View Single Post
Old November 2 2008, 09:11 PM   #376
Vice Admiral
Praetor's Avatar
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Empire Magazine pics!

Great post further up, Cary L. Brown, and I must say I agree wholeheartedly with your remarks. In particular:

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Brutal Strudel wrote: View Post
I suspect that it's going to be a good movie. Not a GREAT movie, but a good one... one that the majority of people who shell out their $10 for a ticket will not feel cheated to have seen. But also, most likely, not one that the average moviegoer will feel all that enthused about after they walk out of the theater. Some movies "change everything" for the audience, but that's rare. This is almost certainly not going to be one of those movies.

On the other hand, I really expect to come out of the theater thinking "that wasn't Star Trek." I'm hopeful, still, that this may turn out to not be the case, but I think it's more likely to be this way. I suspect we're going to be shown stuff that's "A new take on Star Trek" rather than something that is "Star Trek" (aka, something which doesn't tell us to forget what we've spent the past 40+ years getting familiar with).
That's more or less where I'm at now. I'm pretty sure I'm going to go see and enjoy this movie either way, but I feel that it may not feel like the Star Trek we've come to know over the years... particularly now that I've read the comments Jon Povill made kindly posted by The God Thing.

The way I've always described it is like this... imagine that there's a "real Star Trek reality" that the original series was trying to replicate and reflect. In some ways, they deviated from that "reality" but they were still trying to reflect something "real." The new movie, ideally, would take the approach that the original series was a cost-limited attempt to do exactly that, and that with the more advanced (but still not 23rd-century) tech we have now, and the larger budget, they can get closer to that mythical "reality" than they could do in the 1960s. But both are trying to approximate the same thing, and thus should have the same GENERAL appearance, the same general feel, and shouldn't cause the audience to say "waitaminute, that's not what it used to look like."

Instead, they audience should find themselves not really noticing the difference at all, until they go back and watch the old stuff and say "well, now I've seen what it REALLY looked like, and I can see the flaws in the old stuff now."
I think that's the mindset all purists should go in having, myself included. If it's a bad movie, it's a bad movie.

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote