posted
...More action. That could be good, or that could just mean more stuff to attract the people who just like fights and explosions and guns and all that ADHD stuff. Kind of like what they did to X-Men 3.
I like good action, but it actually has to be good, and have relevance to the plot. It needs to be there because it enhances the story and makes it fun, not just so it can make-up for a lack of story or to get the pleasure-chemicals going in the brain.
Wow, that sounds like a lot of movies Hollywood pumps out.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope they learned their lesson from Enterprise. If you make a crappy Trek show, all the fans will hate you and refuse to watch.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How isn't Star Trek already "mainstream"? Trek and Wars are the most commercial and mainstream sci-fi franchises by a mile. I don't mean that as a criticism, by the way. I'm a huge fan of both, but it's just a fact.
Anyway, a reimagining might be kinda neat. Just look at Battlestar Galactica.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: How isn't Star Trek already "mainstream"? Trek and Wars are the most commercial and mainstream sci-fi franchises by a mile. I don't mean that as a criticism, by the way. I'm a huge fan of both, but it's just a fact.
Well, Star Trek has a spotty record when it comes to movies with mainstream commercial appeal.
The touchy-feely, pseudo-cerebral and philosophical first ST movie was quickly and wisely forgotten once the fast-moving, action-oriented Wrath of Khan came out. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the first Star Trek movie was sssooo ssslooow (and not just in that one bit where everyone goes all blurry). Fast moving and action orientated can work great, but only if the audience actually cares enough about the characters that they're on the edge of their seat wanting to know what happens next. And a really cool bad guy doesn't hurt either.
Reimagining is okay with me. Do I want to see Matt Damon as Kirk, as rumours suggest? No. But then I'm not Matt Damon's biggest fan. Although if they really did get Gary Sinise as Bones, I would forgive them anything. Anyway, neither of those possibilities is at all likely. I'm just glad the franchise isn't quite dead yet.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks interesting. Although I really like the original series, as well as much of TNG, it seems like a fresh start would give them a lot more options. That way they wouldn't have to work around the cruft and inconsistencies that have accumulated in the Star Trek universe over the past 40 years.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes rebooting a franchise isn't a bad idea.
See: Batman Begins
And sometimes it -is- a bad idea.
See: The Mark Waid/Barry Kitson Legion of Smug, Smarmy Teen Brats Who Pretend to be Super-Heroes run. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so last night, after seeing this, I spent about two hours wandering my house (I'm home alone) ranting about all the possible permutations of an un-reimagined Star Trek prequal. I've been watching rather a lot of TOS recently so I've got ST on the brain.
I think that if they feel the need to 'reimagine' they are NOT using their imaginations, because the amount of perfectly good material that exists is tremendous, funny, action packed and even relavent to today if treated in the correct light and era.
I worry most that they do not know what the "look" (that they want to retain) of the universe is, because I think (read: IMO) I know sure as heck how to update ST and keep it clearly ST.
ps. I have a great idea for a ST prequal show; all I ask is they be so bad that they do not negate any future plots . Or they could surprise as all and be good, but I'm not terribly hopeful.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think "reimagining" with the goal of appealing to a new audience would work all that well, simply because...it's Star Trek. It's still going to have the Star Trek name. The last non-Enterprise Trek ended not too long ago. People still know what Star Trek is.
In other words, it's not like Battlestar Galactica, where a significant period of time had passed. So worst-case, I can see this alienating loyal fans while at the same time failing to attract new ones because people will be all, "Star Trek? Psh. I never liked Star Trek."
"First"? They've been discussing Star Trek "reboots" (both hard and soft) at least since the late 90s.
I lost all faith in JMS after he had Gwen Stacy have sex with the Green Goblin, then made Reed Richards into the cause of the Big Bang. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pfft. At least since the late 80s that I personally recollect. And really for longer than that -- STTMP was the end result of all kinds of "reboot" scenarios.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Pfft. At least since the late 80s that I personally recollect. And really for longer than that -- STTMP was the end result of all kinds of "reboot" scenarios.
I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a revamped version of the scrapped pilot for the Star Trek: Phase Two TV series?
