Star Trek
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6634
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6634
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1926
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
I've spent the past week or so re-watching the entire original Star Trek TV series in production order (something I've never done before). I've just made it into the third season, which means most of the 'good' episodes are behind me, now. 
After this, I plan to watch the entire Filmation animated Star Trek series, and at least the first three feature films.
I was never much enamored of any of the Star Trek movies beyond that; ST IV's 'reset' ending very much dimmed my enthusiasm for the series, and ST V killed it 'dead' .. even ST VI came across to me as little more than a transparent 'whodunit'. I have never even bothered seeing the rest; though, I came close to actually working on ST: Nemesis (that didn't end up happening, which -- considering its 'terrible' reputation -- was probably for the best).
----------
I do look forward to next year's 'reboot' film .. but I feel it is coming 'too soon'; IMHO, Paramount should have waited at least five to ten years longer to do this .. in order to allow 'demand' for new Star Trek stories to build-up again (something which very much helped the original movie franchise in the late-1970's, as well as the BBC's recent revival of Doctor Who).
Here's hoping JJ Abrams gets it right ..
After this, I plan to watch the entire Filmation animated Star Trek series, and at least the first three feature films.
I was never much enamored of any of the Star Trek movies beyond that; ST IV's 'reset' ending very much dimmed my enthusiasm for the series, and ST V killed it 'dead' .. even ST VI came across to me as little more than a transparent 'whodunit'. I have never even bothered seeing the rest; though, I came close to actually working on ST: Nemesis (that didn't end up happening, which -- considering its 'terrible' reputation -- was probably for the best).
----------
I do look forward to next year's 'reboot' film .. but I feel it is coming 'too soon'; IMHO, Paramount should have waited at least five to ten years longer to do this .. in order to allow 'demand' for new Star Trek stories to build-up again (something which very much helped the original movie franchise in the late-1970's, as well as the BBC's recent revival of Doctor Who).
Here's hoping JJ Abrams gets it right ..
I am NOT an Abrams fan... A lot of his ideas seem to be this yippee type of junk that grates on my nerves. There should have been big warning flags after what he put into his Superman screenplay. The man clearly does not do a lot of homework when he's playing in somebody else's sandbox!
Wasn't a big fan of Joss Whedon, either. He's the Amy Heckerling of vampires.
I have seen all the released photos from the Star Trek revamp (that's what it is, accept it!) and my reservations are growing.
Liked the exterior of the Enterprise, not so crazy about what's been revealed about the interior. I knew that was going to be the part that was most likely screwed up if anything!
It reminds me of a lot of what happened with Star Trek: Enterprise and the trainwreck that ultimately was.
When you screw around with the past of an already established story (see the Star Wars prequels) and start changing the way the technology looks, that's not such a good thing. Hire on mediocre directors, writers, and don't provide a cast with a clear-cut somewhat consistent direction, then you end up with something nobody wants to watch.
Of course, we've gotta see how the story plays out first. It could end up being a good film after all.
But is it the Star Trek I grew up with? Of course not!
Different actors, different writers. Different art directors.
More importantly, it's being done from a different attitude. The optimism that permeated the original and most of the movies with the original cast isn't there. (Granted, the point was always to make money, but some genuinely good stories and acting were on-play for a good chunk of that series. If it had been really bad, we wouldn't still be talking about this show well over 20 years past when most of us really became aware of it!) Partly, we're being told it's because we're seeing the "beginning" of these these characters. Sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday. This "Kirk" and "Spock" are as much like the original versions played by the first group of actors as the Roger Moore "Bond" is like Sean Connery's "Bond"! Sorry, but they're different characters. Might as well be talking about a different show. Original Galactica fans will appreciate my meaning.
I think it would have been better to explore the decades between the end of Star Trek VI and the start of The Next Generation, or begin after the end of Star Trek: Voyager. Less to screw up in either era, more room to do something artistic without trampling on what's been done before.
The original Star Trek is so iconic that I just can't begin to list the million ways this reboot could go wrong (although that new bridge is so white and already looks way too "out of it"/advanced for the TOS era!).
Wasn't a big fan of Joss Whedon, either. He's the Amy Heckerling of vampires.
