Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Victory Is Life, Mar 22, 2014.
Are people dissing ShatKirk?!!!!!
I want them both at the SAME TIME.
You brought it up and instead of using a scene showing Kirk's courage, you instead use a scene showing Kirk hurt and grieving. No connection between your comment and example.
. And Pine's Kirk has saved Earth,defeated more powerful ships and returned from the dead. Give him four more films and he'll have more on his resume.
Sure it was, there were actual episodes where Kirk was uncertain of what course of action to take. That humanity is what makes TV Kirk a great character.
In Universe Vulcan would have been destroyed, just like Edith died and Kirk could do nothing.
Uhh, I was still talking about that scene from DS9, not the Abramsverse.
I really hope this is true. He should set the new series in 25the century, around 80 years after Voyager.
New crew, new stories, new technologies.
Abrams is a joke
Since this has become a ridiculous Kirk dick-waving contest, I'd just like to point out that PineKirk has a much bigger Enterprise than ShatKirk!
was that "dreadnought" constructed as origami?
It's an untextured work-in-progress model by Madman1701A. He since finished it, but I made that comparison chart ages ago and haven't updated it yet.
The ship looked like that in the movie as well. The origami was just painted darker, to let the audience know it is crewed by evil men.
Anyone seriously rebooting Star Trek, particularly TOS, is going to defer to Shatner's Kirk rather than Pine's in terms of adapting the character. In extent they will be deferring to Roddenberry's Kirk rather than Abrams.
Simply put Shatner's Kirk is the iconic one with a long history. He is the one most recognized. He is also an extension of the world building that went into the setting. He is a more recognizably credible character within a more credible fictional universe. The organization that he operates in works more believably than the Abrams' version.
Shatner's Kirk is an adult officer with years of experience and training that honed him into his current self.
Pine's nuKirk is an adolescent fantasy where a cocky attitude earns you all the prizes without merit. It plays to the attitude, "I have a right to such and such because I want it." Earning has nothing to do with it.
In GR's universe if a Cadet or Ensign or Lieutenant performs a heroic service they are recognized with a commendation. They are NOT given command of the fleet's newest ship.
In GR's universe if an officer is a problem he's confined to quarters or even put in the brig. He is NOT abandoned on a hostile planet.
In GR's universe if you don't get the assignment you hoped for you make the best of it and work toward earning that assignment. You DO NOT go whining to your boyfriend to fix it for you.
Everything in the Abramsverse is of an arbitrary and nonsensical nature. There is not one whit of credibility to it but playing to adolescent sensibilities. There is never any effort to make any of it even remotely believable. By using this approach you have a disconnect from anything recognizable in the real world.
In GR's universe there's an effort to present a setting with at least a semblance of credibility and the characters within it behave according to its rules. While fictional it's still recognizable and accessible to the audience.
One of the strengths of GR's Star Trek was to present the fantastic in a setting that had a sense of familiar believability. But the Abramsverse totally ignores such balance. There is no sense of believability whatsoever.
For me it depends on which version of Shat Kirk they look to, TV Shat vs movies Shat. One of the problems I have with Abrams' Kirk is they're clearly influenced by the version of Kirk we see in the TOS films, which isn't the Kirk I prefer. TV Kirk is much more interesting and nuanced.
Agreed. I should have made the distinction. GR's Kirk as opposed to the Bennett-Meyer version.
Looking at this always gives me a fanboy-semi. Thanks, Daniel
So. Seth Macfarlane on the next Trek series. It could work. I think there's a bias because everyone automatically thinks "FAMILY GUY!" So it would turn into a puerile and adolescent affair. Which is wrong. More often than not those with a comedic bend are actually even better at drama. He also has plenty of experience working on television, he's got an obvious love for the material.
Aside of Seth, probably as a producer, I think it would then be a matter of getting a really solid team of writers. A mixture of those with a lot of experience, and some fresh talent. Also, I do agree wholeheartedly that Star Trek needs to find the top dog Science Fiction writers of our time and get them to either write, or adapt their stories to Star Trek.
Abrams didn't have to negotiate with Paramount at all. Flashback to 2006, when Abrams first acquired the rights to Trek. Star Trek was essentially a dead property. Enterprise was cancelled a year earlier, the box office failure of Nemesis was still casting a shadow over the possibility of any more Trek movies, as evidenced by the recent abandonment of Ricker Berman's Star Trek The Beginning, a prequel movie about the Romulan War.
Enter JJ Abrams, the producer of one of the most popular TV shows at the time (Lost) and thanks to his work on the third Mission Impossible movie is starting to get some connections at Paramount. At a meeting with their top execs one day he pitches some movies he'd like to do, pitches which eventually develop into movies like Cloverfield and Super 8. Also among these pitches, a request to do a Star Trek movie. If this rising star thinks he can do something with Star Trek that will pull money in, why should the execs say no?
I'm no fan of the Abrams series, and I've made my criticisms very well known around here. But, from Paramount's point of view there's a very solid reason why they support Abrams. The only "integrity of the franchise" which matters in the end is its financial integrity which it has now but didn't before the Abrams movies.
Granted the Abrams movies are stupid mindless popcorn flicks, but then people tend to exaggerate the intellectualism of the other Treks anyway.
Seth and Manny together...or nothing.
Po-tay-to, po-ta-to. So they called the Klingon ship a Warbird; well frack me, it does look like one, and was even called it on Enterprise.
Yet another big deal. Yes, it shouldn't have been said, but again, who (except for rabid fans) gives a shit?
That was all a telepathic vision in the mind's eye of Spock, or didn't you (as a supposed longtime fan) get that?
Another big deal. People seeing it might have thought that it was a fictional garage kit/extrapolation, just like the real world fans of Star Trek do and make said art/model kits now.
Khan would do anything if his mind was erased and his face altered, and that's just what happened (although the mind erasure didn't last long, obviously.)
Saltwater wouldn't hurt the outside of a ship, but the inside's a different matter; if a window broke or a seal ruptured and water came in, then they would've had problems.
Ever heard of travelling at the speed of plot? Well, that happened a lot in Star Trek in the past, so it happens now; again, big deal.
Watch the movie again; they were using a different ship, and said ship was in a part of the planet that was largely uninhabited.
Why do things have to happen years later as they did before? And who cares?
You never even started.
I'm curious, what is the basis for thinking Macfarlane wants to do TNG-flavored Trek in particular?
He's used the characters and actors in his animated shows. He's working with Brannon Braga on Cosmos.
He's referenced TOS as well, mentions the Kobayashi Maru in talk show appearances and so on. I get that he likes TNG and probably Patrick Stewart in particular but I don't know if that's evidence he would want to do a TNG styled show.
Separate names with a comma.