Nu-Trek (Trek-lite?) Similar to Superman Returns?

[gastrof]

Superman Returns was made as a quasi-sequel to the first two films done by Christopher Reeve.

While the costume looked different, the faces sure were different, and it wasn't happening 30 years ago, in general the events of the first two films were legit history for the RETURNS film.

Does it seem that's the direction JJ and his team are going? "Team Trek" promised that they weren't violating any of the existing history, but were instead simply doing a story that takes place within the known timeline...

And yet we've heard the Enterprise may not look the same, the uniforms may be different, etc.

Could it be that this new film will change the look of things, but not the actual events?

Could that be what was meant by 'We're not rebooting or changing the continuity'?

If so, this gives us a little more sense of stability with regards to the new film, and could make for some fun down the road.

Imagine three years from now, they release a sequel that takes place late in the five year mission, many of the events of the TV series already having happened...

And John Goodman shows up as Harry Mudd? (Joan Rivers does a cameo as the real live Stella...no...that's too cruel.)

I'm not very happy about them changing the looks of things, which it seems they may well do, but at least this possibility gives us SOMETHING to hang onto where TOS is concerned.

(Who am I kidding? I'll probably keep insisting it's a parallel universe to the "real TOS history", and never quite accept it if it looks different. )

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

"Superman Returns" attempted to be a sequel, a remake, and a re-imagining all at the same time. And, in my opinion, it was a disappointment on many levels.

So I'm obviously hoping that "Star Trek" doesn't go that route.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

"Trek-lite?" Frankly, from everything I've heard, the new movie will be far "heavier" than anything we've seen from Star Trek in quite a while.

 

[Kegek]

I think Superman Returns is the most obvious forebear to this film in how it relates to past installments. Obviously, it will have to overcome one similar hurdle: A static narrative. In Returns, Superman, Lois and Luthor all go through the motions of their roles without any real development or catharsis. Given that this is kinda sorta a prequel, this is less likely - as the characters can grow into their familiar roles than simply repeat them.

 

[Sharr Khan]

CaptJimboJones said:
"Trek-lite?" Frankly, from everything I've heard, the new movie will be far "heavier" than anything we've seen from Star Trek in quite a while.

I agree.

Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The comparison with "Superman Returns" is fairly apt in many of the respects already elucidated, which is one reason that I place its likelihood of fulfilling the studio's highest commercial expectations at somewhere less than 50/50.

I'm not similarly concerned about whether it will be a good film - I thoroughly enjoyed "Superman Returns" and haven't heard or seen anything about "Star Trek" thus far that's anything other than encouraging.

 

[Lumen]

That's more or less exactly what I think.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

gastrof said:
Could it be that this new film will change the look of things, but not the actual events?

Could that be what was meant by 'We're not rebooting or changing the continuity'?

As far as I know, based on what JJ Abrams and Orci have been saying in interviews, you are right. The events we will see in "Star Trek" (2009) will take place in the same timeline as the other ten movies and five shows. We will see different actors play the characters we are so familiar with, but they will be the same characters nonetheless. I don't know if this makes "Star Trek" (2009) similar to Superman Returns, because I didn't see that film nor do I care to see it.

And I don't understand how 'trek-lite' is applicable in this situation, I agree with the posters who expect a more 'heavyweight' Trek from the upcoming motion picture.

 

[gastrof]

CaptJimboJones said:
"Trek-lite?" Frankly, from everything I've heard, the new movie will be far "heavier" than anything we've seen from Star Trek in quite a while.

I'm grasping for a term to use, that's all. Maybe "lite" in the sense that while it's called Trek, it does away with much that's known in favor of a new look.

This in some ways would make it "Trek-lite", or in the least "Nu-Trek". Not the same, so not quite deserving of being called "Trek", but also close enough where it'd be difficult to totally divorce it from the name.

*sigh*

Why couldn't they have gone the New Voyages route and changed only the faces?

 

[Noname Given]

gastrof said:

Why couldn't they have gone the New Voyages route and changed only the faces?

Because honestly the age of the current 'faces' wasn't the main issue; the manner of writing was (and studio interference with 'laundry lists' of what a giveen Star Trek film 'had to have' didn't help either).

But again, given that they wanted to go back to 23rd century Star Trek; the only thing you could do is - chose another ship/crew to do (which is where Paramount feels the franchise has 'gone wrong' of late); or recast the roles of the original Star Trek characters; and give the producer free reign to do a story he mwants (ie np studio 'laundry list' of things to include).

Personally, I hope it works and I'm more than willing to give it a chance; but of course, time will tell.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Sharr Khan said:

CaptJimboJones said:
"Trek-lite?" Frankly, from everything I've heard, the new movie will be far "heavier" than anything we've seen from Star Trek in quite a while.

