|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 27, 2009 12:05:09 GMT -5
No real need to divide the board into a million categories when it's so new. So for now, we can have as many Trek threads as we want.
|
|
|
|
Post by mxxpwr on Mar 31, 2009 14:39:15 GMT -5
How long have they've been advertising the movie as, 'Forget everything you know about Star Trek.' It's probably a very accurate statement though.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Mar 31, 2009 18:05:08 GMT -5
How long have they've been advertising the movie as, 'Forget everything you know about Star Trek.' It's probably a very accurate statement though. --Crambam--
I hate that quote. I'm not forgetting anything.
But I'm gonna see the movie. It's a different take on Classic Trek, the way Smallville is a different take on Superman. Alternate Universes. Maybe a seperate, but different, timeline caused by all of Kirk's time traveling. Lots of explanations.
I just want a good story. This won't replace "my" Trek, it'll be a different Trek. If the story rocks, it'll be ok. Don't look at it as a "First Story" in the tales of the Kirk and Spock we know. This is another version. Just look for a cool story.
--Gary 7--
|
|
|
|
Post by MicahBee on Mar 31, 2009 20:14:35 GMT -5
The difference is, the Superman universe has been revamped so many times, out of necessity. (If it hadn't been, Clark Kent would be over 100 years old by now). The Trekverse is supposed to be one seamless timeline, and not needing to be revamped, rebooted, or tweaked; as Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man has been.
The James Bondverse is an excellent way of how to do the thing CORRECTLY, IMHO. Well, pre-Daniel Craig, at any rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 31, 2009 20:42:15 GMT -5
This definitely different than Superman, which, as pointed out, has had many revamps.
Different live incarnations simply are different universes, and because of the comic origin, it really doesn't matter who plays Superman, as long as the guy is originally an unknown.
Trek though, is one canon, created on TV. Not unlike Doctor Who.
One canon, means one set of rules.
One thing this movie has made me think about, and it was a big topic before the AOL boards closed, is that while Trek has always had multiple universes, there has only been one timeline. If history is changed, it overwrites whatever comes after that change.
Case in point--Yesterday's Enterprise. When the Enterprise C came through the wormhole, a new timeline temporarily replaced the known one. For the majority of that episode, everything that we knew from TNG did not happen at all. It didn't exist on any level. Ok, maybe there is a universe where everything IS identical except the E-C didn't come through the wormhole, however, that wouldn't be the Trek universe WE followed. For that episode, our Trek universe was completely rewritten, until the E-C was sent back in time.
In City on the Edge, the entire Trek universe was rewritten until Edith Keeler's death was preserved.
If history is changed, a universe isn't created. It's changed.
Many universes. One timeline.
So THIS movie, may be doing something that at least officially, hasn't been done. It's changing history permanently.
By the very nature of the rules of the Trek universe, no matter WHAT Orci says, if history is changed permanently, 40 years of canon is wiped out. Yes, there will still be a Kirk and crew, and in this case, it will indeed be the same people, but their adventures, while likely still pretty cool and in many cases similar, will not be THE SAME.
In fact, this movie, if it does that, doesn't even guarantee the existence of Archer, Picard, Janeway, or Sisko. It's all messed up.
It won't be an alternate universe--unless of course they establish that Nero isn't merely time travelling, but universe hopping.
But if it IS an alternate universe, then who really cares?
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Mar 31, 2009 23:36:32 GMT -5
But if it IS an alternate universe, then who really cares? --Crambam-- If it's a good story, we should, since we can enjoy both universes. We all loved the original franchise because it consisted of way cool stories. It was a wonderful universe, and we have the whole sheebang on DVD to enjoy over and over. And now, in one of those alternate universes that Trek touched on occassionally, we're gonna get to see what's going on over there. And if it sucks wind, we can blow it off  --Gary 7-- |
|
|
|
Post by rmburnett on Mar 31, 2009 23:41:59 GMT -5
Folks,
You know...it wouldn've been nice to see a movie about the REAL first mission of Kirk, Spock and McCoy together...with lots of Kirk backstory (uh...Tarses IV anyone).? Instead, we getting formulaic and rehashed summer movie tent pole characterizations with Kirk, Spock and McCoy slapped on them.
