Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 3, 2009 16:34:14 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. Fair enough. I've never seen JJ Abrams' work, so I can't say if I think he's talented or not. However, I have friends who go "ooh" and aaahhh" over 'Lost', and that sure has fans. So, going by that, and by how cool the trailers look, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until I see the film--again, not considering this a tale of "our" Kirk and company, but of an alternate universe. If the film sucks wind, I'll savage it. If not, I'll give it a fair assessment. Abrams' ain't Braga/Berman. Abrams (apparently) can write and direct. B&B cannot. --Gary 7-- |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Seven on Apr 3, 2009 18:15:37 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 23:07:01 GMT -5
It wouldn't matter. It seems that the Abrams version is going to overwrite the entire Trek canon, so Kirk could not die at all, die like he did in Generations, or die on the sonic toilet like Elvis. That's IF the movie goes the way I think it will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Seven on Apr 4, 2009 2:46:32 GMT -5
It wouldn't matter. It seems that the Abrams version is going to overwrite the entire Trek canon, so Kirk could not die at all, die like he did in Generations, or die on the sonic toilet like Elvis. That's IF the movie goes the way I think it will. |
|
|
|
Post by CaptApril on Apr 4, 2009 12:35:10 GMT -5
This isn't reality. This is fantasy!
Sorry, but it had to be said...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Seven on Apr 4, 2009 13:25:29 GMT -5
This isn't reality. This is fantasy!Sorry, but it had to be said... |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 4, 2009 19:17:47 GMT -5
Unfortunately, they pretty much did that in 1994. I think this movie is going to erase canon completely.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 4, 2009 21:51:22 GMT -5
Way I see it, canon can't be erased. The adventures happened, and I have the DVDs to prove it. Worst case scenario, and I grant it sucks wind, no more adventures in Classic Trek Universe continuity. That's pretty bad, but I can still watch anything from Star Trek (The Real Series) to Star Trek :The Atrocities (orginally known as 'Voyager' and 'Enterprise'), the animated series, and of course all 10 movies. --Gary 7-- |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 4, 2009 23:00:35 GMT -5
Yeah, but if a timeline wipes out those adventures, it's like they never happened. Again, it's arguable FC already did this, but this time, it will be more blatant and obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmburnett on Apr 5, 2009 6:38:16 GMT -5
Folks,
Well...in Austrailia, it's a day ahead. TODAY is the premiere of STAR TREK. SOMEONE will post their thoughts...and then we'll know.
That last television spot was an abomination. The fact Paramount wants to TRICK an audience into thinking STAR TREK IS NOT STAR TREK...fillls all the memory banks of Memory Alpha.
I wish us all luck. Criss your fingers...with luck...not in a Vulcan Greeting.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 5, 2009 8:10:39 GMT -5
I really HATE when they do that. If people don't want to see Star Trek, why MAKE a Star Trek movie?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Apr 5, 2009 9:36:03 GMT -5
I just started this thread, so I have some catching up to do. (And I have no idea what glow red looks like. I wanted to highlight the first line, and maybe that did it. Hope so!)
Cram, dunno about 40 years of history, but hasn't this officially happened before? I'm speaking of the horrendous offense committed by Janeway. In the finale of Voyager, she wiped out the original timeline (for selfish stupid reason we both agree about). I'm not sure how many years were involved, but wasn't it at least a decade or so?
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 5, 2009 9:57:39 GMT -5
I only saw the finale of Voyager on the night it aired. But it wiped out a future timeline from our point of view. I guess yes, it's the same thing, but as a viewer, we didn't invest the time watching that timeline unfold, so the emotional investment wasn't there.
This time, we could see everything we've known for 40 years get wiped away in a puff of smoke. Even SHOWING some evidence to the contrary doesn't really help because that would mean either a) the timeline changes weren't instant, or b) it's not affecting canon, so nothing we see means anything anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Seven on Apr 5, 2009 12:14:26 GMT -5
Folks, Well...in Austrailia, it's a day ahead. TODAY is the premiere of STAR TREK. SOMEONE will post their thoughts...and then we'll know. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 5, 2009 13:51:59 GMT -5
I don't expect just footage to make the internet. I expect the whole movie.
