This is topic J.J. Abrams to direct, not just produce the new Star Trek film! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=047618

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
And after months of denying it, the StarFleet Academy/Franchise Reboot rumors are confirmed after all.

*eats crow* [Razz]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
So, there will be a lot of mystery, but no answers?

BTW, is Lost still on TV? I loved the first season, but dropped out pretty early in the 2nd season.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Lost is still limping along, m_p_h.

I am not happy about JJ Abrams + Star Trek. O.o
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
It's not surprising the movie will be set in the past (of the Trekverse). The man has an entire TV show dedicated to flashbacks.

At least we already know what happens in the end. So whatever the mystery is, we know how it will turn out. [Smile]

Whatever happens, this movie probably can’t be worse than the last one. A fresh take is certainly what the franchise needs right now - and what the fans deserve.
To be honest, I don’t care when it’s set or what happens. I just want this to be a good movie, with characters I can care about, some laughs and tears and stuff blowing up.

I hope Abrams has seen ‘Serenity’.
That's how it's done.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I still find 'Serenity' to be a bit of a disappointment compared to the show. Certainly had its high points though.

Certainly a fresh look is what the franchise needs, but I dislike JJ Abrams as the choice to bring it about. I want to see Tim Burton make a Star Trek movie (well, I want to see Tim Burton make EVERY movie, but I'll take what I can get).
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Lost is still limping along, m_p_h.
So, should I not bother with season 2, just like I never bothered with season 4 of Alias?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Whatever happens, this movie probably can’t be worse than the last one.
I think I've blocked that out. Was that the one with a singing, retarded Data?

quote:
I want to see Tim Burton make EVERY movie
Yeah. "Planet of the Apes" was awesome. [Wink]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
That's his mulligan.

Everyone gets one!
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Ah. The "the exception which proves the rule" line of argument. [Smile]
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
It's not surprising the movie will be set in the past (of the Trekverse).

At least we already know what happens in the end. So whatever the mystery is, we know how it will turn out. [Smile]

Sort of. The reports seem to confirm it'll be a BSG/Batman Begins/Casino Royale-style Reboot.

So, it's "Classic Trek Version 2.0". [Eek!]
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I could go for that...

-pH
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
I could too. At this point, anything is a step up from Enterprise.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Exactly. I was so into Trek until Enterprise. Now I'm pretty "meh." A Batman Begins for Star Trek would be awesome to me.

-pH
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Where are you getting this information? And, in related news, does anyone know if Star Trek Next Next Generation cartoon is still going?
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Read it on ComingSoon.net.

Star Trek Next Generation cartoon still going? I didn't know there was one in the first place. [Confused]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Yup. It's called "Gargoyles". [Razz]
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
So true! [ROFL]

...back in 1994, anyway. *sigh* [Frown]
 
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
I'm a little worried about a 'Star Trek Begins' prequel...just because of the go go boots and beehives. Oooh, and the really bad ship designs. I suppose it could be interesting.

Or not. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
 
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
 
I don't know anything about JJ Abrams. Why is there some negative sentiment about him directing? What else has he messed up? Just curious.
 
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
 
So I just went to the startrek.com and read the article.

So this really is going to be about Kirk and Spock?
quote:
According to the Reporter article, "Star Trek XI" will revolve around a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission.
I don't mind seeing new actors play these roles, since their obvious age now is too much of a hurdle. But won't this be like blasphemy to many of the devout fan-base? Maybe they won't care as much as I think they will. I thought this was going to have a whole new set of characters, or maybe this report is just a rumor.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
No, the report is valid.

And some of the fan base will mind, sure.

But some is game for any chance at reinvigorating Trek...even if it means wiping the slate clean and restarting fresh.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
Did anyone notice that JJ Abrams directed The Office this week? I hadn't heard it advertised or discussed, but I noticed his name pop up with no fanfare on the opening credits.
 
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
[to Marlozhan] I think Star Trek fans are such (at least I am) that we'll go see anything with the franchise name on it...just to give it a shot. I hope it's fantastic. [Smile]
 
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I want to see Tim Burton make a Star Trek movie (well, I want to see Tim Burton make EVERY movie, but I'll take what I can get).

I want to see Tim Burton do a Harry Potter movie.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I said that in the Harry Potter thread that was around a couple weeks ago [Smile]

I think it'd be the best Harry Potter movie, the later ones (well really, PoA and onward) are just dark enough to be perfect with him at the helm.

I'd be thrilled if they announced he was doing Half Blood Prince or Deathly Hallows.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
I want Terrence Malick to do the next Star Trek. There would be many elegant spacescapes set to classical music, and characters deep in thought gazing out of windows.

No but seriously, I'm mortified by this choice, as I think I've mentioned in one of Puffy's other threads.

quote:
According to the Reporter article, "Star Trek XI" will revolve around a young James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, chronicling their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first space mission.
This is either going to be boring/unimaginative rehashing, or it will conflict with Original Series Star Trek lore. I'd rather it did the latter.
 
