^
Picture isn't working. At least not at this second.
What is it?
Picture isn't working. At least not at this second.
What is it?
Scott Bakula's Take on the New Movie & Fan Reaction
- Thread starter Carpe Occasio
- Start date
It's a picture of a baby, crying.
Apparently he does, according to the press members who attended the preview of 3 scenes and a trailer. But given that it's a century from Enterprise, the Admiral could be a descendent or even no relation at all, like another Archer mentioned in Voyager. The one with the Species 8472 training camp. "In the Flesh", if I recall. The comments about a Beagle having an unfortunate fate raised a few eyebrows though...
Hopefully the American Animal Humane Society disclaimer will feature in the end credits:
No Beagles were harmed during the making of this film (especially ones own by Starfleet Legends!)
Many thinks for those links, Jackson. If only they had filmed that, then my argument would have a leg to stand on!
Interesting that when Mirror Archer is about to say Hoshi how she died, his next words would've been at the hands of Kodos the Executioner on Tarsus IV. Another element which probably doesn't happen in this new film's timeline...
Well, it may not be canon, but there's nothing wrong with it being fanon. Until something onscreen directly negates the possibility that a very old Archer was there on launch day, then it is perfectly valid fanon.Many thinks for those links, Jackson. If only they had filmed that, then my argument would have a leg to stand on!
Agreed.
Say what you like about his acting ability or the Archer character - it seems that everyone who worked with him on set, has nothing but praise for the man himself. I mean, Gary Graham (Soval) practically raves about Bakula in his own book (Flying Lessons).
Both of those things are absolutely so.
A third thing which he doesn't mention is that the old guard at the studio and at Trek were just not the right people to "reinvent" anything. Everyone was too invested in the established approach to everything, and it was difficult for them to really step outside and look at it differently.
Not only are the folks who produced modern Star Trek for all of those years, from TNG through Enterprise, gone...so are the folks who ran the studio in that era, from the top on down. Those were the people who made crucial decisions about how the Trek films would be budgeted and made, and the venues in which Trek would play on television.
considering that kirk evidently was just a bystander at the wrong place wrong time i doubt that will keep it from happening.Many thinks for those links, Jackson. If only they had filmed that, then my argument would have a leg to stand on!
it just means kirk may not have been there.
as for the archer thing..
it may have been a descendant or perhaps scotty was just giving an example of about how someone can get assigned to a far out outpost by telling a story about someone else in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very true! one dosen't have to think to hard to realize that the ''old'' guard were so set in there ways that there was no real chance of them reinventing ''ANYTHING!'' even if they TRIED!
By the way, I've always been a fan of Bakula's! he's a GREAT actor. Any body know if he's still working on T.V? or is he just doing stage work?
Read the full interview, miraclefan. 
He says he'll be in 3 episodes of Chucks.
He says he'll be in 3 episodes of Chucks.
^Stupid me. Thanks!
D'ya know that the last award-winning film to come out of Paramount studios was supposedly "Forrest Gump?"
Fifteen years ago.
Well, Star Trek obviously isn't going to win awards...but, uh, Paramount's movies also weren't making them a lot of money for quite a while.
The new people are still feeling their way along. A big reason they so want Trek to succeed big is that they own it - "their" other franchises, "Transformers" and "Iron Man" are actually just movies they distribute.
^Forrest Gump? seriously?!
Bakula basically carried the show for the first 2 seasons, as the only recoginizable face, and I thought he did a good job. And ENT was a step up from the excruciating blandness that was VOY, despite the popluar opinion. And whenever I've spoken to fans that have met Bakula, they to a person say he is a consummate gentleman and "regular guy". So I won't tolerate any hatin' on the Scott-meister.
Braveheart was after Forrest Gump and it won Best Picture for Paramount (though I think it was only a year later). However, I have trouble believing Paramount has had NO awards since 1995. Have to look it up, I guess.
D'ya know that the last award-winning film to come out of Paramount studios was supposedly "Forrest Gump?"
Fifteen years ago.
Well, Star Trek obviously isn't going to win awards...but, uh, Paramount's movies also weren't making them a lot of money for quite a while.
The new people are still feeling their way along. A big reason they so want Trek to succeed big is that they own it - "their" other franchises, "Transformers" and "Iron Man" are actually just movies they distribute.
I agree. I'm no Enterprise lover but it was a step up from the waste of seven years of my life that was Voyager. I think after VOY I was too impatient to give ENT a real chance. Life's too short and all that shit. Sure the writing on Enterprise was lazy and tired but... You got this sense that if the writers could just get past their lethargy... It might get good. I undertstand that it was finally starting to come together when they cancelled it. Too bad they couldn't get the lead out of their ass before they lost me mid-season 1. Maybe it would still be on.
Titanic was co-produced by Paramount and won the Oscar. It was released by 20th in the United States but Paramount released it overseas. So technically it's Oscar was half Paramount's.
Braveheart was after Forrest Gump and it won Best Picture for Paramount (though I think it was only a year later). However, I have trouble believing Paramount has had NO awards since 1995. Have to look it up, I guess.
D'ya know that the last award-winning film to come out of Paramount studios was supposedly "Forrest Gump?"
Fifteen years ago.
Well, Star Trek obviously isn't going to win awards...but, uh, Paramount's movies also weren't making them a lot of money for quite a while.
The new people are still feeling their way along. A big reason they so want Trek to succeed big is that they own it - "their" other franchises, "Transformers" and "Iron Man" are actually just movies they distribute.
Actually, Paramount was only the domestic distributor for Braveheart (Fox distributed it outside the U.S.). The film was actually made by an independent, Icon Productions (owned in part by Mel Gibson).
I'll always be a far, far bigger fan of ENTERPRISE than VOYAGER in spite of the former's truncated run and early demise. The show simply had a more down to earth feel(no pun intended)and more recognizable heart(not to mention FAR less annoying technobabble)than VOY. ENT was a superior show most of the time...pure and simple.
Yep. They knew that Trek had to change. They just didn't know how to do it.
Someone within the production who used to post here under a pseudonym (I think it was "Morpheus") and who was no cheerleader for the producers ("I have no idea what they're thinking" was his/her response to the Ferengi episode) described trying to refresh Star Trek as something like trying to turn a leaking oil tanker in shallow water.
Similar threads
