Star Trek 11

Discuss your favorite movies, books, and music here or just lounge around and see what other people think is classy.
User avatar
Rorie
Tru-Blu Aussie Born & Bred
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 22:27
Location: Australia

Star Trek 11

Post by Rorie »

only about another month & the latest star trek film is released will you be going to see it?
If you can't change the rules, challenge them, rules are made to be broken
Up yours Fleexy!
User avatar
tulip
Flower Pot
Posts: 2520
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:50
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by tulip »

Another one of those infamous prequel films, where they try to use some cheap actors to invent a pre-story that will most likely contradict most of the original story line later on, and, as it seems, will not even try to create a style that comes anywhere near to TOS.

But I'll probably see it, not in cinemas, but as soon as it lays around on video somewhere.
Image You crack me up little buddy!
User avatar
VikingBoyBilly
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation

Post by VikingBoyBilly »

No Gene Roddenberry = fail.
Sequels remain good and canon (Voyager), but prequels (Enterprise) are garg.
Image
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass
User avatar
Lava89
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:28

Post by Lava89 »

I think the new movie looks interesting and I am cautiously optimistic. And so I do have my ideas of what I like and don't like, but it's hard to say anything is for certain until I actually see the movie, but I can still speculate.

Pros:

Design:
Image

Image

I love how they've gone back to the original uniforms. It's so rare to see modern sci-fi go the SIMPLE route. So much new sci-fi tries to make everything uber realistic (like Enterprise tried to do). I also like the ship's design: the interior is bright and airy, not cramp, dark and dirty like the "grunge" era of sci-fi that we're in would dictate. I also like the new design of the ship's exterior, it almost has a 50's design, which is something you never see in sci-fi. It's got alot of style, while keeping alot of the original elements of the ship. In design it seems like they've kept alot of the old show's optimism; which is what Star trek is, not so much combat and space fights, but it's about the exploration. I don't have a problem with them adapting a new, more modern style for Trek, but what I don't want is a new spirit in which the new design is derived. They can still update Star Trek and keep the ideas of the original, they did it with the Next Generation successfully, as opposed to Voyager and Deep Space Nine, which kept the design of TNG but lost the spirit of it.

Spock
So far I think Spock looks really cool and I think he seems to be true to form. I think as long as they don't channel too much into his human side, he could be one of the best (if not teh best) characters in the movie.

McCoy
I haven't seen too much of McCoy but I think the actor could do him justice, I like the actor's work in Lord of the Rings. And I think they have his look right. Just long as they keep McCoy's humor that made him such a great character.

Cons:

Story ( I know, it's kinda big to cover):
The story seems to be a story about time travel; so it will include the old Spock, it also involves a time traveling Romulan and possibly an alternate timeline.

While I understand the motive (one of the writers said that it would be an insult to do a complete reboot), having an alternate timeline would make me feel like the story has no real significance.

I also don't like having the story too tied to the older actors, because they're trying to do a reboot but make it a prequel; which is what I think plagued Star Trek: Enterprise, they wanted to start fresh but also had to be tied to the other canon, thus it upset canon by making the crew the "first" to do alot of stuff that wasn't covered till at least TNG. So if the older actors aren't signifigantly involved, they should keep them out of it, or it will be too awkward; they can't be "The Best of Both Worlds" (;)). Either make another "The Motion Picture" sequel or start new.

I also dislike having a time travel story so early on, which was another problem of Enterprise; they spent so much time worrying about time travel, when they had a whole theater of unexplored Star Trek history to cover (Federation birth, relations with Romulans and Klingons), so I hope this movie doesn't lose focus either. I think they should save a time travel story for at least the sequel. I just want a basic story that gets the crew going on their first voyage.

Kirk's background and lack of order:
In the trailer they show Kirk taking command of the Enterprise. From what I understand he is wearing black in some of the pictures because he is a cadet. If that is true, he shouldn't be able to just take command without the other officers of higher experience contending his authority. But there are some outcomes that could rectify things, which will make me happy: A) If they do depict him finding some logical resistance when he takes over B) if he didn't really take over (it's a dream or something) C) He isn't as inexperienced when he takes over as I have speculated or D) The crew lets him pass but later on he has to get the official blessing from Starfleet in order to take over. They can't just let people take over Starships at will and be perfectly fine with it.

