Star Trek (next) JJ.A signs on, plot?

[Centurion Draco]

Seems like this project is coming together now...
What would you like to see as a plot?
Familiar themes and adversaries or something 'new'?

[Senmut]

How about...nothing?

[Centurion Draco]

How about...nothing?

Really?
With the almost complete lack of sci-fi on the cinema horizon, you don't even want to give this a chance?

[Gemini1999]

If they are going to do another film, having more of a plot than the last one would be a good idea...the storytelling aspect in the 2009 film was on the thin side. It was more like an action/adventure film in a Sci Fi setting.

I could go on for days about this...

[Dawg]

I thought Star Trek was a good introduction to this alternate ST Universe. It was a lot of bright lights and action - but that's what sold the original story and helped capture the attention at first, which opens the door to more substantial and intricate story lines.

I'm very happy a second movie is going forward, and I'm very happy Abrams is helming this one, too.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[BST]

I, too, am happy that this is going forward as opposed to having nothing at all. Having been a Trek fan since 1971 and watched each series, except Enterprise, multiple times, I can tell you that the "old" universe is pretty well-worn. But, you know that.

Although, I'm still a bit on the fence with this re-boot, I'm willing to give it an opportunity to spread its wings and try to fly. Hell, with Science Fiction, there can usually be a plausible explanation for just about anything. This is simply an alternate timeline and does nothing to violate the more familiar timeline.

Plus, it gives us some good science fiction to watch. What could be wrong with that?

[Centurion Draco]

I agree that the first movie was lacking in several areas. But it was a good introduction for the new cast and did have some good points too.
I liked it.
And its good for sci-fi!
I heard somewhere that it made more at the box-office than the last 4 (or was it 5?) Trek movies put together!
If this next one does as well, perhaps the studios will look at other franchises?

Personally, I'd like to see the Klingons given a make-over for this installment.
Make them darker and meaner. Almost like the Predators.

[Dawg]

Well, the re-boot started with the question "what if something happened to change the timeline", which is one of the most often-recurring themes of Star Trek since Day One. "The City on the Edge of Forever" is a prime example of how they explored that theme, as well as "Yesterday's Enterprise."

There are a lot of ways they could go for the next movie. I think a re-introduction of the Klingons is pretty likely, in fact. I wouldn't mind that.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Senmut]

If they are going to do another film, having more of a plot than the last one would be a good idea...the storytelling aspect in the 2009 film was on the thin side. It was more like an action/adventure film in a Sci Fi setting.

I could go on for days about this...


Yeah. A plot would have been nice. Leonard Nimoy's excellent performance notwithstanding, did anyone actually watch the original series?

[BST]

Yeah. A plot would have been nice. Leonard Nimoy's excellent performance notwithstanding, did anyone actually watch the original series?

Yes, Sen. Multiple times, on the order of 10-15 times per episode, or more. I didn't keep a strict accounting.

What's your point?

[martok2112]

Well, the re-boot started with the question "what if something happened to change the timeline", which is one of the most often-recurring themes of Star Trek since Day One. "The City on the Edge of Forever" is a prime example of how they explored that theme, as well as "Yesterday's Enterprise."

There are a lot of ways they could go for the next movie. I think a re-introduction of the Klingons is pretty likely, in fact. I wouldn't mind that.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

We would've gotten a wee bit of an introduction if the Klingon scenes had not been cut from the movie.

[martok2112]

Quite honestly, Star Trek '09 is the Trek movie I've waited my whole life for. Good story, lots of action, the Enterprise kicking tail.....

If the second movie is more of the same, then more power to it....although I would love to see a somewhat meatier tale, I'll still go if it ends up being another action fest. Much as I loved Star Trek the Motion Picture (even on the big screen), that's not what I want to see for the next film.

[martok2112]

I agree that the first movie was lacking in several areas. But it was a good introduction for the new cast and did have some good points too.
I liked it.
And its good for sci-fi!
I heard somewhere that it made more at the box-office than the last 4 (or was it 5?) Trek movies put together!
If this next one does as well, perhaps the studios will look at other franchises?

Personally, I'd like to see the Klingons given a make-over for this installment.
Make them darker and meaner. Almost like the Predators.


Star Trek '09 is the highest grossing Trek movie of all time. I think it pulled in around $400 million plus at the box office.

[gmd3d]

For me Star Trek 9 was the worst of the lot.

1. for me the story was weak.
2. Casting was the only good thing (save for Simon Pegg as Mr Scott. as much as I like Mr Peggs other work)
3. Good action (yes) but for me and I think others, Star Trek was about more than that.
4. Cadet to Captain in one mission is god awful story telling.

My personal opinion is that it grossed so much based on a number of things.
Original fans having a look see. (and going away disappointed. ie me)
Modern audiences look for smash and bang movies now and not content.
I think I got my action trek in TWOK and UDC. Steve :)

Personally I have given up on it and have my DVD collection to sustain me now lol

Oh again I hate the Enterprise design in it.... seen better fan made designs out there.

Salute

[Gemini1999]

For me Star Trek 9 was the worst of the lot.

1. for me the story was weak.
2. Casting was the only good thing (save for Simon Pegg as Mr Scott. as much as I like Mr Peggs other work)
3. Good action (yes) but for me and I think others, Star Trek was about more than that.
4. Cadet to Captain in one mission is god awful story telling.

My personal opinion is that it grossed so much based on a number of things.
Original fans having a look see. (and going away disappointed. ie me)
Modern audiences look for smash and bang movies now and not content.
I think I got my action trek in TWOK and UDC. Steve :)

Personally I have given up on it and have my DVD collection to sustain me now lol

Oh again I hate the Enterprise design in it.... seen better fan made designs out there.

Taranis -

That's a pretty good summation and I agree, but I did include the DVD (at a greatly reduced price) to my Trek movie DVD set. I have watched it once or twice, but there's just something missing from it that makes it truly compelling for me to watch on an annual basis. I can watch films like TMP or TWOK year after year, but never tire of them. It's not the actors, mostly the production design and the thin storytelling.

Oh well, it is what it is.

Bryan

[martok2112]

I do not mean to disparage....and forgive me if it sounds as if I am....but, the folks who did not like the new Trek are in the vocal minority apparently.

The new Trek is likely going to continue as it did for the first film, although admittedly, I hope with a somewhat meatier story.


However, in the end, Star Trek is many things to many different people.

For some, it is Roddenberry dogmatism, which, I hate to say, I've found rather hypocriticial.

For others, despite Roddenberry's POV, it it still something worthy of some profundity and headiness.

For still others, it is an action tale with hot babes and one apparently well-endowed paramour for these babes that we all wish we were.

For me, Star Trek resembles everything, from heady stories, to all out action flicks, to starship porn, to beautiful babes in the sack with the Captain (myself wishing I were said captain) LOL!

I cannot subscribe to the "one truth" about Star Trek, because there is no "one truth". As I've said, Star Trek is many things to many people. For some, it is a multitude of things...for others, it is a singular matter. But regardless...Trek is Trek, as is Battlestar is Battlestar.

