could use Romulans and Ferengi and Borg without it being a plot flaw. Frankly I was always STUNNED they didn't have a "younger" Q show up on Enterprise, say he would check back in on humanity later, and leave Archer and the gang without any memory of the incident. We may yet see a young Kirk meet the Borg.

3. The only bonus of this timeline altering nonsense would be if they undo Kirk's horribly written death in Generations or Data's meaningless demise in Nemesis. Now those are timelines that need altered!

4. I worry it is not a smokescreen. I again point people to what Abrams intended for the Superman movie before cooler heads prevailed. See the first post of this thread. I think we will get this crap as the next Star Trek movie unless fans rise up and stop it or Abrams gets tossed off the project. But I fear his Lost popularity will give him the authority to ruin Star Trek. See Transformers, a Michael Bay and Stephen Spielberg production.

JON9000
09-01-2007, 01:27 PM
After giving it some thought, I have no problem with a complete reboot. The continuity has grown to the point that simply making a film that takes into account all of the minutiae is hardly feasible anymore. A film is not going to have much crossover appeal if you have to watch a thousand hours of mostly lousy television to understand everything that is going on.

I understand how somebody who has followed this continuity for 40 years could feel as though the material they have immersed themselves in is no longer going to be respected, and I understand how it could make one wish to cling to it. The more casual fan might be willing to admit that Star Trek has been pretty awful for nearly 15 years, and it's time for a completely new direction, or time to bury it once and for all.

Just my two cents!

BountyHunterScum
09-01-2007, 02:21 PM
After giving it some thought, I have no problem with a complete reboot. The continuity has grown to the point that simply making a film that takes into account all of the minutiae is hardly feasible anymore. A film is not going to have much crossover appeal if you have to watch a thousand hours of mostly lousy television to understand everything that is going on.

I understand how somebody who has followed this continuity for 40 years could feel as though the material they have immersed themselves in is no longer going to be respected, and I understand how it could make one wish to cling to it. The more casual fan might be willing to admit that Star Trek has been pretty awful for nearly 15 years, and it's time for a completely new direction, or time to bury it once and for all.

Just my two cents!

Just those two options huh. Translated: option 1 ruin Star Trek or option 2 preserve what little dignity/rigidity it has left. I wouldn't mind having another TNG movie just to undo things or keep going in that era one more time. Design a new USS Lynx timeship to go back and replace Data with B4 so when the Scimitar goes B4 goes with it.

2-1B
09-02-2007, 03:05 PM
Time travel and Q are the two things I hate most about Trek. Along with TOS, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.

bigbarada
09-02-2007, 03:17 PM
I will admit there is a problem with treating TOS as "Trek gospel" and that's because it's a 1960s view of the future, before home computers, the internet and GPS navigation. Our technology has grown in ways that they couldn't predict three decades ago. Kirk's communicator suddenly doesn't look so hi-tech no that we have cell phones that are less than half the size of the TV prop.

Also, we've fallen short in many areas. According to Trek, we should have had some sort of moon colony or Mars base by the year 2007, but we still haven't progressed beyond the occasional Shuttle mission.

So I'm all for updating the franchise to take into account modern technology, but that doesn't mean we need to start from scratch.

Tycho
09-02-2007, 03:44 PM
So I'm all for updating the franchise to take into account modern technology, but that doesn't mean we need to start from scratch.


That's an interesting idea.

"Captain, the Klingons are jamming our transmissions!"

"That's OK, not even the Empire can stand up to the whole Verizon Network!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So you've seen Project Genesis?"

"Yup. Got it right here on BluRay."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I can't believe Data is gone...."

"Don't worry. Things will be pretty much the same. We just log-on to Wikipedia."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those are Klingons?"

"They used time travel to get them the same cosmetic surgeon as Michael Jackson."

------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Sir, using the resources currently available to us, it is possible to determine who will be the President of Earth at the beginning of the 25th Century?"

"You used quantum temporal scanning technology?"

"No. They moved up the Primary again."

JediTricks
09-03-2007, 04:46 PM
After giving it some thought, I have no problem with a complete reboot. The continuity has grown to the point that simply making a film that takes into account all of the minutiae is hardly feasible anymore. A film is not going to have much crossover appeal if you have to watch a thousand hours of mostly lousy television to understand everything that is going on.I don't believe it's a problem to have a rich "history", it should give writing compelling stories with honest backgrounds that much more easy. That's why Lucas wrote up a past for Star Wars before writing the main story, even when he never intended to show that past, he knew it would help him give a sense of "presence" that his universe really benefited from. Making it up as you go is fine for something fresh, but Trek is someone else's original idea, it's not yours anyway - you're just adding to an original's brilliance.


I understand how somebody who has followed this continuity for 40 years could feel as though the material they have immersed themselves in is no longer going to be respected, and I understand how it could make one wish to cling to it. The more casual fan might be willing to admit that Star Trek has been pretty awful for nearly 15 years, and it's time for a completely new direction, or time to bury it once and for all.Here's the thing, Trek has been awful for the last 15 years (arguably) in large part because someone with bad ideas was put in charge and decided to do something mundane that stood in contrast with the original and everything good built upon it. People will be attracted to Trek not for what it isn't, but for what it is. All that continuity doesn't need to DRIVE a series, but it does need to exist to some degree (beyond a cheap wink) for it to be valuable Trek.




I will admit there is a problem with treating TOS as "Trek gospel" and that's because it's a 1960s view of the future, before home computers, the internet and GPS navigation. Our technology has grown in ways that they couldn't predict three decades ago. Kirk's communicator suddenly doesn't look so hi-tech no that we have cell phones that are less than half the size of the TV prop.

Also, we've fallen short in many areas. According to Trek, we should have had some sort of moon colony or Mars base by the year 2007, but we still haven't progressed beyond the occasional Shuttle mission.

So I'm all for updating the franchise to take into account modern technology, but that doesn't mean we need to start from scratch.We're so confident about our modern lives, that it "must" be the way of the future, but the reality is that in 50 years, the way our technology looks will be laughable too and design concepts will completely different. And keep in mind about that ol' communicator, it's instant communications to a starship well in orbit as well as with other communicators, so it's not as simple as a cellphone (which needs to be 1/4 of a mile from a celltower to work). Granted, the '60s show's aesthetic doesn't work for today, but I don't think we can simply throw the whole thing out and go back to how Enterprise looked, that's not a hopeful, imaginative future, that's just lazy.

bigbarada
09-03-2007, 11:46 PM
We're so confident about our modern lives, that it "must" be the way of the future, but the reality is that in 50 years, the way our technology looks will be laughable too and design concepts will completely different. And keep in mind about that ol' communicator, it's instant communications to a starship well in orbit as well as with other communicators, so it's not as simple as a cellphone (which needs to be 1/4 of a mile from a celltower to work). Granted, the '60s show's aesthetic doesn't work for today, but I don't think we can simply throw the whole thing out and go back to how Enterprise looked, that's not a hopeful, imaginative future, that's just lazy.

I actually liked Enterprise best when it was mimicking the visual style of TOS, with all the brightly colored walls and clothing. Much more interesting to look at than the monotone "greyness" that Star Trek was sinking more and more into from DS9 down to Enterprise. So I'm all for making something visually interesting to look at.

My comment about taking into account modern advancements is purely for the sake of the show's credibility. It must present a vision of the future that actually looks like it far surpasses our own otherwise casual viewers will never take it seriously.

Of course the communicators are light years ahead of cell phones, but they still need to look like they are more advanced. I believe the Next Generation communicators did the best job of presenting this.

Actually, TNG is my favorite incarnation of Trek on TV. The technology still appears to be pretty advanced compared to what we have now, especially how they keep those computer panels from turning into greasy messes with all those people touching them.:D

Mad Slanted Powers
09-04-2007, 12:41 AM
I agree with JT on this I think. We don't really know the technology behind the communicator. Maybe it seems like we should have something more advanced based on what we have now, but maybe in the time of TOS, they couldn't compact the technology into something smaller. Also, in the Star Trek universe, there is supposed to be a World War III and perhaps that sets some of our technology back a bit. Or maybe the knowledge and technology is there, but they just don't have the resources or manpower to make it, so they have to resort to cruder versions. There are all kinds of explanations you can come up with to it. In the end, the TOS technology wasn't what made the show great, it was the characters and stories.

I liked Enterprise. I could have done without all the time travel stuff. Also, making a pretty much a whole season about the Xindi probably made it harder to draw in a new audience.

bigbarada
09-04-2007, 07:41 PM
I agree with JT on this I think. We don't really know the technology behind the communicator. Maybe it seems like we should have something more advanced based on what we have now, but maybe in the time of TOS, they couldn't compact the technology into something smaller. Also, in the Star Trek universe, there is supposed to be a World War III and perhaps that sets some of our technology back a bit. Or maybe the knowledge and technology is there, but they just don't have the resources or manpower to make it, so they have to resort to cruder versions. There are all kinds of explanations you can come up with to it. In the end, the TOS technology wasn't what made the show great, it was the characters and stories.

I liked Enterprise. I could have done without all the time travel stuff. Also, making a pretty much a whole season about the Xindi probably made it harder to draw in a new audience.

Of course, anything can be explained away if you try hard enough, but the point is, it shouldn't have to be.

This is not history, this is television, it should be immediately apparent to the audience that the technology being used if far beyond our own, without any onscreen explaination.

I have a buddy who was one of the visual effects supervisors for The Day After Tomorrow and he also worked on the effects for The Fifth Element and Castaway, among others. He came to our college and gave us a few lectures in 3D animation and one of the guiding principles that he taught us was, "reality is no excuse for bad storytelling."

Star Trek is entertainment first and foremost. A fictional story that needs to be told well or it will lose it's audience.

Nobody knows what a communicator with the ability to talk to a starship would really look like, so for the sake of the viewing audience, the best bet is just to make it appear far more advanced than even the most modern communication devices that you can buy at your local Wal-Mart.

Mad Slanted Powers
09-04-2007, 07:46 PM
Nobody knows what a communicator with the ability to talk to a starship would really look like, so for the sake of the viewing audience, the best bet is just to make it appear far more advanced than even the most modern communication devices that you can buy at your local Wal-Mart.That's the trick, though. What does something more advanced look like? Since everything is getting smaller, then we should just do away with communicators altogether because we'll probably all just have implants in our heads.

bigbarada
09-04-2007, 08:29 PM
That's the trick, though. What does something more advanced look like? Since everything is getting smaller, then we should just do away with communicators altogether because we'll probably all just have implants in our heads.

Like I mentioned before, TNG seemed to handle it pretty well - disguising the communicator as a Starfleet insignia.

I doubt that implants are something that the average member of the viewing audience would be comfortable with; so, while they might be plausible as the next logical technological step, I think the show should stay away from any sort of mechanical implants in crew members. Too Borg-like for Starfleet.

JediTricks
09-05-2007, 11:56 PM
My comment about taking into account modern advancements is purely for the sake of the show's credibility. It must present a vision of the future that actually looks like it far surpasses our own otherwise casual viewers will never take it seriously.

Of course the communicators are light years ahead of cell phones, but they still need to look like they are more advanced. I believe the Next Generation communicators did the best job of presenting this.I know what you mean, but at the same it's very difficult to actually make something look significantly advanced in terms of technology because of how much we keep changing things on a day-to-day basis as it is. There's no way we can imagine what 300 years in the future technology will really look like, for all we know it'll be laser beams out of fingertips and communicators built into eardrums, or maybe it'll look all woodgrain like an Atari 2600, or everything's made of jell-o. :p The thing is, when they try to make it look super futuristic, you end up with ugly crap like the "TV remote" phasers of TNG seasons 1 and 2, nobody wants that, or a ship that looks all bloated on the outside and like a bad Holiday Inn on the inside. Don't get me wrong, I love the D, but she's an acquired taste to say the least and not one of the other major designs lifts from it for that reason. Hell, even of the other ships of that era, only 1 borrows pieces from it (the Nebula-class) and it throws out a lot of the actual "body".


Actually, TNG is my favorite incarnation of Trek on TV. The technology still appears to be pretty advanced compared to what we have now, especially how they keep those computer panels from turning into greasy messes with all those people touching them.:DThat's another thing, touch panels? Not very efficient OR futuristic really, just cheaper to do what they needed with the concepts. And we all know how lame touch panels are for typing, how do they use those things efficiently? The only guess I ever came up with is that the panels give off a sensory effect which tells the fingers where they are in relation to other sections, but it's still damned inefficient.

Ultimately, I think it should look cool but have something tactile and not rely too heavily on looking futurey, just get it looking sci-fi instead. ;) If they have to explain to us what a gun is supposed to be, it's not going to work as well - Riker always looks like he's shooting phaser blasts from his thumb when using the type-1! And talking into mid-air was a little silly, c'mon now. :D Plus, I never bought for a second anybody but Data being able to work on a commbadge with all its tiny circuitry in that small package. Ultimately, a gun should look like a gun, a communications device should be recognizable as a communications device, and a tricorder should always be awesome. :thumbsup: Jazz 'em up with a little sci-fi touch and send 'em out the door, the audience will "get" it that much easier and move on to more pressing issues.

bigbarada
09-06-2007, 04:58 PM
You do have a point, stuff changes so much and manufacturers make a concerted effort to produce gadgets that have a definite "Star Trek" feel to them. I guess the only thing that Star Trek can never address is the effect that the Star Trek phenomenon has had on technology.

