"...Reviving Interest Among Diehard Fans"? Really?
- Thread starter gastrof
- Start date
Well, maybe it's reviving their interest in bitching and moaning.
I mean, it's been a while since we have had any new Trek to bitch and moan about.
People are starting to lose interest in bitching and moaning about ENT. 
I mean, it's been a while since we have had any new Trek to bitch and moan about.
People are starting to lose interest in bitching and moaning about ENT. 
I've already lost interest in bitching and moaning about XI.
I lost interest in moaning years ago. Which I guess is another way of saying that if I ever qualified as a Diehard (and I've had the addictive obsessive-compulsive attitude to prove it) I stopped being that anymore.
I'm now content to wallow in nostalgia and offer pithy commentary. Still, news of the film did lead to the process whereby I returned to these long deserted shores. I guess that counts for something.
I'm now content to wallow in nostalgia and offer pithy commentary. Still, news of the film did lead to the process whereby I returned to these long deserted shores. I guess that counts for something.
Was there ever much interest in Trek amongst fans of Diehard? Colm Meany was in Diehard 2, though ( or was it 3? ).
It's really about the only thing that could have revived my interest in new Trek production.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
I was most interested in discussing things when the direction of the franchise post-ENT/NEM was soft speculation. It was all hypothetical around the 2003 period and the numbers of people discussing it ST XI/Series VI were smaller. As an academic, theory is what it's all about.
BSG is more what I wanted than anything Series VI would've done, so the TV portion is covered. ST XI? It's more or less what I thought it was going to be. We've discussed all the broad strokes, now it's down to the details and discussing the details doesn't interest me especially when the movie isn't coming out for another year and there isn't much to go on.
I'm mainly interested in this movie because I was a Johnny Come Lately to Star Trek. I'm coming at ST XI from a different angle. The first Trek movie I saw in the theater was TUC, I'd just discovered Star Trek that same year and I didn't want it to be the last (TOS) movie. It also helps that ST XI is going to be different from TMP, TWOK-TUC, and GEN-NEM. While I'm revisiting something that I was interested in several years ago, it's still going to be something that feels new... or so I hope.
I don't know how much I still qualify as "Die Hard", OTOH. I only watched Star Trek regularly from 1991-1999. I post opinions in threads (and nowhere near as much as I used to) but I seldom get involved in prolonged debates about ST anymore. Moderating FOT/XI notwithstanding, I had my last gasps in 2006.
BSG is more what I wanted than anything Series VI would've done, so the TV portion is covered. ST XI? It's more or less what I thought it was going to be. We've discussed all the broad strokes, now it's down to the details and discussing the details doesn't interest me especially when the movie isn't coming out for another year and there isn't much to go on.
I'm mainly interested in this movie because I was a Johnny Come Lately to Star Trek. I'm coming at ST XI from a different angle. The first Trek movie I saw in the theater was TUC, I'd just discovered Star Trek that same year and I didn't want it to be the last (TOS) movie. It also helps that ST XI is going to be different from TMP, TWOK-TUC, and GEN-NEM. While I'm revisiting something that I was interested in several years ago, it's still going to be something that feels new... or so I hope.
I don't know how much I still qualify as "Die Hard", OTOH. I only watched Star Trek regularly from 1991-1999. I post opinions in threads (and nowhere near as much as I used to) but I seldom get involved in prolonged debates about ST anymore. Moderating FOT/XI notwithstanding, I had my last gasps in 2006.
Perhaps they are speaking about the legions of fans that left the series the farther the franchise strayed from the original.
TOS and to a lesser degree TNG are the icons that make Star Trek special (and at one time popular) the farther the series strayed from them the more watered + less popular it became.
Thus, we are getting a Kirk/Spock film in 2008. Rather than a film about the less popular spin offs.
The goal of this film is to bring back people like me who have almost no interest in the new series as well as bring in a new audience. That is why they brought back Nimoy (and maybe Shatner) and recast the iconic roles of Kirk,Spock + McCoy.
TOS and to a lesser degree TNG are the icons that make Star Trek special (and at one time popular) the farther the series strayed from them the more watered + less popular it became.
Thus, we are getting a Kirk/Spock film in 2008. Rather than a film about the less popular spin offs.
The goal of this film is to bring back people like me who have almost no interest in the new series as well as bring in a new audience. That is why they brought back Nimoy (and maybe Shatner) and recast the iconic roles of Kirk,Spock + McCoy.
This falls into the same illogical-sounding category as Brannon Braga's infamous "Valentine to the fans" from the spring of 2005. Neither sound right...or make any sense.
Neither sound right...or make any sense.
No...
Sharr
"Shaken by Jedi mind powers...not stirred with a lightsaber blade."
That ticked me off too. That's up there with the UPN Voyager promo for "Scorpion" I think, which claimed the episode "raises science fiction to the level of an art form". Tell that to Clarke and Bradbury.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I've read Fleming and even the 'authorized bio" of 007 written by Fleming's biographer, and the cocky Bond thing I don't see at all.
There's a world of difference between cocky and self-assured.
The Bond of the bastard restart CASINO ROYALE has less emotional maturity than the print Bond would have had by age 16, and it is too easy for me to see that film characterization (such as it is) as a feeble attempt to show Bond as Maverick/Tom Cruise, just much uglier.
Back to Trek, we have conflicting stuff on Kirk's youth. The 'book with legs' thing is coming from Mitchell, a guy who probably outtomcatted Kirk on his best weekend, so take it with a grain of salt. It's easier to believe Kirk getting cocky based on his cheating the KM scenario, or some other event making him cocky enough to try cheating.
But the Kirk of this film is presumably a good long ways out of the Academy, so maybe that isn't valid.
There's a world of difference between cocky and self-assured.
The Bond of the bastard restart CASINO ROYALE has less emotional maturity than the print Bond would have had by age 16, and it is too easy for me to see that film characterization (such as it is) as a feeble attempt to show Bond as Maverick/Tom Cruise, just much uglier.
Back to Trek, we have conflicting stuff on Kirk's youth. The 'book with legs' thing is coming from Mitchell, a guy who probably outtomcatted Kirk on his best weekend, so take it with a grain of salt. It's easier to believe Kirk getting cocky based on his cheating the KM scenario, or some other event making him cocky enough to try cheating.
But the Kirk of this film is presumably a good long ways out of the Academy, so maybe that isn't valid.
Well, he did/does have a large ego. Course, as Dizzy Dean said, "It ain't bragging if you can do it."
I could see a younger (even by a few years) Kirk as a bit more brash than the Kirk we meet in WNMHGB. As far as Kirk being a loose cannon goes, I do think that he lived by the credo that it's always easier to apologize than to get permission. And again, if you always get results -- .
On thread, you can't have interest in something until it's presented to you. Diehard TOS fans have had nothing new since TUC. Maybe that's what they mean. Interest in this movie is what brought me back to this board after many years.
Not quite what the word means, really.
Samuel T. Cogley may or may not have more to say on the subject of Kirk's cockitude.