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
I do not understand this fascination with restarting Star Trek and/or doing stories set in the past. Star Trek should always go forward, not back.

I have very little hope that this will turn out well.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I agree that it should go forward and not back. I wanted the next thing after Voyager to be a series set right after Voyager, either that or what the potential cartoons are suggesting and go 50 or 100 years in the future. Maybe not that far, but I agree that the should should always be moving forward, there will always be new enemies, always new problems and ideas for plots and plot arcs.

Ignoring the fact that we've gotten used to phasers and transporters, and taking us back to a world where we didn't have any of the technological advances we have in Star Trek now is odd, the point, I've believed, of Star Trek is to move forward and show us what the future will be like.

The only other thing I might want to see is either something just before Enterprise, to show how the Earth got itself together, or I'd like to see something at the Birth of the Federation. But what I want the most is the push forward. We could do something other than the crew of a Starship or Spacestation, or use a captain and crew totally different than we've seen before, maybe something grittier.
 
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
If anything, before they do a movie about starfleet academy, I'd like to see a movie that ties up the DS9 story line, bring back sisko, etc. Incorporate the other crew members from the various shows in there.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I tried to say that in a previous post but it got lost to the hatrack abyss.

I'd love to see a DS9 movie where Sisko came back, call it Star Trek: The Return. Maybe there's some threat to Bajor and Sisko is sent back to warn them, having completed his training with the Prophets. The Enterprise, Titan, Defiant and Voyager could all be sent to help, or any combination of such.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
Amen stihl1, I totally agree.
 
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
 
Exactly what do we think will be of interest during their Star Fleet academy days?

We know Kirk fiddles with the final exam. Other than that...what? So...Kirk and Spock planning panty raids?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Dude, the Kobiyashi Maru thing would be awesome to see.

That's pretty much it.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
I can sort of understand the decision.

Star Trek has never really been about "looking forward". Let's face it, the tech is/was typical SF TV silliness, and most of the philosophy is simple platitudes that are nothing special.

So, what really kept viewers coming back, week after week?

An attachment to the characters. And who are the most popular, most recognizable Star Trek characters of all?

Kirk & Spock.

Has there been great success with "back to the basics" franchise reboots in recent years?

Speaking in general, yes, there has.

And hey! Star Trek lore already has a long tradition of alternate universes...so this doesn't mean the old stuff is gone.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I remain unconvinced that the world needs more Star Trek. Five series and ten movies isn't enough?
 
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
Star Trek has always been about looking forward and the progress of the human race. If you don't understand that, you've totally missed the point.

Everyone loves Kirk and Spock, yes. But that would be Kirk and Spock a la William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. I don't want to see someone else's interpretation of Kirk and/or Spock. It's already been done, and done well.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stihl1:
Star Trek has always been about looking forward and the progress of the human race. If you don't understand that, you've totally missed the point.

I understand the claims Roddenberry and some of the fandom made about the deep meaning of the show...I just don't buy it. [Smile]

Heck, it wasn't until the show's "second life" began in syndication that people even thought of it as anything more than just another SF TV series.

Nimoy did do Spock well, but I also maintain Jonathan Frakes as Riker was a much better Kirk than Shatner ever was. [Big Grin]

Fans -made- it mean more. Because face it, the meanings that WERE in the show were incredibly cheesy. Exploring race relations by having an alien race that was exactly half-black and half-white, both spouting jargon that wouldn't sound convincing to the six-year-old? [Razz]

I maintain it's attachment to the characters that made it last, not the nebulous, shoddy "vision" retroactively tacked on.
 
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
I maintain you're wrong. Characters have changed. There's been over 630 episodes of trek without the original characters. Star Trek is about the future and how humanity overcame it's problems and that there's hope. Which was original in its day, and even in reruns, with so much sci fi programming that stresses the negative future. I could pull dozens of stories I have heard over the years as to how the franchise has broken new ground socially, technologically, etc. They didn't have black main characters in tv shows in the early 60s. They didn't talk about the social/political issues of the day in mainstream tv. Star Trek did. You might look back now and discount it, but when it started it was all about looking forward with hope and vision. Even in the 80s and 90s the shows were laced with social messages and groundbreaking issues that weren't tackled on normal tv. And like I said, you obviously don't understand.

New Star Trek should also look forward with hope and vision. Not put out retread movies/series. To do so eliminates the hope and vision and social messages, and just boils it down to another sci fi show with cool effects. And frankly, there is a ton of stories to tell in the Star Trek universe where they left off. I'm extremely disappointed that Paramount doesn't have the balls to try and tell them.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
I Spy and Julia have been retroactively erased from 1960s televsion history, I suppose. But, they did feature characters who did more than answer the Comm.

I do understand...I just don't agree with you.