I only get fanboyish when it comes to covering up Wonder Woman or Lara Croft....otherwise, let things go as they may. :)

[gmd3d]

Lol
I agree with the point your making Star Trek does mean different things to different people and I like action and story and character development.
:salute:
and I completely respect your POV totally.:salute::salute:

I don´t mind been in the minority at all, been in that group all my life.:rotf:

I think what gets in my claw is that for all the fine actors in the new franchise and new universe etc .. the story was the biggest let down for me and could have been
handled a lot better . :thumbdown

in fact I know that you Steve could have come up with a story far better than what was done founded in more believability and superior story arch. :salute::salute:

The cast was very well cast.
I had no problem with Chris Pine as Kirk who did a great job in playing Kirk and brought his own angle to a character played by Shatner for 45 year or so. Zachary Quinto as Spock. Karl Urban as McCoy also top performances as for the other leads where also nicely done. :thumbsup:
(you know what I think of Simon Pegg as Scotty.... as fine an actor as Pegg is):wtf:

I never to look at the real lives of people ie actors, producers, like Roddenberry as these people are real (as you know) have foibles and character flaws like the rest of us and was disappointed when I start to reading about them in biography's etc.
I know think that the less we know about these big or small screen people the better we suspend our belief and enjoy the feature. :/:

In fact if I see a magazine with a cover of an actor I like in a tabloid type magazine, it thrown under the nearest bundle of papers or press as i don´t what to see it.:D

except magazines about the show or film itself :D

[Gemini1999]

I do not mean to disparage....and forgive me if it sounds as if I am....but, the folks who did not like the new Trek are in the vocal minority apparently.

The new Trek is likely going to continue as it did for the first film, although admittedly, I hope with a somewhat meatier story.

However, in the end, Star Trek is many things to many different people.

For some, it is Roddenberry dogmatism, which, I hate to say, I've found rather hypocriticial.

For others, despite Roddenberry's POV, it it still something worthy of some profundity and headiness.

For still others, it is an action tale with hot babes and one apparently well-endowed paramour for these babes that we all wish we were.

For me, Star Trek resembles everything, from heady stories, to all out action flicks, to starship porn, to beautiful babes in the sack with the Captain (myself wishing I were said captain) LOL!

I cannot subscribe to the "one truth" about Star Trek, because there is no "one truth". As I've said, Star Trek is many things to many people. For some, it is a multitude of things...for others, it is a singular matter. But regardless...Trek is Trek, as is Battlestar is Battlestar.

I only get fanboyish when it comes to covering up Wonder Woman or Lara Croft....otherwise, let things go as they may. :)

Steve -

Pardon me a bit, but some of the comments you've made feel just a bit on the edge of being a bit disparaging. It's one thing to comment on the film, what you like, what you don't and why, but the discussion surrounding the 2009 film seems to mirror the same kind of conversation back in 2003+ over the remake version of BSG. I'm not trying to drag that up again, but the big problem back then was that the discussion always turned personal. The discussion started out well enought, but then it got rather pointed when discussing those that liked it and those that didn't The comments always alluded to either side's viewpoint as being part of an inherent character flaw (i.e. "fans that like it are....." or "folks that don't like it are...")

Whenever someone says that they don't like the 2009 film, even when they elaborate what they did or didn't like about it, there's always someone bringing up how much money it made, what's wrong with the Trek fans that didn't like it and so on. Those comments seem to be made in an effort to dismiss or deflect the comments posted by those that didn't enjoy it.

In the end, it really is about individual likes and dislikes. Most, if not all of us are of an age where there's room for all opinions. It doesn't have to be characterized as being "dogmatic" or "hypocritical". If you can accept the axiom that Trek means many things to many people, then you should be able to accept that not all Trek fans share the same viewpoint, or that their viewpoint is not irrelevant because you view it as a vocal minority. Why does it matter how many people like or dislike it?

I've seen quite a few discussions on the 2009 film take place on multiple message boards. On one board, every time the discussion comes up, it always results in the thread being locked because it takes a personal turn. People are just not going to agree on this, but that doesn't mean that people that enjoy the film are sycophants or miscreants because they feel how they feel. It's just a difference of opinion and as simple as that.

The days of "my Trek beats your Trek" is something that all of us should be well past at our stage of life, be it fanboyish or not.

Bryan

[martok2112]

Steve -

Pardon me a bit, but some of the comments you've made feel just a bit on the edge of being a bit disparaging. It's one thing to comment on the film, what you like, what you don't and why, but the discussion surrounding the 2009 film seems to mirror the same kind of conversation back in 2003+ over the remake version of BSG. I'm not trying to drag that up again, but the big problem back then was that the discussion always turned personal. The discussion started out well enought, but then it got rather pointed when discussing those that liked it and those that didn't The comments always alluded to either side's viewpoint as being part of an inherent character flaw (i.e. "fans that like it are....." or "folks that don't like it are...")

Whenever someone says that they don't like the 2009 film, even when they elaborate what they did or didn't like about it, there's always someone bringing up how much money it made, what's wrong with the Trek fans that didn't like it and so on. Those comments seem to be made in an effort to dismiss or deflect the comments posted by those that didn't enjoy it.

In the end, it really is about individual likes and dislikes. Most, if not all of us are of an age where there's room for all opinions. It doesn't have to be characterized as being "dogmatic" or "hypocritical". If you can accept the axiom that Trek means many things to many people, then you should be able to accept that not all Trek fans share the same viewpoint, or that their viewpoint is not irrelevant because you view it as a vocal minority. Why does it matter how many people like or dislike it?

I've seen quite a few discussions on the 2009 film take place on multiple message boards. On one board, every time the discussion comes up, it always results in the thread being locked because it takes a personal turn. People are just not going to agree on this, but that doesn't mean that people that enjoy the film are sycophants or miscreants because they feel how they feel. It's just a difference of opinion and as simple as that.



Well told. I don't think I said anything disparaging, but if you perceived it as such, I do indeed apologize for that. :)

Believe me, I hate it when thread discussions of something like this get personal. I hated it with Battlestar...and I hate it with any franchise that may have a fractured fanbase.

I don't marginalize someone's opinion of a movie if they are in the vocal minority. I might point out that those who did not like it are in the vocal minority, but I don't feel that their opinion doesn't count. However, it is to say that it is not enough to stop the next film. Indeed, the film's financial success, not to mention the fact that it emboldened many old fans, as well as brought in tons of new ones, would appear to have guaranteed two more movies.

Yes, sometimes even I mention the film's financial success....however I prefer to focus more on what I said in the last paragraph about how the new film bolstered old fans, and brought in many new ones. Star Trek has been revitalized, in my humble opinion. Star Trek is relevant again. It was well on the downward slide with the tired Next Generation movies...with Nemesis (my favorite of the four TNG movies) being darn near the death blow for Star Trek, period.

Here's how I kinda view some folks dislike of the new film:

Star Trek The Motion Picture. It was a financial success, but it was critically panned, and lots of fans really didn't like it. Like the new film with its emotionally charged opening, folks felt that the best part of the movie were the first few minutes, with the Klingon battle. After that, the movie started going downhill. They felt that the characters were pale shadows of their TV selves.....wooden, humorless (I personally did not see that...I still felt they were spot on :) ), and that the story dragged a lot...especially with overdrawn visual effects sequences during the V'ger fly through. The movie became boring for them.

With Star Trek 2009, it had its emotionally charged opening sequence, which many felt were the best ten minutes of the movie, but then it started going in the opposite direction with characters that seemed more like caricatures of their Original Series counterparts, and with wayyyyy too much action and whiz-bang factor. (Frankly, one thing that does irk me--and yes, this may indeed sound disparaging-- is how some folks seem to associate some "intelligence level" with phweeeeee phweeeee phasers vs. pew pew blasters. Admittedly, some folks felt there was too much "pew pew" with the phasers in the new Trek film.....that's that whole Star Trek vs. Star Wars crapola. Star Trek is for brainiacs and Star Wars is for the brainless. Total garbage.)