To be fair...I have seen only twenty minutes of the movie...BUT STILL.
|
|
|
|
Post by MicahBee on Apr 1, 2009 0:07:07 GMT -5
You, umm.... you meant twenty seconds, right? 20 minutes of a two-hour movie (even give or take roughly 15 minutes) is a pretty decent chunk of the film.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 1, 2009 0:38:41 GMT -5
You know...it wouldn've been nice to see a movie about the REAL first mission of Kirk, Spock and McCoy together...with lots of Kirk backstory (uh...Tarses IV anyone).? Instead, we getting formulaic and rehashed summer movie tent pole characterizations with Kirk, Spock and McCoy slapped on them.
To be fair...I have seen only twenty minutes of the movie...BUT STILL. --rmburnett--
-------------------
It sure would have been cool to see the first adventure of Kirk on the Enterprise. But there are problems that might be insumountable if tried.
First, the bridge would have to be almost exactly as it appeared in the series. When we saw 'The Cage', the first pilot, with Pike as Captain, it was about the same. Movie folks would be much too tempted to jazz it up. The TV folks couldn't resist when they did 'Enterprise'. That was one of the first complaints.
Second, with so much Trek history out there, the writers and director, if not versed in Trek lore, would need a continuity cop on staff. If this were to be the first mission of Kirk's career, we couldn't have the inconsistencies that makes the new film--to me, if no one else--acceptable, if treated as an alternate universe.
Third, established continuity at least suggests that Kirk hadn't met Spock prior to taking over the Enterprise. He had met MCoy, but McCoy wasn't on board when Kirk took over. So if this is Kirk's first mission as Captain, then McCoy would have to be absent. If this is Kirk's first mission, as an Ensign, then we don't get Spock (or presumably the others). We don't get Checkov in any case.
There was a great novel about 20 years ago called 'Enterprise: The First Adventure" (or maybe mission) by Vondra Mcintyre, the woman who wrote the first several novel adaptions of the trek films. I remember really liking that, and "adopting" it as Kirk's first E-mission in my version of the Trek universe.
--Gary 7--
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 1, 2009 6:13:32 GMT -5
Actually, I believe there was a 20 minute preview or so awhile back. RMB definitely could have been there, since well, he's Robert "F'n" M. Burnett, after all.
Clearly, the time travelling Nero is erasing canon, which could very easily erase Tarsus IV. Of course, arguably that event was significant in Kirk's childhood, and helped make him the man we saw over the years.
I don't think too many people would be upset if the bridge looked like it did in the 1960s. They could add some enhancements to make it cooler, but whenever they used the 1960s set in Berman era Trek, like in that Enterprise episode or T&T, it worked very well.
I don't agree with complaining on enhancements because I understand the limitations they had in the 1960s. I was perfectly fine accepting the Klingon ridges thing, until RDM blew it for a lame joke.
Actually, I know of no continuity that had Kirk never meet Spock until he took command. McIntyre's book was pretty decent as a story that got the crew together. Not the most exciting adventure, but it worked within canon.
McCoy actually COULD be in a movie even if he wasn't on Enterprise's crew. Just have him be Kirk's friend. I think that you could introduce a lot of things that nod to canon, but won't screw with people who don't know anything.
But none of that is happening.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 1, 2009 9:31:41 GMT -5
Again, if you go with the alternate history idea, nothing in canon gets erased. Just think of it like the Earth-1 and Earth-2 idea DC comics used to use, allowing the existence of the 1939-1959 (more or less) Superman and Batman stories to exist, as well as the later stories. Two different Supermans, two different Batmans. In Trek, the Abrams' film gives us another Kirk. Classic Kirk's stories still are valid, they are not erased. Just a different Kirk, different universe, galaxy, whatever.
You're right that McCoy could be Kirk's friend prior to serving with him. In fact, he would most likely be so, given that the first time we see them together in Classic Trek they are obviously already friends. As for Spock, you're right again, but I was just going with what was insinuated with certain episodes. But, yeah, Kirk and Spock might have well met before we saw them on Classic Trek.
--Gary 7--
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 1, 2009 9:56:05 GMT -5
There's a huge difference between Star Trek and DC. Well, not exactly, but in this case, it would be very different. In DC, it was well established that there were separate and distinct universes. It wasn't that some bad guy travelled back in time and changed history. It was that two universes developed separately. Trek DOES have that, but that's not what's being dealt with here.
In this movie, barring any line to the contrary, we're dealing with straight time travel. We aren't dealing with alternate universes. We're dealing with the same universe, being altered. That means the original history does NOT exist anymore--at least not in the same universe that we've been following all this time.
That means that nothing in canon is valid at all.
And that could be a problem for long time fans.
