Abrams: ST Movie is Not a Traditional Prequel

[Dale]

I say kill Sulu. Sulu has always bugged me anyway.

Maybe young Spock dies saving young Kirk from Nero'
s plotting and old Spock transfers his katra into him, giving Nimoy's Spock some closure and yet making Quinto's revived Spock a much diferent, more Yoda-like character simply brimming with sage wisdom and such.

 

[bassomatic]

I read this article and I have to say. As much as I want this film to be exciting and interesting, let alone re-activate the franchise. Most of the fans want to see this film to see how 'it' all started. If JJ goes about and re-does things just so he can get a WTH affect, let alone change established facts for the series, then he / and Paramount should have let Star Trek die. Better it be buried than resurrected as a pale shale of its former self, or worse, that it be made into to a mutant monster of its' former self.

edit: Also, if JJ goes and does the reset button into a reset button BS he did in Felicity then he needs to get a new M.O.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I know who they're gonna kill...

They're GOING TO KILL FINNEGAN! AAAAAAAAA!!!

 

[archeryguy1701]

bassomatic said:
I read this article and I have to say. As much as I want this film to be exciting and interesting, let alone re-activate the franchise. Most of the fans want to see this film to see how 'it' all started. If JJ goes about and re-does things just so he can get a WTH affect, let alone change established facts for the series, then he / and Paramount should have let Star Trek die. Better it be buried than resurrected as a pale shale of its former self, or worse, that it be made into to a mutant monster of its' former self.

edit: Also, if JJ goes and does the reset button into a reset button BS he did in Felicity then he needs to get a new M.O.

But what if it turns out to be a good or even a great movie? Would you still want it dead?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

bassomatic said:
I read this article and I have to say. As much as I want this film to be exciting and interesting, let alone re-activate the franchise. Most of the fans want to see this film to see how 'it' all started. If JJ goes about and re-does things just so he can get a WTH affect, let alone change established facts for the series, then he / and Paramount should have let Star Trek die. Better it be buried than resurrected as a pale shale of its former self, or worse, that it be made into to a mutant monster of its' former self.

edit: Also, if JJ goes and does the reset button into a reset button BS he did in Felicity then he needs to get a new M.O.

I never even once saw "Felicity" so I have no idea what the @#$* you're talking about. Care to explain, please?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

bassomatic said:Better it be buried than resurrected as a pale shale of its former self, or worse, that it be made into to a mutant monster of its' former self.

Disagree. Whether the new version is a "pale shadow" or not will be a judgment to be made by each individual when or if they see the film.

 

[bassomatic]

Sure, but let me state my wife and I trade off on old TV shows to watch on DVD and this was her choice - In the 4th to last episode of this College show, after we the audience went through the pain of finally seeing the darn show end, JJ make sit show the main character travels back in time to change one event in order to make her life better. However, upon doing so she messes up the life of everyone else. The last three episodes are her coming to the realization that her life was better the first time go round and she tries to reset everything back to the way it was. My point being if we all sit thought 1 1/2 to 2 hour movie, see a whole bunch of characters die, only to get a giant reset at the end in order to preserve canon, or GOD forbid make a whole new Star Trek Universe. Then I would rather just not have the movie made. Sorry, I know I am one guy, but that is how I see it.

 

[biotech]

We've all been thinking they will travel to the earliest point in time and move forwards, what if the reverse was true, what if the first point was Kirks first mission as captain of the enterprise?

Nero and the goons arive, kill Sulu, Chekov and Uhura, but Kirk still lives, so the timeline isnt changed.

They go back again earlier in time, those who died are still alive in younger form.

An attempt is made on Kirks life in the acadamy, McCoy and Scotty buy the farm, Kirk lives, the timeline in unaltered, so they go back further, to when Kirk and his brother were kids, kill Kirks parents and still miss Kirk.

So they go back even further and try and kill Kirks parents before the conceive, and old Spock finally takes them all out, at the cost of his own life.

Everyone who died lived, because the timeline where they died never happens, but we still got to see them all die.

 

[bassomatic]

I am answering these out of order so I am also responding to Starship Polaris with this. I realize that each person is going to make his/her judgment. That is why I say that even if it is an entertaining film, I will still be somewhat disappointed. I have no idea how old any of you are. I am older and have watched and read Star Trek for a very long time. I would call myself a traditionalist when it comes to Trek. The only thing I have issue with, and it is about Movies / TV in general these days. Is this annoying need to re-do everything. I guess I feel that if Hollywood cannot just movie ahead with an established story (i.e. go further into the future of Trek) or at least come up with a new idea (maybe a new spin off of trek), that they should leave well enough alone instead of trying to 'spice up' , 're-invent' or just 'make better' something that was good to begin with. This example is off topic, but I am also dumb struck with the relaunch of KnightRider. I mean come on is there no one in Hollywood that can get a new idea for a show.

