RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,581
Posts: 5,403,379
Members: 24,864
Currently online: 558
Newest member: Griznuq

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25


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 > Site Forums > TrekToday News Items

TrekToday News Items Discussion of TrekToday news items

 
 
Thread Tools
Old October 10 2008, 04:57 AM   #31
Data Holmes
Admiral
 
Data Holmes's Avatar
 
Location: In Exile
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

Procutus wrote: View Post
Data Holmes wrote: View Post
I think people are not understanding what they meant by "more star wars like".

Okay, help me understand.



Well, I am operating from the position that they were speaking of the first trilogy of wars films as the second sucked for the most part.


But I think they are speaking of two aspects of wars trek tends not to have.

One a full on sense of adventure. When trek tapped into that, even just a little, it did a great many things. Modern trek is especially lacking in this field as everything feels like a "sunday drive to grandma's".

Two is a sense of scale. Wars has always been "big". Space feels vast. Planets feel like planets. Distances feel like they have been traveled. And wars feel like wars. Trek has never shown this well, with the exception of DS9 and the dominion war arc. THe movies tried on occasion with the earth shots of TMP, but it was just too quick to truly sink in.

So they want to bring in a sense of adventure and scale to the trek, and they used wars as a well known contemporary example to express this concept. I hope that makes sense.
__________________
We first fought... in the name of religion, then Communism, and now in the name of drugs and terrorism. Our excuses for global domination always change. -Serj Tankian
Data Holmes is offline  
Old October 10 2008, 09:48 PM   #32
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

If we were simply talking about production values, that would be fine. But, if we were simply talking about production values, he wouldn't need to mention Star Wars to begin with. He could simply talk in broader terms of look and feel.

Sorry, I think he's talking about more than just aesthetics.

The problem I have with this is that Wars and Trek approach sci-fi from two totally different perspectives.

Star Wars was, well, just that. It was a war. Episode 3 stars with the very premise that somebody needs to save them from the Emporer and moves on from there.

Trek has NEVER been about war. It's been about exploration and, in a broader scheme of things, the desire to make oneself better than he is.

Sorry, but Star Wars have never had such grandiose dreams.

Luke Skywalker didn't get drawn into things because he had some deep yearning of any sort. He got drawn into it because his family got killed while he was chasing a couple of droids.

Sure, he had a sense of honor and morality that drove him from there. But, let's not pretend that really has anything to do with the story.

It's a classic good overcoming evil story. Nothing more, nothing less.

Defeat the enemy and live happily ever after. The end.

So, I continue to question this need to make Trek something that it's not. The necessity of big huge explosions and ships that do barrel rolls.

The need to make Sulu a "badass" instead of the guy he was.

Sorry, but there's really very little about Star Wars that lends itself to Star Trek. They're two totally different stories with two totally different intents.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old October 10 2008, 10:07 PM   #33
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

I think SW was simply a convenient example. I don't think we'll be seeing battle-droids in STXI.

Besides, what do you care? I thought you weren't going to watch this on 'principle' anyway, TJinPgh.

I will be watching, because it's a new version of Trek, I'm the one who should be posting the long wild speculations.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Old October 11 2008, 01:28 AM   #34
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

ancient wrote: View Post
Besides, what do you care? I thought you weren't going to watch this on 'principle' anyway, TJinPgh.
Asking this question is a lot like asking why I should care about abortion even though, as a man, I can never have one.

One's decision not to participate in something does not negate one's feelings toward it....

I will be watching, because it's a new version of Trek, I'm the one who should be posting the long wild speculations.

Nor does it suggest I should forgo an opinion on any pre-release comments.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old October 11 2008, 03:18 AM   #35
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

Oh man, here I go.

TJinPgh wrote: View Post
ancient wrote: View Post
Besides, what do you care? I thought you weren't going to watch this on 'principle' anyway, TJinPgh.
Asking this question is a lot like asking why I should care about abortion even though, as a man, I can never have one.
Actually, men have children all the time, we're just not the ones giving birth. Anyway, that's a moral issue that does affect everyone, entertainment is not.

So how's about spelling it out for me. You care because...?
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Old October 11 2008, 06:23 PM   #36
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

ancient wrote: View Post
Anyway, that's a moral issue that does affect everyone, entertainment is not.
I think you missed the point. But, I'll concede the difference.

So how's about spelling it out for me. You care because...?
Because I care about Trek.

I've said before that my decision to not patronize (as in support financially in any way) has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it will be a good movie. It has to do with my decision on recasts, reboots, re-imagined, re-whatevered films.

Had he chosen to include more of the surviving original cast and had simply cast these actors as younger versions, I probably wouldn't have had an issue with it. Trek has done that before. But, he didn't.

But, again, that's a seperate issue. That's my decision, and mine alone. It has nothing to do with anybody else, nor have I ever suggested anybody else should agree.

This, however, smells of something entirely different.

I have feared for some time that Abrams, who initially admitted that he was not a Trek fan, would attempt to take this film in a different direction than those before him.