As for the origins, I think in the original canon, Kirk and Spock were not best friends when we first saw them. At that point, Spock was a respected crewman for Kirk, but not a personal friend at the same level. That came after Mitchell died. Spock did try to reach out to Kirk in that episode at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmburnett on Apr 1, 2009 13:28:46 GMT -5
Folks,
Oh, I saw twenty MINUTES...in the beautiful theater on the Paramount lot...the exact same location I first...ah...ENJOYED ('cough...cough...') GENERATIONS back when the theater was brand new.
There is SO MUCH in the movie to piss us all off...I don't even know where to begin. However, there's also JAW DROPPING visual effects...and the scope of the film is simply massive. For the very first time, we're really getting a TREK film with a huge budget.
It just doesn't look like REAL Star Trek.
But forgotting all the massive cannon issues (this film really isn't about the backstory of TOS characters. It's a complete reimaging of those characters using modern studio screenwriting short cuts exployed for the easy understanding by the audience for summer blockbusters) the two things I really hated most were the sophomoric and low-brow humor (never a part of TREK, with the possible exception of Spock delivering a neck pinch to that punk rocker in TVH) and the completely unbelievable production design.
First...all of the humor I saw was easy, dumb and unworthy of the cleverness of Trek. Kirk's balloon hands and mush mouth are just one of many examples. The whole barfight scene is right out of any number of movies, including ROADHOUSE. Since when are Starfleet Cadets dough-faced, goateed rotund oafs who start a barfight as soon as one of their own starts talking to a local? It's just DUMB...and you've seen it done EXACTLY THE SAME WAY in twelve other movies. But heck...maybe the sixteen year olds in the audience will stop tweeting long enough to pay attention to that part...
This film was made by people who look back at Trek through a lens of kitch. All the tropes, such as red shirts dying, are there...but they're played to be AMUSING. For instance...in the many trailers we've seen, you see the very, very cool orbit diving sequence. The jumpers are Kirk, Sulu and the chief engineer of the Enterprise (before Scotty). Well...he meets an untimely demise...because he's wearing red...and it's CLEARLY SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY. The chief engineer of the ship is killed...and it illicits a chuckle! Since when is the death of Red Shirts, hard working security officers mostly, something to laugh at? In the Trek universe, you always FELT these deaths. KIRK felt them. From DEVIL IN THE DARK to expecially THE APPLE, the death of a crewmember is never something to laugh at.
Then...there's Chekov's accent. Sure...we all know Walter Koening's accent in the series was terribly over the top. However, within the universe of the series...he was simply of Russian descent. WE, the audience, laugh...but the other characters don't. So now, in this movie, they hire Anton Yelchin...A REAL RUSSIAN...to play Chekov...and then give him a RIDICULOUSLY OVER THE TOP accent! At one point...the ship's computer FAILS TO RECOGNIZE HIS VOICE because of his accent. A computer which can indentify presumably hundreds of alien dialects can't recognize Chekov's voice.
But again...HA HA...FUNNY...Checkov has a bad accent. Thing is...in the context of the Trek Universe...he didn't. He was just Russian.
It's JJ Abrams and his supreme court deciding they have to...you know...WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE the audience with the ...."SEE? We get STAR TREK!" Thing is...no, they really don't.
Now, imagine this kind of reasoning applied to EVERY PART OF THIS FILM. It's AWFUL. Like fingernails on a chalkboard. There's no attempt to create a believable look at our Trek Universe...say, the way TMP tried. Across the board, it's Trek filtered through a STAR WARS sensibility. A SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER sensibility.
Now...Imagine this sensibility carried over to the production design. They've made everything look COOL!!! And SCI-FI!!! WOWZERS!!! But...there's no thought to exactly WHY these things look the way they do. We'll just take the original designs and make 'em HIP and RETRO and COOL SCI-FI!!! YEAH! FUCK YEAH!!!! The new ENTERPRISE? DUDE...WE'LL MAKE THE TRIPPY SPINNING NACELLES BIGGER....YEAH!!!! WE'LL HAVE BLUE PLASMA CONDUITS ALL OVER THE ENGINES...YEAH! THAT'LL LOOK COOOOOOOOL MAN....YEAH! COOL SCI FI!!!!!! AND PUSH 'EM CLOSER TOGETHER!