I don't think the messages were groundbreaking. I don't think they were presented particularly well.

Especially not in the 80s and 90s Trek stuff. The Golden Girls tackled the issues of poverty, AIDS, gays, etc long before the various Trek shows did. That should tell you something.

So, no. I don't agree.

Star Trek has endured not due to "the message" it clumsily tries to tackle in its episodes and movies. But due to the characters.

When was the last time someone said: "I loved the episode with the metaphor about the Gulf War?"

It's more likely (in my admittedly anecdotal experience) that they said: "I loved the episode where Data did such-and-such. And Picard said that great line!"

The hope, vision, and social messages were shoddily done, but fans loved the characters so much that they made it seem more wonderful than it actually was. And that's a cool thing.

And I'd wait until more info on the new film is released before passing judgement on the content. Just sayin'.
 
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
I feel sorry for the poor kid who has to play the young Kirk. I mean, who could play Kirk without "doing" Shatner? And who on earth wants to spend an entire movie "doing" Shatner . . . and trying to make it look sincere?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I fall somewhere between Puffy and stihl. If the actors and characters hadn't of been so great, I never would have watched it. But I love Star Trek, having never seen a full episode of TOS. My Star Trek started with TNG and ended with VOY.

But I think your argument falls apart during several TNG episodes, and a LOT of DS9 episodes Puffy. I don't necessarily think they were ALL groundbreaking, but certainly they were extremely good television, and while a lot of it was the characters, it was also that they've been given fantastic material to work with.

Jon Boy -

The world never really NEEDS any more of anything from the entertainment industry. I don't think the world NEEDS a third Stargate Series, but I sure as heck do [Smile] If there's a place in television for another series, then I think there should be one. Things don't have to end just because they've had a good run, not when there's life left in them.
 
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
Star Trek shall once more live long and prosper.
 
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
I Spy and Julia have been retroactively erased from 1960s televsion history, I suppose. But, they did feature characters who did more than answer the Comm.

I do understand...I just don't agree with you.

I don't think the messages were groundbreaking. I don't think they were presented particularly well.

Especially not in the 80s and 90s Trek stuff. The Golden Girls tackled the issues of poverty, AIDS, gays, etc long before the various Trek shows did. That should tell you something.

So, no. I don't agree.

Star Trek has endured not due to "the message" it clumsily tries to tackle in its episodes and movies. But due to the characters.

When was the last time someone said: "I loved the episode with the metaphor about the Gulf War?"

It's more likely (in my admittedly anecdotal experience) that they said: "I loved the episode where Data did such-and-such. And Picard said that great line!"

The hope, vision, and social messages were shoddily done, but fans loved the characters so much that they made it seem more wonderful than it actually was. And that's a cool thing.

And I'd wait until more info on the new film is released before passing judgement on the content. Just sayin'.

Once again, you're just plain wrong.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Will this movie feature an entirely new cast? Or will we see some TNG players on this one?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I don't see why we would see any TNG player in a movie that takes place a hundred years before any of them were born.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
The world never really NEEDS any more of anything from the entertainment industry. I don't think the world NEEDS a third Stargate Series, but I sure as heck do [Smile] If there's a place in television for another series, then I think there should be one. Things don't have to end just because they've had a good run, not when there's life left in them.
This attitude makes me sad. Imagine if they took all the time and effort they put into aging franchises that still have life (read: profits) in them and instead put that toward fresh new worlds. Us fans would have much better stories to enjoy, IMO.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I don't see why we would see any TNG player in a movie that takes place a hundred years before any of them were born.

Oh so the movie is based off of "Enterprise?"
 
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
 
I heard Matt Damon wants to play Kirk.

Seriously.
 
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
 
Star Trek Initial Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes

So, it's getting glowing reviews so far. Think this is pre-release hype, or do you think it will live up to the hype?

I just hope that once all the action and eye candy wear off that there is still something meaningful left to the movie. But these reviews do get my hopes up some more.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
It's actually freaking me out how good the reviews are. I haven't seen a speck of negativity anywhere yet.

Has JJ replaced the critics with podpeople? Or is the movie really that good?

Or is it just that there are thousands of secret Trekies who are seeing this cool new movie as their chance to finally 'come out'?
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
If this turns out to be good, I shall be amazed.
 
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I still can't believe Simon Pegg is going to be Scotty, hopefully that will add some humor to the film.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
It's actually freaking me out how good the reviews are. I haven't seen a speck of negativity anywhere yet.

Has JJ replaced the critics with podpeople? Or is the movie really that good?

I'm not seeing any high profile reviews just yet. No major newspapers, etc. They might have released the movie to friendly critics looking for a poster quote- but on the other hand, it has almost the same release day as Wolverine, which has no reviews yet. I've seen Wolverine, and it's not very good, so who knows.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
I've seen Wolverine, and it's not very good, so who knows.
That's a generous take on the steaming piece of excrement known as Wolverine. In fact, that movie does a disservice to steaming pieces of excrement. I generally do not dislike movies with such vitriol, I can usually find something interesting or turn off my brain or find some redeeming quality because I just don't like to be that negative, but that movie is the worst thing I have seen in at 10 years. We are talking Battlefield Earth bad...