The days of "my Trek beats your Trek" is something that all of us should be well past at our stage of life, be it fanboyish or not.

Bryan

The days of any one version of a franchise being better than another version is something that should be well past us at this stage. Believe me, as much as I know that such things are a general part of fandoms, nothing sickened me more than the felgercarbish fights that resulted from Classic Galactica vs New Galactica. :)

Me, I love all Trek....be it Enterprise, TOS, TNG, the movies, DS9, or the 2009 film. Many different iterations, many different ideals....and yet all of it very much Trek to me. :)

I guess you can say (with a nod to Dork Tower for the inspiration for this) "My fandom is random!" :)

[Senmut]

It was an attempt to cash in and make money off someone else's creation.
And yes. The new ship design sucked gakh.

[martok2112]

Well of course Paramount's gonna cash in. It might be Gene Roddenberry's creation, but it's still Paramount's property.

Yeah, the ship didn't settle well with some old school Trekkers. I personally love the design, but that's me. The shot where she rises above Titan is simply gorgeous.

Looking forward to the next two installments. :)

[Titon]

For me it was one viewing and done. It was flashy but that was about it. I like Trek. Always have and always will but why is hollywood so bent on remaking everything? Can't the original story be told with a refreshing twist on an old story without completely reinveting everything? Take for instace the new "THING" movie coming out. Why would you redo this movie for the 3rd time? Is there not another scifi alien concept that can be put to screen over this?

Hollywood is dieing a slow death. They spend billions showing us stuff that's already been seen. Cripes they even remade "FOOTLOOSE"!

Instead of Trek let's have something new and cutting edge for once with a freakin story so your not bored half way through.

[gmd3d]

Hollywood is dieing a slow death. They spend billions showing us stuff that's already been seen. Cripes they even remade "FOOTLOOSE"!

Instead of Trek let's have something new and cutting edge for once with a freakin story so your not bored half way through.

yeah that would be my take too.....

[martok2112]

For that, we once had StarGate SG-1 and Atlantis....alas, they are no more. :)
I don't think it's so much the problem with Hollywood.....it's the problem with younger generations.

I offer the following food for think.... Younger generations probably would look on older movies as hokey, unsophisticated, etc. But when the movies get remade for these younger generations, an interest in the original version gets cropped up....and then they sometimes look at the original version in a more favorable light.

I'd never even seen True Grit until the Cohen Bros' version with Jeff Bridges got released on Blu-Ray. However, I had bought both versions (John Wayne and Jeff Bridges) on Blu-ray, and I chose to watch the original first. I was blown away. And then seeing the Bridges version, I loved it too. I thought he did great respect to the Duke's original version by not trying to ape Wayne's original iconic take. However, when he utters that famous line "Fill yer' hand you son of a b----!", I coulda sworn I heard just an edge of Wayne in it. :)

It's the same thing with Star Trek. This new movie comes out....folks eat it up, and now they have an interest in a show they'd never even considered watching before.

Sometimes remakes do favors for the originals. :)
But that's my two cubits.

[gmd3d]

For that, we once had StarGate SG-1 and Atlantis....alas, they are no more. :)
I don't think it's so much the problem with Hollywood.....it's the problem with younger generations.


Enjoyed Stargate SG1 never care much for Atlantis.

I think its a bit of both Hollywood and younger viewers and Hollywood catering to that, expected as its a business.

But on creative levels its run by accountants more than film makers as in the heyday of Hollywood.

there are a few with vision I suppose.

perhaps I am just tired of the same modern formula that is now rampant in Hollywood film making and that goes for TV too.

I would say that is why I no longer watch them.

But that is me and I respect your views Steve. :salute: and I agree with aspect of your views.

ie. Younger generations probably would look on older movies as hokey, unsophisticated, etc.

agreed they do and it looks as if it the visual eye candy that wins out and the story telling looks at times to be lacking and therefor the film or TV shows are rapidly forgettable at least by me.

I mean there are many sites that talk about this and there is never a resolve nor do I think we can have one.

I love classic films for all the hokeyness lol. because.
1. I think the acting is great as are the actors in them,
2. The camera is lock on to the actors and does not get involved in the performance
3. The story telling is usually superior as is the direction.

again just my views on it.

[martok2112]

Enjoyed Stargate SG1 never care much for Atlantis.

I think its a bit of both Hollywood and younger viewers and Hollywood catering to that, expected as its a business.

But on creative levels its run by accountants more than film makers as in the heyday of Hollywood.

there are a few with vision I suppose.

perhaps I am just tired of the same modern formula that is now rampant in Hollywood film making and that goes for TV too.

I would say that is why I no longer watch them.

But that is me and I respect your views Steve. :salute: and I agree with aspect of your views.

ie. Younger generations probably would look on older movies as hokey, unsophisticated, etc.

agreed they do and it looks as if it the visual eye candy that wins out and the story telling looks at times to be lacking and therefor the film or TV shows are rapidly forgettable at least by me.

I mean there are many sites that talk about this and there is never a resolve nor do I think we can have one.

I love classic films for all the hokeyness lol. because.
1. I think the acting is great as are the actors in them,
2. The camera is lock on to the actors and does not get involved in the performance
3. The story telling is usually superior as is the direction.

again just my views on it.

And of course, I respect yours, and everyone else's views on this particular matter.

Believe me, I rarely have problems with original versions of a lot of movies and shows. And yes, there are some remakes that I felt absolutely did not need to be made.

But I do like some that have been made because they are pretty intelligently written, and some actually try to do homage and respect to the original material. (That's why I loved both versions of True Grit.) :)

Of course, I'm all about dynamic cinematography too....I'm one of the ones that doesn't mind the "shakey cam" effect for certain types of movies.

[Centurion Draco]

Star Trek '09 is the highest grossing Trek movie of all time. I think it pulled in around $400 million plus at the box office.

Which has to be good news, not only for Trek but also for the whole genre.

I don't think it was the best ST movie, but it's surely a good one.
I certainly wouldn't be happy if they decided not to make a sequel!!

TBH sci-fi (tv and movie) has just been a letdown in recent years.
Series I've really liked get cancelled long before their time, re-boots I actually want to see seem to be frozen in the pre-production stage, and stuff that does get made often sucks.....
We all know the story !:rolleyes:

In short it's about time something went right!
A good start to the Trek reboot followed by a total EPIC!!! ;)

.....will do me just fine! :D

Thanks for the Klingon tip. I hadn't seen the deleted scene!!
Glad they are clearly thinking about it, although I'm kinda glad they didn't go with that version. I want the Klingons to be really dark and mean!

Best
Gene

[Centurion Draco]

For me Star Trek 9 was the worst of the lot.

1. for me the story was weak.
2. Casting was the only good thing (save for Simon Pegg as Mr Scott. as much as I like Mr Peggs other work)
3. Good action (yes) but for me and I think others, Star Trek was about more than that.
4. Cadet to Captain in one mission is god awful story telling.

My personal opinion is that it grossed so much based on a number of things.
Original fans having a look see. (and going away disappointed. ie me)
Modern audiences look for smash and bang movies now and not content.
I think I got my action trek in TWOK and UDC. Steve :)

Personally I have given up on it and have my DVD collection to sustain me now lol

Oh again I hate the Enterprise design in it.... seen better fan made designs out there.

Salute

Worse than 5??

Now come on, that's just crazy talk ;)

I thought that the plot wasn't anything to phone home about, but I think it was kinda hampered by the fact that it needed to do so much!
I really think they made a big effort not to piss off the old fans, to pay homage to the original while introducing the new. To not 'erase' the old, while giving the reboot a life of its own and setting the scene for more to come.