And you know what...Engineering will look the the TITANIC! YOU KNOW...LIKE AN OLD TIME SAILING SHIP...with STEAMING PIPES and DRIPPING WATER...like the NOSTROMO FROM "ALIEN." Cause that's COOL and SCI-FI!!! ("uh...wait J.J. Water is replicated as it's needed in the Trek universe....They don't even use water to SHOWER...so why would there be huge water pipes criss crossing through the ship...?)!!!!
Kids, I'm not even talking about the scene where Scotty gets caught in the pipes. Just WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE MAIN ENGINEERING...which they shot here in the Budweiser Brewery off the 405 in LA.
Look...I'll even admit to LIKING TRANSFORMERS. Seriously. I REALLY LIKED TRANSFORMERS. Then again...I love GODZILLA vs. MONSTER ZERO too. But...STAR TREK requires an altogether different mindset. It has to be approached seriously and with elegance and intelligence. This new Star Trek is a fun, rip-roaring romp if you're seventeen and want to see some COOL SCI FI ACTION.
This is not Star Trek for those who loved THE CORBOMITE MANEUVER, CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF, TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY, ERRAND OF MERCY, BALANCE OF TERROR, MIRROR, MIRROR, THE EMPATH.
It's also not the Trek of TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES or A PIECE OF THE ACTION, which the humor is smart come from the characters.
I was always hoping someone would make a Trek movie like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, PATTON, GLADIATOR, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, JFK, THE GREAT ESCAPE, BARRY LYNDON or even the one that came the closest to Trek, MASTER AND COMMANDER. An intelligent, big budget epic with real human pathos and drama, big stakes and a universe I utterly believed in, hopefully wriitten by someone like the Reeves-Stevens and the late Anthony Mighella.
This upcoming Trek movie IS NOT that movie.
Instead, we're getting FOOTLOOSE, TOP GUN, SCHOOL TIES, GALAXY QUEST, A NEW HOPE and OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN etc...but set in SPACE...with a generic (but sympethic) Sci-Fi Villain bent on destroying Earth...oh, and TIME TRAVEL...!
Now...admittedly, much of this will be very entertaining, especially for the masses. It's very well put together and much of it is exciting...and the action and VFX are some of the best you'll ever see. It's just...not very Trek.
But...a new STAR TREK movie...with this kind of a budget...and a much more intellectually driven director...could have done SO MUCH MORE will the material.
It will be very interesting to see the first reviews coming out of Australia in a week.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 1, 2009 13:45:34 GMT -5
See now THIS is very informative, and I haven't seen this kind of stuff online anywhere. I'm guessing you saw 20 minutes of selected scenes rather than the first 20 minutes of the movie. If that's true, then odds are they chose 20 minutes of scenes they thought were great.
It's a shame you can't get on the creative team. You know your stuff. Plus, you may have actually figured out a simple way to get Shatner in the movie. After all, we have a villain who seems to want to destroy Kirk to the point of pulling a Terminator, and you have Spock also being the Terminator sent back to stop the T1000, so why not just save Kirk from Generations, and have Shatner in at the end? It's one thing to not WANT to do that, but to say the Generations STOPPED you from doing it is just an insult to intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmburnett on Apr 1, 2009 14:10:03 GMT -5
Cram,
Yes...I saw the same twenty minutes of scenes JJ was showing on his bus and truck tour of the world. Paramount wants TREK to become the GLOBAL sci-fi action franchise it's never really become. They want it to work worldwide...and I completely understand that.
But we old school fans are REALLY gonna' have to embrace the idea of IDIC with this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 1, 2009 14:18:59 GMT -5
I still am pretty pissed about the Shatner debacle. I'm still not planning on paying to see it. May skip it altogether if the reviews are that bad.
I wonder how the mainstream will see it.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 1, 2009 22:25:35 GMT -5
I still am pretty pissed about the Shatner debacle. I'm still not planning on paying to see it. May skip it altogether if the reviews are that bad. I wonder how the mainstream will see it. What if the story--in your view-- turns out to be kick-ass? Would that carry more weight than your view of Abrams' treatment of the original franchise? --Gary 7-- |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Seven on Apr 1, 2009 22:27:25 GMT -5
How long have they've been advertising the movie as, 'Forget everything you know about Star Trek.' It's probably a very accurate statement though. If it's "accurate," then they suck. |
|
|
|
Post by kilted911 on Apr 1, 2009 23:38:08 GMT -5
Just a friendly reminder to alert fellow viewers of potential spoilers. If you've seen a preview on TV and want to comment, well that's one thing. To see a 20-minute preview that the vast majority of us will not see, and then comment on those 20-minutes, needs some kind of spoiler alert.