Also the other lack of order I have a problem with, is the possible relationship of Kirk and Uhura. Because it would be improper for a captain to just start having a relationship with a crew member, the only time it happened before was when Kirk was out of it or something; Kirk didn't just start dating any crew woman that he pleased. Even if he was a womanizer with non-Starfleet women.

Conclusion:
I don't know if I will see the movie, it depends on the rating and if it gets filthy, otherwise I will see it. I just hope they don't compromise the Trekkies, canon and the order and spirit in which Star Trek follows just to satisfy non-Trekkies. However I do hope this movie does things well enough for a sequel and I hope it brings hope back into the dying sci-fi genre.
Last edited by Lava89 on Sat Apr 18, 2009 19:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
q 90
Vortininja
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:12

Post by q 90 »

One of the biggest things to emphasize is it's not really a prequel, but a Batman Begins-esque "reboot."
Member since 2003, with breaks of varying longevity interspersed.
Galaxieretter
Arachnut
Posts: 891
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:35
Location: Lancaster PA
Contact:

Post by Galaxieretter »

I thought about going to the movies to see it, then I decided to see it when the DVD comes out... at a friends house. Because he would of bought it and not me.
Lava89 wrote:I also like the new design of the ship's exterior, it almost has a 50's design, which is something you never see in sci-fi.
Technically it's a design from the SIXTIES not the FIVTEES. And you kind of did see that design in Sci-Fi during the sixties... mostly during Star Trek. :)
VikingBoyBilly wrote:No Gene Roddenberry = fail.
Sequels remain good and canon (Voyager), but prequels (Enterprise) are garg.
I don't see how they can be canon if he's dead.

Gene Roddenberry DIED during "The Next Generation." He worked on "Star Trek" and a little of "The Next Generation." He had nothing to do with "Voyager" and "DS9." So yeah, personally I liked his style but "The Next Generation" got way better without his influence.

But you honestly thought Voyager was good?
User avatar
Lava89
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:28

Post by Lava89 »

q 90 wrote:One of the biggest things to emphasize is it's not really a prequel, but a Batman Begins-esque "reboot."
It IS a prequel.

From the horse's mouth (or the writer in this case):
Roberto Orci wrote: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization.
http://trekmovie.com/2007/10/08/intervi ... -and-more/

It also can't be a reboot because it involves post-TOS (and maybe even post-TNG) Spock from the future. A clean reboot would shed all previous incarnations of the franchise; for instance you wouldn't see stuff that happened in the 89 Batman movie have resonance in the Dark Knight. Plus the fact that you see incidents covered again would be a sign it's a reboot, just like how the Dark Knight covered the joker again even though 89 Batman movie already did him.
Galaxieretter wrote: Technically it's a design from the SIXTIES not the FIVTEES. And you kind of did see that design in Sci-Fi during the sixties... mostly during Star Trek. :)
Well I am going off of Cars from 50's...the new ship definitely has alot more curves than the original Enterprise, the original is much more basic and geometric. Here is an example of a 50's car which reminds me of the ship:
Image

Whereas this example of cars from the 60's start to show a slightly less curvey and flashy look, they still have a little style, but definitely not as much as the 50's, though not as economic and uniform as the 70's and 80's cars.

Image

What did you think of the rest of my post? Agree or disagree?
Galaxieretter wrote: Gene Roddenberry DIED during "The Next Generation." He worked on "Star Trek" and a little of "The Next Generation." He had nothing to do with "Voyager" and "DS9." So yeah, personally I liked his style but "The Next Generation" got way better without his influence.

