Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Sector 7, Nov 13, 2008.
Man, the series finale of ENT all over again. *shudder*
No, but what we will discover is that the original "Star Trek" TV series is simply one of the first and very crude holodeck simulations to be made available when the technology catches on with consumers.
That had to be said sooner or later. But I contend, the first seasons were futuristic enough for me! ;p
Understood. However, most don't lust after vehicles that are over 300 years old. That is what I'm having trouble buying, not that people like antique stuff or are obsessive over hobbies.
I just can't buy that part of the teaser. It really would be akin to guys from our time frame tooling around in curricles or phaetons or the like.
Perhaps, in a society where safe, quiet, ergonomically correct and sterilized transportation is abundant... some would prefer items from an age where a man could drive a car that sounded powerful, muscular and cool. I know I would.
AWESOME! I was hoping someone would say this!
Tha car may appear to be a classic but could be a replica- remember not only did it have to survive normal use but also a nuclear war. With replicator technology it might be easy to create any sort of vehicle you want.
What I don't get is the why open the movie like this? It might work if people were not expecting to find out it is Kirk was being arrested by Robocop, but anybody buying a ticket would already know.
There are folks who collect Model T Fords, which are now 100 years old. It happens that there are no 200 year old cars - but there are also people who like to sail replicas of clipper ships from the 18th century.
You know, Kirk has an interesting line in "A Piece Of The Action" regarding the "flivver:"
Evidently, that wasn't an entirely bizarre notion to Spock - just a scary one.
Well now we see from where his interest in old cars comes, his youth!
The difference is they weren't making things half as cool as classic cars back in the 1700s. Even when the world has moved onto fusion power and anti-gravity propulsion (or whatever the heck cars in the future run on), those cars will likely still be considered incredible works of art and engineering.
Just like we still value and stand in awe of Michaelangelo's and DaVinci's works in this age of digital painting and hyper-real CGI.
I'm sorry, but that's not true, at least not to the obsessive extent that seems to have become the 'norm' in Trek fandom. But I'll address that at the end once I've gotten some of this out of my system ...
Hey, I love Star Trek as much as the next fan, if not a little bit more, but I don't live it. I enjoy the heck out of it when it's good, and I groan when it's bad. But if it has to be something other than Star Trek just to survive, then let's just be honest and call it something else! I read a lot of lines from fans who say, "Give me Star Trek! More Star Trek! Don't let Star Trek languish and die - change it into something else if that's the only way it will live, but please oh please ohpleaseohpleaseohplease call it Star Trek! That way, Star Trek will never be gone from my life, and change is good and IDIC is great and you can't like Star Trek unless you accept that it's not about Star Trek but about Paramount's goddamn bottom line so shut up and get a life." <<deep breath>>
Vulcan Soul, that's my point exactly. Make a great movie, tell a great story, and if you have to change everything to 'get people interested,' then those people aren't interested in Star Trek, anyway. They're interested in your movie, and calling it Star Trek or not isn't going to change that. The bottom line at Paramount is about one thing: money. It doesn't matter to them whether they can make money with Star Trek or Alvin & the Chipmunks (and, no, I don't know that Paramount had anything to do with that godawful piece of crap, but I'm sure some obsessive fan will correct me just to be pedantic); it all deposits into the same bank and it's all green. Frankly, I object to the whole 'bait and switch' concept that they employ here: "We made lots of money with Star Trek, but now we don't, and we're pretty sure that the general public doesn't give a flying f*** about Star Trek - so let's go on the premise that we do know what they give a flying f*** about, and call it Star Trek, so then we'll get people with taste and lives to pay us $10-$15 a ticket and we'll get all those die-hard 'I'll watch anything called Star Trek even if it sucks' fans who, somehow, we've already determined are too insignificant to base a business model on." You know what? I don't give a damn if it's a business to them!
If the story's good, I'll be entertained, whether it has the ship or Kirk and Spock and McCoy or not. It could have Andromeda or the NSEA Protector or the Nimitz in it for all I care, as long as it's a story worth telling, and it's told well. And I'll add another gripe here: I don't see a story about how Kirk and Spock got together, how they became friends, how Pike took Kirk under his wing, how McCoy came to hate transporters, how Scotty became Super Engineer or how the Federation came to be a story worth telling when it comes to Star Trek. And you know why? Because it's not a Star Trek story - it's a story about Star Trek! We already had 4 long, irritating years of that with ENT, and this strikes me as yet another fanboy pandering, more fan fiction that Paramount and J.J. are too embarrassed or simply cynical about to admit. Fans have sat around for decades "filling in the blanks" that they found in TOS, and then TNG and the rest, and then Paramount and Bermaga made it a business model, and even then we got bitching and moaning about "I didn't want to see all this crap - I wanted to see the Romulan War!" Guess what! MORE BACK STORY!!
People here tell folks like me to "get over it" when we ask, "Why can't Star Trek actually move forward? Why is it that every time they try to "reinvent" it now, they make up back story for stories we've already seen?" They say, "Why can't you accept change?" Well, my answer is, "Why can't you see that change is exactly what you're not getting? You're getting fan fiction about characters and ships and events and stories that have been around for 40 years." That's not change, guys. That is the stagnation you're claiming to want to fight.
When stories were written for TOS, many of them were written by honest-to-God science fiction writers, people who created a story first and then wrapped it up in a Star Trek wrapper. Now, no one starts out by asking, "What's a good story?" They only seem to ask, "What else can we tell people about Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise and Starfleet and the Federation and, oh, can we market that at Toys 'r' Us?"
And we're all expected to say, "Yessir! Thank you, sir! May I have another, sir?" Even by our fellow fans. We're asked to lower our standards and our expectations so Paramount can make a buck, and so our fellow fans won't have to live without something called Star Trek. I don't hate people changing Star Trek - I hate seeing Star Trek whored out, and me being asked to leave $20 on the dresser on my way out.
Actually, no, not all of us care what dissatisfied trekkies say about the movie. I certainly don't.
I don't care much for most of DS9. I've said so, in passing conversation mainly on other subjects, more than a few times.
I spend virtually no time in the DS9 forum, nor do I post there more than a few messages a year. Funny, that.
If there's one episode of Star Trek I would ever "de-canonize", it would be the ENT series finale.
And yet, here you are!
The desire to corner Trek into a narrative is seductive... but ultimately a lie. The old Star Trek isn't what this film will be. Really, why wouldn't a new production be a product of it's time? As opposed to the 60s.
Ok, here's another one of Guartho's wild-assed theories. The 'Vette is Kirk's 8th grade History and/or Science class project. He replicated the parts and assembled it because he still is that much of a nerd. His backstory is unchanged, a stack of books with legs. He drives it off the cliff because his teacher gave him a failing grade.
I don't think everyone who doesn't like the trailer is strictly opposed to updating the film but rather the way they've gone about it.
In the last week there are so many more excited and positive-minded Trekkies in this forum than I've seen around here for a long time. It's fun again, even if the occasional faux Enterprise Captain keeps up a repetitious and failed line of attack.
Hey, the captain isn't that bad, is he?
he's not talking about you, Plum...
I'm catching up!
I can't divine everything Starship P. says.
Separate names with a comma.