In short I think it was a compromise, but it had to be and I think it could have been a whole lot worse.
Lets face it, WE of all groups of fans know how wrong it could have gone!
So some minor gripes........
Like how completely mis-cast Simon Pegg definately was.... Are still forgivable.

.... As long as the next one is as good as Wrath Of Khan! ;)

Best
Gene

[Centurion Draco]

It was an attempt to cash in and make money off someone else's creation.
And yes. The new ship design sucked gakh.

Of course it was an attempt to make money, it wasn't a fan-film, and as my namesake has been dead these last 2 decades.... I don't see your point Senmut?

What didn't you like about the new enterprise?
Too Ambassador class-ish?
It's not the refit-Enterprise for sure, but what was so wrong with it?

I thought it could have been a bit more 'sharp' but hey! As with everything, it was a compromise candidate.

What would you have wanted, or is it that you are essentially just against messing with the source material at all?

Best
Gene

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Newoldenterprise.jpg

[Darrell Lawrence]

I liked the new movie just fine, story-wise.

The designs I didn't care for though.

This was an alternate timeline, yes. But when did it diverge? Certainly not when the Romulans appeared during Kirk's dad's time, because his ship was more "advanced" than the classic "E".

I'd have LOVED to have seen the classic "E" on the big screen, even just once.

This movie was too bright/shiny on the "E" bridge, etc. That was my main prob with t.

[Apolloisall]

It's not the refit-Enterprise for sure, but what was so wrong with it?


It was okay IMO. Like the refit was okay for me back in the day. But honestly, radical redesign is really unnecessary. Original Enterprise with slight tweaks (think remastered Trek eps) would have worked fine for TMP.
But then, I also think that the design of Galactica in the new series absolutely sucked.

Iconic stuff needs more than a designer's nod.

[martok2112]

I liked the new movie just fine, story-wise.

The designs I didn't care for though.

This was an alternate timeline, yes. But when did it diverge? Certainly not when the Romulans appeared during Kirk's dad's time, because his ship was more "advanced" than the classic "E".

I'd have LOVED to have seen the classic "E" on the big screen, even just once.

This movie was too bright/shiny on the "E" bridge, etc. That was my main prob with t.


Haha....some folk thought the bridge was designed by Apple. :D

[Gemini1999]

Haha....some folk thought the bridge was designed by Apple. :D

It had the look of an iPod store, that ship did. ;)

[martok2112]

It had the look of an iPod store, that ship did. ;)

Hope it has some great apps. :D

[gmd3d]

Worse than 5??

Now come on, that's just crazy talk ;)



Best
Gene

I liked 5.......... :D:D:rotf::colada::colada::colada:

[gmd3d]

The thing I dislike about the design.

The secondary hull design.
The Warp Engine nacelles.
It look like its lost all its gracefulness.

its just ugly or fugly as one of my friends call it. who has modeled the classic Enterprise many time in Truespace.

It possibly my biggest dislike at the end of the day

[BST]

I liked the new movie just fine, story-wise.

The designs I didn't care for though.

This was an alternate timeline, yes. But when did it diverge? Certainly not when the Romulans appeared during Kirk's dad's time, because his ship was more "advanced" than the classic "E".

I'd have LOVED to have seen the classic "E" on the big screen, even just once.

This movie was too bright/shiny on the "E" bridge, etc. That was my main prob with t.

The timeline divergence began with Vulcan's destruction. Prior to that, Nero and Spock had travelled back in time, from the future so that Nero could exact revenge on Ambassador Spock, for his apparent miscalculations regarding the supernova/black hole, which led to the destruction of Romulus. The film didn't state precisely when their actual appearances took place but, that was all preliminary. All essentially remained the same until Vulcan's destruction.

The following paragraph, from Wikipedia, summarizes it nicely:


As Nero tortures Pike to gain access to Earth's perimeter defenses, Kirk is stranded on Delta Vega after arguing against Spock's orders. Kirk encounters Ambassador Spock, who explains that he and Nero are from the future. The galaxy is threatened by a volatile supernova 129 years into the future. Spock intended to use the "red matter" to create a black hole to stop the supernova, but failed to stop the supernova's blast from destroying the planet Romulus, killing Nero's wife and family. The Narada attacked Spock's vessel, and both were caught in the event horizon of the black hole, sending them back in time. Nero captured Spock and stranded him on Delta Vega to watch Vulcan's destruction.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)

[Dawg]

The timeline divergence began with Vulcan's destruction. Prior to that, Nero and Spock had travelled back in time, from the future so that Nero could exact revenge on Ambassador Spock, for his apparent miscalculations regarding the supernova/black hole, which led to the destruction of Romulus. The film didn't state precisely when their actual appearances took place but, that was all preliminary. All essentially remained the same until Vulcan's destruction.

The following paragraph, from Wikipedia, summarizes it nicely:


As Nero tortures Pike to gain access to Earth's perimeter defenses, Kirk is stranded on Delta Vega after arguing against Spock's orders. Kirk encounters Ambassador Spock, who explains that he and Nero are from the future. The galaxy is threatened by a volatile supernova 129 years into the future. Spock intended to use the "red matter" to create a black hole to stop the supernova, but failed to stop the supernova's blast from destroying the planet Romulus, killing Nero's wife and family. The Narada attacked Spock's vessel, and both were caught in the event horizon of the black hole, sending them back in time. Nero captured Spock and stranded him on Delta Vega to watch Vulcan's destruction.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)

No - the timeline diverges as Nero emerged from the singularity for the first time and destroyed the Kelvin and George Kirk. Then he went into hiding until Spock emerged, 20-some years later. Vulcan isn't destroyed until the end of the movie.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Gemini1999]

No - the timeline diverges as Nero emerged from the singularity for the first time and destroyed the Kelvin and George Kirk. Then he went into hiding until Spock emerged, 20-some years later. Vulcan isn't destroyed until the end of the movie.

John -

That's when Kirk's timeline changed because he grew up without his father, but as for the other changes (the ship, uniforms, and just about everything else) that event couldn't change that much. You also have to consider that how things looked in George Kirk's day, were pretty different as to how they should have appeared in the original Trek universe. I think that this is one of the things that bothers me a lot about the story in this film. If you scrutinize it, even just a little bit, it all falls apart. I know that in the end, it's just a story that someone banged out on a keyboard, but it's not the best that they could've come up with. There are so many plot holes in it, it's like swiss cheese with characters and a starship in it.

If I'm honest, if they really wanted to do something new and interesting with Trek, they could have stuck with the exploits of George Kirk in his era (obviously without him getting killed) and started a whole other Trek film franchise with new and original stories instead of trying to re-tread the original to cater to an iPod generation.

Bryan

[BST]

Well, yeah, considering that it was Nero who destroyed the Kelvin, I would agree that that event would have been the starting point. I was thinking that the Kelvin was lost, in either timeline so, this particular event didn't really have a significant effect on the original timeline, based on the information that we have to work with.

[BST]

Bryan,

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment about the style and appearance of equipment and other things on the ship. That's part of the problem that I had with Enterprise as well -- it looked more modern than the original TOS Enterprise. In the case of the new movie, it was supposed to be of the same timeframe as TOS and the ship still had the feel of being more modern. Plus, I hated all the white background, white lights, etc. Incredibly too antiseptic for my taste.

[martok2112]

Admittedly, even though the classic Enterprise bridge looked GREAT on the small screen when resurrected for episodes like "Relics" in TNG, or "Through a Mirror Darkly" (the awesome two-part Star Trek Enterprise episode), I doubt it would've looked all that great on the big screen.