In and of itself, that's not a bad thing, depending on what you are changing and how you go about doing it.

If you are changing the direction of the franchise by creating something entirely new, from scratch (something, for example, post-Nemesis), then that's perfectly fine.

Creating a new story of the original crew is also fine, so long as you don't conflict with a couple of things.

The first, we can debate the importance of, and that's canon. The second, IMHO, is non-debatable. That's the intent and feeling behind the movie that pretty much EVERY incarnation of Trek has shared.

Unlike you, I don't trust that Abrams and company understand the intent and feeling that Trek has had. So, whenever I hear certain things about character details and it needing to be "more like Star Wars," then I think it's cause for concern.

You and I have differing opinions on what we think Kurtzman meant when he said that.

That's fine. Neither theory is correct until the finished product hits the screen. And, I'll have to rely on you and others to decide who was right, because I won't be seeing it.

But, I have been a fan of Trek since it's inception. And, I feel that's just about the only justification I need to speculate on what it is he meant and to have an opinion on it beyond that.

I don't plan on buying a Ford Expedition in my lifetime. But, that doesn't stop me from telling you that the one my neighbor bought is a butt ugly color.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old October 12 2008, 09:39 PM   #37
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

Ok, thanks for that explanation, though I'm still a little confused by it.

Is it possible that the trailer or other information will make you change your mind? Or not?

But, I have been a fan of Trek since it's inception. And, I feel that's just about the only justification I need to speculate on what it is he meant and to have an opinion on it beyond that.
I don't think you need a justification, really. I just wanted an explanation, because I find some of the posts in here difficult to understand, period.

It has to do with my decision on recasts, reboots, re-imagined, re-whatevered films.
If you don't mind, what exactly is the deal-breaker? What specifically do you KNOW about STXI that makes you say: "I won't watch it."?
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Old October 13 2008, 04:20 PM   #38
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

ancient wrote: View Post
Ok, thanks for that explanation, though I'm still a little confused by it.

Is it possible that the trailer or other information will make you change your mind? Or not?
possible? in the overall cosmic scheme of things, anything's possible. Likely? no.

I don't think you need a justification, really. I just wanted an explanation, because I find some of the posts in here difficult to understand, period.
That's fair. I've tried to be pretty open about my thoughts on this movie. I don't mind clarifying them when somebody doesn't understand where I'm coming from.

Which brings me to...

It has to do with my decision on recasts, reboots, re-imagined, re-whatevered films.
If you don't mind, what exactly is the deal-breaker? What specifically do you KNOW about STXI that makes you say: "I won't watch it."?
Well, my reason really has little to do with Trek itself but rather a broader decision.

I've seen a lot of remakes and recasts come down the pike. Seen a lot of things that revisit movies or TV shows that I once loved hit the big screen or whatever with new casts.

And, I have NEVER seen a single one that did any kind of justice to the original. 90% of them are just plain awful films that simply seek to cash in on the name of something that somebody else worked hard to make popular.

I decided, oh, probably right around the time that Nemesis came out, that I would no longer patronize those types of films, regardless of what the critics said, or regardless of how well the movie may or may not do.

Why? because for every GOOD film like that, there are about 1000 bad ones. And, I'm not sure if that's really even an exageration.

Quite simply, I will no longer contribute, monetarily, to that trend. At least, if I know about it ahead of time. There could be a remake or two that slip by because I'd never seen the original.

Like I said before, if Abrams had gathered together the remaining survivors of TOS and brought them onboard with this film, I might have changed my mind, even if I knew it would probably lead to them all being replaced later on if the film did well.

But, he didn't.

So, that, and that alone, is the deal breaker for me.

Has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I think the movie will be any good, or if I think it will be true to the original.

Having said that, I think this movie is a mistake.

I've been on record as saying that I wouldn't be making ANY big budget Trek picture right now, regardless of who was in it.

I think Trek has far too much baggage, the budget is way too high, and I see very little chance of it recouping it's money.

I know that some think that I'm simply an Abrams hater. Not true. I've enjoyed much of his work. I still watch Lost, and I somewhat enjoyed the premier of Fringe (that's the only episode I've had a chance to see yet). Alias was decent as well.

So, it has nothing to do with Abrams, other than I'm not entirely sure he quite "gets it" when it comes to Trek.

Compare that to Cawley and New Voyages/Phase II. I wouldn't pay to see a big budget version of that either, for the same reason I stated above. But, I give him and his crew a great deal of respect for the effort they put into their work to get it right. Although, I still see some character issues every now and again. At least in how they are played, if not how they are written.

Sulu has been a bit too bouncy for my tastes in the last couple of episodes. But, I fear that Abrams takes his character too far the other way with this "badass" version.

And, yes, I do think that comments suggesting it needs to be more like Star Wars are cause for concern. I see very little about Wars that lends itself to Trek, even visually.

Abrams and Co. don't owe us, as long time fans, anything. They can do with Trek what they wish. But, instead of throwing us the obligatory bone every now and again with canned comments that they hope we won't notice have been repeated dozens of times, it might be nice if they would elaborate on what was meant by the more like Star Wars statement.

