RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,549
Posts: 5,513,505
Members: 25,144
Currently online: 587
Newest member: A.E.Andres

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 14 2013, 04:35 PM   #151
anh165
Commander
 
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

Oso Blanco wrote: View Post

And the nuTrek cast/performance is more charismatic? Excuse me, but the TOS/TNG era cast/performance was at least ten times more charismatic.
The nuTrek cast are fresh and likeable, and naturally fits in well with contemporary cinema.

I am very impressed with nuUhura - a natural strong female character. She is not an irritating forceful token female like say Kira or Seven of 9.

That's the difference. Some performers carry out the concept of the character effortlessly, that makes them likeable. Those who force their characters (poor acting and writing) results with something unconvincing and insincere.

A bit like a bad chat up line, very cheesy.





Oso Blanco wrote:
I guess the most charismatic character of STID will be the Cumberbatch character!
Yes, he may very well upstage the main cast!

Just goes to show that's the xfactor high profile movies like Star Trek needs.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 06:46 PM   #152
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

Franklin wrote: View Post

OK, for the sake of argument, say Abrams had decided to revisit TNG characters instead of TOS characters.
-- He would've recast the crew of the Enterprise with new actors.
-- He would've updated and changed the look of the Enterprise and its techonolgy to reflect a 21st century vision of the 24th century and not a 1980s view.
-- To justify the big budget, the story would've fit in with the action-adventure genre that's popular with general audiences, today. (It is a commercial film, after all, and is after a wide audience.)
-- He'd have directed the movie in his fast-paced style.
-- He'd have violated some parts of "canon" in order to shed baggage or tell a better story. For example, maybe Picard never spent 23 years as captain of the Stargazer.

So, I guess that means the movie wouldn't have been TNG. And it certainly wouldn't have been "Star Trek". Right?
Why must you introduce logic into the debate?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 08:45 PM   #153
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

Xavier_Storma wrote: View Post
What were they thinking? The possibilities were endless…

Looking at the shared universe franchises of THE AVENGERS, the X-MEN and soon to join the club STAR WARS and DC Comics, I wonder if the analysts at Paramount will knock their heads on their tables after realizing the stupidity of the decision they took back in 2006 to re-invent STAR TREK.

Yes, we have to go back half a decade to discuss this matter further.
2006: BATMAN BEGINS and CASINO ROYALE launched a very successful reboot of their respective franchises. It was hard to sell established continuity, since the producers and managers thought that the average Joe, who goes to the movies is unable to remember more than 2 films back into a movie series. And no doubt, both relaunch movies were great.

But now, half a decade later, cinema changed once again: Movie franchises which span not only one, or two sequels, but consist of sidequels, prequels and spinoffs are more popular than ever. Marvel started the trend, having produced 6 films in the shared continuity in less than 10 years! The X-Men are following suit having so far released 5 films, with number 6 and 7 following; joining the club will be the fantastic four… but that was just the beginning…
It appears now that every studio tries to create it’s own shared universe: DC comics will launch it with MAN OF STEEL this year, Fox is connecting dots in the Alien/Prometheus/Predator franchise, and it is possible that Blade Runner is/will become part of it, too; universal is creating a spy franchise out of the Bourne series... and I guess we will see a sidequel to the teen-loved Twilight series down the road, too!

Now look at TREK. How outdated it feels (again). Yet, Paramount failed to realize… all the other studios are craving for… are building up… all that was already there. There is no other universe like the established TREK universe, spanning more than 700 hours of TV and 10 movies. A sandbox for every author.

Imagine how an AVENGERS-style TREK film could look like, teaming up original Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer!

They had it all, yet they failed to see… I wonder how you guys think about it... let me know.