About Star Trek:
I know many Trekkers who are already angry at the film, whether it be because clearly Kirk knows how to drive a car in the movie but didn't in the Original Series or whatever, but for me, I can not wait to see this one. It sort of reminds me of the Bond movies, the old ones with Connery or Moore are fine for what they are, but they are clearly dated and stale in many places compared to the new, slick and shiny Bond movies with Craig or Brosnan. The Original Series is great for what it is, but for me, The Next Generation, Enterprise, and Deep Space Nine are better. If they can update the new series like they have with Bond, then I am all for that, and thus, I am quite excited about this new movie.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
There was nothing wrong with the basic idea of next generation as a film franchise. They just relied on pretty bad writing for two out of the four films they made. I mean, seriously, you're going to spend 100 million buck on a film and you end up with Nemesis? Really?? That's just cynical.

I think most trekkers are upset because as a rule, retconning is not done overtly, and no role in Star Trek that I know of has ever been completely recast.

That and, seriously, Kirk takes over the ship as a cadet?? You couldn't perhaps cast a 35 year old and put in some back story about Kirk's disaffected attitude to service?
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
quote:
No major newspapers, etc.
Since the London premiere there have been glowing reviews in at least three of the broadsheet British newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian), let alone the tabloids which I don't read.
 
Posted by Damien.m (Member # 8462) on :
 
I snagged tickets to the Irish premier on Tuesday [Big Grin] Ill let you know if its just good publicity or worth a watch!!!
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
That and, seriously, Kirk takes over the ship as a cadet?? You couldn't perhaps cast a 35 year old and put in some back story about Kirk's disaffected attitude to service?
DS9 made a pretty good case for this in "Valiant."

It was a totally different set of circumstances from the sound of things, and in the end they failed rather and for the most part paid with their lives, but I think it was a great character driven episode where you see what arrogance and ego can do, and how they can get you killed. Jake Sisko plays a great dissenting voice, and Nog really shows you the dangers of mob mentality and wanting to fit in rather than letting reason rule (and you plainly see where his better angels get shouted down).

So at least there's precedent in mainline ST canon.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
"Valiant," is not what I call a pretty good case. More like fan-boy wish fulfillment onanism.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"new, slick and shiny Bond movies with Craig or Brosnan."

Not that I think the older Bonds are much better, but this bothers me tremendously. Forget story and character, this seems to be saying, all I want is car chases and explosions with the occasional hot girl. Bring on the bling.

I'll take stale old fashioned Kirk and Picard over Star Trek 90210 any day. I did read a semi-negative review that said it was a fun summer flick, but forgettable. The more positive reviews I read the less I want to watch this movie as a Star Trek fan because of exactly what is positive in the reviews. The least they could have done is have an actor play Kirk who doesn't look like they need to work out in the gym. Kirk wasn't a thin wafer pretty boy. Every one of those actors look way too young for the positions they have been put in. I know the story explains that, but I am not buying the story or a ticket.

In response to a comment I know I will get: yes, I am going to go back and watch my old Star Trek copies and forget this mess was ever done.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I agree, the casting was Transformersesque "teen audience" pandering. How many actors can you remember who's first major film role was their best? Maybe there are lots, but somehow I doubt it. I doubt there are a lot of great first performances (or even 2nd or 3rds) that are much good- and a lot of this cast hasn't seen the light of day in any great movies. Just imagine a bunch of suits sitting around, figuring out how to sell the most tickets to the most people... this is the first Star Trek movie, or Star Trek anything, that's been cast solely for that purpose.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
I'll take stale old fashioned Kirk and Picard over Star Trek 90210 any day.

quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
In response to a comment I know I will get: yes, I am going to go back and watch my old Star Trek copies and forget this mess was ever done.

Despite the fact that I am fairly certain that me agreeing with you -- on anything -- is a sign of the apocalypse, I do. 100%.
 
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
I'm actually pretty excited about the new movie.

I'm a pretty big Star Trek fan, and I'm excited about the direction that this movie is taking, but I can see how some fans would be disappointed with this.

From JJ Abrams interview:

You’ve said that when you were a kid, you always preferred Star Wars to Star Trek. Why?
Star Wars was about a character everyone could relate to—the average kid, who started out as a farm boy, suddenly called to adventure. And it was this massive, exciting, fast-paced, thrilling spectacle where he ended up meeting people who changed his life forever, and became this hero. I never really felt like I was Kirk; I never really connected with Spock. So for me, it was a no-brainer.

