Maybe Flash Gordon fans? (And they do exist, and definitely did exist in the 1970ies)
BREAKING: Official Fan Film Guidelines Issued
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
Dare I ask, does anyone know if the Star Wars fan film people have had anything to say about this in their own community?
Mark
Mark
You should have been around in 1987 for the premiere of TNG. There was a lot of hate (by Star Trek fans) for TNG in 1987 after the pilot episode and the ones following. Do you know why it survived? It brought new fans in to the 'Star Trek' fold who now considered TNG what Star Trek was.
[Oh, and BTW I was one of the old Star Trek fans who saw the premiere and said "This is what they came up with to continue the Star Trek legacy? Wow. GR has gone senile." - and again I wasn't alone. I stuck with TNG and grew to appreciate what it was; but overall, to this day, I do not feel it was or is a great continuation of what I really liked about Star Trek. IMO - the single modern Star Trek series I really enjoyed was "Enterprise" (it's my second favorite Star Trek series after TOS, third is DS9. I thought from day one, VOY was crap. YMMV. I also very much enjoy the JJ Abrams films, and if you don't feel it did a good job of recapturing Star Trek (TOS), IMO you didn't really watch TOS. lastly, I've been watching Star Trek first run since 1969; I was 6 years old then - just in case someone thinks, "Oh he must have started with JJ Trek..."]
Let's not turn this into another argument about who gets to define "real" Star Trek, please. I "really watched" TOS, and the JJ films have not recaptured it for me. Human beings experience art subjectively. No one is 'right' or 'wrong' in their assessments of the new movies.
Last edited:
Enterprise became great as it moved away from TNG style Berman and Braga trek and became more like TOS. To bad season 1 and 2 weren't written like 3 and 4 we would probably still be watching trek on TV.
I really enjoyed the first JJ film and the first half of Into Darkness. Once John Harrison uttered his name I felt that the movie derailed itself and rehashed a lot of Star Trek 2009. I am hoping that Beyond is great I don't dislike JJ trek there were just to many things that stood out in Into Darkness that didn't work for me.
Maybe Flash Gordon fans? (And they do exist, and definitely did exist in the 1970ies)
Who knows what George would have come up with - his own story or an adaption of the first few months of strips - which is what the serial and a good portion of the 1980 film did.
You don't have to tell them here, but I would love to hear more stories about the TOS fan response to TNG. My dad started watching TOS in its first run, and I watched it on VHS recordings he made. He never got in to TNG but wasn't really a part of a Star Trek community in a way to hear other stories like this and I am so fascinated by it.
And, yes, I know, art is subjective. But, it is just so interesting to me to see the way opinions are cyclical.
I actually share your fascination with how things were received at the time. I just rankle at things like "didn't really watch TOS." I'm probably over-sensitive to such things; I just find it irksome when people draw broad conclusions about opinions they don't share.
On that, we are probably closer than you think. The argument "Abrams Trek isn't real Trek" is a bit of a hot button topic for me as well, as it frustrates me because it puts those films on an uneven playing field.
I too find broad conclusions to be irksome.
Agreed. Some of the JJ hate is insufferable for how it's presented. Whether or not I like it, they're doing something right or they wouldn't be so profitable.
Pretty dead on my feelings...TNG was awful for the first 2 seasons...so bad I stopped watching it. I didn't start again until the woman who would become my wife revealed she was a fan on our first date and talked me into watching it with her. I always loved Enterprise and hated Voyager and believed strongly that Kelvin Trek hits all the right buttons recapturing what TOS was about. (And I have seen all the TOS episodes multiple times since its first run).
I honestly think that Into Darkness would have been a better movie (and certainly better received) if John Harrison had just been John Harrison....and Khan had still been a Popsicle.
That's exactly how I feel about the movie leave him as John Harrison a section 31 agent gone rogue. Cut the call backs to Star Trek 2009 and to Wrath of Kahn and you got a pretty tight solid and topical script. Stick with his family or friends having been betrayed by an evil admiral it would have kicked ass.
The other possibility would have been to flip the whole idea on it's head and make Khan a good guy and maybe he comes back as a villain later that would have really been different.
By far the best news of my day.
Loved ST:ID and thought then use of Khan was fine. As for having to go the 'surgically altered' to explain why he doesn't look like Ricardo Montalban, please - if you are going along with it's the exact same timeline up until the Kelven Incident, all the priciples (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura) should also look EXACTLY like a young Willian Shatner, DeForest Kelly, Leonard Nimoy et. al - and with the exception of maybe Zachary Quinto - none of them really do either. The audience all knows these are different actors - so no big deal.
I also find that attitude (that they have to slavishly try to exactly match a previous actor's look) interesting here - in a thread about fan films; and where two of the most popular fan film groups use actors who honestly look nothing like their original counterparts who had the roles (maybe with the exception of Chris Doohan
.)It wasn't the fact that he was Khan he just didn't feel like the character to me and I didn't need a pseudo TWOK remake I was hoping to see new things and originality especially with how long they were working on the script. For some it worked for me it didn't. I figured he was surgically altered there was just something missing from the Kirk/Khan relationship something that with them only having a few minutes of screen time together in Space Seed just transferred to the big screen so beautifully that we got one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever made.
I enjoyed it fine without the idea of an alteration. Someone suggested it might help anyone who is bothered by the look to think of it as surgical alteration, so I tried that approach to see if the suggestion fit the narrative flow of the dialogue.Loved ST:ID and thought then use of Khan was fine. As for having to go the 'surgically altered' to explain why he doesn't look like Ricardo Montalban, please - if you are going along with it's the exact same timeline up until the Kelven Incident, all the priciples (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura) should also look EXACTLY like a young Willian Shatner, DeForest Kelly, Leonard Nimoy et. al - and with the exception of maybe Zachary Quinto - none of them really do either. The audience all knows these are different actors - so no big deal.
I also find that attitude (that they have to slavishly try to exactly match a previous actor's look) interesting here - in a thread about fan films; and where two of the most popular fan film groups use actors who honestly look nothing like their original counterparts who had the roles (maybe with the exception of Chris Doohan
I'm a huge Bond fan (have all the movies)--I'm no stranger to recasting.
THE NEMESIS OF KHAN
I could see it.
