L
Lord Garth
Guest
One warning for flaming.
My ICQ is temporarily down, long story, so you can either reach me in BR or over PM if you want.
Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek franchise?
- Thread starter kirkstheman
- Start date
One warning for flaming.
My ICQ is temporarily down, long story, so you can either reach me in BR or over PM if you want.
I mean really-How could you re-cast Batman, Alfred, Commisioner Gordon?
Superman, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor?
James Bond?
Danny Ocean?
Come on-it can, and will be done. As much as I love the original cast, I don't want to say the characters are done just because the actors can no longer play the roles. Find me another James Kirk, and find a cast with chemistry. It can be done. It could also flop... but I still like the idea of trying.
MRE
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
busted
L
LifeTrek
Guest
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
Wow, you guys really ripped Sec31Mike.
And to think I registered so I could ask what is wrong with Paramount, what have the been thinking? Between Star Trek XI and Enterpirse they managed to lose those of us who what to see the future move forward not back.
And contrary to what I have read here from the die hard fans there are more of us out there then you realize.
The Star Wars rehash pre-quils worked because they played the heck out of the originals and were able to catch a new generation. That just isn't going to happen with Star Trek because it consists of many TV series not just a three part DVD.
Personally I will go see the new movie on opening night as I have every other one before (with only one disappointment) but my spouse who I hooked on Voyager won't for the same reason we never watched Enterprise (well, I watched one or two episodes - but we STILL watch two Voyagers every week night thank you Spike TV!). I was told and I agree, "Who wants to watch that - you'll be wondering why they don't use stuff they haven't really invented (by Canon) yet but you know they will have in 100 years."
This isn't history, this is the future - only those of us who have Memory Alpha as a bookmark or own a Star Trek Encyclopedia would even consider the new movie or Enterprise "history". People can read about FDR because he was real, everyone knows who he was, and his impact was felt on the entire world. This is real life. Most people will just wonder what happened to the cool ships, gadgets, weapons, communicator badges, etc.
TOS, TNG, DS-9, Voyager, they all moved the story further into the future. Each demonstrating and astounding knowledge of physics and technological prognostication but with Star Trek XI and Enterprise that won't happen - it simply can't.
There is no need, and it seems kinda foolish to rehash (to agree with Sec31Mike) the past when your doing a movie about the future.
DKK
Wow, you guys really ripped Sec31Mike.
And to think I registered so I could ask what is wrong with Paramount, what have the been thinking? Between Star Trek XI and Enterpirse they managed to lose those of us who what to see the future move forward not back.
And contrary to what I have read here from the die hard fans there are more of us out there then you realize.
The Star Wars rehash pre-quils worked because they played the heck out of the originals and were able to catch a new generation. That just isn't going to happen with Star Trek because it consists of many TV series not just a three part DVD.
Personally I will go see the new movie on opening night as I have every other one before (with only one disappointment) but my spouse who I hooked on Voyager won't for the same reason we never watched Enterprise (well, I watched one or two episodes - but we STILL watch two Voyagers every week night thank you Spike TV!). I was told and I agree, "Who wants to watch that - you'll be wondering why they don't use stuff they haven't really invented (by Canon) yet but you know they will have in 100 years."
This isn't history, this is the future - only those of us who have Memory Alpha as a bookmark or own a Star Trek Encyclopedia would even consider the new movie or Enterprise "history". People can read about FDR because he was real, everyone knows who he was, and his impact was felt on the entire world. This is real life. Most people will just wonder what happened to the cool ships, gadgets, weapons, communicator badges, etc.
TOS, TNG, DS-9, Voyager, they all moved the story further into the future. Each demonstrating and astounding knowledge of physics and technological prognostication but with Star Trek XI and Enterprise that won't happen - it simply can't.
There is no need, and it seems kinda foolish to rehash (to agree with Sec31Mike) the past when your doing a movie about the future.
DKK
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
Actually, Voyager didn't really move forward. It kind of just marked time.
All the sound and fury you present means nothing if it doesn't actually change anything significant, neither scenario nor characters.
Actually, Voyager didn't really move forward. It kind of just marked time.
All the sound and fury you present means nothing if it doesn't actually change anything significant, neither scenario nor characters.
L
LifeTrek
Guest
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
DS 9 started about 2369 Voyager was two years later in 2371.
