I don't care anymore

[Broccoli]

Sharr Khan said:

xortex said:
Why else would they delay, uh because they realize it sucks perhaps. Oh they're in trouble already. So they're gonna try to throw some more money at it maybe. That should help. The entire three years of TOS probably didn't cost as much. Instead of finding someone who can do what Rodenberry did again they went with credentials over superior ability. What's new.

Last I checked: "credentials" are all about "superior ability" that's why people build them up so they can prove they have the superior ability to get the job done.

This delay isn't specific to "Star Trek" which is one of many folms that have been shifted around. Why are some people (oh the usual suspects...) reading this as if someone at Paramount has expressed a lack of confidence? More so since they put it in the "Summer Blockbuster" period - if anything that speaks volumes of confidence in *this Trek movie*.

Sharr

How DARE YOU bring your LOGIC into this thread! We have NO place for that here!

 

[xortex]

Orci and Kurtzman have written sci-fi before that was good ? What was needed was sci-fi writers/thinkrs who can write hard core sci-fi concepts else we'll be getting Andromeda.

 

[Akiraprise]

Cary L. Brown said:
As for me, I'd far rather have a good movie a few weeks later (and it IS just a handful of weeks, realize!) rather than a rush-job which leaves out things which are part of the filmmaker's INTENT.

I really can't agree more. The delay is not that long of a wait, and doesn't bother me. This will give TPTB more then ample time to tweak the film to their liking.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Everything's going to be fine, people. You'll see.

At least we'll be older, wiser and more experienced. Or not.

 

[blaXXer]

MadBaggins said:
MAY 2009!? Look, I had misgivings about a prequel film, but based on what I'd read I was starting to look forward to it. But now? It's a year and a half until the movie comes out! How can I possibly care? That's so long! At least when it was Christmas it was coming out THIS YEAR. It was the forseable future. May 2009? That's YEARS away! I'll be so much OLDER then. My life will be completely DIFFERENT. Essentially I'll be an other person! How can I bring myself to care about a movie which I won't even see, but rather a future version of myself will see? It's so far in the future that some older Trek fans might be DEAD by then! I might be dead by then, the state of the world today! Nuclear war could come by then! Nimoy himself will be almost 80 by the time of the premiere! I don't care anymore. MAYBE in one year's time I'll care. Until then, I suggest that this forum be CLOSED until AT LEAST Christmas 2008. There will be NOTHING to talk about until about then, I can assure you!

MAY 2009!?

OMG, it'S the END of the WORLD as we KNOW it!!!11onetwothree
(emphasis mine)

Seriously, tho: Why all the hate? We'll be getting a Trek summer blockbuster, how could that be wrong?
Trek gets attention (and hopefully a ginormous box office revenue) and a revived franchise. REJOICE, folks.
(Except the usual suspects, I suppose)

 

[gh4chiefs]

I'm thinking some people need to turn their sarcasm meeters on.

 

[bryce]

*bryce sets timer on cryogenic tube to 'May 2009', climbs in, shuts lid behind him*

 

[xortex]

Sharr Khan said:

xortex said:
Why else would they delay, uh because they realize it sucks perhaps. Oh they're in trouble already. So they're gonna try to throw some more money at it maybe. That should help. The entire three years of TOS probably didn't cost as much. Instead of finding someone who can do what Rodenberry did again they went with credentials over superior ability. What's new.

Last I checked: "credentials" are all about "superior ability" that's why people build them up so they can prove they have the superior ability to get the job done.

This delay isn't specific to "Star Trek" which is one of many folms that have been shifted around. Why are some people (oh the usual suspects...) reading this as if someone at Paramount has expressed a lack of confidence? More so since they put it in the "Summer Blockbuster" period - if anything that speaks volumes of confidence in *this Trek movie*.

Sharr

So then Rick Berman should have been writing Star Trek instead of Brannon Braga. Enterprise went down because they closed the open submission policy due to 9/11. Coto then proceeded to cannabalize TOS because of the lack of ideas.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:Enterprise went down because they closed the open submission policy due to 9/11.

That's nonsense.

 

[xortex]

And you know that because..?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:
And you know that because..?

Because there's no basis whatever for believing it. The open submission process was not closed for any reason having to do with 9/11, and other than fabricating that or misunderstanding something you read (or treating something as an authoritative source when it wasn't) there's no reason you should think so.

There never was an open submission process on "Enterprise," which was well into production on its first season by the time 9/11 occurred - in fact, it premiered a few days later.

Likewise, that Coto did a lot of TOS-inspired episodes because the show was somehow missing all of those fan submissions is a silly idea which cannot be supported by any evidence whatever.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Cary L. Brown said:
For a bit of perspective...

If given a choice, which would YOU prefer?

Done as well as possible, definitely.

 

[xortex]

So we know that there was no open submission policy on Enterprise and Manny Coto borrowed heavily from TOS. Your right, the rest is just sheer belief. Thank God we're still afforded that right in this country.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:
So we know that there was no open submission policy on Enterprise and Manny Coto borrowed heavily from TOS.

We always knew that. The "9/11" stuff is nonsense with not an iota of basis in reality. It's untrue; it's a fabrication.

 

[Sharr Khan]

there was no open submission policy on Enterprise

I fail to see the link between "open submission" and quality entertainment... one has not a jot to do with the other.

And yes these guys have proven credentials at making blockbuster movies and tv shows, more then can be said for a few decades worth of Trek production - that's what makes them the right guys to get the job done.

What isn't required is some myopic "Science Fiction writer" who doesn't grasp how to tell a compelling human centered story. Lofty goals does not good art make... but it does establish pretension.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

I would think that pretention is saying you could write a great science fiction story when you can't.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
I would think that pretention is saying you could write a great science fiction story when you can't.

No pretension is going around pretending how deep and meaningful you are and forgetting that what you're really making is a piece of entertainment. Something Star Trek falls to easily into doing.

And who says they haven't written a good science fiction story? No one can make that judgment until after the film comes out.

Were I betting person, I would guess we all are going to get a fairly mind blowing experience (and I don't mean space battles) that rivals V'Ger's "ascension". But that's just me.

Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:
I would think that pretention is saying you could write a great science fiction story when you can't.

You're accusing Gene Roddenberry of pretension.

Which is fair.

 

[xortex]

Gene who ? This baby has been adopted by JJ Abrams. I hope that is a good thing.

 

[Jon1701]

Moving Star Trek back to May 09, in the long term, is a good thing. Gives the franchise a lot better chance to be a big hit. In the short term it sucks, as we were all looking forward to it (Yes, even you! *points finger*). Feels a bit like telling a 9 yr old child that Xmas will be late this year

Be thankful that they told us now, not six months down the road...