As for the Enterprise herself, even if she were to maintain her original look, they would've still had to add some kind of extra hull detailing to it, just so it would look believable on the big screen. That's why they gave her the "refit" look for The Motion Picture (even though the refit was intended for the ill-fated "Star Trek Phase II" TV project). But even if she retained her generally original TV series look, someone would've complained about the "extra hull detailing" or whatever other cosmetic changes occurred, ignorant of the fact that the makers HAD to do something to make the original E look acceptable on the big screen.

There are some folks who bemoan even the Motion Picture refit Enterprise, favoring the original TV series version.

[BST]

Admittedly, even though the classic Enterprise bridge looked GREAT on the small screen when resurrected for episodes like "Relics" in TNG, or "Through a Mirror Darkly" (the awesome two-part Star Trek Enterprise episode), I doubt it would've looked all that great on the big screen.

:eek:

Sacrilege, blasphemous sacrilege!!

[Apolloisall]

There are some folks who bemoan even the Motion Picture refit Enterprise, favoring the original TV series version.

I do not bemoan, I merely regret that the Enterprise was not simply 'dressed up' instead of fully refit.
That said, I DO like the refit. A lot.
I even like the JJPrise. Pretty much. Mostly.

But original E is still the best!:thumbsup:

[Darrell Lawrence]

Admittedly, even though the classic Enterprise bridge looked GREAT on the small screen when resurrected for episodes like "Relics" in TNG, or "Through a Mirror Darkly" (the awesome two-part Star Trek Enterprise episode), I doubt it would've looked all that great on the big screen.

You ever seen it on a huge flat screen TV? It looks great ;) Looking at it on a theater screen wouldn't be much different, given how far from the screen you sit.

[Apolloisall]

You ever seen it on a huge flat screen TV? It looks great ;) Looking at it on a theater screen wouldn't be much different, given how far from the screen you sit.
I saw "The Menagerie" on as big screen at a convention once- it was AWESOME.

[Gemini1999]

There are some folks who bemoan even the Motion Picture refit Enterprise, favoring the original TV series version.

Steve -

Although the original series Enterprise is indeed the most popular, you'd be surprised to see how many people actually like the Refit version. I remember when I first saw it, I wasn't too happy with the refitted nacelles and support pylons, but it grew on me very quickly. In model building circles, when Polar Lights issued a 1/350 scale version of the model, it was a top seller and got a second issue with additional details added at a higher price. It sold very well indeed. The multi-panel paint scheme along with duplicating the lighting is no easy task. That being said, I've seen people come up with some amazing replications of the filming model that are the envy of any model builder.

That same model company, after a lot of debate and demand from the model building community, is releasing a 1/350 scale version of the Original Series Enterprise next year and people are "lining up" to get it.

In terms of the JJ-Prize, a model was planned, but it never got past the prototype stage. Rumor has it that merchandising for the 2009 film wasn't selling well, so production of a scale model was abandoned. Maybe when the next Trek film comes out, it might get a second chance, but for now, there are no plans to release such a model.

From an artistic view (mine), the 2009 Enterprise is poorly proportioned and not a very elegant design to look at. There really aren't any styling cues from the Original Series E, but there are a lot of connections to the TMP E. I remember Trek fans taking the film design and moving the engines about and elongating the secondary hull so the profile looked a bit more familiar, but you just couldn't get past how it looked.

That doesn't even address how the shuttle bay was configured in the film with the shuttles stacked on each side of the bay - the configuration intimated that the ship was much larger than that of the original series. When you look at the ship profile, size and placement of viewports and the suggested number of decks, the configuration of the bay as shown in the film just didn't work. Contemporary audiences are no longer children like we were back in the 60s and totally blind to scaling issues that came up frequently in genre shows of the day (the Jupiter 2 from Lost in Space...hello?). When you see such glaring production design issues, it's almost like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, or you have a director/producer that just dismisses it completely.

Bryan

[Gemini1999]

I saw "The Menagerie" on as big screen at a convention once- it was AWESOME.

Chris -

I saw "The Menagerie" in a movie theatre a couple of years ago as a one time filmgoing event. I thought that the original series looked pretty good on a large screen. I wasn't bothered how it looked, but considering that it wasn't made for a theatre release, there was a certain amount of consideration being given. I enjoyed it!

Bryan

[Apolloisall]

Contemporary audiences are no longer children like we were back in the 60s and totally blind to scaling issues that came up frequently in genre shows of the day (the Jupiter 2 from Lost in Space...hello?)

What? You mean a lower level AND landing gear wouldn't fit into the J2????
Shirley you jest!
:rotf:

[Apolloisall]

Chris -
I thought that the original series looked pretty good on a large screen.
I enjoyed it!

Bryan, I'll never forget seeing Battlestar Galactica in the theatre (in SENSURROUND, no less) and it was great.

No need to improve on classic looks, says I. They work on any venue.

[BST]

My preference for the TOS Enterprise is much like that of a first love. Although the newer versions of the Enterprise are sleeker and more sophisticated, they just can't hold a candle to how I feel about the original Enterprise. In my eyes, it's the 2nd most beautiful starship that I've ever seen. (If you've paid attention to some of my posts through the years, you'll know which ship is at the top!)

[martok2112]

Alas, I have forgotten my first love, for she was a terrible taste of things to come. In fact, I don't even remember her name. :)

[Senmut]

No, I don't like "messing with source material", as you put it. What I would "have wanted", as you put it, is something that actually looked like it belonged in the Pike/pre-Kirk era, and not someone's "re-imagining" of it.

[gmd3d]

The original Enterprise is my number one favorite ship followed rapidly by the refit. as in my way they are the same craft they are both number one .... followed by the Galactica as my second fav :)

sorry BST the Enterprise was there first :).:D

One of the things I planed on doing with the classic Enterprise I am currently building for a tutorial is to give it a motion picture look.

[Centurion Draco]

No, I don't like "messing with source material", as you put it. What I would "have wanted", as you put it, is something that actually looked like it belonged in the Pike/pre-Kirk era, and not someone's "re-imagining" of it.

LOL, clearly it's something that you quickly get defensive about. But that's OK ;)

Would you rather they'd only catered for a minority of total purist original series fans and it had been a commercial disaster and 'one off'?

The argument that the tech looks too advanced only holds so much water for me.
The hard fact is that no 40+ year old vision of the future is still going to be completely relevant and believeable now.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE ALL LOVED IT 40 YEARS AGO!

I grew up watching the original series and everything was redesigned for the 'motion picture' just over a decade later so where do you draw the line?

For me the re-evaluation of the technology for ST-TMP was perfect. The re-fit Enterprise was perfect. It was all 'goldilocks' to me.

You have to be a realist about this. They clearly tried to please the old fans.
They could have just flipped us the finger and started again.... (well we all know how that can pan out don't we?)

But they needed to make a movie that would be a commercial success.
So they needed a new audience as well.

I guess you'll be sticking to your guns (phasers) on this issue and you won't be watching the next movie?

[Centurion Draco]

Bryan, I'll never forget seeing Battlestar Galactica in the theatre (in SENSURROUND, no less) and it was great.

No need to improve on classic looks, says I. They work on any venue.


I can't match 'SENSURROUND' but I saw BOTH BSG movies at the cinema in Teignmouth, which (allegedly) had the largest screen in Europe!

