He's "not an avid Star Trek fan"?
- Thread starter gastrof
- Start date
TIFR
Starship Polaris said:
Indeed, but it trails a little behind "FTW" (For The Win) and the revoltingly popular phrase "threw up in my mouth a little."
For that particular phenomenon, I prefer the term "instameal."
I was, ya little punkass.
But I understand what you mean.
I have agreed to be in the movie, but only because the part will be meaningful. (Translation: It's all about me.)
Dennis, on the other hand... Well, let's just say they are huge fans of his, but they can't find a way to work him into the movie.
^
I'm currently in the Nexus, romancing a woman no one's ever heard me talk about ever before. How do you like your eggs?
I'm currently in the Nexus, romancing a woman no one's ever heard me talk about ever before. How do you like your eggs?
It seems like a poor business decision, though. Here I am, at the height of my popularity - I mean, there are three people on TrekBBS who've never had me on IGNORE, and another just took me off (I know that 'cause she finally replied to one of my suggestive PMs).
Does anyone know any details on JJ Abram's fringe tv show?
Which is what Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer did before making TWOK. And look how that turned out. Outside of The God Thing, it's considered by fans to be one of the best of the TOS movies. It goes to show that knowing how many decks a Constitution Class starship has is not the key to a good movie.
I agree,it needs human drama,not action directors for hire,jj &co are brilliant at drama,loved alias
I hope you don't think that you're disagreeing with me when you say that... do you?
I've been saying this for years, now... most regulars on the BBS have heard me say this more than once, I'm sure. Basically, I think that a Trek show... ANY trek show... needs to have a pure "business management" guy from the studio who has a loose "in charge" position, but isn't really involved in day-to-day "creative" operations at all. For example, look at Herb Solow.
The series also needs to have two producers, one whose job is to be totally beholden to everything that's come before, the other to be totally UNBEHOLDEN to anything that's ever come before.
The job of the first guy is to "make sure it's Star Trek." The job of the second guy is to "make sure it's WORTH WATCHING (which isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing).
I want the guy who's responsible for coming up with the stories to have absolutely NO interest in whether or not Kirk had a brother named Sam or was a cojoined twin with a Ferengi named Goo-gag. NONE of that should matter to this guy. He should simply argue that "this is what makes for a good story."
The job of the other guy is to take the story that the first guy comes up with and say "I'm sorry, but Scotty wasn't a transvestite tellerite, he was a dark-haired Scottsman from Aberdeen, and he didn't hate technology, so that stuff doesn't work..."
These two "sides" really need to be in near-constant CONFLICT. Ideally, what will come out of the conflict will be better than what EITHER perspective would have created by itself. In those circumstances where they can't work it out on their own, the "Solow" type guy would make the final call...
The best Trek was when the story would have worked even if it wasn't Trek... but the Trek stuff was consistent and "fit" properly with the history that the fans were aware of.
That's my take on what makes for a good Star Trek production.
As I said, in my post to which you were responding, I don't CARE if Abrams is an "uberfan" and really, am actually sort of happy he's NOT.
My only concern, as I stated, was that a couple of the actors expressed sentiments which, to me, lead me to think that they may not ... and this is important... respect the material sufficiently to give a performance that's worthy of the role they've been cast in.
Before someone misquotes or misinterprets me (which TrekBBS posters are almost GUARANTEED to do if you don't explain perfectly, I've learned)... I didn't say that, for instance, I want the characters to be played as caricatures of the 1960s versions.
For instance, I really would have loved to have seen a real Russian actor cast in the role of Chekov, and a real African actress cast in the role of Uhura... as opposed to the totally "Americanized" citizen of the United States of Africa seen in TOS, and the laughably bad "Russian" accent used by Koenig.
I DID, however, want the actors to reasonably closely resemble the originals (which Saldana and Cho seem to be OK on but Yelchin fails on utterly, I think), so that we could at least PRETEND that they were the same people. But that the original characters were simply... imperfect... choices to represent the "real" (if you pretend that there's some mythical "real" Star Trek universe that both TOS and this new movie are trying to COPY) versions.
A few months back, I'd found both an african actress who looked a LOT like Nichelle Nichols (a bit taller and slimmer, but not much, and very similar in facial structure) and there's a VERY popular Russian actor who strongly resembles a "more serious" version of the Chekov we know. If it were up to me, I'd have flown both of them in to audition. (Of course, I'm not running a Trek series or film at the moment, soooo...)
Similar threads
