Did J.J. fix Star Trek or doom it?
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
- Status
If it weren't for all that Iron Man money, I'd say we might be looking at Paramount's answer to "Heaven's Gate".
As it is, I suspect it'll be met at the box office with a collective yawn and the franchise will finally revert back to where it should've stayed the whole time, on the television side of the shop.
As it is, I suspect it'll be met at the box office with a collective yawn and the franchise will finally revert back to where it should've stayed the whole time, on the television side of the shop.
I'll bet you $100 you're wrong.
How do you know that Kirk's past is to remain uncorrected? Maybe at the end the ship's interior won't be as bright, maybe Kirk realizes he now remembers a different background that he thought he knew? Who knows!
Dimming the lights isn't going to change the fact of a fracked up bridge design.
So what? The changed bridge consoles and ship design is a design feature to modernize the lookl of the franchise for 21st century cinema audiences. But there was a quote about the fact that, by the time the film is over, some things will again be as older fans remembered them. Hence, some of the changes to the timeline may well have been rectified.
With all due respect, because I've been paying close attention. The changes in the timeline are responsible for a plethora of discrepancies with TOS. A different looking ship, inside and out... not forgetting where it was built and when it was launched. Character background changes, to account for younger actors filling positions it took the originals longer to acheive. The chances of this film suddenly fitting neatly back into established history before the end titles are zero I'd say.
I'm actually not one of those fans who cares too much whether this film is an exact replica of original Star Trek or not. The NX-01 bridge had more in common with The Cage bridge than what I've seen so far. I fully understand the need to keep one step ahead of modern technology. A story that creates an alternate reality is insidious, and a way to cheat doing your homework about TOS. Without a history altering villain, this could've been traditional and in keeping with established facts, in every aspect but production values. Something respectful like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, that flatly refuses to explain different looking actors and a modern setting. It asked you to make believe that was the same Donner-universe, without any convoluted reasoning.
Last edited:
I don't think this film will fit neatly back into established history, but NOR do I think the changes to the look of the ship and TOS history will be explained "in-film".
I think we are going to be presented with this slightly different version of Star Trek, but the explanation for the differences will be left to the audience (at least the fans who notice the differences) to flesh-out.
I know Orci last month was babbling about "alternate universes" and quantum physics, but all of that may amount to only a de-facto explanation that will never appear "in-film", and was presented only for the sake of pedantic fans.
I personally have no problem at all it the differences in the look of this film AND possible "historical" differences are never explained to me. Those things don't really make star trek "Star Trek". The things that define Star Trek are the characters' personalities and their relationships to each other. If this film captures those things, then Abrams is well on his way to making a *Star Trek Film*.
Orci said in a recent interview that diehard fans could choose to make ST XI fit canon by remembering "Parallels". But it's not something that will be spelled out for audiences.
I loved "Superman Returns" and I don't see how you think it was more "respectful" than this film. It seems to me they took a very similar approach. It was the same universe, but some things were different, and other things, like Glenn Ford's picture on the mantel, were identical. Time had also seemingly taken a jump forward, because suddenly everyone in Metropolis has mobile phones, etc.
Jackson_Roykirk, I didn't say everything will "fit neatly back into established history", but some things, like Kirk's changed childhood, might get altered back due to the success of Old Spock's mission, assuming he succeeds. ChristopherPike seemed to think the film was definitely, permanently, changing Kirk, and we just don't know if that's the case.
The problem with the Robert Wise film wasn't the director, it was the ga-zillian re-writes Gene Rodenberry put the film through, so you didn't have a really cohesive film.
Nick Meyer came on board with Harve Bennet producing, i think TWOK went through one or two rewites with Nick Meyer producing the final draft, and you had a more cohesive film.
JJ does did not have the problem that Robert Wise had. JJ and the writers have worked closely together, and has not gone through multiple writers.
I bet this will be more TWOK than TMP.
Well put. I've also said that doing this just to placate canon and still be able to mostly wipe the slate clean is a bit of a cheat. Now, I could've gone for a complete reboot if they'd have wanted to do it that way. Fair enough. Say it up front. Still, I would've preferred something more like what's said above. There were plenty of gaps in the TOS period that could've been filled. TOS was episodic, not a serial.
My fear is they've taken a middle position to try to please all, and that may end up with a story that pleases no one. JJ, I hope you know what you're doing.
He's gonna be turned into a lamp shade, I tell you. You heard Hitler.