[gmd3d]

Steve -

From an artistic view (mine), the 2009 Enterprise is poorly proportioned and not a very elegant design to look at. There really aren't any styling cues from the Original Series E, but there are a lot of connections to the TMP E. I remember Trek fans taking the film design and moving the engines about and elongating the secondary hull so the profile looked a bit more familiar, but you just couldn't get past how it looked.

Bryan

I agree with your observations here especially the proportions.

[Centurion Draco]

The thing I dislike about the design.

The secondary hull design.
The Warp Engine nacelles.
It look like its lost all its gracefulness.

its just ugly or fugly as one of my friends call it. who has modeled the classic Enterprise many time in Truespace.

It possibly my biggest dislike at the end of the day

It's difficult I agree.
The Enterprise is such an iconic shape.
I don't think the new design is perfect. I personally would have favoured a more angular look.... But I am in the re-fit/A were perfect camp.

Fugly? Thats a bit mean.
Enterprise D! Now that's Fugly! (only saved by the hillarious uber-refit that Riker captains in 'all good things')

I'd rate the new one as 'OK'. Acceptable.
I guess we all are going to have fairly strong feelings about how the Enterprise should look, and how it has looked in its various incarnations.
I loved the original, the re-fit/A, Excelsior-refit class and Ambassador class.

I thought the D was hideous, E was a little better and lets just not mention the NX-01 atrocity :yikes:

So with that in mind.....
I kinda half expected something awful from the new design, and was quite pleased that it was 'ok'.

[gmd3d]

It's difficult I agree.
The Enterprise is such an iconic shape.
I don't think the new design is perfect. I personally would have favoured a more angular look.... But I am in the re-fit/A were perfect camp.

Fugly? Thats a bit mean.
Enterprise D! Now that's Fugly! (only saved by the hillarious uber-refit that Riker captains in 'all good things')

I'd rate the new one as 'OK'. Acceptable.
I guess we all are going to have fairly strong feelings about how the Enterprise should look, and how it has looked in its various incarnations.
I loved the original, the re-fit/A, Excelsior-refit class and Ambassador class.

I thought the D was hideous, E was a little better and lets just not mention the NX-01 atrocity :yikes:

So with that in mind.....
I kinda half expected something awful from the new design, and was quite pleased that it was 'ok'.

:D

Well I say. if you like it, "that cool".

I am also in the "re-fit/A were perfect camp" and due in no small measure to their proportions.

I have seen a number of fan designed ships that could easily take jprise on and I think is a winner due to its close adherence to the original design, in fact there is one that is across between the classic Enterprise and the following refit.

Fugly? Thats a bit mean. I still stick to it and I would take the Enterprise D over the re imagined one.

But then these are only my views on it. :)

[Apolloisall]

Would you rather they'd only catered for a minority of total purist original series fans and it had been a commercial disaster and 'one off'?



Someone recently pointed out to me that the design of the Enterprise in the new movie ONLY matters to absolute die hard fans, and to the the general public, the JJPrise looks just like the one from the TV series AND the movies.
SO... if it really only matters to the fans, why not make US happy- the rest of the moviegoers will take whatever they're given gladly, as long as the movie is exciting & the actors engaging.:cool:

[gmd3d]

Good points Apolloisall

[Senmut]

LOL, clearly it's something that you quickly get defensive about. But that's OK ;)


Possibly because people accuse me of getting defensive about it. I also tend to get a bit frayed about the edges at some of the replies hurled my way over this over the yahrens.



Would you rather they'd only catered for a minority of total purist original series fans and it had been a commercial disaster and 'one off'?

I would have given the fans the benefit of the doubt, and not assumed I somehow know what "should be done"..




The argument that the tech looks too advanced only holds so much water for me.

It's a space ship. It isn't supposed to hold water.





The hard fact is that no 40+ year old vision of the future is still going to be completely relevant and believeable now.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE ALL LOVED IT 40 YEARS AGO!

For you, perhaps.
Does that rational also hold for the social vision encapsulated in the original? Or is it in need of an upgrade too?



I grew up watching the original series and everything was redesigned for the 'motion picture' just over a decade later so where do you draw the line?

For me the re-evaluation of the technology for ST-TMP was perfect. The re-fit Enterprise was perfect. It was all 'goldilocks' to me.


What we saw in ST:TMP and later was SUPPOSED to be later. Re-fits made sense. This has zilch to do with what I was talking about.



You have to be a realist about this. They clearly tried to please the old fans.
They could have just flipped us the finger and started again.... (well we all know how that can pan out don't we?)


I am. That's whay I and alot of others didn't like it.



But they needed to make a movie that would be a commercial success.
So they needed a new audience as well.

I guess you'll be sticking to your guns (phasers) on this issue and you won't be watching the next movie?


They had no faith in the fan base. So, they had to fiddle with it, because we always need something "new". Or rather, they needed something new.
If I must, I'll borrow it from the libraray. Why pay?


Oh yes...I suppose you think that this vesion Spock banging Uhura was part of the needed update?

[martok2112]

And people wonder why I despise fandoms so much sometimes.

I agree with both of your statements, Draco and Senmut.

Draco's statement I agree with is that the vision of the future 40 some years ago is rather outdated. Besides, look at shows like Babylon 5, where the story takes place along the same century as Star Trek TOS....and its technology looks more in line with what we'd probably expect 23rd century tech to look like now. I'm sure in another 40 years, (assuming we're here) that movies and shows that are made to depict a possible 23rd century will depict a technology that looks more in line with what THEY expect far future tech to look like.

Senmut, I agree with your counter point about Trek's social message back then. This falls in line with the notion that the story is the star of the show, not the special effects and props. The messages told back then are just as relevant today as in yesteryear.

Enterprise did it right with their two part "Through a Mirror Darkly" episode. But that's still small screen. I just don't know how believable some of that stuff would look on the big screen....despite others' admonitions for me to watch classic Trek on a 40 inch tv. I happen to own a 47inch Hi-Def 1080p/120hz TV, and yes, it looked good. A movie theater screen is quite a different thing.

[martok2112]

And now for something completely different:

:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA6SQ2EsCY

[gmd3d]

Just commenting on TV or Film/Movies.
(as I have nothing more to add to the present discussion)

I have always felt that Star Trek belonged on TV rather than Movies.

That´s it. :)

[martok2112]

I can agree with you some there, Ger.
While Star Trek (as a franchise) certainly lends itself to a visual epic scale, the stories that must be told for the big screen really must lend themselves to a general audience...not just the hardcore (or even causal) Trek fan. So there has to be a balance struck, and unfortunately, it's just not going to happen.

Also, in between Trek movies, the actors end up 2-5 years older depending on how much time there is between films.

With a TV series, much more detailed story arcs can be told on a weekly basis, and the visuals (especially with today's tech) certainly can give a good big screen film a run for its money. A limited budget, however, means that the epic scope of the story won't quite get the bang for the buck that a big screen tale would....but, it also allows for a more complete telling of such a story.

That said, this is why I think Star Trek Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection would've worked better as television episodes than big screen attempts. For starters, they look like overblown episodes.

And the space battles, definitely television quality. Too much "they're firing on us" and not enough actually seeing it happen. With First Contact, it was like:

"Okay, we're listening to the battle."
"Okay, let's put the battle on screen."
"Okay, let's keep it short, because this is where our budget went."
"Okay, we've blown our budget, now let's get on to the rest of the episo---er, I mean movie."

Insurrection's space battles were done EXACTLY like a TV episode.
"They're firing on us"
ship shakes, and people are thrown about.

"They're firing on us again"
more of the same

"Return fire"
OMG, was that actually a visual effect?!