About the touch panels, I recently bought a Nintendo DS and realized that the touch pad would respond to finger touches as well; but after just a few minutes, it became so covered in finger oils that it severely hampered the game's responsiveness. So, while they might look cool on TV, they are definitely not good for daily use...... either that or I just need to wash my hands more frequently.:o

I also agree, the TNG phasers were stupid looking.

JediTricks
09-07-2007, 01:21 AM
Scientists are already working on materials that shed oils and crud, even ones that disintegrate it so it harmlessly blows off - if that's even 50 years away, it would be commonplace 300 years from now. On the other hand, how would someone in the audience relate to that in a visual medium? Look at the PADD, it was so futuristic in '87 when the show came out, but within a few years the technology for the PDA came out and behaved largely the same, now we have PDAs that use color and have removable memory chips and wirelessly synch with the main computer. There's got to be a balance or it won't work, if it's too futuristic audiences don't get the concept, if it's too retro they think it looks silly. I think Trek had the right idea with TNG and DS9, keep it just foreign enough to be believable without going so far off the deep end, Voyager got too stuck with the evolution of those 2 shows so the ship is bloated like the D and the halls are even uglier, but they have moving gizmos and stations at funny angles on the bridge and think that's all it needs.


I liked the season 3 phasers, and I like the TNG type-1 phaser up close, but it's lousy on-screen.

bigbarada
09-07-2007, 02:07 AM
I also agree about the Enterprise-D, it was definitely an acquired taste when the series premiered, but now it's one of my favorite starship designs. Even though it has become something of an anomaly if you take Star Trek ship designs as a whole. I actually didn't like the movie replacement TNG Enterprise, it just didn't feel like TNG anymore.

Voyager looked horrible, I just can't get used to that design, it's ugly. I think it was an old issue of Toyfare that compared it to a garden trowel.:D Also, the Defiant from DS9 looked more like a spare part from a larger starship.

The D interiors are probably my favorite in all of Star Trek. Well lit, open, non-claustrophobic, relaxing colors, definitely a ship I could live on and not feel like a rat in a cage. Voyagers interiors were too confining, but they did give the impression that you were on a small starship. DS9 had the worst interiors, a very strange and disturbing mix of colors and atmosphere.

I can't really comment on Enterprise, since I only watched a couple episodes and nothing really made an impression.

JediTricks
09-07-2007, 02:20 AM
You mean the Enterprise-E or the ST:Generations version of the 1701-D with the extra detail and new sections on the bridge? I love the D, but I quickly fell for the E during First Contact, it looks fast and strong and more about business - reminds me of the movie.


Voyager looks like a mutant with the giant oblong saucer and the tiny engineering hull. The bending warp pylons is kinda silly too. I've grown to appreciate it, but I don't love it, that's for sure.

Love me the Defiant though, Tycho will come in here and say it's the Falcon of Trek - he's not too far off. But it looks really tough and even more business-y.

Life in space will be confined and cramped really, that's one thing that cheesed me off about Enterprise, they promised it'd be like that and then they recycled Voyager's wide, boxy corridors - so what if they lowered the ceilings a little?!? Anyway, the D's corridors are actually a redress of the Star Trek: The Motion Picture sets, but they're done to look more spacious and give a more warm color sense.

Tycho
09-07-2007, 02:46 AM
Love me the Defiant though, Tycho will come in here and say it's the Falcon of Trek

The Defiant? It's the Falcon of Trek! :D:thumbsup:

bigbarada
09-07-2007, 03:54 AM
You mean the Enterprise-E or the ST:Generations version of the 1701-D with the extra detail and new sections on the bridge? I love the D, but I quickly fell for the E during First Contact, it looks fast and strong and more about business - reminds me of the movie.



I guess I'm talking about the Enterprise-E, although now that I look at it some more, it's really not that bad. Probably the overall crappiness of the TNG movies is what I'm reacting to, but the ship itself does look pretty nice.

I honestly haven't bothered to watch Generations again since 1994 (it was THAT bad, IMO), so I don't recall any changes to the D version of the ship.

To me Generations was to Star Trek what EP3 was to Star Wars. In other words, a movie so bad it almost single handedly cured me of my Star Trek fandom with only one viewing. My interest in Trek has just never been the same since.

First Contact was tolerable for the most part. A definite C-grade movie. My biggest peeve was that they rewrote established Trek "history" on the creation of warp drive and replaced it with some ridiculous "post-apocalyptic, cowboy-scientist" story.

Insurrection and Nemesis, I know I've seen them both, but honestly can't really remember a single detail about them. They're just.... insignificant and pointless.

Mad Slanted Powers
09-07-2007, 08:07 PM
First Contact was tolerable for the most part. A definite C-grade movie. My biggest peeve was that they rewrote established Trek "history" on the creation of warp drive and replaced it with some ridiculous "post-apocalyptic, cowboy-scientist" story.What was the established history other than that Cochrane had invented it?

RooJay
09-08-2007, 10:13 PM
I can wait for the new movie, if only for the satisfaction I will fell in knowing that they will have succeeded in ticking off all the trekkies out there that take themselves and Star Trek way too seriously! It all sounds good to me, and I eagerly await Trek's new infusion (lifelong trekkie, myself) of life and success!

bigbarada
09-08-2007, 11:54 PM
I can wait for the new movie, if only for the satisfaction I will fell in knowing that they will have succeeded in ticking off all the trekkies out there that take themselves and Star Trek way too seriously! It all sounds good to me, and I eagerly await Trek's new infusion (lifelong trekkie, myself) of life and success!

I don't really understand your thinking here. The original Star Trek series is what made Trek for over twenty years before TNG showed up. So, getting upset that someone is going back and effectively erasing everything Gene Roddenberry created is taking things too seriously? :stupid:

What if George Lucas passes away tomorrow and Rick McCallum writes Star Wars Episode 7, in which the clone Emperor goes back in time and kills the infant Luke on Tatooine effectively erasing the OT from Star Wars continuity? Could you honestly say that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit ticked off about that?

BountyHunterScum
09-09-2007, 07:03 PM
What was the established history other than that Cochrane had invented it?

There was no backstory about Cochrane and how he invented warp drive until FC that is. I don't know where they go antimatter and the rest of that equipment though, the ideal backstory would have Cochrane as a legit scientist.

bigbarada
09-09-2007, 08:11 PM
There was no backstory about Cochrane and how he invented warp drive until FC that is. I don't know where they go antimatter and the rest of that equipment though, the ideal backstory would have Cochrane as a legit scientist.

Cochrane did appear in an episode of TOS, but he was being kept perpetually young and held hostage by some alien entity. Needless to say, he didn't look or act anything like the character who appearded in First Contact.

BountyHunterScum
09-09-2007, 08:12 PM
Cochrane did appear in an episode of TOS, but he was being kept perpetually young and held hostage by some alien entity. Needless to say, he didn't look or act anything like the character who appearded in First Contact.

Yep he was a pillar of the community then.

Mad Slanted Powers
09-09-2007, 08:36 PM
Cochrane did appear in an episode of TOS, but he was being kept perpetually young and held hostage by some alien entity. Needless to say, he didn't look or act anything like the character who appearded in First Contact.His life probably changed quite a bit after the first warp flight and contact with the Vulcans. With something important to do with his life, he might have cleaned up, sobered up, and become a better person.

bigbarada
09-09-2007, 08:50 PM
His life probably changed quite a bit after the first warp flight and contact with the Vulcans. With something important to do with his life, he might have cleaned up, sobered up, and become a better person.

Okay I did some digging and I always thought that Cochrane wasn't from Earth, but couldn't remember where I had gotten that info. This confirms it. He was originally from Alpha Centauri.

The episode was called Metamorphosis and here is the plot synopsis that I dug up:

Kirk, Spock, and McCoy ferry Commissioner Nancy Hedford from Epsilon Caneris 3 to the Enterprise in the shuttlecraft Galileo. The Commissioner, who had been on a diplomatic mission to stop a war, is ill with Sicuro's disease and needs treatment aboard the Enterprise. The shuttlecraft is forced down on a small planetoid by a sparkling cloud of ionized hydrogen. The planet has an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere with traces of krypton, argon, and neon, and a surface temperature of 75 degrees.

Kirk is unable to contact the Enterprise, despite the fact that the communications equipment appears to be functioning perfectly. On the planet, they find a man named Cochrane, who claims he has been marooned. Cochrane tells them that there is some sort of damping field on the planet which will prevent them from being able to get their shuttlecraft to work.

Hedford begins developing a temperature, the first manifestation of her disease. Cochrane turns out to be space pioneer Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri, the discoverer of the Space Warp. Thought to have been dead for 150 years, Cochrane has been kept alive and young for centuries by a doting gaseous alien he calls the "Companion." The companion intercepted his disabled ship, brought him to the planet, and rejuvenated him. Cochrane had set out in a ship at the age of 87 to die in space. Cochrane also tells Kirk that the shuttlecraft has been diverted by the Companion to provide him with company.

As Spock attempts to fix the Galileo, the Companion drops by to investigate. Spock attempts to touch it, but is given an electric shock. The Companion also takes the opportunity to fry the Galileo's electronics. Using his newfound knowledge that the Companion is at least partly an electrical phenomenon, Spock builds a device to short-circuit it. Cochrane is not at all happy about this endeavor, but agrees to summon the Companion. When the Companion arrives to commune with Cochrane and Spock activates his short-circuit box, Cochrane is electrically shocked, and the Companion destroys the device and attacks Kirk and Spock. Fortunately, Cochrane regains his composure and summons the Companion away before it can harm them.

Kirk then comes up with the idea of using the shuttlecraft's universal translation device, which converts brain-wave frequencies, to attempt to communicate with the companion. This proves successful, and the Companion turns out to be a female entity who is "in love" with Cochrane. Kirk attempts to convince the Companion that humans pine away in captivity (or "cease to exist," as he puts it), but the Companion does not believe him.

Cochrane is greatly disturbed by the knowledge that the Companion is in love with him, and storms out saying that he doesn't want to be "fodder for any inhuman monster." At the same time, Hedford, in a feverish daze, remarks that it is strange that Cochrane runs from love while she herself has never had the opportunity to be loved.

Kirk then tries to convince the Companion that she is not capable of giving Cochrane true human love, and that if she really loves Cochrane, she will let him go. Instead, she occupies and cures the body of Commissioner Hedford, who had been on the verge of death. She also restores the shuttlecraft and communication devices to working order. However, the Companion is unable to leave the planet without dying, and Cochrane decides to remain with her.

Meanwhile, the Enterprise had discovered the asteroid field (containing some 7000 bodies) and had begun searching the asteroids one at a time for the lost shuttlecraft. Fortunately, this search is greatly simplified by the resumption of communications. As they prepare to depart, Kirk agrees not to mention his adventure with Cochrane.

Cochrane reappears in Star Trek VIII: First Contact, although his personality and appearance are completely different than they were in the original episode. Furthermore, in the film, Cochrane is from Earth instead of Alpha Centauri.

Here's the link to the article:
http://www.ericweisstein.com/fun/startrek/Metamorphosis.html

bigbarada
09-09-2007, 08:59 PM
Wow, there is even a Wikipedia listing for him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zefram_Cochrane

It lists another continuity discrepancy created by First Contact when compared to the novel Federation which was published two years before FC. Plus it shows a photo of Glenn Corbett, the actor who played him in TOS. Originally it seems that they had envisioned Tom Hanks for the role of Cochrane, which makes sense because Hanks is a closer physical match to Corbett.... at least a whole lot closer than James Cromwell.

Blue2th
09-09-2007, 10:04 PM
It's not beyond the realm that the Companion when regenerating Cochrane, made him physically around half is age. James Cromwell looks in his 50's.
Corbett is an ok version of Cochrane nearly twenty years taken off, only with groovy hair. :)

El Chuxter
09-09-2007, 11:14 PM
James Cromwell should've looked at Jean-Luc at the end of the movie and said, "That'll do, Picard. That'll do."

RooJay
09-11-2007, 01:10 AM
I don't really understand your thinking here. The original Star Trek series is what made Trek for over twenty years before TNG showed up. So, getting upset that someone is going back and effectively erasing everything Gene Roddenberry created is taking things too seriously? :stupid:

What if George Lucas passes away tomorrow and Rick McCallum writes Star Wars Episode 7, in which the clone Emperor goes back in time and kills the infant Luke on Tatooine effectively erasing the OT from Star Wars continuity? Could you honestly say that you wouldn't be in the slightest bit ticked off about that?

I can honestly say that I would not be upset; the Emperor would still not be able to go back and erase the originals from my DVD collection, nor the memory of them from my mind. As long as the story is entertaining fun and exciting I'm all for more Star Wars and Star Trek on the big screen. In fact, if it happened and I ended up not enjoying it I would have no problem simply ignoring it.

JediTricks
09-12-2007, 04:05 PM
For me, Lucas going back and doing the SE changes, then making the prequels, that ultimately did undermine my enjoyment of the OT no matter how I wanted to pretend they didn't exist. 3PO being built by Anakin is always going to be in the back of my mind, Luke & Leia's mother being a wimpy waif girl with the trust and gravitas to run and represent an entire planet yet the inability to figure out she's in a pointless, ridiculous, hollow relationship is always going to be a headscratcher when Leia talks about her mother in ROTJ. The Jedi are always going to be tainted now as a great deal lesser than they were.