I agree.

Sharr

I certainly hope so. VOY and the first three seaasons of ENT were enough lightness for me - let's get back to something more substantial. If I want silly fluff, I'll watch Stargate.

 

[Therin of Andor]

North Pole-aris said:
I thoroughly enjoyed "Superman Returns" and haven't heard or seen anything about "Star Trek" thus far that's anything other than encouraging.

I'm with you! I enjoyed the story (although parts were rather slow-moving) very much: for the changes to cast (most of whom captured elements of their predecessors, while adding new aspects), and beautiful updated costumes/sets, and also for the sheer nostalgia the director and his team managed to recapture.

(Topping it all off off was that it was filmed in Sydney, on streets, and in front of buildings and features, I know so well - I feel like I'm passing through Metropolis every Thursday night!)

If JJ manages similar casting/costume/sets feats on ST XI and delivers the type of intriguing stories as seen in "Lost", I shall be thrilled.

 

[Kegek]

I'd also like to clarify that I enjoyed "Superman Returns" a great deal as well. My criticism above was my main problem with the film, but it had many positive traits in its favour. If Abrams' Star Trek is as good as Singer's Superman Returns, I will be satisfied.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Dane_Whitman said:
"Star Trek" (2009)

You're expecting a delay? It'll be 2008.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why couldn't they have gone the New Voyages route and changed only the faces?

They'd like to make some money.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

Therin of Andor said:

Dane_Whitman said:
"Star Trek" (2009)

You're expecting a delay? It'll be 2008.

Ah yes, ofcourse. However since I'm Dutch I'll probably have to wait until february to see it at the theatre.

Though I think I might cross the border to Germany to see "Star Trek" around Christmas anyway. :thumbsup:

 

[gastrof]

Noel Given said:

gastrof said:

Why couldn't they have gone the New Voyages route and changed only the faces?

Because honestly the age of the current 'faces' wasn't the main issue; the manner of writing was (and studio interference with 'laundry lists' of what a giveen Star Trek film 'had to have' didn't help either).

But again, given that they wanted to go back to 23rd century Star Trek; the only thing you could do is - chose another ship/crew to do (which is where Paramount feels the franchise has 'gone wrong' of late); or recast the roles of the original Star Trek characters; and give the producer free reign to do a story he mwants (ie np studio 'laundry list' of things to include).

Personally, I hope it works and I'm more than willing to give it a chance; but of course, time will tell.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

First you say the writing was the problem, not the faces, then you end up saying (with apparent approval) that recasting IS the way to go.

Which is it?

My point had NOTHING to do with the writing. YOU brought that up.

My point was that if they had to recast the roles, why not leave that as the only change? Why change other stuff?

Why not do what New Voyages has successfully done? Put new actors into familiar uniforms and sets, and go on from there?

Changing the look of the Enterprise, the uniforms, the ship interiors, etc....

It wasn't necessary.

Even if all the plot EVENTS of the standing timeline are held as valid, it won't LOOK the same, and that'll take a bite off it being the original Trek that we know and have enjoyed all this time.

 

[gastrof]

Dane_Whitman said:
...since I'm Dutch I'll probably have to wait until february to see it at the theatre.

Though I think I might cross the border to Germany to see "Star Trek" around Christmas anyway. :thumbsup:

If you really cared you'd fly to California late next year, put together a camoflage outfit for yourself, sneak into Paramount at night, find the finished film WEEKS before its release date, and watch it then and there.

 

[gastrof]

North Pole-aris said:

Why couldn't they have gone the New Voyages route and changed only the faces?

They'd like to make some money.

And how many downloads has NV had, showing there's HOW big an audience for original Trek, even with new actors in the roles?

 

[Captain Craig]

If its like Superman Returns then we are back to talking about Trek being grounded for years to come.

Warners tossed lots of money at that. Now while in the long run after all global ticket sales, DVD and any other merchandising profits hit the bottom line it made some tiny profit it did not succeed. Many doubt Warners, some Singers, word or commitment to move forward with a Returns sequel. Bottom line is the North American box office is important, first and foremost and there it barely broke even.

The movie has a scant few shinning moments. The characters are wooden and stagnant. We get a plot development via the kid that wholely splits the fan base. It was a movie about the Donner-verse and not about Supermans verse, which is more than just Lex. A lex from a bygone era. He hasn't been a real estate themed villian for 25 years. Via cartoons, Lois&Clark and Smallville even the mass public knows this.

If Star Trek XI comes off similiar to to Superman Returns instead of more similar to Batman Begins then Trek fans we are likely to be dissapointed.