World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by M'Sharak, Apr 5, 2009.

  1. Grant

    Grant Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006

    "Damn-it Spock, I prefer Pepsi!!"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2009
  2. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Re: Vulcan:

    So, they aren't going the reset route on that after all. Thank goodness.

    Re: No product placement:

    I guess having Picard labels on wine bottles would be out of place too? Even if there is some sort of no-money society in Trek - which has never been explained that well anyway - that doesn't mean people will stop labelling the stuff they make.
     
  3. EJA

    EJA Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Another thing that worries me, if the new movie is a success, will IDW and Pocket abandon writing stories set in the original Trek universe and concentrate on producing tales set in the new one, so it becomes THE Star Trek?
     
  4. locborg

    locborg Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    well for me its important because i always believed that star trek also tried to transport a certain political message...
    and what exactly does "in your face mean"`? I dont think that Kirk will agressivly promote his bmw bike but even a short shot of the logo would be a punch in the face for all fans...

    i just dont want product placement in a 23rd century star trek movie. it contradicts every message this show tried to transport.
     
  5. Jefferies

    Jefferies Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    I doubt it, there will always be a market that can support these types of publications. At least I would reckon so for the forseable furture.
     
  6. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Product placement in TWoK:

    http://starringthecomputer.com/feature.php?f=29

    Shatner was then and had been for several years a spokesman in TV commercials for Commodore.

    Not seeing it as a big deal, so long as it isn't blatant (which is the same thing meant by the phrase "in your face".)
     
  7. Devon

    Devon Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    This is why Trekkie stereotypes are born. People have emotional attachments to planets that don't exist and barely played any role in Star Trek.

    Gee, I hope they don't go as far as destroying our beloeve Enterprise or perhaps destroy another planet of long time foes of the Trek universe in the movies. That would just be horrib.....

    Oh wait!
     
  8. EJA

    EJA Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    IMO, as far as publishing stories set in the Abramsverse goes, I reckon it should be like Marvel's Ultimate line, with stories set in the original universe continuing alongside it.
     
  9. Grant

    Grant Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Blah, blah, blah as someone once wrote.
    We don't need lectures on trek's messages or ethics.

    Showing a 'real' product in trek is way down the list of ways trek has evolved over 40+ years.

    It won't come across as 'in your face placement' (sorry if you don't know what that means) and showing a brand that actually exists without the character mentioning it or a long lingering camera shot of it harms nothing and no-one let alone Trek's values.
     
  10. Captain59

    Captain59 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Location:
    Connecticut - Home of the Hartford Whalers
    I don't like the idea of Vulcan getting destroyed at all. Yes, I can easily push it aside and say that is in "that" universe, and in "my" universe Vulcan is a thriving planet. Just the thought I have to watch Vulcan get destroyed is unnerving...just like it was seeing Earth get destroyed in ENT. I don't know...I just don't like it. It doesn't mean I won't see the movie, though.

    Multiple canons in Star Trek...as if one wasn't confusing enough.
     
  11. EJA

    EJA Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Destroying the original Enterprise in The Search for Spock was fine because it didn't disrupt any known future events because, well, they hadn't happened yet. Same goes for blowing up Romulus in 2386 as per Countdown, as that era's largely uncharted. But because Vulcan dies at this specific point in time, a lot is disrupted, not neccessarily in a good way.
     
  12. EJA

    EJA Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Another reason I'm not sure all these alterations are such a good idea, it could just confuse the hell out of a lot of people who get interested in the old Trek through having seen Abrams' new version. But then, if Marvel can tell stories set in multiple realities, maybe Trek can pull it off as well....
     
  13. urbandk

    urbandk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Much obliged, Jeffries. I think you certainly make some good observations.
     
  14. perigee

    perigee Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Location:
    XXXXXXXXXXXX
    I know!! Like, they didn't even Mention Doctor Zee in the New Galactica - and Starbuck was a chick!! And they had something like four earths at the end.

    Maybe five, if you include the one with Doctor Zee and the space scouts on it.

    I almost pulled my hair out in frustration. Some Mexican Almost guy was playing Lorne Greene, and they replaced Lew Ayers with some lady with cancer, and then there were like a kabillion Colonel Tys all through history... and they were all white except one!

    And no Daggit monkeys either.

    Am I doing this argument right?
     
  15. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere Land
    very lazy and a coput, why not just simply do an origin story that fits the original timeline or just simply do a scifi movie of another name?
     
  16. chardman

    chardman Vice Admiral In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2001
    Location:
    The home of GenCon
    Or you could have it all backward. Maybe the Federation's response to Vulcan's destruction is to cling even tighter to their pre-Utopian goals, resulting in a future that's just as Utopian as the original timeline, if not moreso. (Sort of a variant of the post-9/11 creedo "If we stop pursuing our way of life because of what they did to us, then the terrorists really will have won".)
     
  17. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    Hey do you mind if I repost this in the Trek Lit forum because its relevent to the discussion there.

    Has anyone here actually read the Destiny Trilogy by David Mack which is set in the Prime Trek universe becuase it kind craps on your arugments.
     
  18. Supervisor 194

    Supervisor 194 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Location:
    Somewhere between timelines
    Vulcan getting destroyed is not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. Let's say the surviving Vulcanians relocate to a new planet, and for the sake of argument, call it 'Vulcan'. Would that really make that much of an impact on Star Trek as a whole? Sure, it dents the continuity of a few stories but does it really change things?
     
  19. Jefferies

    Jefferies Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Maybe you would like to elaborate further?
     
  20. Jefferies

    Jefferies Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Well I suppose its more on a meta level, if you consider Star Trek not just as a bunch of stories but as an intervowen universe. Then, if you think of the Federation as an istitution you cannot help but wonder what will happen to it if one of the fundemental pillars it stands on is taken away. I doubt a small colony of New Vulcan could remedy that.

    I believe that this distinction of viewing Star Trek just as a collection of stories or as a complex universe that follows from these stories is something that devides Star Trek fans rather strongly and seems quite evident in this thread. Therefore some people only care about if a story is entertaining by itsself and what impact it has on the larger background aspects are of little interest. Others, like myself, find these aspects rather interesting however and thus we have this controversy, if that makes sense.