So it's the same with Trek, and it that level of damage is already seeped in from Enterprise as it is, another attempt there could totally unravel it.

bigbarada
09-13-2007, 12:53 PM
For me, Lucas going back and doing the SE changes, then making the prequels, that ultimately did undermine my enjoyment of the OT no matter how I wanted to pretend they didn't exist. 3PO being built by Anakin is always going to be in the back of my mind, Luke & Leia's mother being a wimpy waif girl with the trust and gravitas to run and represent an entire planet yet the inability to figure out she's in a pointless, ridiculous, hollow relationship is always going to be a headscratcher when Leia talks about her mother in ROTJ. The Jedi are always going to be tainted now as a great deal lesser than they were.

So it's the same with Trek, and it that level of damage is already seeped in from Enterprise as it is, another attempt there could totally unravel it.

I agree, they can never erase the OT or TOS from existence, but they can dilute the concepts with so many bad ideas that it just kills any enjoyment of the originals.

This is what's happening to Star Wars for me with all the Legacy and Force Unleashed garbage.

El Chuxter
09-13-2007, 12:58 PM
Legacy singlehandedly did for me what years of mediocre stories couldn't: I have so little interest in the EU now, it's not funny. I'm only getting a very select few books and no comics now.

JON9000
09-13-2007, 03:37 PM
the trust and gravitas to run and represent an entire planet yet the inability to figure out she's in a pointless, ridiculous, hollow relationship is always going to be a headscratcher

Oh, my, if I haven't known about a thousand capable women that your post describes perfectly, so isn't so much of a stretch for me!

2-1B
09-13-2007, 07:11 PM
Yeah, I know women who are like that, too.

JediTricks
09-14-2007, 12:01 AM
Oh, my, if I haven't known about a thousand capable women that your post describes perfectly, so isn't so much of a stretch for me!You know a thousand women who have been planetary queens and senators?

RooJay
09-14-2007, 01:33 AM
I agree, they can never erase the OT or TOS from existence, but they can dilute the concepts with so many bad ideas that it just kills any enjoyment of the originals.

This is what's happening to Star Wars for me with all the Legacy and Force Unleashed garbage.

Had you guys really never experienced any spin-off material prior to the prequels? No Splinter Of The Minds Eye, no Marvel Comics Star Wars, no Zahn Trilogy, nothing? Perhaps I'm in a rather unique position here as I have been conditioned since almost immediately after Star Wars was first released back in 1977 to choose either acceptance or denial of anything Star Wars related that wasn't first presented in the original trilogy. It's always been so simple for me to just imagine that anything I'd read, played, heard, seen that I didn't like in regards to Star Wars just wasn't really apart of the big picture for me. I thank my lucky stars for that too, since if I were like some of the folks around here Star Wars would've been dead to me the moment the Holiday Special began to play across my television set. I guess for me it's always been a very simple thing as I long ago realized that it is indeed only a movie, and regardless of what else happens I have and will never forget the original experience. If my experiences in these forums these past several years has made me realize anything, it's that I wish this were something I could impart and transfer over to my fellow fans (and not just fellow Star Wars fans, but fellow Star Trek fans as well.) Nothing can ruin my joy and the memories created in that dark movie theater thirty years ago; not even Jar Jar Binks!:thumbsup:

El Chuxter
09-14-2007, 09:10 AM
It's one thing when you know there are more movies coming, and the spinoffs are (at least partly) of good quality, and the toys are ones you want.

It's another when the movies are done, the TV show seems more unlikely every day, the toys are all rehashed Luke Skywalkers and Clonetroopers (and they still can't quite get Luke right), and suddenly the entire EU becomes this joke that makes Civil War look like Watchmen.

JON9000
09-14-2007, 10:51 AM
You know a thousand women who have been planetary queens and senators?

I was going to clarify in my post, but I thought it went without saying: many otherwise extremely capable women find themselves involved with unsuitable men. I could trot a few out, but I don't want to get political.

JediTricks
09-14-2007, 07:40 PM
Had you guys really never experienced any spin-off material prior to the prequels? No Splinter Of The Minds Eye, no Marvel Comics Star Wars, no Zahn Trilogy, nothing? Perhaps I'm in a rather unique position here as I have been conditioned since almost immediately after Star Wars was first released back in 1977 to choose either acceptance or denial of anything Star Wars related that wasn't first presented in the original trilogy. It's always been so simple for me to just imagine that anything I'd read, played, heard, seen that I didn't like in regards to Star Wars just wasn't really apart of the big picture for me. I thank my lucky stars for that too, since if I were like some of the folks around here Star Wars would've been dead to me the moment the Holiday Special began to play across my television set. I guess for me it's always been a very simple thing as I long ago realized that it is indeed only a movie, and regardless of what else happens I have and will never forget the original experience. If my experiences in these forums these past several years has made me realize anything, it's that I wish this were something I could impart and transfer over to my fellow fans (and not just fellow Star Wars fans, but fellow Star Trek fans as well.) Nothing can ruin my joy and the memories created in that dark movie theater thirty years ago; not even Jar Jar Binks!:thumbsup:It's apples and oranges, SW and Trek started on the screen, so when authorized screen sequels come out, they directly affect it, we're even told by the producers that they are canon. With the EU, however good or bad it is, you know it's just a book/comic/cartoon/video game and isn't to be taken as seriously, so you can accept or deny it with ease. I deny that the tales of the prequels are truly SW, but because Lucas made them it's difficult to live that even if I believe it.

With the Holiday Special, you can easily ignore it because it's plainly made without the integrity of the brand in mind. Same with Star Trek The Animated Series.



I was going to clarify in my post, but I thought it went without saying: many otherwise extremely capable women find themselves involved with unsuitable men. I could trot a few out, but I don't want to get political.To this degree? Not buying it. They're both high-profile individuals, her role is of galactic importance, she has access to the Supreme Chancellor on a regular basis, she's got to be under heavy scrutiny. It'd be like Condeleezza Rice marrying Kid Rock, you can't tell me someone in the gov't isn't going to notice and say something.

TeeEye7
09-15-2007, 10:41 PM
Don't you just sometimes wish that there was a Trek Holiday Special starring those lovable, furry Tribbles, Kirk, Bones, and Spock? Roddenberry blew it! :rolleyes:

RooJay
09-15-2007, 11:29 PM
It's apples and oranges, SW and Trek started on the screen, so when authorized screen sequels come out, they directly affect it, we're even told by the producers that they are canon. With the EU, however good or bad it is, you know it's just a book/comic/cartoon/video game and isn't to be taken as seriously, so you can accept or deny it with ease. I deny that the tales of the prequels are truly SW, but because Lucas made them it's difficult to live that even if I believe it.

I could see how someone might feel that way, but like I said - only if you're incapable of ignoring the crap you don't like. As I also stated in my last post, I still feel really sorry for anyone who's incapable of doing that; you folks have my most sincere apologies for your inability to fully enjoy things when related stuff comes around that you don't care for. Now that I think about it, I'm especially glad I do have that capability as I'm certain that otherwise Star Trek 5 would've long ago killed Trek in my eyes, and I never would've been able to enjoy Undiscovered Country and First Contact. WHEW! Matter of fact, how are you guys still Star Trek fans anyway by this point?! We've had to endure lots of crap for a long time in order to get to the good stuff.
Considering all of this, the other option is that when JJ Abrams' Trek comes out you guys could just not watch it. Then you wouldn't even have to ignore the fact that you probably won't like it. Probably too late to save your enjoyment of Star Wars as it sounds like you guys have already seen the prequels, but you know...learn from the mistakes, why not? I actually consider my self a Stargate fan as well, and since the television shows always sounded pretty craptacular to me I just avoided the mess altogether! As far as I'm concerned now, I've only got the one super-groovy flick to enjoy and none of that other junk ever happened!:D:thumbsup:
As an aside to all of this, I'm also of the mind that anyone who doesn't feel Star Trek (the original concept) is in desperate need of an updating is far too nostalgic for their own good (and like I said, none of what's coming now [and there's really no way of stopping it.] takes away the original series which is and will remain available for your home viewing pleasure) or is perhaps more than a little bit delusional. Like I say, I'm a lifelong Trek fan and I still love the originals, but it's supposed to be taking place in the future and it just don't look like the future to me anymore. Even Next Gen is starting to look a little dated. My enjoyment of the original series hasn't diminished at all, but the show just seems campier and campier as time passes and it's just getting harder and harder for me to imagine that in the future primary colored velour will come back to fashion in such a big way. Like William Shatner once said, "Get a life people! I mean, for crying out loud - it's just a T.V. show!"

Mad Slanted Powers
09-15-2007, 11:46 PM
Indeed. The introduction to the Star Trek Chronology takes a good approach. The chose not to include the novels, "not out of dislike for these stories, but because it became too difficult to choose which books and events to include. Additionally, some events in some novels are even contradicted when later episodes and films are produced."

With the exception of some events from Spock's childhood in "Yesteryear", they chose to ignore the animated series. Even though Roddenberry and Fontana were involved with the show, Gene later "expressed regret at some elements of the show and instructed Paramount not to consider this series as part of the "official" Star Trek universe."

Gene also considered some events of Star Trek V and VI to be apocryphal, such as Spock's half-brother Sybok. The writers of the Chronology did not want to pretend the films didn't exist, so they put the events in the book and mentioned Gene's discomfort with it, "leaving it up to the reader to judge its 'authenticity.'"

JediTricks
09-18-2007, 03:44 AM
I could see how someone might feel that way, but like I said - only if you're incapable of ignoring the crap you don't like. I ignore as much of the books as I can, but there's no way to ignore ST:Generations, Insurrection, or Nemesis - they're part of it, no way to unwatch them until senility kicks in.


Considering all of this, the other option is that when JJ Abrams' Trek comes out you guys could just not watch it. Then you wouldn't even have to ignore the fact that you probably won't like it. Probably too late to save your enjoyment of Star Wars as it sounds like you guys have already seen the prequels, but you know...learn from the mistakes, why not? I actually consider my self a Stargate fan as well, and since the television shows always sounded pretty craptacular to me I just avoided the mess altogether! As far as I'm concerned now, I've only got the one super-groovy flick to enjoy and none of that other junk ever happened!:D:thumbsup:Here's the thing, you know it's out there, you know it's going to affect the future of your franchise, so the only way to really ignore it is to halt time. And Stargate's TV series has been pretty good after a rocky first year.


As an aside to all of this, I'm also of the mind that anyone who doesn't feel Star Trek (the original concept) is in desperate need of an updating is far too nostalgic for their own good (and like I said, none of what's coming now [and there's really no way of stopping it.] takes away the original series which is and will remain available for your home viewing pleasure) or is perhaps more than a little bit delusional.Then call me deluded, because I think TOS resonates pretty damn well still under that cheese, and none of the sequels has matched exactly what it was going for - and that's coming from a dyed-in-the-wool TNG fan.


Like I say, I'm a lifelong Trek fan and I still love the originals, but it's supposed to be taking place in the future and it just don't look like the future to me anymore. Even Next Gen is starting to look a little dated. My enjoyment of the original series hasn't diminished at all, but the show just seems campier and campier as time passes and it's just getting harder and harder for me to imagine that in the future primary colored velour will come back to fashion in such a big way. Like William Shatner once said, "Get a life people! I mean, for crying out loud - it's just a T.V. show!"Maybe he was talking about a 20-year-old SNL bit that was just a joke in the first place. :p

TNG is I think getting more dated by the minute, it's aged very badly, they did a great job with what they had but the writing is a little syrupy at times, the sets and costumes and props all look as nickel & dimed as they really were, it LOOKS like a cheesy sci-fi show from the '80s.

JON9000
09-18-2007, 03:45 PM
To this degree? Not buying it. They're both high-profile individuals, her role is of galactic importance, she has access to the Supreme Chancellor on a regular basis, she's got to be under heavy scrutiny. It'd be like Condeleezza Rice marrying Kid Rock, you can't tell me someone in the gov't isn't going to notice and say something.

Nah, I was thinking about Princess Di or Princess Stephanie and many of their "attendees" (security or otherwise). Star Wars requires a lot of suspension of disbelief right out of the gate. Princess Leah falling in love with Han Solo? That would be like Princess Madeleine of Sweden falling in love with a truck driver who also smuggles dope. Or me. I buy it completely!

:love::kiss::kiss:

:smoker::smoker:

:lipsrsealed:

JediTricks
09-18-2007, 04:44 PM
Princess Di? Really, that's how you see Padme? A powerless figurehead?

Mad Slanted Powers
09-18-2007, 06:54 PM
There are a lot of women who put up with addicts, abusers and philanderers. Many of them are probably well educated and successful women.

Tycho
09-18-2007, 08:21 PM
Princess Leah falling in love with Han Solo? That would be like Princess Madeleine of Sweden falling in love with a truck driver who also smuggles dope. Or me. I buy it completely!



That was so funny - and so much so because it was true!

JediTricks
09-19-2007, 01:09 AM
There are a lot of women who put up with addicts, abusers and philanderers. Many of them are probably well educated and successful women.
Name some at this level of power in that position.

LTBasker
09-19-2007, 01:36 AM
Welp, they announced who will be playing Uhura (and apparently Chekov, which I missed that one), her name is Zoe Saldana, you might remember her from such films as...stuff I've never heard of and her appearance in Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. She's the one that scorned Jack for stealing her boat.