But you honestly thought Voyager was good?
Roddenberry died before the 5th season of TNG, so he actually 2 good seasons. And I think it actually got better when Rick Berman became producer during the 3rd season, then the costumes, designs and stories got a lot better. But even Rick Berman screwed up with Voyager and Enterprise had potential but got sidetracked. But I think because Roddenberry already set the standard of optimism for TNG it was kept in the rest of the show, whereas DS9 got very focused on combat, Enterprise on time travel and Voyager just got bad in general.

But yes I agree, Voyager was not good. I think the original series and TNG are the best and capture the spirit of Trek. The rest all feel like action-based spin-offs in the Star Trek world (except DS9, which both feels like a spin-off and is a spin-off). However I am more open to more action based movies, because even though it works with the show the movies need a little more "umph", because even the Motion Picture was very similar to the show in story, but Wrath of Khan was better because it had a villain.
User avatar
q 90
Vortininja
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:12

Post by q 90 »

It IS a prequel.
Well, shows how much I know about Star Trek! Nothing.
Member since 2003, with breaks of varying longevity interspersed.
User avatar
DaVince
lazy/busy Keener
Posts: 1476
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:34
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DaVince »

It's based on the new Star Trek series, which I barely watched, so I probably won't see it.
Wow look at me I'm lurking
User avatar
Lava89
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:28

Post by Lava89 »

DaVince wrote:It's based on the new Star Trek series, which I barely watched, so I probably won't see it.
Which series is that?

The new movie is based on the original series, basically showing Kirk and company's first voyage in the Enterprise. However it is subject to canon of the other series, but I don't think you'd need to watch the other shows to understand this one.

Was the series you were thinking of Enterprise?
User avatar
DaVince
lazy/busy Keener
Posts: 1476
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:34
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DaVince »

Yeah, I looked at the two pics at the top of the topic and thought it was from the Enterprise series. Honestly, it surprises me that it's based on the ORIGINAL series - that guy in the chair doesn't remind me of Kirk (but then again, I haven't seen much of the ORIGINAL series either, except a few of the movies).
Wow look at me I'm lurking
User avatar
Lava89
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:28

Post by Lava89 »

He doesn't remind me too much of Kirk either, in either personality or looks. Matt Damon was suggested before to play Kirk and I think he could also pull off the very straight-forward Kirk (that is shown at least in the early episodes of Kirk), though I'm not sure if Kirk's light hearted side could be played off. But they said Matt would be too old to play this Kirk, which I understand, being that this is about the early days of Kirk.

The new Kirk seems to be a bar-hopping fighter and rebellious. But if they evolve Kirk into who he is in the show I will be happy. But as I said before, they should never have Kirk take over the Enterprise on a whim, but hopefully they'll rectify that.
IMA3HDDMNKY
Vortininja
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 23:06

Re:

Post by IMA3HDDMNKY »

VikingBoyBilly wrote:No Gene Roddenberry = fail.
Sequels remain good and canon (Voyager), but prequels (Enterprise) are garg.
Roddenberry wasn't available due to him being dead. You'd rather have them just drop the franchise entirely? Seriously, I loved the man and everything, but I think they've done a pretty good job of keeping Star Trek going without him.

Besides, what's with all the negativity surrounding Enterprise? I liked it. DS9 too. Voyager wasn't too good, but even that was at least watchable.

I'll be sure to check this one out. History has shown that a fresh perspective can often do wonders (ST2 was made by a total Trek-n00b and that's easily the best one they did!). Besides, it can't be much worse than 'Nemesis'...
IMA3HDDMNKY
Vortininja
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 23:06

Re:

Post by IMA3HDDMNKY »

Just got back...

My mind = BLOWN.

That was BLEEPing epic. Take it from a long-time Trek fan, this one is just what the franchise needed. Tight action sequences, acting, storyline and lots of little nods back to the original series. Fantastic stuff! The score is excellent as well.

It easily beats any of the Trek movies made in the last decade or so. Go see it! NOW!
User avatar
DaVince
lazy/busy Keener
Posts: 1476
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:34
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DaVince »

Huh. A positive review. Might watch it after all when it comes out on DVD or something.
Wow look at me I'm lurking
Post Reply