The first scene of the trailer takes place in Iowa. There’s no clue that it’s even sci-fi until we see the hover bike. It seems like you’re trying to ground this story in a reality people can relate to.
I think the thing about Star Wars that’s undeniable is that it’s “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,” and Star Trek is us. The idea that it’s connected to us, and our future, is an important component. “To boldly go where no man has gone before”—it’s kind of a funny little cliché. But the idea of a diverse group of humans and other species working together bravely, going places that are unknown and actually terrifying, not to destroy or own them but to explore, is…
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
Not that I think the older Bonds are much better, but this bothers me tremendously. Forget story and character, this seems to be saying, all I want is car chases and explosions with the occasional hot girl. Bring on the bling.
What's wrong with that? When I watch Bond I don't expect some deep philosophical meaning or significant character development, I simply expect something entertaining and fun. For two hours, I turn off my brain and forget about politics and philosophy, and I revel in the fun that is the movie. It's the same reason I love the movie Transformers and even the Mummy films, I just love the fun that is those movies. You are correct, all I want from those movies is a cool car chase or a large explosion and maybe even some manufactured drama, and I don't think there is a darn thing wrong with that.

Furthermore, my point about old versus new was not that the new Bonds lose story or character versus the old Bonds, my point was that the ideas, special effects, and film-making in the new Bond movies make them shinier and more enjoyable to watch as compared to the old ones. The reason I would take Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise over the Original Series is because TOS just seems old and outdated.

I don't think the new movie is going to be Star Trek 90210, but I think this debate speaks to the larger failures of science fiction, both as a fandom and through television shows and movies. There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large. There are alot of people who watch shows like 90210, and I think deriding them is not the best argument to make. We can deride shows like 90210 all we want, but 90210 will be on TV next year and shows like Terminator and Dollhouse probably won't. That is the reality that the sci-fi fan faces, and I think that they only have themselves to blame.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.

Piffle.

Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
im looking forward to this and hope they reboot the franchise.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi...
Science Fiction shows are some of the longest running shows ever. Doctor Who and the Star Trek 'franchise' have withstood the test of time and have attracted wide audience (albeit intelligent ones) since they first aired.

Nothing in science fiction is so intellectual or difficult to comprehend that the average person couldn't get some purely social enjoyment out of it. You don't have to understand the science-- most of the time there is no actual science to understand.

Most small boys love Science Fiction. By rights, any of those small boys can be brought up to appreciate not only very simplistic Science Fiction like Star Wars and Transformers, but to make that leap at some point in their adolescence to more the marginally more complex and laid-back Star Trek.

That said, I'm reading the mostly positive (all Fresh, but some are edging Fresh) Rotten Tomatoes reviews with growing amazement, considering how terribly mediocre Fringe and ultimately Lost were. Is it possible that Abrams has actually not only made a good film but has also managed to make a Star Trek film?

I admit I'm very reluctant to feel excited about this film. When I first heard about it I knew what I would do with this film (just like I knew what I would have done with Enterprise, which had excessive potential as well) but did not expect Abrams do be able to capture that, given the level of his work.

But Abrams didn't write it, and perhaps that made all the difference.

But I dislike the "it isn't like nerdy old science fiction" as much as anyone can. If they would stop saying that, perhaps I would find it easier to bring myself to build up the courage to see it.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
The Vulcans have mind-melded with the reviewers and changed their opinions.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Clearly.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.

Piffle.

Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.

To some people (OS :cough: C) the mere act of having standards seems to qualify as intellectual elitism. Of course, if you're not an intellectual elitist, you're a moral elitist, so what's the point of name calling?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.

Piffle.

Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.

To some people (OS :cough: C) the mere act of having standards seems to qualify as intellectual elitism. Of course, if you're not an intellectual elitist, you're a moral elitist, so what's the point of name calling?
Orincoro do you spend your days angry with Mr. Card to the point that if a suitable opportunity comes up to harangue him, you feel unable to resist alot of the time?

Mr. Card of all people respects the concept of artistic standards. It's the intent of the message that often galls him. Take Happy Feet, I doubt Mr. Card was angry that the art department took quite a bit of time to cleanly and beautifully animate the characters in the movie. I also doubt he was upset that there was a multiplicity of messages some subtle some overt in the plot. What bothered him seems to be the condescending nature and smugness of that message as it is conveyed to the audience, and more especially children, as their powers of discernment are still being developed.

Ironically I've read several writings of Mr. Card defending science fiction as being unable to get a foothold in schools and colleges because "intellectual elites" don't recognize the great offerings of the genre, and simply dismiss it all. It's why I had difficulty persuading my brother to read Masterpieces of Science Fiction, because he assumed it would be lots of stories similar to Star Trek and Star Wars.

There's a fantastic depth to science fiction that most people do not see, and part of the reason is that they are told that "science fiction = nerd reading." It's like romance novels for socially awkward men, who don't want to live in this reality. I'd say if you took the best science fiction writers, they easily stand up to the best English literature has to offer.