This is pretty simple: no
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 09:04 PM   #154
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Distant Thunder
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

Xavier_Storma wrote:
Yet, Paramount failed to realize… all the other studios are craving for… are building up… all that was already there. There is no other universe like the established TREK universe, spanning more than 700 hours of TV and 10 movies.
News flash: The Abrams film is a part of that continuity.
__________________
Do you know what this is? What this means?
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 11:54 PM   #155
Oso Blanco
Commodore
 
Oso Blanco's Avatar
 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

anh165 wrote: View Post
I am very impressed with nuUhura - a natural strong female character. She is not an irritating forceful token female like say Kira or Seven of 9.
Kira? A token female? Have you ever seen a single episode of DS9? Kira was probably one of the strongest female characters ever on TV!

anh165 wrote: View Post
Some performers carry out the concept of the character effortlessly, that makes them likeable. Those who force their characters (poor acting and writing) results with something unconvincing and insincere.
You have repeatedly accused TOS/TNG actors of bad acting ... that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this board! We had some very brilliant actors there that actually made the characters their own. That's something that the nuTrek actors have yet to accomplish. The only one who has convinced me so far is Bruce Greenwood. Quinto was much better as Sylar and nuScotty is nothing more than a parody. And nuChekov? Don't get me started ...
__________________
Time is the fire in which we burn
Oso Blanco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 12:27 AM   #156
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

Unfortuantely, aside from Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner, the TNG regulars were dull as ditchwater. The Original Series crew and their nuTrek equivalents were colourful and far more interesting.

Acting-wise, TOS is often campy but it's still very entertaining. TNG is often cringe-worthy. This past year I made it through rewatches of TOS, ENT and VOY, and on the whole enjoyed them. But TNG has been a real struggle. There are some great moments, but far too much suck inbetween.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 01:49 AM   #157
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

BillJ wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post

OK, for the sake of argument, say Abrams had decided to revisit TNG characters instead of TOS characters.
-- He would've recast the crew of the Enterprise with new actors.
-- He would've updated and changed the look of the Enterprise and its techonolgy to reflect a 21st century vision of the 24th century and not a 1980s view.
-- To justify the big budget, the story would've fit in with the action-adventure genre that's popular with general audiences, today. (It is a commercial film, after all, and is after a wide audience.)
-- He'd have directed the movie in his fast-paced style.
-- He'd have violated some parts of "canon" in order to shed baggage or tell a better story. For example, maybe Picard never spent 23 years as captain of the Stargazer.

So, I guess that means the movie wouldn't have been TNG. And it certainly wouldn't have been "Star Trek". Right?
Why must you introduce logic into the debate?


I was in graduate school when TNG first aired. So I was around a bunch of mid-20-something geeks raised on TOS. We were so excited about TNG we felt that must be what it's like to anticipate sex. (OK, we weren't that geeky. Some guys were even married, so I suppose at least they were having sex. One had a son, so I know he did it at least once. ) TNG was great Trek. As good as TOS on TV, and in some ways, better.

But as others have said, TNG and its characters were played out compared to TOS characters. They had a great run. Historic in some ways. While TOS died in season three before it could even hit a stride, TNG went on for almost 100 more episodes. When Kirk and his pals finally made the big screen, they were ready for their AARP cards, so we really didn't get to see them at their best (which the movies even played on). We saw little of them young or in their prime.

Marketability and name recogntion of characters aside (though they're important), in terms of available fresh material, the widest gaps in time to choose from for setting a story, and for the most new directions in which to go while still presenting an identifiable "Star Trek" product, in my opinion, TOS was the better of the two series to reboot.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 07:55 AM   #158
Oso Blanco
Commodore
 
Oso Blanco's Avatar
 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

^^^
When I said TNG, I meant TNG era. Especially DS9 had some fantastic actors, including recurring cast.
__________________
Time is the fire in which we burn
Oso Blanco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 11:51 AM   #159
anh165
Commander
 
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

Oso Blanco wrote: View Post

Kira? A token female? Have you ever seen a single episode of DS9? Kira was probably one of the strongest female characters ever on TV!
Only in your own opinion. I find the character of Kira and Seven very similar, and simply would not work on the big screen. Too much baggage, very little charisma and quite hammy too.

If you look at the best female roles on the big screen, they are not highly strung women in tight uniform tussling with Klingons and robots every week, the best roles tend to be characters that speak loud through being quiet and sensual, which is a huge aspect of being a woman.

