Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

[Kirby]

RandyS wrote:

---

You know what would really be funny? If Disney hired Rick Berman and Brannon Braga to make the next few Star Wars films.

Or, would that be ironic?

[Set Harth]

I would use the word "catastrophic".

[Yminale]

The Stig wrote:

---

The 'continuity' was always the worst thing about Trek. Once the franchise stopped being about people and became this hide-bound keeper of Trek history, it was finished.

That's just BS. Most fans cared about good characters in good stories. For me continuity was a sign of quality. That the people making Trek actually cared about what they were doing. When people complain about "continuity" the mistake is so blatant a mistake even non-fans notice.

Let's talk about continuity. If it wasn't such a big deal why does JJTrek create an entirely new alternate universe. For some strange reason, this bold filmmaker is afraid of a bunch of online fans.

[Yminale]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

The Voyage Home was character-driven rather than action driven. I don't think that can be denied. However, I also think it had the thinnest themes of any with the possible exception of The Final Frontier. I don't think it can be a model either unless the audience loves all the characters (it's too soon for that). If not Trouble with Tribbles, it's still reminiscent of one of the lighter TOS episodes.

TVH also worked because the last two films were so dark and depressing. I don't think Trek could get any darker unless Kirk was gang raped by Tribbles.

[davejames]

Yminale wrote:

---

That's just BS. Most fans cared about good characters in good stories. For me continuity was a sign of quality. That the people making Trek actually cared about what they were doing. When people complain about "continuity" the mistake is so blatant a mistake even non-fans notice.

Let's talk about continuity. If it wasn't such a big deal why does JJTrek create an entirely new alternate universe. For some strange reason, this bold filmmaker is afraid of a bunch of online fans.

Certainly, continuity was a huge reason why DS9 worked as well as it did, with all it's complex, interweaving storylines and nods to the past. But by the end of ENT and Nemesis, I think it was starting to feel more like a huge weight on the franchise.

ENT always felt constrained by the history it had to adhere to, and the ongoing drama and politics surrounding the Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Dominion, etc in the 24th century was starting to become pretty tiresome as well. And then there's 5 series and 10 movies of stories that had to be followed....

As far as I'm concerned, JJ's Trek couldn't have come at a better time, and was a huge breath of fresh air.

[JarodRussell]

davejames wrote:

---

Certainly, continuity was a huge reason why DS9 worked as well as it did, with all it's complex, interweaving storylines and nods to the past. But by the end of ENT and Nemesis, I think it was starting to feel more like a huge weight on the franchise.

ENT and Nemesis didn't even care for continuity, so there was none of that weight to begin with. ENT and Nemesis failed because they were badly made, it had nothing to do with continuity.

[Servo]

I was thinking about the new Star Wars films recently, and who would be a good pick to write and direct, and I had a thought; if you wanted people who are fans of the original trilogy, are aware of what worked and what didn't in the PT, smart enough to not get bogged down with fanwank, have a proven record of good character writing, and are actually in touch with the sci-fi community both personally and professionally, then there are two names that spring to mind who I think would be worth taking a risk on... Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

davejames wrote:

---

Scotty was never as wacky in the series as Doohan made him later on,

What about Scotty drinking the Kelvan under the table in "By Any Other Name"? Or starting a bar brawl over an insult to the Enterprise in "Tribbles"?

I didn't much remember Scotty being comic relief in the old TV series until I rewatched it last year.

[Hartzilla2007]

Yminale wrote:

---

For me continuity was a sign of quality.

So Sir Arthur Conan Doyle isn't a quality writer to you? because I don't think he really cared that much about it what with Watson's war wound changing every book.

[Nerys Myk]

Yminale wrote:

---

For me continuity was a sign of quality.

How so? It doesn't really improve the quality of the acting, writing, set design, direction, props....well, you get the idea.

[The Wormhole]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Pegg is terrible but the character has gone through severe character degradation since TOS anyway. The movies made him increasingly incompetent (Remember Star Trek V?) and in the TNG episode Relics he's just a weird goofy slob.

Simon Pegg is a good actor, the problem is that Scotty just isn't written right. He's too comedic, even Pegg has said he wants the character to be more serious than he was in XI.

Aside from Trek V, I didn't think the other movies did a bad job with him. Relics has some good character moments, though seeing him act the bumbling old man thinking he's helpful when he's actually getting in the way was a diservice to the character.

Yminale wrote:

---

That's just BS. Most fans cared about good characters in good stories. For me continuity was a sign of quality. That the people making Trek actually cared about what they were doing. When people complain about "continuity" the mistake is so blatant a mistake even non-fans notice.

Let's talk about continuity. If it wasn't such a big deal why does JJTrek create an entirely new alternate universe. For some strange reason, this bold filmmaker is afraid of a bunch of online fans.

Continuity is gravy to the storytelling meal. Yeah, it's great when it's there, but a great story will stand on its own quality, even if there's no continuity.

[wissaboo]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

How so? It doesn't really improve the quality of the acting, writing, set design, direction, props....well, you get the idea.

then the rest of trek is not quality either. Since there are continuity errors all over the place

[davejames]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

---

What about Scotty drinking the Kelvan under the table in "By Any Other Name"? Or starting a bar brawl over an insult to the Enterprise in "Tribbles"?

I didn't much remember Scotty being comic relief in the old TV series until I rewatched it last year.

Well he had to get pretty damn drunk in the first one, and the second wasn't really him being "wacky" in any way. In fact his tone was actually pretty serious when addressing the Klingon.

The fight was played somewhat for laughs, but Scotty didn't strike me as being the "comic relief" there.

[Nerys Myk]

davejames wrote:

---

Well he had to get pretty damn drunk in the first one, and the second wasn't really him being "wacky" in any way. In fact his tone was actually pretty serious when addressing the Klingon.

The fight was played somewhat for laughs, but Scotty didn't strike me as being the "comic relief" there.

But there was a twinkle in his eye when said "Where they'll be no tribble at all." And he was unintentionally funny when mooning over Romaine and Palamas.

[lurok]

Servo wrote:

---

I was thinking about the new Star Wars films recently, and who would be a good pick to write and direct, and I had a thought; if you wanted people who are fans of the original trilogy, are aware of what worked and what didn't in the PT, smart enough to not get bogged down with fanwank, have a proven record of good character writing, and are actually in touch with the sci-fi community both personally and professionally, then there are two names that spring to mind who I think would be worth taking a risk on... Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.