I will confess though that I am not too knowledgeable about science fiction writers of any quality in today's world, besides Mr. Card of course.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.

Piffle.

Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.

To some people (OS :cough: C) the mere act of having standards seems to qualify as intellectual elitism. Of course, if you're not an intellectual elitist, you're a moral elitist, so what's the point of name calling?
I also think this is uncalled for.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"It's the same reason I love the movie Transformers and even the Mummy films," is not helping. The thing is that the Star Trek movie franchise isn't really that deep, but it at least has something to say. Not to mention the characters are treated as people that grow rather than stagnant action heroes that save the day and run off with the girl.

I like the kinds of movies you refer to as well. Its just that I like OTHER kinds of movies that are more than that. It seems there are far less of those nowadays (even those with "deeper" meanings end up with cliche' rather than something to think about) to the point I don't go to the movies or even rarely rent them. Funny thing with your 90210 example is that Star Trek has lasted for almost 40 years in one way or another and syndication many places where that teen drama can be found on soap channel. They did a remake that, I believe, tanked.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
"Orincoro do you spend your days angry with Mr. Card to the point that if a suitable opportunity comes up to harangue him, you feel unable to resist alot of the time?"

Yes. I spend my days finding small ways to show my disappointments and inadequacies in life. The spear-head of this effort is here on Hatrack. I try, every day, to find something negative to inject into the minds of others who I hope and pray will listen to me, and feel worse about their lives.

But I see now, now that you have referred to someone I criticized as "Mr." mirroring the lack of respect I show, that I am wrong. Thank you- you have changed my life. I no longer wish for darkness and despair. I see now that the world is full of light and possibility. I now hope for a better tomorrow. I now believe in Jesus, and I have a personal relationship with Christ himself.

Or it was just a meaningless jab. Either way.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Orincoro: Could you do me the decency of perhaps putting more of your considerable powers of thought into your response? I've noticed that you have a tendency to be mean, you've even acknowledged that this is the case. I suppose there isn't much point asking you to cut it back, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to suck on it.

I refer to Orson Scott Card as Mr. Card in all my posts regarding him. It's the title that suits me best when talking about him. My use of Mr. was in no way a rhetorical device.

I didn't say you are a miserable person all the time and that is why you act out, but you seem to be so angry with Mr. Card that you have nothing but hatred when he comes up. I'd rather you stayed in hatrack but why frequent a forum that will inevitably remind you of such a frustrating person and hence color your discourse so negatively?

Either get over your frustration with Mr. Card or don't keep putting yourself through this by coming here.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
When were the days I used to use "Uncle" in my reference/reverence? of Mr Card... *sigh* Don't remember why I made the switch, maybe when I graduated from High School...

Orinoro I see your Injection of Misery and Raise you breaking their souls into bitter broken vases of emotional heartbreak and anguish which they in turn take out on others.

*tongue in cheek though it would be awesome*
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
Occasional:
quote:
"It's the same reason I love the movie Transformers and even the Mummy films," is not helping. The thing is that the Star Trek movie franchise isn't really that deep, but it at least has something to say. Not to mention the characters are treated as people that grow rather than stagnant action heroes that save the day and run off with the girl.
Believe it or not, so do the Mummy movies and Transformers, especially Transformers which maintains a humanistic optimism mixed in with the "pap". I guess my point is that we can't look down on other kinds of movies simply because we don't think they live up to our own intellectual standards nor can we look down on the people who watch and enjoy movies like The Mummy or television like 90210 or even Gossip Girl. I haven't seen 90210 since maybe 1990 and I have no idea what it could possibly be about these days, but I do know two important things about the show itself. One, there are many who watch the show, and two, there are those who would use this show and the subsequent "teen pandering" as a manner to put down other types of entertainment and people. Thus, I think it *is* about intellectual elitism, though it is not when we seek coherent and cohesive story and great character development, when it involves how we look at the people who watch what we would call "pap", judge them, and use that judgment to paint other forms of art.
 
Posted by Damien.m (Member # 8462) on :
 
So I saw Star Trek last night at the Irish premier. And it....rocked.

I think it has the makings of a smash hit. More than enough geek talk and in jokes to appease the fans and theres enough action to keep even non Trekies happy.

The movie has a good, solid plot that doesnt really have any acts but rather seems to sprint through to the end!

And the cast! Absolutly perfect casting. No one stands out as a bad choice at all. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban as Kirk, Spock and Bones are particularly excellent.

Those worring about retconning will be happy to know the changes are very well explained within the Trek verse and fit nicely in with pre-existing canon. But there are A LOT of changes. (Though without giving anything away there is one event in particular which could have massive repercussions in relation to one of the other series.)

My one small problem with the movie, though only a minor one, is that the movie was almost too funny. I can understand studio execs wanting to push the laughs but it was the one thing, to me anyway, that didnt really fit in with the Star Trek feel as a whole.