That alone makes all the difference.







anh165 wrote: View Post


You have repeatedly accused TOS/TNG actors of bad acting ... that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this board! We had some very brilliant actors there that actually made the characters their own. That's something that the nuTrek actors have yet to accomplish. The only one who has convinced me so far is Bruce Greenwood. Quinto was much better as Sylar and nuScotty is nothing more than a parody. And nuChekov? Don't get me started ...
Very few actors in TNG had good performances, Patrick Stewart and John Delance stand out the most. They are true thespians which carry the episode or the entire series.

nuTrek actors are clearly the right choice for ST2009 as the movie was a success, not only commerically but critically from experts who ARE NOT Trekkies.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 11:53 AM   #160
anh165
Commander
 
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Acting-wise, TOS is often campy but it's still very entertaining. TNG is often cringe-worthy. This past year I made it through rewatches of TOS, ENT and VOY, and on the whole enjoyed them. But TNG has been a real struggle. There are some great moments, but far too much suck inbetween.
The performances in TOS were very typical of the 1960's, heavily derived from live theatre style performances, hence why in some eyes and ears seem a bit OTT.

Al Pacino had a very strong theatre background, and is one of the greatest actors and he is known to be OTT in is best stuff.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 12:00 PM   #161
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

anh165 wrote: View Post
the best roles tend to be characters that speak loud through being quiet and sensual, which is a huge aspect of being a woman.


__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 12:06 PM   #162
anh165
Commander
 
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
anh165 wrote: View Post
the best roles tend to be characters that speak loud through being quiet and sensual, which is a huge aspect of being a woman.


Well that is a shame Clegg you fail to understand what that means.

Real women do not need to be confrontist to make a point or to make themselves heard.

Taut and rigid characters like Seven and Kira would fail at the first hurdle, mainly because 99.9% of women you'd see in every day life would not talk or behave that way in any situation.

Unconvincing characters and performances are a real no-no for big movie like Star Trek.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 01:15 PM   #163
yousirname
Commander
 
yousirname's Avatar
 
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

anh165 wrote: View Post
Real women do not need to be confrontist to make a point or to make themselves heard.
Well... neither do real men, you know? Unless 'real' there is some normative claim, rather than meaning 'non-fictional'. ST09's Uhura is sensual (I guess... it's not the first word that springs to mind, but whatever) but she's hardly quiet. And certainly confrontational when the situation calls for it.

If you look at the best female roles on the big screen, they are not highly strung women in tight uniform
Define 'best'. Your favourites? Sure. Most popular? Maybe not. Some popular female roles of the last fifteen years of cinema: The Bride (not quiet, very confrontational, definitely highly-strung), Trinity (very confrontational), Hermione Granger (not quiet, hardly sensual, quite highly-strung) Hit Girl (the antithesis of quiet and epitome of confrontation) Katniss Everdeen...

And what about Ripley? One of the most iconic and enduring female characters in cinema, almost unquestionably the most so in SF. Does Ripley speak loudly through being quiet and sensual? I don't think you can make any objectively persuasive claim of the kind you seem to be making.

Taut and rigid characters like Seven and Kira would fail at the first hurdle, mainly because 99.9% of women you'd see in every day life would not talk or behave that way in any situation.
Trek hasn't traditionally had much truck with how people, regardless of gender, would talk or behave in real life. How many guys do you know IRL who've delivered even one Kirkian sophomoric monologue about the virtues and vices of the human condition, never mind do it regularly?
yousirname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 02:46 PM   #164
The Mirrorball Man
Vice Admiral
 
The Mirrorball Man's Avatar
 
Location: Switzerland
View The Mirrorball Man's Twitter Profile
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

anh165 wrote: View Post
Real women do not need to be confrontist to make a point or to make themselves heard.
Real women can be and do whatever they want.
__________________
Check out my deviantArt gallery!
The Mirrorball Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 03:49 PM   #165
anh165
Commander
 
Re: What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

The Mirrorball Man wrote: View Post
anh165 wrote: View Post
Real women do not need to be confrontist to make a point or to make themselves heard.
Real women can be and do whatever they want.
Of course they can do what they want.

The point I am trying to make is the hardcore fancination of characters like Kira and Seven what with their relentless confrontational, 'tough-chic' and stiff personas, this is an example of how not have female characters on the big screen.

It is unconvincing, unlikable and unappealing and causes needless attrition to the viewer.

You just don't need that sort of mediocrity in a reboot that was supposed to save Star Trek.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.