Zachary Quinto
Zoe Saldana
Anton Yelchin

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3734/untitled1we8.jpg

Overall, my opinion of the concept is...I don't like it.

Mind you, I'm fine with "modernizing" TOS like the remastered edition has been doing and possibly a little further. But, using the Romulans as a cheap plot to screw up the current Trek lineage we've come to know and love even more? Boooring.

I'm all for a Romulan movie, afterall Nemesis was supposed to be focused on them, with the first publicity image release being a Romulan Warbird. Yet, the Romulans were cast aside like they were mere Ferengis, used just for plot filler. Same thing here, they're trying to catch attention with Romulans but not actually doing anything interesting with them.

And, combining that with time-travel? Yikes. There have been WAY too many time-travel plots since Berman and Braga poisoned the franchise, can we PLEASE get away from them? Has the future become so boring that the only thing they can think of anymore is to go back in time?

Tycho
09-19-2007, 01:47 AM
Name some at this level of power in that position.

Hillary Clinton

Meanwhile, back to Star Trek:

when is this movie supposed to take place?

It now sounds like it is after Kirk took command of the Enterprise. Chekov wouldn't even be old enough to be at the Academy when Kirk was there - and thus he shouldn't be in the movie.

There is some reference to Kirk being back at the Academy as an instructor for a brief time - perhaps as his wounds healed from Axxanar?

I'm not sure where all this is going.

JediTricks
09-19-2007, 01:53 AM
Hillary Clinton
I knew someone would bring that ol' chestnut out. When Bill cheated on her, he was the one in power, she was just the governor's wife and then the first lady. It's not even remotely the same as being the leader of the entire civilization or even their representative in the senate. Plus, they have a much deeper relationship going all the way back to college, they didn't just meet and fall in hollow, bunny-love relationship for no reason a la Padikan.

Blue2th
09-19-2007, 02:14 AM
Like in S&M it is the submisive one who has the power they say.

So Spock gets to be the Time Lord-Doctor Who of the Star Trek universe.

I hope we at least get to see Kirk beat the Kobyashimaru scenario. I would be dissapointed if we didn't.

Sounds like JJ Abrams gets to beat the Kobyashimaru scenario too, by changing the rules in a no-win situation by reprograming Star Trek. The beauty of time travel.

Tycho
09-19-2007, 04:10 AM
It's not even remotely the same as being the leader of the entire civilization or even their representative in the senate.

Hillary represents New York in the Senate, and New Yorkers think they are the leaders of all civilization. Furthermore, their Senator does think she's elected to represent the entire planet.


Plus, they have a much deeper relationship going all the way back to college, they didn't just meet and fall in hollow, bunny-love relationship for no reason a la Padikan.

Next, Anakin and Padme didn't "just meet." As a child he won her the parts to repair her ship and escape to Coruscant to try and help her people. That particular time was a watershed moment in his life as well, as he won his freedom from slavery in that pod race.

All this helped Padme overlook the fact that Anakin kills women and children and this becomes habit-forming. (Seriously)

Mad Slanted Powers
09-19-2007, 09:14 AM
Name some at this level of power in that position.My point is that you can't always tell. They can be good at hiding it and putting on a different face to the public. Padme and Anakin's relationship was a secret as well. In both cases, the public would be shocked when finding out the truth.

JON9000
09-19-2007, 09:17 AM
Princess Di? Really, that's how you see Padme? A powerless figurehead?

Quite frankly, JT, if I am able to accept a sixteen-year-old as queen of a planet, for starters; and a six-year-old as a top pilot, ewoks, wampas, laser-swords, and a nineteen-year-old Senator falling in love with an intergalactic truck-driver, I have obviously been softened up to the point where I am naive enough to accept said queen-of-planet taking risks in her personal relationships in the name of "love". I am not sure why you call it "pointless, ridiculous and hollow", it seems like most other relationships to me.

None of the above have a perfect analog in this, our "real" world, but I can accept it within the framework of the universe the characters inhabit. We do not have young leaders because they lack judgment. If you accept Princess Leia, you don't have far to go to accept Padme and her flaws. Star Wars is not made to stand up to the logic of Aristotle. I appreciate the desire to analyze everything and think critically, I really do, but part of the very nature of drama is that it involves situations that are sometimes far-fetched.

Star Wars is for children. I suggest approaching it with a child-like mentality (which is particularly easy for me!)

Tycho
09-19-2007, 09:44 AM
JON, I have to correct the ages you posted on. I'm a nerd. I just have to do this:

TPM: Anakin is 9, Padme is 14 (they are 5 years apart in age difference)
AOTC: Anakin is 19, Padme is 24
ROTS: Anakin is 22, Padme is 27

ANH: Leia is 19, Han is 29 (they are 10 years apart in age difference)
ESB: Leia is 22, Han is 32
ROTJ: Leia is 23, Han is 33


Luke is the same age as Leia of course. Mara Jade is supposedly 1-2 years younger than Luke, "officially."

Droid
09-19-2007, 09:50 AM
I am really irritated that it sounds like they are recasting the entire original crew so that it will either be:

a) Kirk in command of the Enterprise, which makes the idea of a younger crew seem pretty stupid. It really becomes plain recasting if they have them all be adults on the Enterprise. And would the Enterprise look and sound the same or would they update it? If this movie takes place once Kirk took command I won't see it.

b) them all knowing each other before they got to the Enterprise like some big Star Wars type coincidence.

I hate both options.

Tycho
09-19-2007, 10:15 AM
I agree Droid:

The Enterprise had 2 captains prior to Kirk:

Robert April (with George Samuel Kirk, future colonist / explorer)
Christopher Pike (with "No. 1 Ex.O. and Spock as Sci. O.)

Kirk was 29 when he got the Enterprise. He is 10 years older than Chekov.

Chekov would have been 19 and probably at the Academy when Kirk first got the ship, so maybe he knew Kirk before Kirk became Captain and was instructing at the Academy - perhaps due to his recovery and experience at Axxanar (where SF fought the Klingons in an incident that killed Kirk's C.O.)

Gary Mitchell is Kirk's best friend and choice for Ex.O. Mitchell was also at Axxanar and wounded, unable to leave with Kirk when he first took over the Enterprise. Spock was 2nd Officer and did serve as Kirk's Ex.O. temporarily until Mitchell could take his station.

Kirk's SF doctor was "Bones" Leonard McCoy, but his therapist and experimental healing process doctor was Carol Marcus, a genetics specialist (David's mother of course). She is the ideal love interest character. However, Dr. Mark Piper took the first C.M.O. assignment on the Enterprise, because McCoy wasn't available or wasn't interested and Kirk struggled to persuade him to sign on because the two had become friends. McCoy wasn't exactly thrilled.

Scotty was either Chief Engineer, or close to it under Captain Pike. He stayed with the ship. Scotty might be 10 years older than Kirk.

Sulu was a mathematician and theoretical physicist who happened to do extensive pilot training as part of his interest in space mechanics. His original plan was NOT to go into command and eventually become a Starfleet captain. I don't believe Kirk knew him before their assignment together. Sulu is younger than Kirk, but not as young as Chekov.

Not as much is known about Nyotta Uhura except that she was a gifted linguist and electronic engineer. I don't know when she came aboard. But I think that Pike's comm officer followed him off the ship at the change of command. Kirk might not have known Uhura, but her personnel file reviewed well on paper.

I am a professional nerd. I know these things.

El Chuxter
09-19-2007, 11:20 AM
Name some at this level of power in that position.

Condoleeza Rice.

Her man treats her like crap, snorts coke all the time, sends us to war, and still won't dump Laura even though the kids are grown up.

Droid
09-19-2007, 02:37 PM
Thanks for the info., Tycho. An interesting read. I still don't think they'll acknowledge all of that back story, much in the way Lucas ignored novels and such when writing the prequels. (Then again he ignored the original trilogy, but I digress.)

But I have a real problem with them going back to the original era of the show and having different actors, particularly when Nimoy is playing an older Spock.

I also think having everyone know each other before Kirk became captain of the Enterprise is a terrible, terrible idea.

Before they served together on the Enterprise, they all knew each other at camp!

I really hope that the plot we've been hearing about is totally off, but I still am nervous that they are casting the entire original crew.

JediTricks
09-19-2007, 04:45 PM
The gal they got to play Uhura does have some facial similarities, even though she's lighter-skinned. Whether she can bring that quiet, honest gravitas to the role that Nichelle Nichols brought to the character remains to be seen.



Hillary represents New York in the Senate, and New Yorkers think they are the leaders of all civilization. Furthermore, their Senator does think she's elected to represent the entire planet.Hi, yes, I covered that when I said "when Bill cheated on her, he was the one in power, she was just the governor's wife and then the first lady".


Next, Anakin and Padme didn't "just meet." As a child he won her the parts to repair her ship and escape to Coruscant to try and help her people. That particular time was a watershed moment in his life as well, as he won his freedom from slavery in that pod race.Revisionism much? They literally just met in the most unimportant, underwhelming manner. Anakin wasn't racing for her honor or anything, he was just being helpful to Qui-Gon's plan. That was such a non-moment for their relationship, give me a break.



My point is that you can't always tell. They can be good at hiding it and putting on a different face to the public. Padme and Anakin's relationship was a secret as well. In both cases, the public would be shocked when finding out the truth.And my point is that you can tell in real life, the type of woman who is going to be in those positions of power isn't going to be some sucker who is going to fall into a ridiculously 1-dimensional relationship with a psychopathic religious warrior monk.


Quite frankly, JT, if I am able to accept a sixteen-year-old as queen of a planet, for starters; and a six-year-old as a top pilot, ewoks, wampas, laser-swords, and a nineteen-year-old Senator falling in love with an intergalactic truck-driver, I have obviously been softened up to the point where I am naive enough to accept said queen-of-planet taking risks in her personal relationships in the name of "love". Uhh... wow, dude, c'mon! The relationship between Leia and Han was built, given structure and reason and context, she didn't just go stupid over him and she didn't let that relationship destroy her. And of all that other stuff, the only ones that stand out as problematic are the prequel elements - ewoks are little foreigners, wampas are giant scary bears, lightsabers are swords, none of those are particularly out-there concepts, they're just given a sci-fi flair. The human interplays of Star Wars were meant to be simple and direct so the audience wouldn't get hung up on those elements and could simply understand them and their place in this new universe and get on with the story. None of that fits with a strong, young queen/senator acting as stupidly as Lucas had her acting, she does things that are so inorganic to the character that it can only be classified as pointless and hollow.


If you accept Princess Leia, you don't have far to go to accept Padme and her flaws. That's a load of rich, creamery butter! Leia is an incredibly strong, mature individual who acts responsibly for the betterment of all the people of the galactic republic with every move she makes. Padme comes off nothing like that, but even the positive features Lucas does give her are steamrolled when he has her fall for Anakin without any reason at all.


Star Wars is not made to stand up to the logic of Aristotle. I appreciate the desire to analyze everything and think critically, I really do, but part of the very nature of drama is that it involves situations that are sometimes far-fetched.

Star Wars is for children. I suggest approaching it with a child-like mentality (which is particularly easy for me!)What is this, the cop-out hour?



Condoleeza Rice.

Her man treats her like crap, snorts coke all the time, sends us to war, and still won't dump Laura even though the kids are grown up.Eww... the president and Condie aren't doing it! That's an uuuuugly thought.

LTBasker
09-19-2007, 06:02 PM
Not as much is known about Nyotta Uhura except that she was a gifted linguist and electronic engineer. I don't know when she came aboard. But I think that Pike's comm officer followed him off the ship at the change of command. Kirk might not have known Uhura, but her personnel file reviewed well on paper.

At the very least, she wasn't on the Enterprise when Kirk came on board, or she might have just not been comm. officer. In "Where No Man Has Gone Before" the comm. officer is some guy asleep. So, maybe he got relieved of duty and she was next in line for the Enterprise position.

Droid
09-19-2007, 08:32 PM
Uhh... wow, dude, c'mon! The relationship between Leia and Han was built, given structure and reason and context, she didn't just go stupid over him and she didn't let that relationship destroy her.

Han grew to Leia's high standards. She NEVER fell to his. Leia would not have gone for Han slaughtering the Tuskens and Leia probably would have shot Han herself on the Mustafar platform. Leia never took her eye off the ball of the higher cause.

JON9000
09-19-2007, 09:21 PM
The human interplays of Star Wars were meant to be simple and direct so the audience wouldn't get hung up on those elements and could simply understand them and their place in this new universe and get on with the story. None of that fits with a strong, young queen/senator acting as stupidly as Lucas had her acting, she does things that are so inorganic to the character that it can only be classified as pointless and hollow.

That's a fair point about the human interplay bit, but I cannot deal with the fact that you buy the Han/Leia affair hook, line, and sinker: a 19-year-old with the resolve of a fully matured adult (already a stretch) falling head over heels for a narcissistic dope-smuggla, and are so incredulous about Anakin/Padme.


Padme comes off nothing like that, but even the positive features Lucas does give her are steamrolled when he has her fall for Anakin without any reason at all.

Well, in Anakin's (or Padme's) defense, he is a fairly good-looking fellow. And he happens to be the best athlete (jedi) in the galaxy, and he happens to be the hero of the clone wars, is passionate, and, and, and... and all of the things that would make a girl in her twenties go ga-ga. Just because you find Anakin so distasteful doesn't mean that girls don't find him to be the cat's pajamas.