Like I said in the beginning, this is just my opinion.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

biotech said:
We've all been thinking they will travel to the earliest point in time and move forwards, what if the reverse was true, what if the first point was Kirks first mission as captain of the enterprise?

Nero and the goons arive, kill Sulu, Chekov and Uhura, but Kirk still lives, so the timeline isnt changed.

They go back again earlier in time, those who died are still alive in younger form.

An attempt is made on Kirks life in the acadamy, McCoy and Scotty buy the farm, Kirk lives, the timeline in unaltered, so they go back further, to when Kirk and his brother were kids, kill Kirks parents and still miss Kirk.

So they go back even further and try and kill Kirks parents before the conceive, and old Spock finally takes them all out, at the cost of his own life.

Everyone who died lived, because the timeline where they died never happens, but we still got to see them all die.

Honestly, when I read through that, I saw it more as something appropriate for an SNL joke skit than for a real movie.

Sorry, I can't imagine any audience sitting through that without either laughing at the movie (not WITH it, but AT it), or just walking out.

That's my personal take... I'd be horrified to find that was what they'd done. It honestly just sounds like an opportunity for pointless, gratuituous violence. The entire audience would be filled with the same group who cheer for Freddy Krueger or Jason Vorhees...

For a movie to be enjoyable, for ME at least, it has to seem like there's a POINT to it all. That, more than anything else, is missing from what you just described. If that WAS the movie, I'm sure I'd sit through the entire thing, hoping it would change at some point and would give us a "bright moment of revelation" like the ending of Blade Runner did (it was an otherwise bleak and depressing film, but just when it was at its darkest, Rutger Hauer's character basically flips everything on it's head and the audience is shown the other side of the story.)

But if it ended up as you described... I'd hate the film, never see it again, never buy the @#$*ing DVD, tell everyone I know that it sucked, etc, etc. And never forgive the bastards who gave it to us.

But hey, that's just ME...

 

[biotech]

well I just liked the fact that anyone could die but Kirk or Spock and the timeline would stay the same.

Might finally shut up some of the other actors who blew their roles in trek out of preportion.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

bassomatic said:This example is off topic, but I am also dumb struck with the relaunch of KnightRider. I mean come on is there no one in Hollywood that can get a new idea for a show.

Interesting... I hadn't been aware of another "Knight Rider" revival. The past several were horrible, of course. The original show wasn't GREAT, but it was entertaining at least. Basically, it was a "popcorn" show... all fluff, no substance, but enjoyable.

I just did some quick research into it... and know enough to comment.

This show is a continuation, not a "reboot." SO... while I'd agree, it's a shame that nobody can come up with any new ideas, I don't have a major problem with the Knight Industries Three Thousand, or the son of the original character in this one... it may be cheesy, but it might be fun, too. We'll see.

The good thing is that it, even in the case of something like Knight Rider, respects the original continuity.

 

[Holytomato]

bassomatic said:
I read this article and I have to say. As much as I want this film to be exciting and interesting, let alone re-activate the franchise. Most of the fans want to see this film to see how 'it' all started. If JJ goes about and re-does things just so he can get a WTH affect, let alone change established facts for the series, then he / and Paramount should have let Star Trek die. Better it be buried than resurrected as a pale shale of its former self, or worse, that it be made into to a mutant monster of its' former self.

edit: Also, if JJ goes and does the reset button into a reset button BS he did in Felicity then he needs to get a new M.O.

Its been known for a long time we weren't getting a TOS movie in the style of "The Corbomite Maneuver".

It's been said,

"Reboot bad!"

"Reboot good!"

Then, "Alternative timeline, good!"

Now,

"Alternative timeline, yes!"

"Alternative timeline, no!"

The Alternative timeline idea has now been latched onto.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Chekov dies in the movie.

You heard it here first.

 

[Holytomato]

"I say kill Sulu. Sulu has always bugged me anyway."

...I'm not touching this.

"Chekov dies in the movie."

Mmm...naw this already happened on New Voyages.

how about...The Enterprise!

 

[ralph]

Time travel, alternative timelines, three Spocks, two Kirks (until now), prequel not tradicional, I hope not seeing "To be continued" in the end.

 

[Trevacious]

bassomatic said:
Most of the fans want to see this film to see how 'it' all started.

How it all started: an aged Spock from the future came back and changed history so that it will never again resemble the brightly-colored, velour-draped world from which he came.

The changes are so extensive, his friends wouldn't even recognize themselves in the mirror.

 

[thumbtack]

C.E. Evans said:
Chekov dies in the movie.

You heard it here first.

Ahem...

 

[C.E. Evans]

thumbtack said:

C.E. Evans said:
Chekov dies in the movie.

You heard it here first.

Ahem...

Got something caught in your throat?

Was it not heard here in this thread first?

 

[Trevacious]

C.E. Evans said:
Chekov dies in the movie.

Ah, well... that's never stopped him before.