They ought to be able to do that without giving away anything about the plot.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old October 15 2008, 02:54 AM   #39
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

TJinPgh wrote: View Post
Well, my reason really has little to do with Trek itself but rather a broader decision.

I've seen a lot of remakes and recasts come down the pike. Seen a lot of things that revisit movies or TV shows that I once loved hit the big screen or whatever with new casts.

And, I have NEVER seen a single one that did any kind of justice to the original. 90% of them are just plain awful films that simply seek to cash in on the name of something that somebody else worked hard to make popular.

I decided, oh, probably right around the time that Nemesis came out, that I would no longer patronize those types of films, regardless of what the critics said, or regardless of how well the movie may or may not do.

Why? because for every GOOD film like that, there are about 1000 bad ones. And, I'm not sure if that's really even an exageration.
Do you say this because there have been 'reboot' movies that you have hated but the critics love and this is a trend? It seems to me that it's better to wait and judge the movie afterwards based on the movie itself.

Are you talking about just TV-to-Movies, like say, Transformers, Mission Impossible, Speed Racer, that sort of thing?

Because about 95% of all movies are based on something pre-existing. Like the LOTR movies.

Like I said before, if Abrams had gathered together the remaining survivors of TOS and brought them onboard with this film, I might have changed my mind, even if I knew it would probably lead to them all being replaced later on if the film did well.

But, he didn't.
There is Nimoy. He's the only one who is a surviving actor playing a character who is also alive in the 24th century. I think it'll be awesome to watch STXI just to see Nimoy again.

Has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I think the movie will be any good, or if I think it will be true to the original.
See, THAT is what confused the hell out of me. I care only of the movie's quality.

I've been on record as saying that I wouldn't be making ANY big budget Trek picture right now, regardless of who was in it.

I think Trek has far too much baggage, the budget is way too high, and I see very little chance of it recouping it's money.
Ok, that's a distinct issue that I can't really argue with. Either it wins or not, either way I'll go see it and hope for the best.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Old October 15 2008, 06:11 AM   #40
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Kurtzman And Orci Drop New 'Star Trek XI' Hints

ancient wrote: View Post
Do you say this because there have been 'reboot' movies that you have hated but the critics love and this is a trend? It seems to me that it's better to wait and judge the movie afterwards based on the movie itself.

Are you talking about just TV-to-Movies, like say, Transformers, Mission Impossible, Speed Racer, that sort of thing?

Because about 95% of all movies are based on something pre-existing. Like the LOTR movies.
Well, I agree that there is certainly very little original coming out of Hollywood these days. Everything is either a reboot, a remake, or a recast or a sequal to something.

I suppose to answer your question, I'd have to say "All of the above" to the extent.

I'll elaborate on that in a bit.

There is Nimoy. He's the only one who is a surviving actor playing a character who is also alive in the 24th century. I think it'll be awesome to watch STXI just to see Nimoy again.
Two comments on this.

1. I've seen Nimoy die in a Star Trek film once already. It was enough. I have no desire to see it again.

2. It's not Star Trek XI. It's Star Trek.

Has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I think the movie will be any good, or if I think it will be true to the original.
See, THAT is what confused the hell out of me. I care only of the movie's quality.
This is a bit of a follow up to the first part of your question. Yes, quality is important. The problem is that most reboots, restarts, re-imagined whatevers lack it.

Which, ultimately, is the issue here.

Yes, I could go and see the movie. If I like it, fine. If I don't, I can gripe about it.

The problem is that neither JJ Abrams nor Paramount cares whether I like the movie. 30 million people could go see this movie, and 30 million people could say it was the worst movie of all time afterwards.

Paramount would, in turn, take their cut and do it all over again. That's what studios do.

Going to see this movie and deciding afterwards that I was right is pointless, becuase they will already have my $10.

Is there a chance by not going that I will miss out on a good movie? Sure. But, again, me going to a "restart" movie (their word, not mine), gives every studio out there the incentive to keep doing this, regardless of whether it's good or not.

I'd, personally, rather risk missing a decent movie than propogate the trend.

Other than that, it just seems that there is a certain amount of arrogance to do a project like this. All of these directors and producers seem to share a certain belieft that either "I can do it better than the original," or, "if so and so were still alive, he'd be doing it just like this."

Prior to doing the first movie, Roddenberry had apparently wanted to do Phase II. Near as I can tell, all of the original actors were to return for that had it taken place.

Phase II evolved into TMP, and all of the orignals returned.

Star Trek did return to TV. Roddenberry could have returned to TOS and recast it with a younger group of actors. He didn't. He went with TNG instead, and brought back the original cast of TOS five more times before he died.

My point is simple. Roddenberry had numerous opportunities to recast Trek along the way. He left the original alone and "recast" the show by creating an entirely new one.

That's what I think is being lost by this.

For the record, that's true of New Voyages/Phase II as well. Which is why, as much as I respect the effort they put into it, I wouldn't pay to see that, either.
TJinPgh is offline  
 

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 02:41 PM.

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