I have seen all the released photos from the Star Trek revamp (that's what it is, accept it!) and my reservations are growing.
Liked the exterior of the Enterprise, not so crazy about what's been revealed about the interior. I knew that was going to be the part that was most likely screwed up if anything!
It reminds me of a lot of what happened with Star Trek: Enterprise and the trainwreck that ultimately was.
When you screw around with the past of an already established story (see the Star Wars prequels) and start changing the way the technology looks, that's not such a good thing. Hire on mediocre directors, writers, and don't provide a cast with a clear-cut somewhat consistent direction, then you end up with something nobody wants to watch.
Of course, we've gotta see how the story plays out first. It could end up being a good film after all.
But is it the Star Trek I grew up with? Of course not!
Different actors, different writers. Different art directors.
More importantly, it's being done from a different attitude. The optimism that permeated the original and most of the movies with the original cast isn't there. (Granted, the point was always to make money, but some genuinely good stories and acting were on-play for a good chunk of that series. If it had been really bad, we wouldn't still be talking about this show well over 20 years past when most of us really became aware of it!) Partly, we're being told it's because we're seeing the "beginning" of these these characters. Sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday. This "Kirk" and "Spock" are as much like the original versions played by the first group of actors as the Roger Moore "Bond" is like Sean Connery's "Bond"! Sorry, but they're different characters. Might as well be talking about a different show. Original Galactica fans will appreciate my meaning.
I think it would have been better to explore the decades between the end of Star Trek VI and the start of The Next Generation, or begin after the end of Star Trek: Voyager. Less to screw up in either era, more room to do something artistic without trampling on what's been done before.
The original Star Trek is so iconic that I just can't begin to list the million ways this reboot could go wrong (although that new bridge is so white and already looks way too "out of it"/advanced for the TOS era!).
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25320
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
The "problem" is that Trek is so far down the toilet that they basically need to go back to what the average Joe knows about the show. TNG? DS9? No-one outside geekdom knows about these things, except for the fact they exist.
But everyone knows "Kirk", "Dr Spock" (yes, I'm making that point), and "Scotty", and if anything Trek is going to make any kind of serious money it's these characters.
So...it's a total reboot, just like studios care to do every now and then. But just as Nolan's Batmans haven't replaced Burton's, nothing can ever seriously replace Shatner and co.
True, the Trekker fanboys may be up in arms about certain aspects, but let's face it: even they have been leaving the franchise in droves and the core of what's left isn't enough to warrant the spend these things incur.
Aiming wider, starting again from pre-scratch with existing characters, is the only way to go at this point, however fortunate or unfortunate it may be.
BTW...Mission: Impossible III rocked, so Abrams is not all bad...!
But everyone knows "Kirk", "Dr Spock" (yes, I'm making that point), and "Scotty", and if anything Trek is going to make any kind of serious money it's these characters.
So...it's a total reboot, just like studios care to do every now and then. But just as Nolan's Batmans haven't replaced Burton's, nothing can ever seriously replace Shatner and co.
True, the Trekker fanboys may be up in arms about certain aspects, but let's face it: even they have been leaving the franchise in droves and the core of what's left isn't enough to warrant the spend these things incur.
Aiming wider, starting again from pre-scratch with existing characters, is the only way to go at this point, however fortunate or unfortunate it may be.
BTW...Mission: Impossible III rocked, so Abrams is not all bad...!
You can't replace the Shat.
If the Powers-That-Be think just getting a Spock look-a-like is enough, they're in for a shock if the new Kirk doesn't click with audiences.
Do not underestimate the Power of An Actor Who Proved You Could Speak "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" and "Rocket Man."
The ability to resuscitate a half-dead franchise is insignificant next to the Power of The -----
What were we just talking about?
I got my film series mixed up!
If the Powers-That-Be think just getting a Spock look-a-like is enough, they're in for a shock if the new Kirk doesn't click with audiences.
Do not underestimate the Power of An Actor Who Proved You Could Speak "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" and "Rocket Man."
The ability to resuscitate a half-dead franchise is insignificant next to the Power of The -----
What were we just talking about?
I got my film series mixed up!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1926
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
I saw the new Star Trek trailer this morning, attached to A Quantum of Solace. It doesn't seem to be available 'online' yet, but it probably will be, soon.