Gisele could have had anybody- she chose Tom Brady. Yes, I know she isn't queen of the universe, but you get my drift.

Yes, Anakin killed a bunch of Tuskens. After his mom died in his arms. Are you telling me you cannot fathom how an event like that might be somewhat understandable, and not an indicator of that person's worth, particularly if you knew the person as a sweet 9-year-old?

You say Padme is nowhere near Leia, but yet you hold her to a pretty high standard, IMO. My overarching point is that people can be quite adept in certain phases of their lives, and still make poor choices in others- and, of course, we have the benefit of knowing in advance this whole deal is going to end badly. Every human being sees what they want to believe, and Padme is no different.

BTW- the inconsistency between character and love affair is actually meant to accentuate the idea that their love is overarching. That is what the fireside chat scene was all about. The Leia/Han unlikeliness was handled as well (albeit much more deftly) when Han talks to Luke about Leia in the cockpit of the Falcon


What is this, the cop-out hour?

No, it is my polite way of saying that the reason you buy this instead of that is because you were a small tyke when watching the OT and you are a grown adult watching the PT. That's fine, but let's not pretend one was better than the other, shall we? It's about as convincing as arguing that Lucas only started ret-conning in the PT.

I am sorry the Padme/Anakin stuff doesn't work for you, because it is the emotional underpinning of the story. If you can dig it, or at least suspend your disbelief, the PT is a heckuva lot more engaging.

and for everybody else: Sorry I got in an argument at your Star Trek movie party.

Tycho
09-19-2007, 10:31 PM
No worries. I liked this exchange.

I think your best point that's often overlooked is that as children we bought the OT, but as adults we challange the PT. The equivalent "authority" opinion about the PT would be from a 10 year old. If you're no longer 10 years old, your opinion is not coming from the same place.

2-1B
09-19-2007, 10:51 PM
The only thing missing from Harrison Ford's performance of Han Solo is one of Ashton Kutcher's trucker hats.

JON9000
09-20-2007, 08:58 AM
No worries. I liked this exchange.

I think your best point that's often overlooked is that as children we bought the OT, but as adults we challange the PT. The equivalent "authority" opinion about the PT would be from a 10 year old. If you're no longer 10 years old, your opinion is not coming from the same place.

Try 3 years old. Han and Leia's relationship to me is the blueprint, because I was so young when watching these films.

Not only does our advanced age affect our critical faculties, it also affects our ability to identify with certain characters. Most kids identified with Luke, but wanted to be cool like Han Solo.

Now that I am old, all I can really identify with in the PT is stodgy old Obi-wan :(, although I am glad he got to have more fun in ROTS. I'll bet three to nine year olds who watching TPM thought Anakin was cool as heck. In the back of my mind however, was, "this dude is going down eventually, so don't get too attached."

Droid
09-20-2007, 09:26 AM
Luke started at as a tad whiny and we watched him grow throughout the trilogy. Anakin started out as a perfect, albeit dorky little boy. Then the next time we see him and the next time Padme sees him he is a crabby, arrogant, scizophrenic mess. Yet somehow she falls head over heels for him. Of course, she rebuffs his advances the whole movie until he reveals he slaughtered a primitive tribe, then she is just crazy for him. He is the same selfish pitiful mess for all of Revenge of the Sith but we are to believe that somehow Padme can't get enough of this trainwreck.

Han, on the other hand, is pretty consistent in who he is. He is brave and a strong leader and always does the right thing. He might not immediately ally himself with Leia's causes, but he is a good person and he is always straight with everyone about his intentions. Once he sees he has a family in the Alliance he commits himself to its cause. And you can call him a drug dealer, but that is complete expanded universe. I see him more as a bootlegger, running moonshine during Prohibition. And the movies never really say what he was carrying. Han never slaughtered a primitive tribe, never goes on and on about how unfair life is, about how his best friend is holding him back, about how he never really had a family.

One of the main reasons Anakin turned evil is that he didn't want to end up alone like Han had done a pretty good job of living with his whole life.

I still can't quite believe that one of the main reasons Anakin turned evil was because he couldn't get a promotion (title of Master).

JediTricks
09-20-2007, 07:25 PM
Han grew to Leia's high standards. She NEVER fell to his. Leia would not have gone for Han slaughtering the Tuskens and Leia probably would have shot Han herself on the Mustafar platform. Leia never took her eye off the ball of the higher cause.That's a great way to put it. Han started low in her eyes and raised his worth over and over again even while antagonizing her.


That's a fair point about the human interplay bit, but I cannot deal with the fact that you buy the Han/Leia affair hook, line, and sinker: a 19-year-old with the resolve of a fully matured adult (already a stretch) falling head over heels for a narcissistic dope-smuggla, and are so incredulous about Anakin/Padme.Leia didn't fall for him when she was 19, it was only after a couple years together between ANH and ESB that there started to be a "thing" going on, and in that time Han had become a Rebel and a capable leader. Droid explains it well in his post.


Well, in Anakin's (or Padme's) defense, he is a fairly good-looking fellow. And he happens to be the best athlete (jedi) in the galaxy, and he happens to be the hero of the clone wars, is passionate, and, and, and... and all of the things that would make a girl in her twenties go ga-ga. Just because you find Anakin so distasteful doesn't mean that girls don't find him to be the cat's pajamas.That doesn't defend anybody there. That's incredibly shallow. He's creepy and she says he bothers her from the outset. In AOTC he's hardly a hero of the clone wars at first, he's just some punk teenager with an attitude problem and too much power for his own good with lots of issues, and she had previously known him as a little cherubic boy for a handful of days where they had 2 small moments.


Gisele could have had anybody- she chose Tom Brady. Yes, I know she isn't queen of the universe, but you get my drift.Yeah, we know models and actresses always make the deepest of choices. :p Gisele Bunchenshasenfeffer is not known for her thoughtful wisdom and leadership abilities.


Yes, Anakin killed a bunch of Tuskens. After his mom died in his arms. Are you telling me you cannot fathom how an event like that might be somewhat understandable, and not an indicator of that person's worth, particularly if you knew the person as a sweet 9-year-old?Admitting to killing women and children and not even being sorry, but she doesn't care? Yeah, I can't see that.


You say Padme is nowhere near Leia, but yet you hold her to a pretty high standard, IMO. My overarching point is that people can be quite adept in certain phases of their lives, and still make poor choices in others- and, of course, we have the benefit of knowing in advance this whole deal is going to end badly. Every human being sees what they want to believe, and Padme is no different.Padme is nowhere near Leia, but Lucas still wrote Padme to be believed at a much higher standard than "shallow thoughtless teen girl". And I still haven't seen you answer my challenge to show that women in similar levels of power realistically make these kinds of mistakes.


BTW- the inconsistency between character and love affair is actually meant to accentuate the idea that their love is overarching. That is what the fireside chat scene was all about. But there's no foundation for that, it's just tossed into the movie without a basis. Anakin has a creepy crush, he does some pitiful wooing and says inappropriate things to her about politics, and all of a sudden she has to put feelings aside that the audience cannot figure out how she got in the first place.


No, it is my polite way of saying that the reason you buy this instead of that is because you were a small tyke when watching the OT and you are a grown adult watching the PT. That's fine, but let's not pretend one was better than the other, shall we? It's about as convincing as arguing that Lucas only started ret-conning in the PT.And I'm saying that argument is a load of malarkey. The OT isn't a Winnie the Pooh story, ANH was nominated for artistic merit oscars - when you look at footage of those giant 1977 lines, watch people talk about getting back in line over and over again, those are nearly ALL adults. I've known actual adults from back then who were WAY into the OT when the trilogy came out, so this "it's just for kids" thinking doesn't float.

JediTricks
09-20-2007, 08:40 PM
Jayspawn in the TOS thread mentioned the ep Charlie X and it sparked a thought in my head appropriate for this thread...

Anakin is Charlie and Padme is Janice Rand, only Trek deals with that relationship differently. :D

JON9000
09-20-2007, 09:12 PM
I'm going to let the sleeping dogs with all of that other stuff, because I think we've gotten as far as we are going to get with each other on that.


And I still haven't seen you answer my challenge to show that women in similar levels of power realistically make these kinds of mistakes.

Frankly, I don't even know any female teenagers/early twenties who have a comparable level of power, so what mistakes they might make are rather moot. I do know plenty of girls that age who are attracted to people like Anakin, however. And, I do know that all women, every last one, likes drama, and labors under the delusion that her love can somehow bend a man into what she wants him to be. You can buy this or not.

You mentioned Condoleeza Rice. Well, according to wiki, "Rice has never married and a handful of dates with eligible men organised by well-meaning friends have led nowhere romantically."

I'd rather watch the Anakin/Padme show than the Padme/Padme show, which is what your adherence to realism in a galaxy far, far away would leave me with.

As I put my head to it, the best example I can think of is Eleanor of Aquitaine and that beastly Henry II (who I can guarantee killed plenty of women and children).

What I sense from your posts is you just do not like the character of Anakin, and you cannot see why anybody would want to be around him, much less someone as idealized as Padme.


The OT isn't a Winnie the Pooh story, ANH was nominated for artistic merit oscars - when you look at footage of those giant 1977 lines, watch people talk about getting back in line over and over again, those are nearly ALL adults. I've known actual adults from back then who were WAY into the OT when the trilogy came out, so this "it's just for kids" thinking doesn't float.

You are right, it's more like the Wizard of Oz. I happen to think Harry Potter is for kids, and I also know a ton of adults who appreciate it as well, although they are not the target demographic. And Wicket looks a lot like Pooh to me! :razz:

When TPM came on, after a few moments, I was presented with a 14 year old elected(!) ruler of the planet. I had to make a decision right then, was I on board with this, or not? If I hadn't been willing to go there, I might well feel as you do (although I don't dislike Anakin as much as you seem to). However, I likely would have skipped the rest of the PT, because I would have known what I was in for.

Droid
09-20-2007, 09:52 PM
What I sense from your posts is you just do not like the character of Anakin, and you cannot see why anybody would want to be around him, much less someone as idealized as Padme.

When TPM came on, after a few moments, I was presented with a 14 year old elected(!) ruler of the planet. I had to make a decision right then, was I on board with this, or not? If I hadn't been willing to go there, I might well feel as you do (although I don't dislike Anakin as much as you seem to). However, I likely would have skipped the rest of the PT, because I would have known what I was in for.

I think the character of Anakin is fantastic, a young farmer whose ideals took him away from his childhood home to pursue something greater. Then in the process he is seduced by the power of the dark side and loses everything. We never saw the character of Anakin we were presented with in the orginal trilogy in the prequels and I would love to see a movie made about him some day. Seems like a pretty interesting story to tell.

There have been young leaders in civilizations on Earth so I don't think
it was that far of a jump to show it in the Phantom Menace.

2-1B
09-20-2007, 10:04 PM
I think the character of Anakin is fantastic, a young farmer whose ideals took him away from his childhood home to pursue something greater. Then in the process he is seduced by the power of the dark side and loses everything. We never saw the character of Anakin we were presented with in the orginal trilogy in the prequels

Sure we did, he was in ROTJ.

;)

El Chuxter
09-20-2007, 10:05 PM
I'd say the first time we see the character of Anakin is when he slumps his shoulders slightly when Luke falls, seemingly to his death, in ESB.

JON9000
09-21-2007, 11:50 AM
There have been young leaders in civilizations on Earth so I don't think it was that far of a jump to show it in the Phantom Menace.

Like the child-goddess in Nepal, or the Dhalai Lama? That is why I emphasized "democratically elected" on a planet that seems to resemble a modern, western-style democracy.

BTW, I am not going to "challenge" you to find the real life equivalent, because I have already stated that it doesn't exist- you have to accept it as beign part of a galaxy far, far away. That is the point- who knows why Naboo puts kids in power? Maybe it is idealism and lack of cynicism in the mind of a child. I can see that, because here in America, we obviously put a lot of stock in lack of sophistication. We call it "folksiness" and it is demonstrated in the retardation of beloved films like "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and the God-awful "Cars". We just look for adults, because we assume they won't flake out like Padme.

Once you have the benefits of kids in power, you are going to also have the drawbacks- one of which is naivete and lack of knowledge about relationships.

JediTricks
09-21-2007, 04:42 PM
The idea of Star Wars was that there were familiar themes in fantastical sci-fi settings, that's what Lucas himself says about it. The young queen leader isn't supposed to be so far-fetched that the audience has to work to fathom it thus taking them out of the rest of the story, but he bungled that.

bigbarada
09-21-2007, 06:20 PM
I think Queen Amidala would have been believable under two conditions 1. she was born into the position, not elected, and was only Queen because of the unexpected death of her parents. 2. she was totally incompetent.

Although, she was pretty incompetent, handing her entire planet over to cartoon robots without a single shot fired; but not incompetent enough to be believable.

Droid
09-21-2007, 09:07 PM
I thought the young queen idea was pretty good (though I think it would have made more sense to have Anakin's wife be an already established part of his farm life at the beginning of the first movie of the prequels, but I digress). However, when on the second or third viewing of the Menace I realized she was an elected queen I thought it was pretty stupid.

RooJay
09-22-2007, 01:05 AM
Hey, I hate to break up the party, but isn't this thread supposed to be about the new Star Trek movie?