|
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 5, 2009 16:04:07 GMT -5
Yeah, but if a timeline wipes out those adventures, it's like they never happened. Again, it's arguable FC already did this, but this time, it will be more blatant and obvious. I guess, Cram, that we're just looking at this from different perspectives. I'm not mistaken, Gene Roddenberry--who we all agree knows something about Trek  --didn't consider 'Final Frontier' to be canon, due to Sybok's presence. I seem to recall he felt the same way about 'Undiscovered Country", but that was due (I think) to his being upset over the idea of Saavik, an established hero, going rouge. After he passed away, Saavik was changed to Valeris, so maybe that's not a good argument. But we still have Trek 5. Way I see things, if we ignore Voyager (as all moral people do) and see the new film as an alternate universe, then canon remains intact. You see it differently; you seem intent on putting the new film in canon. But if it wipes out canon, then I'm not seeing the point of keeping it in an alternate history.... I realize JJ Abrams wants it stuck in canon (hence, his argument that if Kirk died in "Generations" we can't be in films or footage set afte that film). JJ is not thinking clearly on this point. --Gary 7-- |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 6, 2009 6:19:29 GMT -5
Yeah, but Final Frontier was canon, and Paramount overrode GR by making that a movie.
I would LOVE to say ignoring bad Trek was ok, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't really feel intent on putting the new film in canon. Paramount did that be allowing it to be made. I think it's the height of arrogance for Abrams to come in and completely wipe out canon, even if they are saying it doesn't do that.
It does.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 7, 2009 13:25:22 GMT -5
So last night, Abrams did a very cool thing. There was apparently some sort of screening of TWOK, and they surprised the entire crowd. They pulled the old "let's make the movie look like it's burning in the projector" trick. Then, LEONARD NIMOY comes out, unexpected, makes a speech, and basically says, "you know what? It's not fair the the movie is premiering in Austrailia tonight. You guys want to see the new movie?" And they show the new movie in full.
Pretty cool.
Obviously, a site like Trekmovie is going to show all the positive reviews, and with an audience like that, clearly, that's going to enhance the viewing experience.
Plus, that was a damn cool intro.
I got a spoiler filled review in my email today. Apparently, it tells the entire story of the movie. Not sure if it's ok to post it here, but if it is, I could. I didn't read the email other than a few short sentences that didn't have the spoilers.
I don't plan to read it, in case I do decide to watch this movie.
I read enough to find out that this person felt it was a good movie, but not even close to the best Trek movies. He said about on the level of TUC, which isn't bad at all. This person also felt that it was not the quality of TWOK, and that TWOK still remains the standard.
That's one person's review. He also said FC was better than this movie, and personally, I think FC is vastly overrated. To me, it was decent, but it wasn't on the caliber of the good TOS movies and really was a big budget TV episode. There were TNG episodes I felt outdid FC.
But that's another topic.
Gut feeling? 2 1/2 stars out of 4, without seeing it or knowing anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Apr 7, 2009 19:56:11 GMT -5
Cram, how about starting a new thread with STXI Spoilers? That way people can avoid it if they want, and others can talk about it freely.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptApril on Apr 7, 2009 20:08:26 GMT -5
I'd certainly be willing to give the review a throrough review.  |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 8, 2009 6:28:04 GMT -5
I'm thinking about doing just that. My decision to see this movie is reliant on whether the ending gives a serious hope for Kirk surviving past Generations--and I mean beyond the whole let's erase canon thing. It doesn't mean Shatner HAS to appear in ST12, but if there is a clear message that Nimoy's Spock may indeed have a Shatner Kirk alive and kicking, I will support the movie. Hope from hopelessness.
|
|
|
|
Post by mxxpwr on Apr 8, 2009 10:32:59 GMT -5
Cram, how about starting a new thread with STXI Spoilers? That way people can avoid it if they want, and others can talk about it freely. Yeah, call it like the 'Email Review' and we could post other spoilers in it as well. I'd definitely like to read the review. |
|
|
|
Post by Wahrheit on Apr 8, 2009 10:36:42 GMT -5
I'm thinking about doing just that. My decision to see this movie is reliant on whether the ending gives a serious hope for Kirk surviving past Generations--and I mean beyond the whole let's erase canon thing. It doesn't mean Shatner HAS to appear in ST12, but if there is a clear message that Nimoy's Spock may indeed have a Shatner Kirk alive and kicking, I will support the movie. Hope from hopelessness. No question about it, that would indeed be hope from hopelessness. Also, add me to the list who would like to see a spoilers folder. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 8, 2009 11:16:43 GMT -5
Apparently this email spoils the whole movie. I haven't read it except up to the general, spoiler free comment saying it wasn't as good as TWOK or FC, but was about on the level of TUC. TUC is a good movie, so that's not too bad and certainly better than any of the TNG movies. I think TUC was better than FC, but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wahrheit on Apr 8, 2009 12:08:15 GMT -5
Apparently this email spoils the whole movie. I haven't read it except up to the general, spoiler free comment saying it wasn't as good as TWOK or FC, but was about on the level of TUC. TUC is a good movie, so that's not too bad and certainly better than any of the TNG movies. I think TUC was better than FC, but that's just me. Without question, I would agree that TUC is a WAY better movie than FC. Actually, TUC is one of my favorites. |
|
Jor-El
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by Jor-El on Apr 8, 2009 17:10:16 GMT -5
TUC and FC are tied at first place for Best of Trek films, for me anyway.
