But would this HAVE TO mean erasing or overwriting what came before?
If you like TREK, wouldn't that include all there's been up 'til now? So why not add to, rather than undo and re-do?
Interesting Comments By Nichols & Park - Read Between The Lines?
- Thread starter Carpe Occasio
- Start date
But would this HAVE TO mean erasing or overwriting what came before?
If you like TREK, wouldn't that include all there's been up 'til now? So why not add to, rather than undo and re-do?
Doable, maybe?
The evolution of the English language in the TOS era (perhaps as Abrams will do it):
Kirk: Scotty, I need you to be proactive and get us warp drive.
Scott: But Captain, it's not doable!
Spock: Mr. Scott, if you create a synergy between the dilithium in reserve and the antimatter already in the warp core, the problem is doable.
Scott: Aye, Mr. Spock. That may just be doable. I'll task someone to get right on it.
[Sorry, way off thread. I'm done.]
It's that kind of "out of the box" thinking that will increase employee moral and create a true "team-based" environment..... I really HATE catch phraseology..
number6
Vice Admiral
Who's saying it has to or that it woudn't??
Hell, DS9, VOY and ENT all tried to do something different, some to a more successful degree than others. There were fans who were able to enjoy because they recognized Trek things they liked in it, while others refused to even check it out because of some vague preconception that somehow each new version of Trek was illegitimate.
Other series have been reimagined pretty well without totally throwing out the legacy of its predecessors.. Dr. Who, Superman and the Bond series are examples of this, and while staying true to their origins have been able to push forward for a new fanbase. Why is that wrong??
I've yet to hear a compelling reason... just a lot of posturing.
Seems there's nothing that original about a lot of movies- they're all "reimaginings or reboots (a word that's fallen out of favour)"... Nothing wrong with it as long as it's entertaining.
I'm very proactive, but I hate buzz words and Acronyms. People use them to sound smarter than they are and elevate themselves above others. I run into that all the time in my line of work.
I know the feeling. If I never again hear the term "due diligence," it will be too soon.
Exactly. Trek has been undone and redone a dozen and a half times. Look at the look and feel of TMP. Then watch TWOK. Look at the types of stories and themes in the first two seasons of TNG compared to later seasons when even TNG got darker.
As an "on screen only, please," canonite, I've said it before and I'll say it again: we know less about Captain Kirk than we do Chief O'Brien or even Harry Kim. That's sad. Kirk and his crew were compelling characters with a lot left to say. And, well-played by other actors, they will stay compelling and do new things. All of which without the need to erase all that went before. Indeed, they can enhance it.
I, for one, look forward to this movie enhancing my total Star Trek experience.
I always find it a bit ironic (or whatever the proper term is) when people welcome change in a project that's returning to the past.
Excellent point. It's an oxymoron really.
number6
Vice Admiral
How is that ironic?
The rationale to do a TOS era story has been explained again and again. I shouldn't need to repeat it here, but for those of you in the cheap seats:
When you mention Star Trek to the ordinary Joe, he automatically thinks Kirk and Spock, not Data or Janeway or Bashir or Phlox.
Revitalizing the franchise by going back to basics is the best way to restart the franchise and pull people in who are only vaguely familiar (i.e. they know about Kirk and Spock) with Star Trek. Going forward and plopping some untested new crew onto the 1701-H in the 26th Century or whenever is only going to please a fraction of that audience. The math on this is pretty fucking simple.
The 23rd century is also in the future the last time I checked.
Me too. Has extremely negative connotations in the business world. But, after this thread, I now equally hate the words "vital" and "vitality".
True but TOS was 40 years ago which is what I mean by going to the past.
Back to your original point as well, since I would assume a good remake should still be true at its core it only makes sense that people would argue what Trek is at a fundamental level.
but we dont know just how much change we are going to see.
will there be some cosmetic changes but in the end the story is true to the nature of tos and the characters.
that i can live with.
and frankly trek was redone several times, twice in with some major changes before we got the trek most people identify with.