While there wasn't much of a move forward Voyager was a brand new ship that had improvements in technology (class 9 warp drive - bio-neural circuitry).
Enterprise was 2151 no phasers, unreliable transporters. Phasers most likely won't be in Star Trek XI depending on the year it ends up being written in.
Forward vs. back.
DKK
ETA - In addition Voyager and all the other series encountered new technology that just can't be pre-encountered in the past, unless it is forgotten.
Oh, and it is early, or late but I just don't get this part at all:
"All the sound and fury you present means nothing if it doesn't actually change anything significant, neither scenario nor characters. "
DS 9 started about 2369 Voyager was two years later in 2371.
While there wasn't much of a move forward Voyager was a brand new ship that had improvements in technology (class 9 warp drive - bio-neural circuitry).
Enterprise was 2151 no phasers, unreliable transporters. Phasers most likely won't be in Star Trek XI depending on the year it ends up being written in.
Forward vs. back.
DKK
ETA - In addition Voyager and all the other series encountered new technology that just can't be pre-encountered in the past, unless it is forgotten.
Oh, and it is early, or late but I just don't get this part at all:
"All the sound and fury you present means nothing if it doesn't actually change anything significant, neither scenario nor characters. "
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
So your argument is basically that moving forward is good because we get different technobabble?
Enterprise did had phasers. They just called them "phase pistols" and "phase cannons". If any thing, then ENT had technology that was too advanced (something many people tend to complain about).
No phasers? Then what's the point of the movie?
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
First off, I'm not trying to troll here, but why is ERA more important than a good story? If they had the perfect story and set it on Enterprise (the series), that makes it bad?
Personally, I find that having too much technology makes it hard to tell a god story, because if you don't break or disallow the use of 50+% of the ship's technology, it's too easy to simply use the deflector dish and call it a day. It's not as dramatic to do things that way.
Well, the reason Lucas brought out prequels is that he was telling (badly BTW) the story of how Anikin became Darth Vader. You can't tell that story in the future, because of who Anikin was and his part in the OT. But SW has been giving out future mythology as well, for at least 30 years -- they're just novels instead of TV. Leia and Han have 3 kids, and they're Jedi. Luke forms a new Jedi academy and is trying to re-form the Jedi Order. There *is* a future in SW.
Well, if you're going to buy it anyway, what's the point of complaining? The idea of making a new Trek movie is to make money -- and if they get yours, I don't see why they'd be particularly concerned that you don't like it.
But really, if you're wondering where the technology is (at least once the film starts) then the writers have done a bad job. You should be watching the story, not the props or the CGI. I was impressed by the artwork of Polar Express (I saw it with my mother) -- and that was precisely the problem. The story was dull and cliche (probably to be expected, it was a 2-hour movie based on a kid's book), so I amused myself by looking at the graphics. Had the story been more interesting, I probably wouldn't have cared about the graphics.
Or they could end up sucked into a good story and just not care. If the story is *bad*, I'm sure everybody will notice the lack of comm badges, quantum torpedos, and deflector dishes. It can happen. But if the entire audience is interested in "how's Kirk gonna get out of *this one*" they might watch 3/4 of the show before they realize there are no comm badges or holodecks.
It's a story, not a tech demo.
Well, I don't know if you get this, but they weren't talking exactly about future technologies. It was about making an adventure in space, not predicting the Cell Phone.
Besides which, they get things wrong in physics at least as often. The TNG episode about the Baryon Sweep is rediculous. Baryons are protons and electrons -- so obviously removing them from the ship should have resulted in ... not having a ship. That wasn't the point of the story. The point was that terrorists were trying to steal fuel waste and picard had only a short time to stop them.
First off, I'm not trying to troll here, but why is ERA more important than a good story? If they had the perfect story and set it on Enterprise (the series), that makes it bad?
Personally, I find that having too much technology makes it hard to tell a god story, because if you don't break or disallow the use of 50+% of the ship's technology, it's too easy to simply use the deflector dish and call it a day. It's not as dramatic to do things that way.
Well, the reason Lucas brought out prequels is that he was telling (badly BTW) the story of how Anikin became Darth Vader. You can't tell that story in the future, because of who Anikin was and his part in the OT. But SW has been giving out future mythology as well, for at least 30 years -- they're just novels instead of TV. Leia and Han have 3 kids, and they're Jedi. Luke forms a new Jedi academy and is trying to re-form the Jedi Order. There *is* a future in SW.