"Fire again"
Ummm...ok....we fired.

Nemesis, for all the flak it received, got it right. Now THAT was a space battle! :)

Back on your point though, Ger. Yes, I can agree that Star Trek better lends itself to television episodes....both singular and arc driven.

[martok2112]

They had no faith in the fan base. So, they had to fiddle with it, because we always need something "new". Or rather, they needed something new.





The fan base was fractured after Nemesis. Not much of a fan base left to have faith in. So indeed something new was going to have to be tried....and it paid off in spades.

New movie comes out, rocks just about everyone from old school Trek fans to newly reigned in fans. (I say "just about everyone" because obviously there are a few that didn't dig it. End result though: Fan base restored.

[gmd3d]

I can agree with you some there, Ger.
While Star Trek (as a franchise) certainly lends itself to a visual epic scale, the stories that must be told for the big screen really must lend themselves to a general audience...not just the hardcore (or even causal) Trek fan. So there has to be a balance struck, and unfortunately, it's just not going to happen.

Also, in between Trek movies, the actors end up 2-5 years older depending on how much time there is between films.

With a TV series, much more detailed story arcs can be told on a weekly basis, and the visuals (especially with today's tech) certainly can give a good big screen film a run for its money. A limited budget, however, means that the epic scope of the story won't quite get the bang for the buck that a big screen tale would....but, it also allows for a more complete telling of such a story.


Back on your point though, Ger. Yes, I can agree that Star Trek better lends itself to television episodes....both singular and arc driven.

Valid points Steve and its how I see it at the moment.

[BST]

Through my travels, I've seen source material butchered to hell and I've seen source material respected. In neither case, however, did I consider that source material "hallowed ground".

When I joined the online discussion groups nearly 10 years ago, I chose a handle which has since been shortened to "BST". The full handle was "BattleStarTrekker". It was chosen to epitomize my affection for both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek, which goes back to the entire 1970's decade during which time I spent my teenage years.

I watched Trek when it wasn't cool to watch it and got "razzed" by my friends for watching it. Nonetheless, I kept watching it. I wound up having the "last laugh" of sorts a few years later when some of those same friends got hooked by the 'universe' and told me how good the show was.

I could sit here and probably talk chapter and verse about every episode of Star Trek TOS. I could probably recount the dialogue in a given scene and likely tell you of the significance of it, if it were in fact significant.

Yes, I have a great, great passion for Star Trek.

Yes, I enjoyed the new Star Trek movie.

Did the writers and producers lay a few eggs? Hell yes!!
Did the writers and producers brutally butcher the source material? Hell no!!

Quite frankly and quite simply, the Star Trek universe, begun by Gene Roddenberry in 1966, had run its course and was out of gas. The stories had been told. The well of imagination had run dry.

But, folks still wanted to see some sort of Star Trek show. So, the producers decided to get a fresh canvas and paint a new picture of the Trek universe.

Their new "picture" had a few runs in the paint, though, ... I don't like how they made Kirk out to be such a delinquent; I don't like how they completely jacked up the chain of command by promoting Kirk from Cadet to Captain.

That was ridiculous.

As an alternative, the movie could have easily shown Kirk boarding his first starship and then, cut to a "5 years later" frame or something of the sort and then show him as having been promoted to Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander which would have followed a more believable time frame. At any rate, it is what it is.

Believe it or not, I didn't mind that (Quinto) Spock exhibited some emotion. The fact that he did was acknowledgment that it was not completely impossible for Vulcans to exhibit emotions. He was simply choosing to not control his emotions. He was actually acting more in the character of the early Vulcans, from Surak's time, who broke with his teachings and left the planet, eventually colonizing Romulus and Remus. The Trek novels referred to them as Rihannsu.

By doing this, the producers opened the way for more character development for Spock, in my opinion.


Another point of contention, for some, is the design of the Enterprise. I'm on the fence with this. While I'm not absolutely thrilled with the new ship, either inside or out, I do NOT want it to look like the TOS Enterprise. That particular ship, NCC-1701, is very near and dear to my heart. I love that ship and want to see it where it originated, on the original Trek and nowhere else!

In the end, I would offer the opinion that the writers and producers kept very close to the spirit of the source material while, at the same time, breaking the mold and recasting a few elements.

I would, willingly, go to see the next movie.

;)

[martok2112]

Through my travels, I've seen source material butchered to hell and I've seen source material respected. In neither case, however, did I consider that source material "hallowed ground".

When I joined the online discussion groups nearly 10 years ago, I chose a handle which has since been shortened to "BST". The full handle was "BattleStarTrekker". It was chosen to epitomize my affection for both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek, which goes back to the entire 1970's decade during which time I spent my teenage years.

I watched Trek when it wasn't cool to watch it and got "razzed" by my friends for watching it. Nonetheless, I kept watching it. I wound up having the "last laugh" of sorts a few years later when some of those same friends got hooked by the 'universe' and told me how good the show was.

I could sit here and probably talk chapter and verse about every episode of Star Trek TOS. I could probably recount the dialogue in a given scene and likely tell you of the significance of it, if it were in fact significant.

Yes, I have a great, great passion for Star Trek.

Yes, I enjoyed the new Star Trek movie.

Did the writers and producers lay a few eggs? Hell yes!!
Did the writers and producers brutally butcher the source material? Hell no!!

Quite frankly and quite simply, the Star Trek universe, begun by Gene Roddenberry in 1966, had run its course and was out of gas. The stories had been told. The well of imagination had run dry.

But, folks still wanted to see some sort of Star Trek show. So, the producers decided to get a fresh canvas and paint a new picture of the Trek universe.

Their new "picture" had a few runs in the paint, though, ... I don't like how they made Kirk out to be such a delinquent; I don't like how they completely jacked up the chain of command by promoting Kirk from Cadet to Captain.

That was ridiculous.

As an alternative, the movie could have easily shown Kirk boarding his first starship and then, cut to a "5 years later" frame or something of the sort and then show him as having been promoted to Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander which would have followed a more believable time frame. At any rate, it is what it is.

Believe it or not, I didn't mind that (Quinto) Spock exhibited some emotion. The fact that he did was acknowledgment that it was not completely impossible for Vulcans to exhibit emotions. He was simply choosing to not control his emotions. He was actually acting more in the character of the early Vulcans, from Surak's time, who broke with his teachings and left the planet, eventually colonizing Romulus and Remus. The Trek novels referred to them as Rihannsu.

By doing this, the producers opened the way for more character development for Spock, in my opinion.


Another point of contention, for some, is the design of the Enterprise. I'm on the fence with this. While I'm not absolutely thrilled with the new ship, either inside or out, I do NOT want it to look like the TOS Enterprise. That particular ship, NCC-1701, is very near and dear to my heart. I love that ship and want to see it where it originated, on the original Trek and nowhere else!

In the end, I would offer the opinion that the writers and producers kept very close to the spirit of the source material while, at the same time, breaking the mold and recasting a few elements.

I would, willingly, go to see the next movie.