JOR-EL
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptApril on Apr 9, 2009 1:53:01 GMT -5
TUC has a scene or two I wouldn't mind seeing completely removed. The nonsense with the Klingon phrase books being a biggie.
BTW, Roddenberry did see a finished cut of the film before he died. He was kinda "eh-eh" about it. I think it was the notion of high-ranking Starfleet admirals being involved in a major conspiracy with Klingons and Romulans that annoyed him, along with more of the rampant militarism.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 9, 2009 6:21:33 GMT -5
I wonder how he would have reacted to the TNG films. If he weren't cremated, I think they would have woken him from the dead, just so he could die again.
|
|
|
|
Post by mxxpwr on Apr 9, 2009 11:56:27 GMT -5
I wonder how he would have reacted to the TNG films. If he weren't cremated, I think they would have woken him from the dead, just so he could die again. Which brings us back around to FC. FC was a good movie. Reviews, fan reaction, and money all testify to this. He would have been just fine with FC. Ins and Nem were complete failures though. Honestly, Gen wouldn't have been a bad movie if they completely cut Kirk's story and retitled it. In regards to TUC, imo, better than 5 and Spock, but Voyage was better than TUC. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Apr 9, 2009 12:09:19 GMT -5
Regarding FC, if we are going to look at it not from a Trek point of view, but from a simple box office point of view, again, very overrated. The movie grossed decent for a Trek movie, though if you adjust for inflation, it didn't do as well as the first four TOS films. Overall, it wasn't a BAD movie at all.
I rank it just behind TUC in terms of quality in part because the characters of TOS are simply more appealing to me.
Breaking the movie down, the real problem is that it was the first TNG movie to try desperately to be TWOK. Not a bad idea, but not an original one. The biggest problem for me is that the best possible Borg story was already told--BOBW was outstanding, and movie quality in terms of the story. FC was a followup, as TWOK was a followup to Space Seed. The problem was while TWOK was a natural continuation and progression, FC was just another story.
TWOK didn't require seeing Space Seed. But I think FC did require more TNG knowledge. Not that that's a BAD thing, but it probably is for the mainstream.
FC also was a good example of Bragarian sloppy writing. Why would the Borg engage in this time travel plot?
From BOBW, it took everything the Federation had to beat one cube. It took Riker being very Kirk-like to take the Borg out in that episode, and it was not only great TNG, it was great Star Trek. Faced with an impossible challenge, humanity rises to the occasion and beats the odds.
So here we are in FC, and the Borg, who we know are supposed to be able to adapt to pretty much anything, send ONE ship again? If one ship almost took out the entire Federation, it's pretty safe to say that 2 ships would do the job.
But going through more--why time travel? Why the 21st century? Why not another century? Hell, go back 20 years and they got this. Hell, talk about a chance at a fantasy crossover...imagine the Borg popping out in front of the Enterprise A, 5 seconds after Kirk says, "second star to the right..." You get the fantasy battle you always wanted Kirk v. the Borg, and of course, the TNG crew would be in pursuit fighting side by side against them.
Now THAT is a movie.
But anyway, why not just travel back in time in the Delta Quadrant, and go to Earth unopposed?
Stupid Borg.
As for Generations, without Kirk at all, or with Kirk but with the alternate "Kirk lives" endings as seen in the Youtube thread, the movie gains a full star. Kirk's death just ruined that movie and overshadows everything.
|
|
--didn't consider 'Final Frontier' to be canon, due to Sybok's presence. I seem to recall he felt the same way about 'Undiscovered Country", but that was due (I think) to his being upset over the idea of Saavik, an established hero, going rouge. After he passed away, Saavik was changed to Valeris, so maybe that's not a good argument. But we still have Trek 5. 