Overall I would give it a solid A. Trek fans should rush to see this one and even non Trek fans will really enjoy themslves!
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
No! JJ's podperson plague has even got to Damien.M!
Soon the world will be his... mwahahahaha.

Seriously though, I'm actually starting to look forward to this. Cautiously. [Smile]
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
It's my present to myself for graduating from college..I'm going out to dinner and a movie to see Star Trek. [Smile]

Well, the present is really dinner and a movie with my husband...it's just that I chose Star Trek as the movie.
 
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
I am glad to hear it rocked.
Oh, and Belle! Congrats!!!!!
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
Overall I would give it a solid A. Trek fans should rush to see this one and even non Trek fans will really enjoy themslves!
Thanks for the review Damien, I am getting even more excited as the days pass.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
My one small problem with the movie, though only a minor one, is that the movie was almost too funny. I can understand studio execs wanting to push the laughs but it was the one thing, to me anyway, that didnt really fit in with the Star Trek feel as a whole.

I've heard this elsewhere, and I don't understand it at all. The original series was hilarious. Even the most serious episodes had humor. Arguably the most dramatic episode was "City on the Edge of Forever," and there were some pretty funny moments in it:

Kirk: He caught his head in a mechanical... rice picker...

Kirk: Well, we'll steal from the rich and give back to the poor later.

McCoy: You know, I've convinced myself that this is all in a cordrazine hallucination. But, I've decided you're not.

Kirk: You were actually enjoying my predicament back there. At times, you seem quite human.
Spock: Captain, I hardly believe that insults are within your prerogative as my commanding officer.
Capt. Kirk: Sorry.

Spock: I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bear skins.

Remember, this is the series that gave us tribbles, famous Russian everythings, Harvey Mudd, and Star Trek IV. The fact that the new movie is funny makes me even more eager to see it.

Also, Nimoy loves it. I got to hear him speak at the FX con a few weeks ago and wrote about it here.
 
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
 
Except for the lack of swearing, the way the dialogue in TOS works is much like the way sailors speak to each other, with "inside" jokes, light insults, smart-aleckyness, technical language, and necessary information in one conversation.

I think one major problem with Star Trek is that it is too glib. Compared to TOS, how often was humor used in the other series' and the other movies, except by comic relief (like the Ferengi)?

One of the best scenes in Star Trek is the tequila scene from First Contact.
 
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
quote:
More than enough geek talk and in jokes to appease the fans and theres enough action to keep even non Trekies happy.
The part I've been worried about is the action. In the trailers and commercials, it looks like they used a lot of shakey camera work. Were the action scenes hard to see?
 
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:
More than enough geek talk and in jokes to appease the fans and theres enough action to keep even non Trekies happy.
The part I've been worried about is the action. In the trailers and commercials, it looks like they used a lot of shakey camera work. Were the action scenes hard to see?
This review briefly mentions his take on the shaky camera action, but that's just one man's opinion.

quote:
The space battles still have the feel of submarines, just with more ‘splosions, lasers, shaking cameras, stumbling and falling around. By the way, this is an example of good CGI. The futuristic things going on in the backgrounds look like they are part of the world.

The film brings familiarity to the extraordinary world that may have alienated some people in its most hardcore form. In this case, the shaky cam style is okay because it’s familiar. It’s bringing this story of a distant future with the sensibility of the distant past into a familiar storytelling mechanism. And it’s awesome, but to be a little bit more pretentious, the tilted angles make the ship look more dynamic and flowing, and the light flaring at the camera feel like the Enterprise is giving off real energy.


 
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
 
I saw it yesterday at a sneak preview and I loved it. I really really loved it.
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
British woman creates cloaking device.
 
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aspectre:
British woman creates cloaking device.

Which works as long as you look at the car from the precise angle that all of the photos of it are taken from. I'd love to see some picture of it from other angles, but there don't seem to be any to be had online.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Damien.m:


My one small problem with the movie, though only a minor one, is that the movie was almost too funny. I can understand studio execs wanting to push the laughs but it was the one thing, to me anyway, that didnt really fit in with the Star Trek feel as a whole.

I'm not too sure about that. One thing the "re-mastered" edition of TOS has made clear is that a lot of side jokes and funny character bits have always been included in the show, but tended to be edited down in the syndicated versions.
 
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
 
Well, my wife and I have tickets for opening night and I am excited to see it. I am more excited than I used to be, since I was very skeptical previously. Rotten Tomatoes still has it at 98% after 46 reviews, so I think this has gone beyond just pre-release hype.

The one rotten review mainly complains that the movie is too much like a TV show (which contradicts the epic feel that a few other reviewers have described) and that it appeals to the teenage-boy eye-candy, action, and sex mentality. He compared it to the new Wolverine (though he admitted Wolverine was worse), which I have yet to hear anything good about, except that Hugh Jackman did a good job with what he had to work with.