Now, I didn't read burnett's posts because of the threat of spoilers, so if there were none, then my apoligies. However, a friendly warning would be nice for future reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by MicahBee on Apr 2, 2009 1:03:34 GMT -5
Just a friendly reminder to alert fellow viewers of potential spoilers. If you've seen a preview on TV and want to comment, well that's one thing. To see a 20-minute preview that the vast majority of us will not see, and then comment on those 20-minutes, needs some kind of spoiler alert. Now, I didn't read burnett's posts because of the threat of spoilers, so if there were none, then my apoligies. However, a friendly warning would be nice for future reference. On the IMDB board, there's a "SPOILERS" code, it covers up the spoiler until someone puts the cursor over the word or whatever. Can something like that be added here? |
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Apr 2, 2009 3:53:07 GMT -5
I have silver hair and a memory that sucks, so I gotta ask. Is it true that Kirk's ship didn't have water for showers? I find that shocking! How did the original crew get clean? How did they brush their teeth? What was used to flush toilets? On TNG, it looked like water in the sink faucets and bathtub (and the holodeck). ENT had showers with water. (Please be teal!)
|
|
|
|
Post by rmburnett on Apr 2, 2009 4:57:17 GMT -5
Folks,
Hey, you know what...? EVERYTHING I POST is a SPOILER. And TMP established SONIC SHOWERS. Water was REPLICATED on a need to use basis. When you used it...and were done...it was DEMATERIALIZED. Done. All matter on starships was reused as needed. Get it?
And ENTERPRISE...? Please.
I'm not going to apologize for my comments. In six days REVIEWS will POUR out of AUSTRALIA.
BTW...I'm RIGHT. My opinion is SOLID. I know best. Heh.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmburnett on Apr 2, 2009 4:58:26 GMT -5
Folks,
You don't want SPOILERS? DO NOT COME TO THIS BOARD. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 2, 2009 6:34:37 GMT -5
I don't know. I haven't seen a kick ass Trek story in years. I don't know how I would react to it. The only ass kicking stories have been in the novels, and even THAT has been awhile.
Regarding spoilers, remember that Rob is in the industry and will have access to things most of us don't. Good call with the "everything is a spoiler tag."
And it's true--there will likely be a ton of spoilers coming up. The good news is that the movie comes out in a few weeks, and there really won't be any new Trek to spoil for a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptApril on Apr 3, 2009 11:34:37 GMT -5
So, I did good in sending Rob that invite, hm?  |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 3, 2009 11:49:40 GMT -5
Absolutely. I'm glad he's posting. It's a shame he can't get his butt on the creative team for this franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptApril on Apr 3, 2009 12:13:24 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that any further adventures of our Enterprise will be limited to television or direct-to-DVD, because of the separation of rights between the movie side of the house and CBS.
Which is fine by me, since Star Trek has always worked best on tv and been a mixed bag on the big screen.
I'd like to see a CGI version of "The Return", on the order of that version of "Beowulf" a couple of years ago. If they can turn chubby Ray Winstone into Sean Bean's stunt double, then turning Shatner back into his more fit self should be a piece of cake, especially with the developments that've come along since then (check out the making of featurette on "The Incredible Hulk").
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 3, 2009 12:16:51 GMT -5
A CGI version of THE RETURN would be sick, as long as it is tightened so that the ending to Avenger can be incorporated. The Return had a cliffhanger, so I wouldn't want that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mxxpwr on Apr 3, 2009 12:41:38 GMT -5
A CGI version of THE RETURN would be sick, as long as it is tightened so that the ending to Avenger can be incorporated. The Return had a cliffhanger, so I wouldn't want that. I'm of two minds of how to edit that. On the one hand, they could take out of the sacrifice on the Borg homeword and just have him save the day/cheating death; Kirk is back; skipping Avenger completely. On the other hand, it's such a good setup to Avenger and Avenger is such a good story. But, personally, I don't like having my heroes die constantly. It makes each death more and more meaningless. I'd guess I'd take out the sacrifice completely. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 3, 2009 14:06:25 GMT -5
That's probably what I would do too. Instead of that confrontation where Kirk sacrifices himself, I would remove the whole idea of Kirk's regeneration being temporary, remove the whole nanites subplot, and just have a happy ending at the end. Avenger would also be harder to do because of the whole Teilani character which is unnecessary for a post-Generations Kirk/Picard story.
|
|
