My wayward son.
No no no, you're thinking of TMP. Trek XI actually has a "Fast-action" sequence.
Star Trek covers EW
- Thread starter mr.peany
- Start date
My wayward son.
No no no, you're thinking of TMP. Trek XI actually has a "Fast-action" sequence.
You came to this forum late, so you may have missed a few things. Discussion here has been largely civil, if animated, and the "bashing of anyone" of which you spoke is, I think, a misperception, as is the notion of what you call "the r-word" being a dirty word to more than a few, even if there were anything like agreement on what that word really means. Given that last part, it's far from agreed that it even applies here, unless you ask the one person who has raised it here again and again to again, disrupting discussion to the extent that he had to be asked to stop it.
What if it isn't? Should they be forced to say that it is, anyway?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Just something to consider, as we try to get back to the topic, which is not Matt, nor is it that annoyingly-nebulous "r-word".
Dude, you're right, we're wrong. We get it. This thread was supposed to be a discussion about the new promotion the movie was getting. Nothing more, nothing less. If you feel so strongly about this issue, by all means feel free to start an in depth discussion in another thread. But to perfectly honest, you're ruining the fun around here.
MattJC does, in fairness, have a legitimate question. Why can't the movie-makers just come flat out and say it is or isn't a reboot? I mean, at least visually, it is. Whether other elements will adhere to canon remains to be seen.
But what would be gained?
What's the point of alienating part of your target audience now?
Why not leave it up to the audience to decide?
Can't we have this discussion after the movie comes out? Maybe it is a reboot, maybe it isn't? I don't think it's going to be that clear cut. The thing is Matt, most of us don't actually care. We are just excited that a new Star Trek movie is coming out. We don't care whether some stuff conflicts with other stuff that some guy wrote 40 years ago.
We just want a Star Trek movie with its heart and soul in the right place. With Kirk, Spock and Bones. With Klingons on the starboard bow, with neck pinches, three sliders on the transporter, a swoosh when the doors open and possibly a plot involving a machine controlled society that is either a child, a god or both*
You don't want to see this movie? Fine, but the rest of us are going to give this thing a chance. It deserves that at least.
* Maybe in the next movie
But what would be gained?
What's the point of alienating part of your target audience now?
Why not leave it up to the audience to decide?
Can't we have this discussion after the movie comes out? Maybe it is a reboot, maybe it isn't? I don't think it's going to be that clear cut. The thing is Matt, most of us don't actually care. We are just excited that a new Star Trek movie is coming out. We don't care whether some stuff conflicts with other stuff that some guy wrote 40 years ago.
We just want a Star Trek movie with its heart and soul in the right place. With Kirk, Spock and Bones. With Klingons on the starboard bow, with neck pinches, three sliders on the transporter, a swoosh when the doors open and possibly a plot involving a machine controlled society that is either a child, a god or both*
You don't want to see this movie? Fine, but the rest of us are going to give this thing a chance. It deserves that at least.
* Maybe in the next movie
Last edited:
I REALLY cannot believe that some people think that because the bridge looks very different from the original, this is a reboot. We've seen HOW MANY bridges on the Enterprise/Enterprise-A? 5? 6? Two in TOS alone!
The bridge module swaps out. Just because this one looks different doesn't mean the TOS version never will be. Calm down. Its just a bridge. And it looks very, very cool.
The bridge module swaps out. Just because this one looks different doesn't mean the TOS version never will be. Calm down. Its just a bridge. And it looks very, very cool.
I suppose people have different definitions of reboot and canon - personally, I don't consider the design aesthetic in the new photos to be non-canonical. After all, it's a new film with a new cast set in an era we haven't seen before. If they played fast and loose with the established chronology and the people involved (time travel shenannigens notwithstanding), that'd be a different matter. And even then I wouldn't care as long as I enjoyed it.
I don't mind if it's a reboot or not - I'm still as positive about it as I was six months ago. Can't wait.
Anyway - for all we know it might all make sense when we see the movie - "Ohhh! Now I see why they changed the bridge! Cool!" and other such maybes.
I don't mind if it's a reboot or not - I'm still as positive about it as I was six months ago. Can't wait.
Anyway - for all we know it might all make sense when we see the movie - "Ohhh! Now I see why they changed the bridge! Cool!" and other such maybes.
Who let McCain on the bridge?
And thus far there is no evidence - none at all - that there is anything more behind his "presentation." That "wounded cry" that he repeats appears to be it - all that there is. Nor is there a scintilla of evidence that the posts in question are intended to "foster debate." I think he's hitting the mark he's aiming at.
