How about this AICN report?
- Thread starter Fedaykin
- Start date
No, they simply have to have been hyped up enough for the initial grosses to make back the production costs.
The movie doesn't have to adhere to Star Trek canon at all to be 'good', but if it doesn't then there's no use in trying to call it a 'Star Trek' movie. They should just make something else and call it something else if that's what they're trying to do. I'm generally not a fan of remakes and 'reimaginings' anyway, but I'm trying to stay optimistic about this project because I'd like to see it done well.
---------------
It all reeks of bullshit.
All thy hype in the world won't save a movie that no one finds enjoyable. If the film lacks "good" aspects many won't enjoy it and reviewers will blast it DVD sales will fail.
There's no indication that's so. Infact we've every reason to think it isn't.
But theoretically I take issue with the notion "Canon" equals "Star Trek". It doesn't, if someone wanted to take the basic premise and build it off in a familiar but differentiated way and Paramount or CBS sold it as a new Trek it would be. Even it Capitan Kirk was a girl
The only reason they would need to do this is because they thought they had a nice new spin on an old idea. Which creatively and artistically is all the reason one needs to attempt such a thing.
Sharr
scotthm said:
Quite right, and I really wouldn't mind too much if they hadn't been made.Starship Polaris said:
That's true - there have been several successful "Star Trek" movies after all.
---------------
That's fair. I won't mind if most trekkies don't like Abrams' "Star Trek," as long as I and people tastes similar to mine enjoy it.
Look, nothing that comes out of AICN has any more validity than anything that's been posted by various yo-yo's on this board. They're making stuff up out of whole cloth. Eventually, one or two items will inevitably prove to be correct, and they'll go back and tell us how "see, we were RIGHT about this!"
Ol' Harry is about as trustworthy on these issues as Harry Mudd would've been. Trust in only one thing... there isn't ANYONE who's seen "rough cuts" of the film, or any special effects, and no ACTUAL script has been leaked. How do we know that no scripts have been leaked? BECAUSE NOBODY HAS BEEN FIRED OVER IT.
The whole "Area 51" bit... the "Kirk is a bad student and bad-boy of the Academy, and is IMMEDIATELY given a command"... none of that sounds remotely plausible.
The only tidbit in that article which I buy into ... and which is consistent with other things I'm aware of... is the idea that there will be a sequence of Nimoy's Spock giving a "Vulcan Salute" to someone (I strongly suspect it's a Romulan... and not a VILLAIN at all) and then going into "Flashback" mode, with Quinto's Spock ("younged down" a bit) bidding farewell to his parents as he leaves for the Academy. The "Vulcan Salute dissolve" sounds very appropriate... not for a "two Spocks working together" but rather the FLASHBACK form that I think is REALLY the storyline.
I'm sorry, the more I see, the more I'm concluding that the whole time-travel bit is a sleight-of-hand by the production team to distract the internet.
Ol' Harry is about as trustworthy on these issues as Harry Mudd would've been. Trust in only one thing... there isn't ANYONE who's seen "rough cuts" of the film, or any special effects, and no ACTUAL script has been leaked. How do we know that no scripts have been leaked? BECAUSE NOBODY HAS BEEN FIRED OVER IT.
The whole "Area 51" bit... the "Kirk is a bad student and bad-boy of the Academy, and is IMMEDIATELY given a command"... none of that sounds remotely plausible.
The only tidbit in that article which I buy into ... and which is consistent with other things I'm aware of... is the idea that there will be a sequence of Nimoy's Spock giving a "Vulcan Salute" to someone (I strongly suspect it's a Romulan... and not a VILLAIN at all) and then going into "Flashback" mode, with Quinto's Spock ("younged down" a bit) bidding farewell to his parents as he leaves for the Academy. The "Vulcan Salute dissolve" sounds very appropriate... not for a "two Spocks working together" but rather the FLASHBACK form that I think is REALLY the storyline.
I'm sorry, the more I see, the more I'm concluding that the whole time-travel bit is a sleight-of-hand by the production team to distract the internet.
Given what we know of Abram's none-linear storytelling technique this is a reasonable assumption. I'm almost sure there'll be some parallel plotlines going on.
Remember Spock alone ties all Pre-Next Generation era Star Trek together...
Sharr
BTW, the only bit of "information" in the non-review "review" that is new is the sidewise claim about "area 51." The bulk of it is a negative characterization of the style and abilities of the writers, including a swipe at another upcoming film of theirs which the "spy" claims to have also read.
There's nothing to the review, except of course that it generates some weekend page hits for AICN.
There's nothing to the review, except of course that it generates some weekend page hits for AICN.
Well, this tidbit:
(SPOILERS, obviously)
...goes a long way to helping me believe the previously ludicrous propaganda that Archer was Kirk's childhood hero.
It's all so clear to me now!
Here's to consistency! :thumbsup:
(SPOILERS, obviously)
...goes a long way to helping me believe the previously ludicrous propaganda that Archer was Kirk's childhood hero.
It's all so clear to me now!
Here's to consistency! :thumbsup:
No, that's exactly what it seems to be. If he had offered something new it probably wouldn't come off like that.
He wasn't even headstrong or manipulative in the first season. Kirk was painted as a more typical white male hero of the 1950s and 1960s -- moral, brave, thoughtful, physical, articulate, intelligent, confident, disciplined, and undoutedly hetereosexual, but the cocky, swaggering sort of figure he became didn't really start until the middle of the second season. The movies then allowed him to become moreso, giving him what appeared to be an evolution from bookish miltary officer to the significantly more coloful figure that comes to mind when people think of the character. The lines about "stack of books with legs" were only some of the comments about Kirk in his academy days. If memory serves, he tells McCoy in "Shore Leave" how serious he was, saying he was "positively grim," just one of the reasons he was the target of Finnegan -- who, along with Mitchell -- is much more the frat boy type. In fact, the description of Kirk thus far really sounds more like Mitchell, though I understand that since this is essentially a reboot, they would follow the modern cliche of making him a rebellious type rather than the figure Star Trek initially suggested he likely was meant to have been in his Starfleet academy days.scotthm said:
The Kirk of TOS was certainly headstrong and manipulative, but you implied that watching TOS should give us the impression that the young Kirk was hedonistic, and that's the part that you're just imagining. There is nothing in TOS to give this impression.FordSVT said:
Oh really? Like the constant rule breaking/bending, the womanizing, the penchant for a fight. Nope, nothing there suggests he was anything more than your typical boyscout.
---------------
If there is one thing that can and will seriously harm Trek XI it is this damn writers strike.