Well put. I've also said that doing this just to placate canon and still be able to mostly wipe the slate clean is a bit of a cheat. Now, I could've gone for a complete reboot if they'd have wanted to do it that way. Fair enough. Say it up front. Still, I would've preferred something more like what's said above. There were plenty of gaps in the TOS period that could've been filled. TOS was episodic, not a serial.
My fear is they've taken a middle position to try to please all, and that may end up with a story that pleases no one. JJ, I hope you know what you're doing.
Except that Superman Returns didn't exactly do well in the theaters now did it.
But can we say with surety that it didn't do as well as was hoped because it tried to tie itself so tightly to the idiom of the previous films? I'm not sure about that.
If anything can be read from some of the replies to this thread I'd say many Star Trek fans are nothing but a bunch of whiny, sad, disrespectful ingrates. We are getting a movie that is not only getting mainstream press but actually becoming water cooler talk after nearly 15 years and all they can do is keep whining. For someone of J.J's caliber, he could have easily gotten away without making any Trek at all, and Trek would have been a lost in time franchise like.. gasp!.. Lost in Space or Man from U.N.C.L.E. We are getting something completely out of the blue, a true movie calling itself Star Trek. Yet you naysayers keep spewing vitriol. 
If anything can be read from some of the replies to this thread I'd say many Star Trek fans are nothing but a bunch of whiny, sad, disrespectful ingrates. We are getting a movie that is not only getting mainstream press but actually becoming water cooler talk after nearly 15 years and all they can do is keep whining. For someone of J.J's caliber, he could have easily gotten away without making any Trek at all, and Trek would have been a lost in time franchise like.. gasp!.. Lost in Space or Man from U.N.C.L.E. We are getting something completely out of the blue, a true movie calling itself Star Trek. Yet you naysayers keep spewing vitriol.
back at ya. See sig.
Yet you naysayers keep spewing vitriol.
It's their way. (shrugs)
The intelligence of the naysayers can be clearly summed up by your post.If anything can be read from some of the replies to this thread I'd say many Star Trek fans are nothing but a bunch of whiny, sad, disrespectful ingrates. We are getting a movie that is not only getting mainstream press but actually becoming water cooler talk after nearly 15 years and all they can do is keep whining. For someone of J.J's caliber, he could have easily gotten away without making any Trek at all, and Trek would have been a lost in time franchise like.. gasp!.. Lost in Space or Man from U.N.C.L.E. We are getting something completely out of the blue, a true movie calling itself Star Trek. Yet you naysayers keep spewing vitriol.
Wasn't the original Mission: Impossible TV series produced in the mid-1960s for American television? Weren't Abrams, Ocri, and Kurtzman involved in recent M:I filmmaking? Do you really need to roll your eyes at my analogy?I love it when people completely ignore the example in the post in favor
of the one that suits them better. Nice job.
Of course, analogies aren't going to correspond 100%, but this one is about as close as I can get.
Having said all that, Abrams didn't doom Mission: Impossible (though I haven't watched the movie and I have the TV series on DVD), so I don't expect that he'll doom Star Trek either.
---------------
I'm rolling my eyes because you chose to completely ignore the analogy I used.
And no, Abrams didn't doom M:i. Infact he did the best work of the series.
M:i:III was extremely well written and very well put together, Abrams has
shown time and time again that he has great vision and a deep respect for
what came before, in this case by bringing M:i:III more in line with the TV
series while still making it accessible to an audience that hadn't seen the series,
giving it more character and still being a top notch action flick.
Star Trek should be excellent lead by this crew.
Brutal Strudel's opinions on this detail or that may not coincide with your own, but I've seen him post in this forum quite knowledgeably and articulately on any number of occasions. I can assure you that there is nothing the matter with Mr. Strudel's intelligence.The intelligence of the naysayers can be clearly summed up by your post.If anything can be read from some of the replies to this thread I'd say many Star Trek fans are nothing but a bunch of whiny, sad, disrespectful ingrates. We are getting a movie that is not only getting mainstream press but actually becoming water cooler talk after nearly 15 years and all they can do is keep whining. For someone of J.J's caliber, he could have easily gotten away without making any Trek at all, and Trek would have been a lost in time franchise like.. gasp!.. Lost in Space or Man from U.N.C.L.E. We are getting something completely out of the blue, a true movie calling itself Star Trek. Yet you naysayers keep spewing vitriol.
I think holders of all opinions -- favorable, unfavorable or otherwise -- should remember not to take personally what is not directed at you, personally, and not to get personal with another poster when sticking to the topic should be sufficient.
- Status