Well, if you're going to buy it anyway, what's the point of complaining? The idea of making a new Trek movie is to make money -- and if they get yours, I don't see why they'd be particularly concerned that you don't like it.
But really, if you're wondering where the technology is (at least once the film starts) then the writers have done a bad job. You should be watching the story, not the props or the CGI. I was impressed by the artwork of Polar Express (I saw it with my mother) -- and that was precisely the problem. The story was dull and cliche (probably to be expected, it was a 2-hour movie based on a kid's book), so I amused myself by looking at the graphics. Had the story been more interesting, I probably wouldn't have cared about the graphics.
Or they could end up sucked into a good story and just not care. If the story is *bad*, I'm sure everybody will notice the lack of comm badges, quantum torpedos, and deflector dishes. It can happen. But if the entire audience is interested in "how's Kirk gonna get out of *this one*" they might watch 3/4 of the show before they realize there are no comm badges or holodecks.
It's a story, not a tech demo.
Well, I don't know if you get this, but they weren't talking exactly about future technologies. It was about making an adventure in space, not predicting the Cell Phone.
Besides which, they get things wrong in physics at least as often. The TNG episode about the Baryon Sweep is rediculous. Baryons are protons and electrons -- so obviously removing them from the ship should have resulted in ... not having a ship. That wasn't the point of the story. The point was that terrorists were trying to steal fuel waste and picard had only a short time to stop them.
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
Absolutely Right(TM).
Look, people who are following "Star Trek" for some kind of inspiring "glimpse of the future" should be disappointed and must be disappointed by any Trek production that does what the show was really good at.
Absolutely Right(TM).
Look, people who are following "Star Trek" for some kind of inspiring "glimpse of the future" should be disappointed and must be disappointed by any Trek production that does what the show was really good at.
I don't ever want to see Shatner in Trek again. He's a self-parody of himself and is almost unwatchable in anything these days. At least Nimoy has some dignity.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8048708&an=0&page=0#Post8048708
oh wow! I'm glad I found this thread.
Lord of the Rings was sooo confusing because they didn't do The Hobbit fully in the prologue.
Now I'm not going to see The Hobbit cuz The Lord of the Rings has already been done.
Then I'm not going to read The Silmarrion, and Children of Hurin cuz The Hobbit has been filmed.
:sarcasm off:
Babylon 5 has more stories to tells- The Lost Tales DVD. :thumbsup:
Lord of the Rings was sooo confusing because they didn't do The Hobbit fully in the prologue.
Now I'm not going to see The Hobbit cuz The Lord of the Rings has already been done.
Then I'm not going to read The Silmarrion, and Children of Hurin cuz The Hobbit has been filmed.
:sarcasm off:
Babylon 5 has more stories to tells- The Lost Tales DVD. :thumbsup:
L
LifeTrek
Guest
Yep, I love the tech - that is probably the main reason I love Star Trek.
I bought the first technical manual when I was in Jr. High and calculated the actual speed of each and every tenth of a warp.
When TNG was on I loved it. But here is the strange part I loved Dr. Crusher, liked Picard and Yar and detested some of the others (Wesley Crusher, Troy - uggghhh) didn't really like everyone else except the Enterprise D - I loved her and still do!
Am I the only one? I doubt it.
BalthierTheGreat you mention that they have my money, but you failed to read what I said. They won't get my spouses and that is what they have to do to have a successful movie. There won't be another if the results aren't better then the last.
As a new member here I do just want to add that rather then accept that other people have differing reasons for liking Star Trek and welcoming comments you guys are pretty condescending and not very welcoming.
However, it is your playground and that is how you play. I am new here so I will either learn to play your way or I will go on my way. But just like the franchise, arrogance and unwillingness to listen to fans that have different opinions isn't going to expand the Trek universe.
(By the way I hated the entire Hobbit crap - so no, I wouldn't see any more of it. Not into sci fi for the stories I guess!)
DKK
I bought the first technical manual when I was in Jr. High and calculated the actual speed of each and every tenth of a warp.
When TNG was on I loved it. But here is the strange part I loved Dr. Crusher, liked Picard and Yar and detested some of the others (Wesley Crusher, Troy - uggghhh) didn't really like everyone else except the Enterprise D - I loved her and still do!