JediTricks
09-22-2007, 01:44 AM
Yeah, but it's on a SW site. :p Plus, as I pointed out, Charlie X is Padmakin. :D


I don't think Queen Amidala was that bad an idea as a young-ish leader, the problem was that Anakin was SO young that Amidala had to be close to that age to work and the ages undermine both characters pretty badly. Looking at the art in Illustrated TPM Screenplay, it looks like Anakin was originally early teens in the artwork and about halfway through Lucas had it changed to a younger kid. If Anakin had been like 14 and Amidala had been 19, it would have been a LOT more believable. And certainly there have been young rulers before who weren't totally inept, but they were royalty by birth, not this democratically-chosen crap, that was unacceptable. In fact, when I did my rewrite of Ep 1, I kept the queen in and just made Anakin older - and he saves her from assassination when he's separated from Obi-Wan who is tracking an assassin (this was, might I add, written in late '99 and I just realized the connection to AOTC there :eek: But mine was way better, I promise - for one thing, that crap happened in the FIRST damn film with mine!) I think part of the problem is always going to be that the characters aren't written with ANY solid background history the way the OT characters was (the point of the prequel tales before '99 was merely to help write the characters and situations in the OT, so really Lucas should have written a pre-prequel for his use) and then didn't deliver in the casting.

And you can't tell me JJ Abrams' new Trek project doesn't have those threats in it.

JON9000
09-25-2007, 08:56 AM
You know, I've been thinking more about this fear of a reboot versus the perils of a prequel, and this nugget comes to mind:

The best Star Trek movie is Wrath of Khan. In this film, Roddenberry was basically told by the studio to take a hike, and the reins were handed over to a group of people that were not aficianados. Fortunately, there wasn't a whole lot of continuity at that point that needed to be respected.

Could you do that today? My feeling is no. The continuity is just too cumbersome (and if you are anxious about a prequel, I think that fear reflects the reality of what I just said).

Now, here comes the dodgy part- almost everything done in II gets completely undone over the course of the next 2 films. David is dead, Spock is back, we are back on board the Enterprise (okay, that fixes III). Except for a throwaway reference in VI, gee, it's like II never happened! Where is Carol Marcus? I was willing to accept all of this as a child, but were I watching ST from the get go today, I would have real problems here.

Reboot.

bigbarada
09-25-2007, 11:39 AM
You know, I've been thinking more about this fear of a reboot versus the perils of a prequel, and this nugget comes to mind:

The best Star Trek movie is Wrath of Khan. In this film, Roddenberry was basically told by the studio to take a hike, and the reins were handed over to a group of people that were not aficianados. Fortunately, there wasn't a whole lot of continuity at that point that needed to be respected.

Could you do that today? My feeling is no. The continuity is just too cumbersome (and if you are anxious about a prequel, I think that fear reflects the reality of what I just said).

Now, here comes the dodgy part- almost everything done in II gets completely undone over the course of the next 2 films. David is dead, Spock is back, we are back on board the Enterprise (okay, that fixes III). Except for a throwaway reference in VI, gee, it's like II never happened! Where is Carol Marcus? I was willing to accept all of this as a child, but were I watching ST from the get go today, I would have real problems here.

Reboot.

Wrath of Kahn is easily my favorite of all the Star Trek films; but I never knew that about it's development. Oddly enough, that movie seems to pay more respect to established continuity than any other Star Trek film. Not only does it build off of an episode of the original show, but they even got the same actor to play the character of Kahn (unlike First Contact, where they completely ignored what the original series established about Zephram Cochran).

You make a good point about ST2 being so casually erased from continuity, I never thought of it that way, although I believe bringing Spock back was the intention all along (mainly evidenced by the last shot of Spock's coffin on Genesis).

JON9000
09-25-2007, 12:53 PM
I think in the run up to filming, Nimoy was ready to let the part go, and while I have not read I Am Not Spock, I think the title alone suggests an unease with not only typecasting, but likely lifecasting as well. Therefore, STII was developed with the intention of getting rid of Spock. Then, in a master stroke, we got the false opening where everybody dies, only to find out it isn't true, which sets up Spock's actual death as a surprise.

Nimoy eventually agreed to return as Spock if he could also direct III. I am not sure if the ending of STII was created with just leaving the door open, or was hastily tacked on once it was clear Nimoy was coming back.

I agree that STII does a good job with bringing back Khan, but Kirk having a son all these years that we have magically never heard about seems to be a stretch. Again, I was a kid when I saw it, so I was and am willing to let it slide.

Droid
09-25-2007, 01:53 PM
I agree that STII does a good job with bringing back Khan, but Kirk having a son all these years that we have magically never heard about seems to be a stretch. Again, I was a kid when I saw it, so I was and am willing to let it slide.

I'm surprised Kirk only had one child!

JON9000
09-25-2007, 02:12 PM
I'm surprised Kirk only had one child!

Romulan prophylactics!

Jayspawn
10-19-2007, 01:03 PM
CASTING NEWS!!!

I'm excited as hell about this!!!

Chris Pine has accepted the role as James T. Kirk in next year's Star Trek.

Karl Urban (The Lord of the Rings) has been cast as Dr. Leonard H. McCoy.

They are still casting for Capt. Christopher Pike. Let the speculation begin on that! This is gonne be interesting, also in part that Jeffrey Hunter passed away just some years after playing Pike.

WOOHOO!

BountyHunterScum
10-19-2007, 01:07 PM
Great more bull****.

Jayspawn
10-19-2007, 01:22 PM
Is this bad news?

Its an interesting cast for sure. I'm not sure Chekov should be in it. Should he be too you to even be in StarFleet during this period? Sulu should be very young also, cant wait to see them give John Cho the "Sulu Do"

I'm really hoping that the Enterprise looks something like it did in "The Cage" and hopefully the crew will sport the yellow and blue uniforms only. Probably not but I'd like a direct flow right into the original series.

Blue2th
10-19-2007, 06:08 PM
Anton Yelchin is cast as Chekov. Guess they wanted somebody that could speak Russian, as he was born in St. Petersburg.

Simon Pegg from "Shawn of the Dead" as Scotty.

JediTricks
10-20-2007, 12:06 AM
None of this casting resonates for me, it's like "New Voyages" except without the raving fandom behind it.

Tycho
10-22-2007, 01:35 PM
They could cast Michael Bay as Khan!

He used to want to be an actor.

Droid
10-22-2007, 01:48 PM
They could cast Michael Bay as Khan!

He used to want to be an actor.

Maybe some day he'll be a director...

Blue2th
10-22-2007, 04:18 PM
" I will leave you as you once left me Kirk...buried alive...buried alive".................................................. .................................................. ......................................."Khaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!

Droid
10-26-2007, 04:45 PM
From cnn.com, http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/26/people.williamshatner.ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The original Capt. Kirk is disheartened he won't get to boldly go anywhere with his old pal Spock in the new "Star Trek" movie.

William Shatner is disappointed there's no place for him in the new "Star Trek" movie.

While Leonard Nimoy is reprising his role as the pointy-eared Vulcan in next year's science-fiction flick, William Shatner is not on board as Kirk.

"I couldn't believe it. I'm not in the movie at all. Leonard, God bless his heart, is in, but not me," Shatner, 76, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "I thought, what a decision to make, since it obviously is a decision not to make use of the popularity I have to ensure the movie has good box office. It didn't seem to be a wise business decision."

Director J.J. Abrams announced last summer that Nimoy would reprise the role he originated opposite Shatner in the 1960s television show and played again in six big-screen adventures.

Abrams said Shatner probably would have a part in the film, which is due in theaters in December 2008. But while Shatner said he had a couple of meetings with Abrams, nothing came of it.

Abrams' "Trek" film, whose plot is being kept under wraps by distributor Paramount, recounts an early adventure for the crew of the starship Enterprise, with Chris Pines as the young Kirk and Zachary Quinto as the young Spock.

The cast includes Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, Simon Pegg as engineer Scott, John Cho as helmsman Sulu, Zoe Saldana as communications officer Uhura and Anton Yelchin as navigator Chekov, roles respectively originated by DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols and Walter Koenig.

Past "Trek" films presented an obstacle to the revival of Shatner's Kirk, who died at the end of 1994's "Star Trek: Generations."

But in science fiction, you can never truly say die. Spock was killed off in 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" then resurrected in 1984's "Star Trek: The Search for Spock," with Nimoy's Vulcan living on to co-star in three more films, two episodes of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and now Abrams' new movie.

"I've got a lot to do," said Shatner, whose current work includes the TV show "Boston Legal," narration for the Christmas spoof "Stalking Santa" due on DVD on November 6, and the prequel "Star Trek: Academy -- Collision Course," a novel chronicling Kirk and Spock's first meeting.

Shatner says of "Star Trek": "Having been in on the creation of it, I was hoping to be in on the re-creation."

1. Not that Star Trek ever cared too much about continuity, but if they are using Spock from the post-Generations timeline, then using Kirk would pose a problem since Kirk's character died. I doubt Abrams wants to devote too much of his new movie to brining back Kirk.

2. I think that it would have been nice to use the new movie to fix that terrible Kirk death and to give us one last adventure of Spock and Jim. I would have rather Star Trek VI was the last time we saw any of the original crew, but since they didn't leave well enough alone I say let's have a new adventure with the two actors playing the characters fans love rather than the flashback piece of trash I expect this new movie to be.

3. I think it is funny that Shatner thinks more people would go to see this movie because he's in it. As though Shatner guarantees good box office. I think if this movie does well it will be because people like Lost and want to see what Abrams will do with Star Trek. The Trek fans will likely go whether Shatner is in it or not.

4. I am surprised that the powers that be are letting Shatner put out a novel about Kirk and Spock's first meeting since the new movie will likely tread some of that same ground and since the new movie will likely not be true to whatever story Shatner tells.

El Chuxter
10-26-2007, 05:39 PM
Shatner IS box office gold. When Hudson Hawk bombed, the first thing Bruce Willis said was, "Dammit! I knew we should've brought on Shatner!"

2-1B
10-26-2007, 05:55 PM
I liked Generations, thought it was a cool flick. :cool:

JediTricks
10-26-2007, 08:26 PM
To be honest, doing TOS with Shatner will do better than without, to me that seems a foregone conclusion.


Shatner's allowed to basically do whatever he wants with his Trek books, he's Shatner and they end up going in the "shatnerverse" rather than the Trek EU canon.

2-1B
10-26-2007, 08:37 PM
Are you saying he shat out a bunch of books ?

JediTricks
10-26-2007, 08:41 PM
Shatner's "The Return" is among my all-time favorite Trek books, even though some of it is moderately ridiculous for Trek. The guy really knows how to frame Trek action in a solid context and understands the core Trek driving behavior, whether or not he's got ghostwriters helping him.

Tycho
10-30-2007, 03:10 PM
William Shatner is awesome in the likes of Michael Bay and Gilbert Gottfried!

El Chuxter
10-30-2007, 04:43 PM
No.

William Shatner is awesome in the likes of Gilbert Gottfried, and both are unspeakably cooler than Michael Bay.

Tycho
10-30-2007, 05:27 PM
OK. We can kind of agree on that, Chux. :thumbsup:

Wow!

I feel slightly sad, like I'm betraying Michael Bay, but Shatner played my hero for like forever, and Gottfried makes me laugh.

2-1B
10-30-2007, 06:12 PM
I can't remember Gottfriend ever making me laugh...I recall intense feelings of annoyance, but no comedy.

JediTricks
10-30-2007, 11:01 PM
Gottfried is a comedy genius, but you have to be able to get beyond the in-your-face yelling (he does a wicked Jerry Seinfeld actually). Gilbert Gottfried had some really inspired work at the National Lampoon before SNL chewed him up and spit him out.


Shatner is THE MAN! Not only does he know he's a bit of a joke, but he's actually a pretty decent actor behind all the cornball stuff, and really good with staging and light.

Blue2th
10-31-2007, 09:21 AM
Was watching the Horror-Sci-Fi awards show the other night on G4 (or was it Spike?)
They had Zachary Quinto (who looks remarkably like young Spock in the "Menagery")
They awarded all the remaining members of the TOS bridge crew an award for the anniversary of the "Wrath of Khan"
William Shatner accepting the award with the others, mentioned how Ricardo Montalban couldn't be there, and as a tribute to him, he had all present raise their voices to say "Khaaaaaaaaaan!"
It was a touching moment.

Lord Malakite
10-31-2007, 02:28 PM
Simon Pegg from "Shawn of the Dead" as Scotty.
As much as I like Simon Pegg for Hot Fuzz and Shawn of the Dead, I don't think he fits the part. If it were me I would of casted actor Paul McGillion (Dr. Carson Beckett from Stargate Atlantis) for the role of young Scotty. While his voice doesn't sound exactly like James Doohan, he does look sort of like James Doohan (as he appeared during the 1960's) and he has a similar Scottish accent.

Mad Slanted Powers
10-31-2007, 06:32 PM
Perhaps he is able to do a Scottish accent. James Doohan's Scotty accent was not his natural voice if I am not mistaken. He could do lots of different voices.

Blue2th
10-31-2007, 07:41 PM
Paul McGillon might be just a little too mature for the academy.

Simon Pegg could be the right actor to put a little humor into the Scotty character as James Doohan did.

