Star Trek Completely Reimagined
- Thread starter vedek
- Start date
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Arcologies, and Paolo Soleri's architectural precepts - miniaturization, verticalization and increased population density so as to eliminate urban sprawl, etc. - played a key role in the design of 23rd century San Francisco as seen in ST:TMP (Pre-DE).
TGT
OH! You mean no new stories within established continuity! Sorry, I misunderstood you.
Personally, it's not that I don't think there are no new stories within continuity. I think that the last ten years of Trek have proven that Paramount cannot hire a team who are able to do anything the slightest bit interesting if they are working within continuity. So we might as well roll with it if they want to rewrite continuity and see if that results in anything better. I'm not at all convinced that it will. But it's worth a shot 'cause god knows what they were doing was trite pablum and not even a pale shadow of the best of Trek.
See, I have a problem with the word "facts". It's all fiction. So how can you get hung up on the idea of established facts?
The problem I see is that the more recent writers, and so many fans, are so intent upon focusing only on those things with which they are already familiar - characters, settings and events - that they blind themselves to the rest of the available universe. Even this film is not, IMHO, a "new story" - it's back story to other people, places and events, and in that context, sure, it can be a bitch to tell the tale without slipping up.
Let's face it: it's not like there isn't such a huge resource available to check on these things - millions of fans, among which tens of thousands probably know the number of eyelashes Spock has in any given episode - that there's no excuse for any professional to say, "Well, how could we know that was an issue?" Hire some fans for fact checkers! Go on the Internet! Come to this board! The answers aren't particularly difficult to find. And we probably would work pretty cheaply!
But what's the advantage of working within 40 years of contradictory continuity? Other than pleasing that contigent of fans, which isn't even really very large, who put great stock in the consistency of a fictional history?
I think I agree with your general sentiment. Ultimately it doesn't matter at all whether Trek took the route of working within continuity, or rebooting - what is important is that they return to the risk-taking that was a defining characteristic of TOS.
But, you know what - they're not going to do that no matter what. TOS was a tiny, low budget tv show that few people watched. It could be as out there and off the wall as it wanted, because it didn't represent much of an investment for the production company. Now it's an industry unto itself and no one is going to have the balls to take a real risk with that. Such is the reason the trailer is chock full of hot rebellious barely older than teenagers and chicks taking off their shirts, mixed with 'splosions.
That's not to say the movie won't be a good story. It is possible to pander and tell a good tale. TOS certainly did it often enough in its way.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Yeah, I'm not sure I buy into the thought that it would be impossible to do a good movie completely within existing contiunuity. But the fact is that's not what they're doing.
Basically, they latched onto an idea here with Romulans and time travel and Old Spock, etc. that they thought would be impossible to tell under such constraints. As far as whether or not that's the case, we'll find out in May. Either way, I don't think the desire to go in a different direction is an indictment of original continuity in any way. It's just different is all.
And I think it's for the better. Say what you want about the writing of Orci and Kurtzman, my confidence is bouyed by the involvement of guys like Damon LIndelof and Bryan Burk, who know a thing or two about plotting something that makes sense relative to itself.
Yes, haters, I'm talking about Lost. Sure, it can seem confusing and meandering at first blush, but the fact is, it's slavish to its own continuity in ways that would make your average Trekkie salivate and if you have a little patience, about 95% of it hangs together perfectly. Which is no mean feat for something way more complicated than this movie purports to be.
Basically, they latched onto an idea here with Romulans and time travel and Old Spock, etc. that they thought would be impossible to tell under such constraints. As far as whether or not that's the case, we'll find out in May. Either way, I don't think the desire to go in a different direction is an indictment of original continuity in any way. It's just different is all.
And I think it's for the better. Say what you want about the writing of Orci and Kurtzman, my confidence is bouyed by the involvement of guys like Damon LIndelof and Bryan Burk, who know a thing or two about plotting something that makes sense relative to itself.
Yes, haters, I'm talking about Lost. Sure, it can seem confusing and meandering at first blush, but the fact is, it's slavish to its own continuity in ways that would make your average Trekkie salivate and if you have a little patience, about 95% of it hangs together perfectly. Which is no mean feat for something way more complicated than this movie purports to be.
Yes yes it is. Big housing thingies is a technical term used by the highest level of science...
Hey, we've seen what you like, SP
; I stand by my claims (although, in ENT's defense, neither the directors nor most of the cast did the stories any favors).
Forget about TOS totally
When getting into then new Trek and when it eventually is released do you think it would be better to totally forget everything we know based on events learned in TOS and treat the new Trek as a brand new movie, like pretending that there was never a Star Trek before. Would it make it easier to watch without getting the urge to jump up out of your seat and yell "that didn't happen" at almost every scene?
I feel that I after I saw the trailer earlier and read the descriptions of the clips that had been seen I think it'd probably be best to treat it as brand new rather than try to fit it into established trivia.
Any thoughts?
When getting into then new Trek and when it eventually is released do you think it would be better to totally forget everything we know based on events learned in TOS and treat the new Trek as a brand new movie, like pretending that there was never a Star Trek before. Would it make it easier to watch without getting the urge to jump up out of your seat and yell "that didn't happen" at almost every scene?
I feel that I after I saw the trailer earlier and read the descriptions of the clips that had been seen I think it'd probably be best to treat it as brand new rather than try to fit it into established trivia.
Any thoughts?
Re: Forget about TOS totally
I think using TOS as a very broad, general foundation for the new movie will work -- there's still an Enterprise, Kirk and Spock are forging a friendship, all the "major players" will be on the bridge, etc. I think there are too many people out there who want TOS to be the foundation for every little detail of the new movie, and that's where the breakdown exists.
I think using TOS as a very broad, general foundation for the new movie will work -- there's still an Enterprise, Kirk and Spock are forging a friendship, all the "major players" will be on the bridge, etc. I think there are too many people out there who want TOS to be the foundation for every little detail of the new movie, and that's where the breakdown exists.
Re: Forget about TOS totally
That's probably good idea, however I think including Nimoy as Spock in this film is going to make that a lot tougher for us old TOS fans. As I said in another thread, it's like Abrams and company are trying to straddle the fence between "remake" and staying true the original.
That's probably good idea, however I think including Nimoy as Spock in this film is going to make that a lot tougher for us old TOS fans. As I said in another thread, it's like Abrams and company are trying to straddle the fence between "remake" and staying true the original.
Re: Is Trek XI reimagined?
You may want to join the discussion over in this thread. I'll merge this one with that -- hold on...
They are in Iowa.
Re: Forget about TOS totally
i think Nemesis tried to straddle the fence more, imo. It tried using the same actors and everything from previous continuity, then turned it on its head. Trek XI will, if nothing else, at least be entertaining and make money... something Nemesis can't really say
i think Nemesis tried to straddle the fence more, imo. It tried using the same actors and everything from previous continuity, then turned it on its head. Trek XI will, if nothing else, at least be entertaining and make money... something Nemesis can't really say
Re: Forget about TOS totally
I think that, rather than have several different discussions about reimagining Trek (and how much to forget or remember TOS in the process) it would be better to have them all in one place. Hang on a moment... I'll send you there...
I left a link on the forum index which will forward to this thread.