I will still give the new Star Trek movie a chance. But the trailer dashed much of my hopes that the 'tone' of the Original Series might be preserved. None of the characters seemed recognizable (apart from Spock), and the 'look-and-feel' of 23rd-century Earth bears no resemblance to any of the previous series/movies.
The opening scene of the trailer brought to mind the similar opening scene of Disney's Treasure Planet ... while much of the rest reminded me of the Lost In Space remake from a few years back. Neither of these impressions bodes well, IMO.
But I will still go see it. And I still hope it will be good, despite the trailer; I've enjoyed several movies whose trailers had filled me with doubt ... most recently, Speed Racer and Kung-Fu Panda.
-------------------
BTW, I enjoyed the heck out of A Quantum of Solace.
/"Strawberry Fields" forever (best Bond-girl name in years)
I will still give the new Star Trek movie a chance. But the trailer dashed much of my hopes that the 'tone' of the Original Series might be preserved. None of the characters seemed recognizable (apart from Spock), and the 'look-and-feel' of 23rd-century Earth bears no resemblance to any of the previous series/movies.
The opening scene of the trailer brought to mind the similar opening scene of Disney's Treasure Planet ... while much of the rest reminded me of the Lost In Space remake from a few years back. Neither of these impressions bodes well, IMO.
But I will still go see it. And I still hope it will be good, despite the trailer; I've enjoyed several movies whose trailers had filled me with doubt ... most recently, Speed Racer and Kung-Fu Panda.
-------------------
BTW, I enjoyed the heck out of A Quantum of Solace.
/"Strawberry Fields" forever (best Bond-girl name in years)
"Not while I'm still around, sonny-boy!
"Only I could get away with playing a Lithuanian Soviet submarine commander who spoke with a Scottish accent!
"Only I made Bond look good when I was in my 50's!
"Only I made Trebek look like a fool!"
- Guess Who?
P.S. -- My biggest problem with NuStar Trek besides the casting... If they can't even get the Enterprise right -- and the Enterprise is as much a character of the series as any of the humanoids(!) --, then what hope have we that the rest of the film will really feel like Star Trek?
I thought that at least the art directors would get the ship right...!
"Only I could get away with playing a Lithuanian Soviet submarine commander who spoke with a Scottish accent!
"Only I made Bond look good when I was in my 50's!
"Only I made Trebek look like a fool!"
- Guess Who?
P.S. -- My biggest problem with NuStar Trek besides the casting... If they can't even get the Enterprise right -- and the Enterprise is as much a character of the series as any of the humanoids(!) --, then what hope have we that the rest of the film will really feel like Star Trek?
I thought that at least the art directors would get the ship right...!
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6634
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Beats me! Never been to Iowa. I always thought it was a farming state.
I was amazed anybody was driving WHEELED vehicles in the 23rd Century.
Given the respect on display for Star Trek thus far, I'd wager the filmmakers wouldn't know either way, either, and they're the ones SUPPOSED to be doing the research for the film!
This could be the cinematic equivalent of gopher holes in New Mexico. I was told by somebody who wasn't happy about that aspect of the last Indy film that there AREN'T gophers in NM! Of course, considering a fridge got nuked and survived, I'd say that's the least of the believability problems.
I was amazed anybody was driving WHEELED vehicles in the 23rd Century.
Given the respect on display for Star Trek thus far, I'd wager the filmmakers wouldn't know either way, either, and they're the ones SUPPOSED to be doing the research for the film!
This could be the cinematic equivalent of gopher holes in New Mexico. I was told by somebody who wasn't happy about that aspect of the last Indy film that there AREN'T gophers in NM! Of course, considering a fridge got nuked and survived, I'd say that's the least of the believability problems.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5197
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Yeah, after all, if Abrams is going to copy the "Jim as discontented need-for-speed youth in trouble with the police" character-setup from "Treasure Planet", why didn't they just give him one of those cool sailboards?GeorgeC wrote:Beats me! Never been to Iowa. I always thought it was a farming state.
I was amazed anybody was driving WHEELED vehicles in the 23rd Century.
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6634
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Here's a link to the trailer, for those who haven't seen it yet:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startrek ... p?id=50413
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startrek ... p?id=50413
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."