"The anti-matter crystals are over-loaden, she's gonna blow any second...I canna giver any more power Captain"

Beast
11-12-2007, 07:49 PM
Here's something special from JMG...

http://www.jfxonline.com/jfxonline/2007/11/12/exclusive-quinto-as-young-spock/

Tycho
11-12-2007, 08:54 PM
I read that Eric Bana (The Hulk) has been cast as the villain Nero for this film. I have no idea what species Nero will be, but they could have misspelled the name "Neo" and Bana is going to play Keanu Reeves. That would be scary!

Beast
11-12-2007, 09:56 PM
I read that Eric Bana (The Hulk) has been cast as the villain Nero for this film. I have no idea what species Nero will be, but they could have misspelled the name "Neo" and Bana is going to play Keanu Reeves. That would be scary!
If the story is still the same, I'd guess he's going to be a Romulan.

The name definatly fits with the whole Roman aspect of the Romulans. ;)

Blue2th
11-13-2007, 01:19 AM
Here's a pic of young Spock from "The Cage" for comparison http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Spock2254.jpg#file

mabudonicus
11-13-2007, 09:20 AM
James Doohan's Scotty accent was not his natural voice if I am not mistaken.
Yeah, he really didn't have an accent at all, to my Canadian ears at least, the Scottish accent was totally put on, so prety much anyone who can fake a scotts acccent would be good- someone with a real, untempered Scots accent would probably sound wrong
:beard: Iso & Baws
Chekhov had more of a "New York/New England" mix accent

El Chuxter
11-13-2007, 10:45 AM
I read that they're painting flames on Captain Kirk, and that Spock will be mute.

Tycho
11-13-2007, 11:54 AM
No, it will be Bones who will be mute. A Romulan bio-weapon renders him unable to talk through 9/10ths of the film. When he finally cures himself, after countless charade laughs while he makes crude masturbation gestures while on the bridge viewscreen trying to communicate with alien races, he gets his voice back and says, "Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor not a mime!"

The flames will be painted on the saucer section of the Enterprise because the new folks behind Trek now think it needs more character.

Jayspawn
11-13-2007, 12:14 PM
Bruce Greenwood CAST as Capt. Christopher Pike
Wynona Ryder CAST as Amanda, Spocks Mother

People have been *****ing about Ryder but they're not remember ing that the movie is not about Spock's Mom. Its a small role I'll bet anything on. I wonder whos' gonna play Sarek?

JediTricks
11-13-2007, 10:12 PM
Wow, it's Sylar in a bad Beatles wig and Vulcan ears. Man, I was expecting him to look a little more passable than that. Now I'm beginning to think of his style of acting and it too doesn't fit the character.

Tycho
11-13-2007, 10:25 PM
Gilbert Gottfried and maybe Gary Coleman should have been in this movie. They're making a mistake by not casting them.

JediTricks
11-13-2007, 11:11 PM
Casting's not complete, with Winona Ryder in place, anything's possible

LTBasker
11-13-2007, 11:44 PM
Gottfried could be the computer voice and Gary Coleman could be a Romulan Commander.

El Chuxter
11-14-2007, 12:16 AM
I heard Winona stole the script.

Tycho
11-14-2007, 01:39 AM
LOL! Oh boy. Could you imagine Gottfried as the computer voice?! Hahaha.

Blue2th
11-14-2007, 10:34 AM
Gottfried would be a riot. Maybe they can use him in the Mirror Universe. :grin:


On another note: I wonder why William Shatner doesn't get at least a brief appearance in the new movie?
I mean that's the whole plot isn't it? To go back in time to save Kirk from the Romulans. Change or save the time-line.
They could at least do a brief flash-forward after the "re-boot" and show Kirk happily retired with his friend Spock reminiscing about the worst of times-the best of times and totally erase the discraceful death in "Generations"

If they're going to re-boot Star Trek, show us the concrete cosequences of the re-boot where it really counts.

Droid
11-14-2007, 11:45 AM
On another note: I wonder why William Shatner doesn't get at least a brief appearance in the new movie?
I mean that's the whole plot isn't it? To go back in time to save Kirk from the Romulans. Change or save the time-line.
They could at least do a brief flash-forward after the "re-boot" and show Kirk happily retired with his friend Spock reminiscing about the worst of times-the best of times and totally erase the discraceful death in "Generations"

If they're going to re-boot Star Trek, show us the concrete cosequences of the re-boot where it really counts.

Anything that wipes away Kirk and Data's terrible deaths would be well worth it in my book!

JediTricks
11-14-2007, 08:43 PM
Gottfried wouldn't be so bad for TOS, they had a male voice for the computer originally and then the overly-"friendly" female voice before finally going with Majel's '60s computer voice. "Working"

Jedi_Master_Guyute
12-10-2007, 11:30 AM
Pics of Capt. Kirk and an orion slave girl?

http://www.jfxonline.com/jfxonline/2007/12/10/kirk-and-the-orion-slave-girl/

Debate on, Trekkies. :thumbsup:

Tycho
12-10-2007, 06:08 PM
There's not enough material to debate anything with those shots actually.

And I'm actually disappointed that they are doing Star Trek "re-imagined" or something, with all the regular cast of characters, instead of staying inside more realistic continuity where Chekov wouldn't even be old enough to be at Starfleet Academy, you'd think.

He was 22 when Kirk was about 29-31 years old, thus if Chekov was even just 18, Kirk would be only 25 or so, and maybe a lieutenient junior grade.

And he did not serve with Captain Pike on the Enterprise, btw.

Blue2th
12-11-2007, 12:33 AM
Well, they did cast a young Russian born actor for the part of Chekov. This kid looks like he's 14 or something http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/zap-antonyelchinchekovstartrek,0,4785960.story

Droid
12-11-2007, 09:55 AM
I just hate that somehow the main seven crew members are probably going to just be great buddies and have their first adventure before the original series ever started. I just hate that.

You really got the sense from the OT that at least in the early episodes there was more of a professional relationship between Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Sulu, and Uhura than a personal one. There was more of a closeness between Kirk and McCoy. It wasn't until later in the show and maybe even Star Trek II that you got the sense that these people had a rich history together and really cared for one another.

You didn't get the sense that all seven of them were old school chums from the academy.

And Chekov didn't show up until later.

Tycho
12-11-2007, 11:35 AM
Droid is correct, though their friendships blossomed during the "5 year mission" which was chronicled during the 3 year TV run from 66-69.

Kirk's best friend was Gary Mitchell who he got promoted to First Officer (except Mitchell was killed in the first episode).

Kirk and Spock did not start off as friends, but Kirk did respect Spock.

Kirk and McCoy were friends, true.

Scotty did not respect Kirk, and found him to be young and impatient, but learned to admire him during the series.

Sulu was always a professional and loyal "soldier."

Uhura was also a professional and learned the loyalty to Kirk that she'd exhibit later in the series and the films from their TV adventures.

They did not all go to school with one another.

Spock, McCoy, and Scotty are the oldest. Scotty and Spock may have served together on Pike's Enterprise. (Well Spock served there for sure).

Kirk is younger.

Uhura and Sulu are still younger by maybe a few years.

Chekov is the baby and possibly 7-9 years younger than Kirk.

El Chuxter
12-11-2007, 11:54 AM
Who's playing KAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNN?????

Jayspawn
12-11-2007, 12:00 PM
I agree with all the points Tycho made. All true.

Perhaps they cast Chekov as a smaller role. He may not even serve on the Enterprise at all. Kirk mentions how young he was in "Generations"

Kirk and Spock will probably be introduced through Capt. Pike.

MAN, I cant wait till they release publicity photos.

Droid
12-11-2007, 01:38 PM
I did just see that Ben Cross has been cast as Sarek. I have thought Ben Cross was terrific since Dark Shadows, so that is exciting.

Tycho
01-11-2008, 04:57 PM
SPOILER WARNING!

The following is a copy-paste job from MySpace TNG Group Member "Broadway Craig" who got his information from AIN'T IT COOL NEWS. I had to insert my comments in blue.


Big TREK update! Footage seen! Script read! Tidbits galore!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I ran a story a few days back about Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru test that features in JJ Abrams' STAR TREK. It was about how Kirk cheated his way out of a no-win situation (in this case he used his sexual man-charms on a lovely cadet and got her to alter the programming).

I could see this.

It was a rumor from an untested source, but a regular source quickly followed up the story with a confirmation. Not only that, but I also got a quicky review of the complete script, which I've cut and pasted below. It's decidedly mixed. Below that I'll return with another bit from yet another proven source regarding a piece of footage shot recently.

Quint:

I saw your STAR TREK story and wasn't going to say anything, but since you know me... yeah, I can confirm the rumor you posted about the script. I wasn't going to say anything because I got slipped the shooting script and really didn't love it, but I respect J.J. Abrams so much that I'm withholding judgment on the final product (but wish this writer's strike weren't happening because reports are he's been itching to make some "on the set" changes and can't do it).

The problem with the script is all its blatant inconsistency with things in the TREK canon, not to be innovative... but because Kurtzman and Orci are lousy writers and have zero feel for Roddenberry's universe, even when attempting to reboot it. The dialogue is about on par with their past works and some of the liberties they've taken are insanely sloppy. (Forgive me, wasn't the Enterprise built in space and not Area 51?) It's remarkably unintelligent writing. (FYI: I also read their upcoming Fox pilot called FRINGE which may be the most blatant X-FILES rip off ever.)

Area 51? Are you kidding me? That is the dumber than I ever thought to give them credit for.

The character of young Kirk is a travesty. He's the bad boy of the Academy, which is consistent in many ways, but the whole "Kobayashi" matter is overtly ridiculous. It turns Kirk into the worst scourge of all of Starfleet! At his graduation there are actual protestors outside the ceremony carrying signs stating: KIRK CHEATED! Talk about on the nose. They probably look like striking writers.

They're making Kirk into the George W. Bush of space.

Errrr - check that. They're making Kirk into another George W. Bush in space!

So, Kirk is put in command of a starship under great controversy and has to prove himself to not only Starfleet, but also his new crew who are wary of him and his bad rep. While this may sound okay, the way it's written is so ham fisted that it makes the TRANSFORMERS script read like Shakespeare.

I think maybe he graduates from post-graduate command school. He can't be 22 years old or even 24 and just leaving his first role as a SFA student and getting command! That's ridiculous. Then again, I wouldn't put it past Orci and Kurtzman to find a new way to ruin another beloved franchise.

Actually, the character of both young and old Spock works well and is consistent with the TREK canon, but I'm pretty sure that's because of Nimoy's involvement. Young and old Spock do meet and there's a clever, as well as TREK consistent, reason why young Spock's foreknowledge of events won't create problems in the future.

Why does the word "clever" make me cringe when it's applied to Kurtzman and Orcci's writing?

I thought this was going to be a flashback story, not another time-travel problem with a character going back and meeting themselves!

There's a lot of action in this piece, which is welcome, but the Romulan villains are perfunctory. My problem with time travel bad guys is what's to prevent them from looping back and trying their plan again and again whenever they fail? I'm sure Bana got a lot of money to do this inconsequential character.

I think curiosity and Abrams' rep will ensure this movie makes major bucks, but as far as re-launching STAR TREK with a whole new younger crew, no way. This is a novelty item that would probably not please Roddenberry purists, but would any of the recent Treks?

One thing's for sure, as lackluster as this script is... it's better than any Berman produced STAR TREK just due to the fact that it's big and has some scope. I just wish the character of Kirk weren't written as if in a dumb after school special. Shatner will have a field day ripping into the rather sleazy portrayal of his classic character. While he may have always been a skirt chaser, making him a lousy student seems like they're trying too hard to appeal to a real young audience who has the menu to Taco Bell memorized.

That's not who Kirk was (an idiot). He was very smart, sharp, and capable - and he taught at the Academy a little too - when he was recovering from injuries he sustained in the field.

Being "a skirt chaser" or a horn-dog does not also imply you'd be a bad student. Nor does being a rebel against 'the system.' In fact, because Kirk is supposed to be smart, it enabled him to pursue his less than model-student extra-curriculars.

I could say more, but will withhold judgment due to a talented director, big budget and strong cast.

Now we have someone that claims to have seen some footage. This is probably the sketchiest of the group of Trek info... this one's not a terribly known source to me (unlike the above source and the one that ends this article), but it's interesting to say the least... It's not so much a scoop, but kind of a general feel of what the Enterprise might be like.
I've seen some footage of the new Star Trek flick and I must say I am impressed. I am not a Trekkie and I am not working for the movie industry. It was due to other reasons I got to visit the production faclities and people showed me some scenes that showed what I would call "the Star Trek world". Let me explain. If you watch the TV series and many of the movies than - if you are a Star Wars fan like me - you always have the feeling that there is a discrepancy between the size of the alien worlds / the space ship(s) of the Federation and the locations where most of the scenes have been shot. In other words, the Bridge is more like a living room and does not match the size nor style of gigantic size of the Enterprise at all. It is certainly unbelievable because it's mostly the only place we get to see (and of course three or four other places, but all in all just 1 percent of the ship, I presume).

We'll, this movie is gonna end all that for sure. The "stage play" and Disney like nature of the TV episodes is gone, the "we'll only show you three locations but trust me, this really is a gigantic spaceship we're flying around in"-feeling will also be gone. I would argue that this movie is making use of the Star Wars like decors (as implemented later in the sequels and used immediately in the prequels) therefore expanding our universe more directly (leaves less room for imagination) and making the story a lot more believable, at least to me.

I thought it was very cool. Not sure if the Trekkies will like this move though.