Anyway, I will let you all know what I think of it after this Friday night!
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
Saw it yesterday at special screening... it was AWESOME!

Non-spoilered write-up on my blog HERE!!!
 
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
 
I'm totally stoked to see this tomorrow.... I've always been a big Trek fan and I'm glad to see it being rebooted. There's plenty of stories told in the universe we're all familiar with and it grew stale, and I'm happy they're taking a different approach with it. Can't wait.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
I'm going to try and see this tomorrow as well.
I didn't think I would be, but now I suddenly find that I'm actually quite excited about it. [Smile]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
It doesn't come out in CZR until the 8th I think... anyway I have work and pub night to go to, so no star trek until friday. I'm definitely going though, just deciding whether I should take the long tram ride to Depo Hostivar to sit in the stadium seating at the shiny multiplex.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
My goodness, I'm shocked. I loved it.

I can't even go into why until this becomes a spoiler thread. That's not to say I didn't have a couple of issues with it. But it didn't stomp all over, and then spit on, the TV series I grew up watching.

I was expecting Quinto to be great and he was - he caught the mannerisms perfectly - but because of various events in the story, the character of Spock felt really off in a few scenes. You just have to remember that he really is a different person now - but there are a few moments which seemed somewhat disconcerting.

I wasn't expecting much from Chris Pine - but he has great comic timing and that charmingly goofy, totally foolhardy thing that makes Kirk so human and likable.

But the person I was most amazed by was Karl Urban. His Bones is dead on, snarkily perfect, and his voice is so well matched (especially considering that he's a Kiwi) with DeForest Kelly's. He's just right.

As for the others, Scotty's enthusiasm makes up for his lack of screen time, Sulu gets to be cool and heroic (but then, he nearly always was), Chekov is still the baby of the crew, and Uhura gets to be a lot more demanding and esteemed than she ever got to be in the original line up.

It's a gorgeous send off for Nimoy, too. He blows everyone out of the water in every scene he's in.

All the way through, every few minutes, there's another huge shout out to Trek history. Hardly any of these moments feels forced - if you didn't know what they meant, you wouldn't even notice they were there.
It adds a lot of depth to the universe which has been changed so much - like looking through a broken window at a familiar room.

The time travel, and the rules behind it (not the actual process, which is pure handwavium) make a lot of sense. If you've seen The Sarah Connor Chronicles, you know how it works.
They successfully explain all the changes to the timeline - although it seems very much as if the original timeline is trying to re-establish itself, and ultimately can't.

Because of the story structure, it ends just at the point where everything really begins - and I was left wanting to see what happens next...

It's a good movie. Actually, really, very good.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Seconding everything Bella just said. Holy crap, this is a good movie.

My one major criticism is that there is a HUGE coincidence (two coincidences actually) in the middle of the movie that doesn't follow logically from the time travel shenanigans. I take issue with using "destiny" or "fate" causing things to happen for the sake of making them happen.

I also spent most of the movie being disappointed with the music - it basically didn't reflect the Star Trek musical style at all. But they fix all that in the credits. I would have orchestrated the movie a differently but I guess I can't complain. (A huge pet peeve of mine is movies based on old movies - in particular movies where Nostalgia is a huge part of the movie experience - that change the music completely.)
 
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
 
i loved it. reviews have made it sound fun but i was surprised by how fun it actually was. it was really in no way a serious sci-fi film but an action-comedy. i was most surprised by how funny it was, which is really a mark of how well the film was written, cast, and directed. and the cast was perfect. pine is a far better actor than shatner and makes a great kirk, and quinto and urban were also excellent. and really, so was everyone else. my biggest complaint is that the film could have been longer to flesh out the characters a little more, but despite being balls to the wall throughout it had some very nice character moments, especially at the beginning and with kirk/bones and kirk/spock. leonard nimoy was also incredibly well utilized and despite worrying about the time travel aspect i thought it was really well done

i could really go on and on about how great the whole thing was. now that the setup is complete i hope they can explore some more serious sci-fi ideas in the next film, but i do hope it retains the sense of fun this one had. i can't imagine there will be a better film this summer and i hope it rakes in an absolute ton of cash
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
It was a great, fun watch. As a die hard I had a LOT of issues with it but I will see it again in the theatre and buy it, for sure.
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I just saw it today -- I thought it was great.

I had some teary moments thinking how much my dad would have enjoyed it. Maybe he was watching from Heaven.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I'm sorry, but only dogs go to heaven... so Disney has convinced me.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
I guess Orincoro thinks all animation is Disney.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
I guess Orincoro thinks all animation is Disney.

Shhh...most people don't even know who Don Bluth is, he certainly doesn't have any new movies in the pipe.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
All Dogs Go to Heaven came out in the 80s, though! Bluth was still a name, back then. [Smile]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2