;)

Great points, my friend. :)

One time, many moons ago, before fanfiction was ever made for online reading, I had done a fan fiction of Trek (based on FASA's Star Trek combat board game) where two cadets had so proven themselves on an excursion aboard a warp-shuttle, where the commanding officer was killed, and all that was left were cadets. These two cadets took charge, and conducted themselves and the other cadets in such a manner that it was thought that between their performances in the starship bridge simulators, and this actual (and quite unintended) excursion, they were both granted command of starships. So J.J. and co. weren't the only ones who had dreamed up the idea of the jump from cadet to captain. ;)

Our thoughts regarding Quinto's take on Spock are pretty much on the same page. And they're validated by a line Troi had spoken in an episode of The Next Generation...which I do believe was "Sarek". She said: "Vulcans have emotions, they just choose not to exhibit them." (Or something like that. ) In this timeline, this is a younger Spock who had not undergone Kolinahr (and had made mention that the Kolinahr was a possible choice for himself in this movie) and who was also subject to bullying and torment by pure-blood Vulcans. Spock did show that it took a lot more to push him to the point of emotional outburst as a grown up, but that he was still capable of being pushed. (His mother is a touchy subject with him. ) But remember, even in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and especially in "The Cage" Spock was shown to be able to give in to emotion quite easily. Vulcans generally do not smile....and between both eps, he smiled a few times.

And think on this..... the original Spock had mentioned at times where he was pleased, or delighted, or other adjectives of emotion... so I think there is precedent that Spock is far more easily given to emotion, even if they are the more positive emotions. (And of course, let's not forget his nice little smacking aside of Valeris' phaser in Star Trek VI. ;) )

As for Kirk being a delinquent in this new movie: well, I offer that consider in the original universe, Kirk had the benefit of growing up under the wing of a loving, well-disciplined father. In the new universe, he lacked that, instead being made to grow up under the scorn of a (likely) drunkard and real jackass of a stepfather. The stepfather must've been a real smooth talker to have managed to capture the attentions of James' mom, because this guy turned out to be a real jackhole. The influences Kirk grew up under were far different in this timeline, and a likely reason for his delinquency....however, that clearly did not affect his genius or his resourcefulness, as well as his toughness. That's how I view the validity of his delinquency anyway. :)

You're closing statement sums things up nicely. :salute:

And, Ger, I think you and I are both on the same page. :salute:

[Apolloisall]

While I'm not absolutely thrilled with the new ship, either inside or out, I do NOT want it to look like the TOS Enterprise. That particular ship, NCC-1701, is very near and dear to my heart. I love that ship and want to see it where it originated, on the original Trek and nowhere else!


Y'know, that's a really good point too.:salute:

[Darrell Lawrence]

Why do people need to quote LONG posts that were posted right before their post? Sheesh.

[Apolloisall]

Why do people need to quote LONG posts that were posted right before their post? Sheesh.

Compulsive Archival Syndrome.:rotf:

[BST]

Why do people need to quote LONG posts that were posted right before their post? Sheesh.

So we can get you to post something, ya big lug!

;)

[Senmut]

So we can get you to post something, ya big lug!

;)

Oh No! The secret is out!!!

[Senmut]

Senmut, I agree with your counter point about Trek's social message back then. This falls in line with the notion that the story is the star of the show, not the special effects and props. The messages told back then are just as relevant today as in yesteryear.


Someone agreed with me????
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......thud!




Enterprise did it right with their two part "Through a Mirror Darkly" episode. But that's still small screen. I just don't know how believable some of that stuff would look on the big screen....despite others' admonitions for me to watch classic Trek on a 40 inch tv. I happen to own a 47inch Hi-Def 1080p/120hz TV, and yes, it looked good. A movie theater screen is quite a different thing.

Such things can be rectified by what the Director of Photography chooses to do. Type of film stock/Hi-Def tape and cameras, lenses, lighting, aspect ratio, amount of CGI tweaking vs. use of models, et al. It is fixable.

[martok2112]

Someone agreed with me????
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......thud!


Alert Ted Koppel! :D



Such things can be rectified by what the Director of Photography chooses to do. Type of film stock/Hi-Def tape and cameras, lenses, lighting, aspect ratio, amount of CGI tweaking vs. use of models, et al. It is fixable.

Indeed. I do think some extra detail....subtle, not overwhelming, would need to be added to the original Big E, somewhat like what they did with the K't'inga battlecruisers for TMP. I think, the pseudo-Azteca hull plating, like what we see on the refit Enterprise, could be a good start. :) In fact, that's kinda what I did for my TOS Enterprise 3D model.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/martok2112/My%20Blender%20made%20Star%20Trek%20models/Textured008.jpg

However, my model is FAR from big screen ready, but it is an example of something that could be done just to dress up the ol' girl just a bit. :)

[Senmut]

And it looks terrific. What I would have hoped to see in the last film.
Martok for DOP on the next film!

[martok2112]

And it looks terrific. What I would have hoped to see in the last film.
Martok for DOP on the next film!

Most kind, Senmut. Thank you. :) :salute:
As it turns out, although it is a fan project, I am pretty much the visual effects guy for a project for friend of mine. :)

I've constructed (rather kitbashed, based off of my TOS Enterprise) several TOS era starships, largely based on Franz Joseph's Technical Manual...the scout/destroyer, the dreadnought, and the heavy tug. Also did the TOS shuttlecraft (and even did a hangar bay set), and am now working on the Klingon Bird of Prey. Yeah, for this project, we're going to have Klingon Birds of Prey, as well as K't'ingas.

lemme 'splain...no...there is too much....lemme sum up...

This project, whilst taking place in the TOS era, is largely borrowing a couple of elements from DS9 and from a video game called Star Trek Legacy.

From DS9, the element I'm borrowing is that the Klingon Battlecruiser was given hull detailing rather like what we saw in The Motion Picture...so, we're just going to stick with my K't'inga for the Klingon battlecruisers.

As for the Klingon Bird of Prey being in the TOS era, that's what I borrowed from the game Star Trek Legacy. There is a scenario in the game where the TOS era Enterprise is sent out to capture a prototype Klingon scoutship, the Klingon Bird of Prey. :)

[Senmut]

Why not the earlier D-7 Klingon battlecruiser?

[martok2112]

Well, it's like I'd mentioned, the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" showed a lot of extra hull detail on the D-7 (where the ship finally officially got called "D-7") to where it pretty much looked like a K't'inga...so, for simplicity's sake, for this fan-film, we (the film's creator and I) decided to stick with the K't'inga.

If you think on it, there is another basis in precdent for it. Remember when we saw at the beginning of Star Trek The Motion Picture, the Klingons already had the uprated K't'inga class...and have apparently had them well before the refit of Kirk's Enterprise. So, this story is likely going to take place some time just before Kirk brought the Enterprise back from her first five-year mission.

I'm sure I could do the original battlecruiser....I don't think I permanently attached the extra hull designs to the ship in project mode in Blender...so it would likely be a matter of just removing them from the main body. My friend rather likes the K't'inga's though, and so that's what we're running with. :)

[Senmut]

"spose. I just admit to a preference for minimalism.

;)

[martok2112]

Nothing wrong with that either, Senmut. :) Believe me, in truth, I'm kinda sort of a minimalist myself, but only in that in the creative aspect of things, I lose patience...so, I try to go for as minimalist an approach as I can, but still retain something that resembles as close to the real thing as possible. That's probably one of the reasons why my ships have a sort of Animated Series look to them. :)

[Senmut]

Okay. ya gonna give your Enterprise pic another whirl?

[martok2112]

I'll probably try to see if I can up the photorealism a bit on her sometime in the future....but for now, I rather like her TAS appearance. :)

And when you throw specularity onto the ship, she really shines in motion. :)

[Darrell Lawrence]

You want quality TOS era stuff? Go to this site's momma site- www.3dgladiators.com

[martok2112]

Aye, that's cool, Darrell, and I know there's quality stuff there, but I kinda like the notion that I built these ships for this project, and for my own future projects. :)


I'm building my own little starfleet. :D