Kevin Smith Hints that Trek-XI is "Phenomenal"

[Eric Cheung]

Another point is that so far everyone who has seen it: Paramount brass, the filmmakers, Kevin Smith, even Harry Knowles--who only saw pieces, has not only liked it, but loved it. I'd be interested in hearing some of the criticisms of the film from those who have seen it, but I haven't heard any so far.

The only criticisms I've heard about the film are places like this, and it's about relatively superficial stuff like how close stuff looks to TOS. Fun stuff that, but minor enough that my expectations and anticipation are higher.

[blockaderunner]

Indysolo wrote:

---

Kevin Smith is the worst kind of fanboy

Swap out his name with Joss Whedon and I'll agree with you. He's the worst. Everything he does has that smart ass, hip, ironic, self referring BS that fanboys exude when they are trying to be cool and distance themselves from the thing they like so as to appear "normal". Whedon's the worst kind of fanboy because he is one, with all the annoying self righteous baggage that comes with it. At least Smith seems like a guy I can have a beer with.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

blockaderunner wrote:

---

Swap out his name with Joss Whedon and I'll agree with you. He's the worst.

Neither of them are "fanboys" - they're both people who were fans but have the talent, acumen and dedication to make good professional livings as writers/producers/directors.

I guess I'll never adjust to the "fanboy" proclivity to speak dismissively, without unselfconsciousness or any hint of irony, of people who've achieved what they're not capable of.

[CaptainWacky]

No mention of abusive uncles in Smith's review. I'm beginning to doubt that he actually saw it.

[Locutus of Bored]

CaptainWacky wrote:

---

No mention of abusive uncles in Smith's review. I'm beginning to doubt that he actually saw it.

You mean in that extremely brief and deliberately vague review of the quality of a film he couldn't directly admit to talking about he didn't mention a specific plot detail?

SHOCKING.

[J. Allen]

Steven Of Nine wrote:

---

Unlike others who have actually eaten faeces, I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes... like s***.

Indeed. Except that's not what is being discussed.

This is an unknown entity.

Suppose you and a friend who had totally different tastes from you were hungry, and found a fruit tree in the middle of the desert. You've never seen anything like it before. Your friend takes one from the tree and bites first and after a moment, says "it's phenomenal, it tastes wonderful!", would you then reply, "I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes like crap." Is that what you would do?

That's what you're doing here.
Tastes vary, but if you won't even try it, then you starve because of your own ignorance.

Just food for thought on how you perceive things.

J.

[CaptainWacky]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

You mean in that extremely brief and deliberately vague review of the quality of a film he couldn't directly admit to talking about he didn't mention a specific plot detail?

SHOCKING.

Yes, that's what my 100% deadly serious post was refering to.

[M'Sharak]

I think it was 98 per cent deadly serious, myself, but I could be convinced to go as low as 95.

[Locutus of Bored]

CaptainWacky wrote:

---

Yes, that's what my 100% deadly serious post was refering to.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding, but to be fair, that's not exactly an inconceivable comment for a lot of people around here to make, so it's hard to tell whether it's serious or not.

[Gep Malakai]

I agree. No offense to CaptainWacky, who I'm sure is a very funny person, but I thought it was deadly serious too.

[3D Master]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Indeed. Except that's not what is being discussed.

This is an unknown entity.

Suppose you and a friend who had totally different tastes from you were hungry, and found a fruit tree in the middle of the desert. You've never seen anything like it before. Your friend takes one from the tree and bites first and after a moment, says "it's phenomenal, it tastes wonderful!", would you then reply, "I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes like crap." Is that what you would do?

That's what you're doing here.
Tastes vary, but if you won't even try it, then you starve because of your own ignorance.

Just food for thought on how you perceive things.

That's ridiculous. If we're starving in the desert, then it doesn't matter what it tastes like, you eat it anyway. But we're not starving, now are we? Neither are we starving for SF/Star Trek whether bad or good. Plenty of SF around, if not on the screen, then in books, more than I can read in a lifetime.

[Gep Malakai]

3D Master wrote:

---

That's ridiculous. If we're starving in the desert, then it doesn't matter what it tastes like, you eat it anyway. But we're not starving, now are we? Neither are we starving for SF/Star Trek whether bad or good. Plenty of SF around, if not on the screen, then in books, more than I can read in a lifetime.

"Starving" was not the operative thrust of J. Allen's argument. It's that we have the opportunity to try something that may be delicious, and some people won't for fear that it could be yucky. Fine and dandy, but nobody stands to lose anything here except eight bucks, so why not keep an open mind?

[MyCylon]

I'm really starting to get interested in the movie, I have to say. I'm still keeping it to 'mildly optimistic' for the time being (just to be on the safe side ;-)).

I'm wondering how much this will be like the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica on some levels. From what little I've seen, I get the impression they're going for a retro look & feel on the one hand and somewhat more realism (maybe even grittyness) on the other, which is similar to what nuBSG has done. I also think a re-imagining would be the right way to go.
And the fact that Smith likes the new movie so much makes me even more inclined to think there may be some similarities to what Moore did on nuBSG since Smith's a great fan of that show.
Looking at the critical acclaim nuBSG has received I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams and his team picked up on a few of the things the show has been doing. I think that would be really cool.

P.S.: I'm not well informed about the new movie by any standards. I tend to read the TrekToday headlines and lurk here every now and then (among other things, I don't want to be spoiled). However, I've seen the teaser trailer and, as mentioned above, some of the pictures from the set that were on the net some time ago.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^Re-imagined BSG had very little in common with the original, except for character names, the basic premise, and the general shape of some of the ships.

I think Star trek on the other hand will be a re-imagining, but the story told will fit nicely in with the existing universe. It will be as if you read this script without seeing the film -- you would have no doubt it was a Star Trek story set in the Star Trek universe, since (hopefully) the characters act like the originals, and the facts jibe with the other parts of the greater "Star Trek" body of work.

The same can't be said about nuBSG with regards to the original. If you read one of the scripts of the modern BSG, you would be hard pressed to believe it had any connection to the original.

That's not to say that nuBSG should be more like the original. In fact I'm glad it is only superficially like the original.

[MyCylon]

^
I'll certainly agree that there's more in Trek that's worth keeping than the original BSG. I just hope the makers of the new Trek movies are really taking the liberties they need to make this good.