Seems to me that there are a couple of kindred souls down in the "Battlestar Galactica" forum whose montonous deliveries have been fairly unpopular.
I too am surprised that there's not more negativity from others. Participation thus far may have been slightly depressed by folks tuning out of Trek altogether last evening to watch Obama and McCain swing their lirpas at one another (or not). Or maybe it will surface when they actually read Abrams' remarks about "Star Trek" in today's "Entertainment Weekly" article.
I'll admit my negativity.
1. I felt a surge of disappointment when I saw Spock on the EW cover. But reading the notes here about how they airbrush the crap out of their covers, and seeing the "action" pic of Spock has alleviated that concern somewhat.
2. Not as much, but I felt a similar disappointment in the bridge pic. It is quite different, a direct contradiction to what we've been told, even by "outsiders" like James Cawley. (I guess being handed a role in the film negates your Outsider card, eh?)
But my optimism about the film far outweighs any concerns these photos may have raised, and I prefer to focus on that.
1. I felt a surge of disappointment when I saw Spock on the EW cover. But reading the notes here about how they airbrush the crap out of their covers, and seeing the "action" pic of Spock has alleviated that concern somewhat.
2. Not as much, but I felt a similar disappointment in the bridge pic. It is quite different, a direct contradiction to what we've been told, even by "outsiders" like James Cawley. (I guess being handed a role in the film negates your Outsider card, eh?)
But my optimism about the film far outweighs any concerns these photos may have raised, and I prefer to focus on that.
Not at all. People have read things into James's remarks that aren't there - he's been carefully accurate, if vague, in what he's said. Mainly he's registered his emotional reactions to the sets rather than describing specifics.
F-ing awesome!!!!! The new glossy looking bridge shot from the MTV site is almost exactly how I would have designed a retro-future bridge, after seeing shots from Abrams chat months ago I was worried, but these look awesome!!! The uniforms look like updated Under Armor tops like I had originally posted shots of. Its almost as if I had been designing the movie. To resonate this closely with my updated ideas is really exciting...I think I am now more officially interested than ANY OTHER ST movie ever.
RAMA
RAMA
Last edited:
Did you actually read the article? They've been saying that they've reinvented the franchise for a new audience for months. I've seen them use the term 'reboot' at least three or so times, referring to different elements of the movie. So piss off, you are clearly just here to bash the film and anyone who likes it. Grow up. Soon.
You don't like it. That's all you've said that is honest, and you really need to stop the mindless bashing now. It's very sad.
A box with his severed finger?
Well, I'm of the opinion that this is a movie (a multimedia presentation that may rely on the timed disclosure of narrative). As such, it is meant to be experienced in a specific way; large theater with other viewers, popcorn, huge soda, etc. If Abrams and Co. could express the je ne sais quoi of the movie through an interview, then there would be little reason at all to see the movie in the first place. They could express the full meaning of the movie and we would grok the substance. That said, I think they really want this movie to be seen, and for the viewers to make up their own minds after the experience.
No, they have not.
They been trying to tip toe around issue ever since they started this thing.
They refuse to say it is a reboot.
Quinto, apparently, said at the Vegas convention that purists will not be disappointed.
http://trekmovie.com/2008/08/10/vegascon-08-two-spocks-talk-trek-reveal-new-details/
How is a Trek purist supposed to like that bridge design?
Last edited:
I just finished checking out all of the pictures, and so far I am pretty happy with what we've seen. Sure the bridge might be different, but they've said all along that they were updating this, and making it more appropriate for the 21st Century, and IMO what we've seen of the bridge goes along with that very well. Although, I'll admit I was expecting something alittle closer than what we are used to. But, like I said before, I am pretty happy with the other pictures that we've seen. I've been dying to see a picture of the cast in makeup and costume, and I am very happy with what I've seen. Same goes for the uniforms, they're a good combination of new and old IMO. A lot of people on Trekmovie were ripping on Nero, but I actually think he looks pretty cool, myself. So overall, all of this stuff has actually gotten me even more excited for the movie, and has even alleviated some of my worries. Now, I guess the countdown for the trailer begins.
Edit:MattJC, how do we know that there isn't some kind of an explanation for why the bridge looks the way it does? Maybe there going on some kind of a mission that recquires them to use a different bridge setup, like other people have said on here we've seen several different versions of the Enterprise bridge, and there is no reason why this couldn't be another one.
Edit:MattJC, how do we know that there isn't some kind of an explanation for why the bridge looks the way it does? Maybe there going on some kind of a mission that recquires them to use a different bridge setup, like other people have said on here we've seen several different versions of the Enterprise bridge, and there is no reason why this couldn't be another one.
Last edited:
Similar threads