I wouldn't mind seeing something different. But what are we getting? Like a ground war that resembles Geonosis with Reman soldiers instead of battle droids? Eh? Bring it on! Liking intellect in your Star Trek does not also mean you curb a blood lust if you have one. If you love sex & violence, you just add intelligent plot to connect it - or better yet, you add sex & violence to an intelligent plot and pace it to stay interesting.

That's why I like the "Doom-style" body-count scene in the Scimitar's corridoors in Nemesis. I switch into "kill mode" and I get off on that kind of stuff.

By the way when I saw the new look of the Enterprise, I just wanted to go out and buy a model kit of that or something. I'm quite sure it will get as much positive response as the Milennium Falcon did. Yes, the stuff is that detailed.

That's cool. Why is the Enterprise in this movie though? Why don't we see the Republic or the Farragut?

I guess if it's set at Day One when Kirk becomes the 3rd captain of this ship, that's liveable - but then it's no "real" SF Academy picture either. It just has scenes there like WOK did.



And the final one of the night could be a major one... it's a small matter, but this could be the visual hand-off between old Spock and new Spock. It sounds a little fanboy-ish, but this source has been proven right before and who's a bigger fan than Abrams? The source begins by mentioning that there's speculation that the movie is an Old Spock/Young Spock buddy picture...
i wouldn't take it that far. but it reminded me of the visual "handoff" they shot two weeks ago where nimoy's hand (vulcan greeting) is replaced in the frame by quinto's hand. j.j. actually spent a lot of time on it. finally, got it by setting up an extra monitor to help quinto hit his mark. it will only be a brief moment in the film, but apparently this sort of visual "handoff" from nimoy to quinto was important enough to warrant dozens of takes.


Well, there's a good triple dose of Trek rumors to entertain you over the weekend. Thanks to my unnamed sources.

Oh well. I'm not ready to proclaim this a disaster yet, but I'm not comfortable with it either. I know Kurtzman and Orcci brought us my favorite Transformers movie, but I would still have written that differently if it were me. So we'll see if I ever learn not to doubt them or if I'm really glad that they are standing in a picket line for months :D

RooJay
01-13-2008, 07:00 PM
Yeah, I read this last week which comes direct and claims otherwise:

http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/01/06/Roberto-Orci-Reacts-to-AICN-Negative-Review-of-Star-Trek-Script-Minor-Spoilers.shtml


Regarding the spoiler in the review about the Enterprise and Area 51, Orci posted the following message at AICN board :

"Let's see. Area 51 is a place where we supposedly keep aliens and spacecraft A SECRET. In Star Trek, earth KNOWS there are spaceships and aliens. You might've even heard of one of them. His name is Mr. SPOCK. You do the math."

Later, Orci posted another message at AICN talkback message board regarding the negative controversy caused by the review "Controversy is good. This "review" lowering expectations is good. Bring it on. Maybe we'll put flames right on the side of the Enterprise just for fun."

JediTricks
01-14-2008, 05:04 PM
So, basically, he had nothing to say except "everybody think less of this and maybe it'll get past."

Man, this project keeps getting worse and worse.

El Chuxter
01-14-2008, 05:09 PM
Tycho, I thought you worshipped the ground these so-called "writers" walked on? :confused:

Tycho
01-14-2008, 10:54 PM
Not really. My Michael Bay fanaticism is all in characature, along with my appreciation for Kurtzman and Orcci.

I would have done Transformers differently and made a political statement with it and energy (energon) dependancy while the Decepticons plundered our natural resources. You could have still done a lot of the same good elements to that movie, including Blackout and Frenzy's attacks to gather information, without having to use a McGuffin like the AllSpark.

That's one change I'd have made.

Orcci's comment about putting flames on the side of the Enterprise was a direct knee-jerk displacement of his anger over the way Transformers was received, that he threw out upon Star Trek. He needs to develop some tact.

We all know they should put flames on the sides of Kirk's pants! :p

"Spock: bring me the Captain's log!"

Actually, if Orcci thinks about it, it makes sense for a starship even the size of the 1701 to be built out in space and not be forced to climb into orbit after construction. That and continuity says Robert April was the first captain back then. Next was Chris Pike. Jim was the 3rd captain - not the man in command of that ship's launch. I think the ship was 15 years old when Kirk got it anyway.

What is Orcci's problem? Don't answer that. He probably wrote "Cloverfield," too. (A whale attacks New York City? - that could only happen if Rosie O'Donnel was starring - and she'd climb Trump Towers and swat at airplanes, too!).

Droid
01-15-2008, 10:31 AM
I think there was every indication from TOS and movies that Kirk was a darling of the Academy, intelligent, charismatic, talented, and THAT was why he was able to get command so young. For them to now say that his reprogramming of the KM test created this big outcry is just stupid. And Bones said KIRK reporgrammed the simulator, not that he seduced someone smarter than him to do it. And Bones said he got a commendation for it.

Really people. It was a test that you can't win so Kirk reprogrammed it. To expand that to say that he is a cheater or that maybe he would have cheated on other tests to get ahead is just absurd.

I don't want a movie about a black sheep Kirk who wasn't entitled to command and then proved himself. It just doesn't fit with the original series.

And to me it either has to be a movie about the academy or about Kirk getting command. Even though Pike may be in the movie, you can't have this movie show Kirk and Spock go from the Academy to the Enterprise and reconcile it with the Cage.

And so maybe old Spock will use a mind meld to make young Spock forget his encounter. It is still so stupid. Just have a flashback introduced by old Spock, don't have two Spocks being pals.

I may not see this, which really makes me mad because it would be the first Star Trek movie I did not see and be the first time I have not seen something featuring a member of the original crew. (I have missed the odd TNG episode here and there and haven't see most of DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.)

JediTricks
01-15-2008, 04:50 PM
I almost avoided Nemesis in theaters, but caved at the last minute and regretted it, so I'm beginning to think avoiding this movie won't be difficult... unfortunately.

Droid
01-15-2008, 05:03 PM
I never could have believed I would pass on a Transformers live action movie, a G.I. Joe live action movie, a Star Trek movie featuring Leonard Nimoy as Spock, any movie directed by Spielberg, any Lucasfilm, any Harrison Ford film, or any Indiana Jones movie, but that may all be true within the next few years!

Tycho
01-15-2008, 07:00 PM
I feel the same way: if they make a Strawberry Shortcake or Smurfs Live-Action movie, I will NOT go and see it!

DarthBrandon
01-15-2008, 07:19 PM
I feel the same way: if they make a Strawberry Shortcake or Smurfs Live-Action movie, I will NOT go and see it!

That's entirely going to depend on who gets the role of Shortcake & Smurfette for me.:D

Tycho
01-15-2008, 07:28 PM
Well, you know, not that you mention it, we should hold a fantasy casting call for those characters...

El Chuxter
01-15-2008, 11:51 PM
They are making Smurfs, but it's CG, so it's all good.

RooJay
01-18-2008, 02:36 AM
http://www.joblo.com/1st-enterprise-pic

bigbarada
01-18-2008, 01:47 PM
http://www.joblo.com/1st-enterprise-pic

Looks like an updated version of the 1701-A Enterprise.:thumbsup:

I'm actually looking forward to this movie the more I hear about it. The last Star Trek movie I watched in theaters was Generations. I remember watching only about half of the first season of Voyager and two, maybe three, episodes of Enterprise. So if this was just more of the same Star Trek , then I would have no interest at all.

So, for good or ill, I'm actually interested to see what this turns out like.

JediTricks
01-18-2008, 02:17 PM
They're using the font of the refit Enterprise, and it's further towards the front than usual. The saucer is also shaped more like the refit than the TOS version. The warp nacelles are trying to mix-n-match new tech with old shape, but they threw in curved fins which is a new bit.

That doesn't look like the orbital shipyards, that's for sure. I guess they're going with "built on Earth, assembled in space" then.

I dunno what it is, but there's no "cool" for me there, it feels very pedestrian, very much "look what we did with computers!", very un-Star Trek.

Beast
01-18-2008, 04:27 PM
The trailer was infront of Cloverfield. Looked very cool. Shows the ship being constructed, as the music begins. Then Spock's voice with "Space, the Final Frontier". Then a 'Under Construction' card, before the classic Starfleet symbol and 'Christmas 2008'. Hopefully it will be as good as it looks. I still dread the idea they're running with... but, I'll give it a chance at the theater.

bigbarada
01-18-2008, 05:11 PM
I see three possible scenarios for this film:

1. It not only ticks off all of the old fans, but it fails to generate enough new fans to make an impact. It then fizzles and vanishes and is disregarded within a couple of years (similar to the 1997 Godzilla remake) and forgotten.

2. It ticks off most of the old fans, but creates enough new fans that the original fanbase becomes irrelevant (just like Transformers).

3. It succeeds on all fronts and not only satisfies the existing fanbase, but creates a whole new fanbase as well (LOTR would be the best example, even though this result is extremely rare).

Of course, these are all generalities and there could be a fourth result that no one has anticipated yet.

Either way I want to see it and, in my mind, Star Trek has been dead since 1994, so my expectations are pretty low.

JediTricks
01-19-2008, 10:13 PM
BB, your #1 theory is what happened with Nemesis.

Tycho
01-20-2008, 02:16 AM
Hey: I was a member of the crew of the tall sailing ship that played the USS Enterprise in Star Trek: Generations today. Pictures will be up soon.

We were in a 19th century naval combat with another ship. Ours also played the HMS Interceptor in Pirates of the Caribbean.

It was cool. We sailed off the coast of San Diego and engaged our enemy!

2-1B
01-20-2008, 03:29 AM
I saw the trailer today as well, and I couldn't care about it either way. People constructing the Enterprise, people welding during the entire trailer...it didn't excite me in any way.

Tycho
01-20-2008, 05:41 PM
What if a giant, mutant whale suddenly ate them, Caesar?

2-1B
01-20-2008, 09:37 PM
What if a giant, mutant whale suddenly ate them, Caesar?

Might have been more interesting than Cloverfield. lol

Jayspawn
01-24-2008, 11:02 AM
I liked the teaser. I'm saving judgement for the look of the Enterprise for when they release official pictures.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
02-13-2008, 09:55 PM
The film has been pushed back to May 09.

From CS.net:


Star Trek Pushed Back to May, 2009
Source: Variety February 13, 2008

Paramount is pushing back the release of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek from December 25 to May 8, 2009, reports Variety.


The trade says the changes were part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar, as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.

Studio insiders said Star Trek has the potential to gross more in May than in December. The movie has no competition in its new slot so far.

JediTricks
02-14-2008, 12:12 AM
This is smart, movies like this tank in the Xmas releases ever since the '80s (it used to be that xmas movies did better back in the '70s, but stuff changes). Plus, Paramount probably didn't have a big movie for Memorial day in '09 ready anyway, takes pressure off that a little. Hopefully the extra time will let them make a better movie. Still, it's kinda far off.

Tycho
02-14-2008, 03:57 AM
Star Trek and Transformers in the same summer! Yippee!

Droid
02-14-2008, 09:18 AM
I smell re-writes and re-shoots now that the writer's strike is over.

JediTricks
02-14-2008, 04:23 PM
Oops, I forgot that Paramount did have a summer '09 movie in the works with TF2, but that's mid-summer instead of early. I guess they have faith that this Star Trek movie will be worth seeing though with this release date, either that or they realize it's Trek's last chance to capture a more mainstream audience.

General_Grievous
02-14-2008, 05:04 PM
It's a smart move. Barely anything's slated for Summer '09.

Tycho
02-14-2008, 09:11 PM
I never understood why the Trek movies were usually winter releases.

I'm not sure if all of the TNG films were.

I know ST 6 (TOS) was as I went to it's opening on my birthday which is in December.

I think Generations was, and Nemesis was also a winter release.

I can't recall if First Contact and Insurrection were or not. It didn't hurt First Contact's performance at the box office because that sold like a summer hit whether it was in the summer or not. It was The Borg! I mean c'mon!

But Star Trek ought to be handled like it's expected to be a blockbuster summer release and made to be as such. It can still have deep, intellectual writing and lots of action as well. WOK, VH, and UC all did and accomplished both. (Terra-forming, man-made creationism, doomsday weapon arms-race, saving the whales and environmental concerns, the demise of the rivalry with the Soviet Union and embarking on a new era of peace and diplomacy, disarmament instead - set against the efforts of the military-industrial complex who didn't want to see anything other than business as usual instead). All were set into action and even comedic films and still maintained great writing! Those could be considered blockbuster films for Star Trek.

JJAbrams could help to see it happen again!

JediTricks
02-16-2008, 03:51 PM
Until Jaws and Star Wars, the movies released in summer weren't as big a deal, the "blockbusters" were released near the end of the year to get people on holiday break (since more people were on vacation at that time then probably) and to garner more Oscar support, I suspect. In the '70s, your movie had more gravitas released around the holidays. Star Trek: The Motion Picture smashed opening weekend box office records with its holiday release.

Nearly all the Trek movies have been holiday releases except for ST2, 3 and 5. And First Contact heavily suffered at the box office because of its winter release, it was a perfect summer movie but did only fair at the BO overall during winter.

JJ Abrams doesn't actually have a solid movie track record, so let's not count our chickens before they've hatched. He's had solid TV releases but as a director, only 1 film so far and it was a sequel that borrowed substantially from one of his TV shows and only got fair results.