Am I the only one? I doubt it.
BalthierTheGreat you mention that they have my money, but you failed to read what I said. They won't get my spouses and that is what they have to do to have a successful movie. There won't be another if the results aren't better then the last.
As a new member here I do just want to add that rather then accept that other people have differing reasons for liking Star Trek and welcoming comments you guys are pretty condescending and not very welcoming.
However, it is your playground and that is how you play. I am new here so I will either learn to play your way or I will go on my way. But just like the franchise, arrogance and unwillingness to listen to fans that have different opinions isn't going to expand the Trek universe.
(By the way I hated the entire Hobbit crap - so no, I wouldn't see any more of it. Not into sci fi for the stories I guess!)
DKK
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
Hmm. Forgive me but I want to ask. The philosophical position that Trek should "go into the future", and progress in a linear manner, is one professed by a person who is a fan of the TNG era who would call themselves a "Trekker"? That is, someone going along on the "Trek" into the future. As seen on TV or something.
Hmm. Forgive me but I want to ask. The philosophical position that Trek should "go into the future", and progress in a linear manner, is one professed by a person who is a fan of the TNG era who would call themselves a "Trekker"? That is, someone going along on the "Trek" into the future. As seen on TV or something.
Well, then it's true that you probably aren't part of the target market for this movie.
L
LifeTrek
Guest
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
I am not sure what your asking.
I am stating that the tech should advance. That might clarify what I am saying.
I am not just a TNG fan. Clearly, I mention TOS - having the technical manual and I discussed Voyager in my earlier posts - which had the "newest" advances including new ships like the USS Prometheus.
Again, I am not sure what your asking but maybe this will help.
DKK
I am not sure what your asking.
I am stating that the tech should advance. That might clarify what I am saying.
I am not just a TNG fan. Clearly, I mention TOS - having the technical manual and I discussed Voyager in my earlier posts - which had the "newest" advances including new ships like the USS Prometheus.
Again, I am not sure what your asking but maybe this will help.
DKK
HAHA astounding knowledge of physics on Star Trek? Possibly on ToS but ah even then no...
Trek isn't a linear novel. None of the other series helped to move some over arching story forward (Well DS9 did have an overaching story... but that was internal thing ) they were at best miniarcs but mostly self-contained unrelatated stories.
There is no story to move forward!
Sharr
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
I'm sure that the tech in Abrams' "Star Trek" will be more advanced than the tech in TOS. It's not like you're going to see people pushing 1960s rocker switches and stuff.
I'm sure that the tech in Abrams' "Star Trek" will be more advanced than the tech in TOS. It's not like you're going to see people pushing 1960s rocker switches and stuff.
L
LifeTrek
Guest
They moved the tech and the Star Trek universe forward.
Your laughter is appreciated. Thanks for the warm welcome.
DKK
Your laughter is appreciated. Thanks for the warm welcome.
DKK
Frosting on a cake at best and shallow aspects. I for one could care less about the Enterprises sheilds or warp factors that stuff has gotten in the way of good stories.
At least to me everything from "Encounter at Farpoint" to Nemesis hadn't really changed but cosmetically in many ways. Ah time for new uniforms, how about some gel-packs in the computer. Mildly interesting but not over all important to anything made more so to me since Trek has its own breed of technophobia at work.
And a story set *anywhere in the Trek verse* can add depth and new meaning to it. It just depends how well said story is told not its point on a timeline.
And my laughter wasn't at you, it was the notion of Trek as a good science lesson that I found funny...
Sharr
Re: Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek crew?
Trek was never about the technology, and I'm sorry that you've missed the point all these years. The technology was a backdrop, and it's only lazy writing in the '90s and '00s that resulted in endless technobabble solutions and the "wow, kewl!" aspects of the technology being pushed to the foreground. I'm hopeful that the new movie will shift the balance back towards good characters and stories.
Trek was never about the technology, and I'm sorry that you've missed the point all these years. The technology was a backdrop, and it's only lazy writing in the '90s and '00s that resulted in endless technobabble solutions and the "wow, kewl!" aspects of the technology being pushed to the foreground. I'm hopeful that the new movie will shift the balance back towards good characters and stories.
Similar threads
- Locked