That series didn't intend to clear away the original series continuity, it intended to pick up the character's lives "later". Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering only the barest skeleton of details has been released about the Abrams Reboot, I think it's premature to say it'll be better or worse than the JMS version.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Wow, I really like JMS's idea. Sounds like it would really bring back the spirit of the the classic Trek. Too bad it'll never get made Posts: 120 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a revamped version of the scrapped pilot for the Star Trek: Phase Two TV series?
That series didn't intend to clear away the original series continuity, it intended to pick up the character's lives "later".
IIRC (and it has been quite some time since the con(s) at which I heard this, so I may not), there were some pretty significant character changes that were planned as well. It wasn't just "later"; it was "later, and remember a bunch of stuff you knew about the characters? We changed it."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whose personalities changed from TOS to TMP? I never noticed any changes (but I was never a big TOS fan).
My opinion is that if Star Trek is ever to be successfully revived, they need to let the ground lie fallow for a while. A long while.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was unclear. It was the (scrapped) Phase Two that was meant to have all those changes, character changes (and introducing several new characters) among them. Almost none of the projected changes survived the transition of the planned second TV show becoming a movie -- those dreadful uniforms were among the few things that did.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to have a "Best of Trek" book that had the plot breakdowns for the never-filmed 12 "Phase Two" episodes, as well as the character descriptions. I don't recall anything particularly contradictory to the original ST canon...though there was quite a bit of "fanon" contradicted.
I could be wrong, though. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I was hearing someone's (a producer? I forget) recollections of something that was a decade past when I heard it. And it's been quite some time since then.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I remember of Star Trek Phase 2 was that the idea was to introduce new cast members to replace the original members, particularly Kirk and Spock, whose actors wanted a whole lotta money for a new series. I had a book of episode ideas/plots and many of them ended up being TNG episodes. I got that feeling that Phase 2 was the basis for TNG.
The other aspect is that Nimoy was not in good graces with Paramount because of the lawsuit he filed and won because they used his likeness without permission or royalties for that german beer ad. The feeling was to get rid of Spock, either in the movies or tv show, and replace him. And Paramount believed Nimoy didn't want to keep playing spock as well. That book he wrote probably didn't help any either.
IF anything, Star Trek was reimagined starting with TWOK. Roddenbury never wanted starfleet to be a military organization, or the shows to be primarily about space battles and/or war. The franchise was reimagined starting with the second movie, putting more of a militaristic spin on the franchise, basing starfleet on the navy, etc and doing more action and ship battles than Roddenbury wanted. And Gene was pushed out of the way somewhat when it came to stories. I've read repeatedly about the stories Gene wanted to do like time traveling to witness the Kennedy Assasination, stories about Jesus being a space alien/probe, etc. All that never saw the light of day or serious consideration because paramount took the franchise in a different direction. And you could argue that the successful movies after TMP were a difinite reimagining of the franchise, although they kept the actors and the dynamics, the basis for the fandom in the first place.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: What I remember of Star Trek Phase 2 was that the idea was to introduce new cast members to replace the original members, particularly Kirk
?
Kirk was going to be the major focus of "Phase II". Shatner had no objections to being in that show. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It surprises me that in this Star Trek thread, everyone is screming that there is no room in the ST universe for originality. I remember frothing at the mouth in rage when I first heard about Deep Space Nine. I'm glad I got over myself.
Abrahms, I doubt will go overboard with action in a Star Trek movie, though it will certainly exist. I mean look at Lost.
Roddenbury fostered alot of alternative thinking in the trekverse, I don't think we make the series better by insisting Abrahms follow the traditions of others.
Many folks like the Star Wars novels, if those are not a reimagination of the movies, I don't know what is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Reimagining" Star Trek sounds like an excellent plan to generate the largest, angriest fan outcry in all of modern human history. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that reimagining the universe is a good idea, but I agree with Jon Boy that this field needs to lay fallow for a good while first.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who exactly is screaming that there's no room for originality in the Star Trek universe? I think it's just the opposite problem: Paramount has sucked Star Trek's well of creativity dry.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Or they could surprise as all and be good, but I'm not terribly hopeful.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
