Who no longer cares? (Raise your hand)

You and I interpreted the trailer in two completely different ways. I didn't see it at all as trying to tie the voyages of the Enterprise into a historical chain of space exploration. I think it's more placing "Space, the final frontier" into a context of iconic 60s space-related statements/soundbytes, etc. Those words are part of our national culture - lots of non-Trek fans can probably identify where the phrase comes from.

I saw it as a way to reinforce the fact that Trek was there 40 year ago, and it's coming back in a big way. And in that context, I found it exciting.

It's perhaps a fine-hair distinction, but I think it makes a difference.

After the last 10 years of Trek - VOY, ENT, the dreadful TNG movies and untold hours of meaningless Treknobabble - I'm more than ready for a new vision and a new style.

I don't want Trek to become a clone of the new BSG or some of the other shows. But as long as this movie captures the essence of the characters and harnesses the elements of Trek that matter, I'll be satisfied.

I'm past caring whether the ship and sets and uniforms look exactly like they did on TOS. If this is a pure reboot (which I don't think it will be) - fine. That may be what we need.

There are people out there who disown the third season of TOS because Roddenberry wasn't involved. In fact, the old, original Xeroxed copies of the Star Trek Condordance even note lots of inconsistencies in the third season. So some people don't think that's Trek.

Lots of fans hated TMP when it came out because they didn't think it captured the spirit of TOS and the characters, so that's not Trek. Some people reject the later TOS movies because Roddenberry wasn't involved, or they saw it as too militaristic or whatever.

It's simply impossible that ANY Trek movie - even if it starred the original cast, was written by Roddenberry and Fontana, directed by Marc Daniels and designed by Matt Jeffries - would satisfy everyone.

What fascinates me is all the people who are so down on this movie before it's even wrapped principal photography. People who were down on it when Abrams was announced as the director.

Where's that open-mindedness that Trek was always trying to teach us about? Why can't we simply wait for the movie to come out, then judge it based on what it actually is, rather than our speculation about what it might be like.

 

"That's not necessarily the only way to interpret GR's remark. He wrote a foreword for the novel called "Enterprise: The First Adventure", which celebrated 20 years of TOS by Vonda McIntyre going back to imagine the first days of Kirk's first mission on the USS Enterprise.

Had he really felt ST prequels were bad, would he have encouraged the writing of this novel?

Based on the success of that novel, the next "giant" mass market paperback was a prequel to the second pilot. The third "giant" mass market paperback was a prequel to "The Cage" and featured Captain Robert April."

Shhh...that Makes Sense tm.

Thanks for the info on the supposed "Roddenberry Hates TAS Therefore TAS SUCKS And Isn't Canon tm" memo.

 

if i didnt care, i wouldnt be here

 

[Luke Skywalker] I care. [/Luke Skywalker]

And...I even dare to hope.

No matter how the movie turns out, THIS part will be fun.

 

I've been caring for around thirty-five years now, and don't see any signs of stopping. The teaser blew me away. It blew away my ten-year-old daughter as well. Especially after I talked her through it so she understood the significance of the historic dialogue. I'm very excited about the possibilities of the new film.

 

There's a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth out there about the inevitable changes to the trekverse that this movie will lay on us. Fears of a BSG style reboot to a perhaps darker, more hard-edged depiction of the future than Gene Roddenberry's pseudo-utopian vision are rampant, but I think such change is more about us than anything else. I think times are little darker and hard-edged than in the sixties - there may have been a cold war, but that provided nothing if not a stabilizing "Balance of Terror" to world events.

I think it's fair to say that by sixties standards there was plenty of imagery and situations in Star Trek that were dark, brooding and disturbing. My parents let me watch first run TOS episodes as a youngster and saw no harm in it, but the fact that I post at The Trek BBS all these years later puts my having experienced severe psychological trauma beyond dispute.

 

I suppose if we didn't care some we wouldn't be reading and posting in the Star Trek XI forum.

Perhaps you should just ignore any talk of the next 'Trek' movie until next Christmas, at which time you can decide if you care enough to find out if the movie might slightly interest you.

---------------

 

I'm pretty excited. Just the views of the construction of the Enterprise in the trailer have me salivating. Though I will not get carried away at all with casting details and whether the story is sufficiently prequel canon and all that shit. It's way to soon for any of that and even then I won't let it matter enough to affect my opinion of the production. It'll be judged on it's own rather than as something that pushes the franchise along, reboots it, or whatever. Though, how could it not revitalize the franchise? This JJA guy has a marvelous reputation as a film maker. This trailer is the perfect way to stir the pot I must say. But, damn, it's not being released until Christmas!!

Something that occurs to me that I must stop thinking about. The failed Enterprise would have captured the imagination of a lot more people if it had started with the latter construction stages of the Enterprise and character building, than the stick up their ass Vulcans reining in Archers Daddy's dream, and then rushing off to save a Klingon. Building something just gets the blood going, and I want to be there, (in the theater) and for this adventure to carry on. I wish it well.

 

I no longer care........

But my lack of caring is about all the ridiculous whining and bitching about every aspect of this film.

Waaaahhhh it's being built on the ground......

Waaaahhhh the plaque says San Franciso......

Waaaahhhh the ship is new..........

Waaaahhhhh it doesn't look and feel exactly like the original right down to the lighting techniques......

Sorry, I could care less if Spock fiddles with square computer discs that look like 3.5 floppies.

I could care less if the computers on the bridge don't spit out PAPER like the original did.

The problem I see is people here whining about moving forward are the very people who DON'T want to move forward.

"Lets see a remake of grand dads trek."

Trek isn't about the sets, props or costumes. Get over it already and move forward.

If this film puts life back into the franchise by way of a new look, new feel and new attitude, I'm all for it.

I'm just surprised some of you are not demanding for Shatner and the original cast to reprise their original roles or it isn't Trek.

 

I've brainwashed myself that Star Trek never existed. Having done that, I have been searching for a movie on the web that seems to speak to me. And being a devoted sci-fi fan I have found it - Star Trek XI. It looks good. It has a promising young cast of talented actors. And so far the ship itself looks spectacular! The art direction looks adequately futuristic and a bit gritty.

I'll give this movie a try. I want to see what those astronauts - this Trek through the Stars will take me.