• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The New Movie: What Are Your Fears?

Seriously, the one thing that worries me the most about the rebooting is that I am going to have to stop and explain WHICH Kirk or Spock or etc.

This isn't the first time we've seen that sort of thing. Character backstories have been rewritten before. Maybe not so overt as this, but to pretend that TOS was entirely consistent with itself would be reaching.
 
My only fear is that The Wormhole's humor is too sly for many of us. I've stumbled over it a couple of times. :lol:

Humor? What's the difference between The Wormhole, Captain Robert April and MattJC? They'll all descendants of Stewey!
In his own unique and inimitable way, Stewey was a very funny guy and quite a decent fellow when talking about any other subject than the one for which he was famous. The Wormhole is amusing in a different way, and not the same as either of the other guys.
 
Hi...I didn't read all the posts previous, but I just hope that the last 20 minutes of this movie is not a race against a beeping clock before something gets blown up...like most James Bond movies, and Insurrection.
 
I fear that it will be 2-hours of mindless and silly action that vaguely resembles Star Trek built around ridiculous set-ups, like giant space drills.
 
[...]

My guess (fear) is the red shirt who buys it at the drill site was the chief engineer (maybe not).

[...]
I believe he is credited as Chief Engineer. I'll have to see how it plays, though.

There is a Chief Engineer Olsen (i.e. Michael Amador from 24) who is also one of the people we see riding those mini-shuttles down to the drill site. I don't know if he *dies* in the film, though. (Personally I wish they'd just used Moves-With-Burning-Grace...)

My only real 'fears' (if you can call them that) are:

- That the awesome music from the second trailer won't appear in the film or on the soundtrack CD :(

- That Kirk will make Captain too quickly. Of course this will depend on two things: 1) What it means when Kirk is wearing that black uniform shirt, i.e. what rank he actually is for most of the film; and 2) How many 'time jumps' this movie will have. And by that I don't mean time TRAVEL, just the narrative shifting forward months or years.

- We won't get to see enough of Winona Ryder :drool:

- Not enough of the timeline will be restored by the end. And by that I don't mean the look of the iBridge (which I totally love, it's one of the neatest bridges I've ever seen on Trek) or anything like that, just the basic structure of the timeline we're familiar with. For example, I'd like things like 'The Menagerie' (specifically, Pike's eventual fate), 'Obsession' (Kirk's prior service aboard the Farragut), and other classic TOS material, to still be able to happen after this movie is through with history.

My fear is that too much of the old timeline will be restored at the end of the movie including the old bridge and possible needless cameos by other characters from TOS that don't have to do with the movie but are apparently important to Kirk's original backstory.
 
I fear that it will be 2-hours of mindless and silly action that vaguely resembles Star Trek built around ridiculous set-ups, like giant space drills.


Hey it could always be about a plodding, slow tortureress trip to meet a whiny sentient computer trying to find home...

I'll take the fast paced over the slow dullness any day. I do not expect the film to be 'profound' that's not its function or any films function but just causse it is not that doesn't mean it will be 'mindless' either.

There's alot of Trek that supposedly profound yet I find rather empty. As long has its entertaining I A-OK with it.

Sharr
 
I fear the look will look more modern. It is supposed to be from the start so things should look like the original series or a little older. It looks too modern, out of it's time zone..Just like Enterprise, looked too modern.

Couldn't tell if you were joking? I hope so, because...seriously?!?! You'd like this huge blockbuster movie (that you've just spent your hard earned cash to go and see) to look like an old 1960s TV series that's been repeated on tele for the last 43 years?

Me, I have loftier expectations.

My fears? - not so much to do with the actual movie, but I am really looking forward to collecting the Playmates tie-in action figures (mass-market Trek figures again! Yay!) so my fear is that they're rubbish and I won't feel like collecting them. Come on, Playmates, show us some pics already!
 
Well after checking the To See or Not To See thread my fears are starting to evaporate becuase it gives proof that ay least on this site the cannon obsesed fans are in the minority so the chances of Abrams tring to appease them or incountering an annoying one in the theater have dropped greatly.
 
I fear the look will look more modern. It is supposed to be from the start so things should look like the original series or a little older. It looks too modern, out of it's time zone..Just like Enterprise, looked too modern.

Couldn't tell if you were joking? I hope so, because...seriously?!?! You'd like this huge blockbuster movie (that you've just spent your hard earned cash to go and see) to look like an old 1960s TV series that's been repeated on tele for the last 43 years?

I suppose if they make a new Sherlock Holmes, you don't want him wearing the cap and smoking the pipe, because it looks just like the Holmes seen in movies and tv for the last umpty-ump years?

With inspired art direction, they could have maintained a similar color palette and range of colors, which, in turn, would have made the characters look more at home to viewers (in the familiar sense.) When you mess with the palette, you mess with the dynamic (see TMP.) And when you stick spotlights in your character's workstation, it is going to be hard for him to read his board (just as stupid as the floor lighting in TMP, which makes it hard to read a clipboard unless you lie on the floor and hold the padd above you.)
 
My biggest fear is that I drink too much Dew and have to get up during the movie.
I suppose I'll have to cut back on the popcorn so I don't get too thirsty. :(
 
My ONLY FEAR..,

... is that I'll like the movie, but will leave the theater afterward with a Complete Sense Of Loss for the Star Trek that I have spent the last forty some-odd-years, growing up with and throughly loving.
 
I suppose if they make a new Sherlock Holmes, you don't want him wearing the cap and smoking the pipe, because it looks just like the Holmes seen in movies and tv for the last umpty-ump years?

Two things:

- Hey, you never know what kind of Holmes stories could be told if they were set in the present day. There's potential there, I think. Holmes in a business suit? Dr. Watson as a CSI type? :)

- Even if Holmes stories stick to the original setting...well, you know, it's an existing historical era. They already know what it should look like, so its look and feel are pre-defined. Any stories told in that era *must* look like the ones we've seen for 'umpty-ump' years. Not so for Trek. There's no specific reason to make the film look exactly like TOS. I mean, come on, not even the MOVIES did that.
 
My only real fear about the reboot is that they're going to give some major character or other key element of the Star Trek universe a bit too radical a departure from its original characteristics. It only takes one such "rogue" element to stick out like a sore thumb and detract from the rest of the movie big time. The trailers depicting an emotional Spock send up more red flags than a May Day parade in Beijing.
 
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce starred in nine or ten "Sherlock Holmes" films - for a couple of generations Rathbone was Holmes in the minds of many millions of film goers.

Only the first two were set in Victorian times. All of the others were set in the then-present day.

This kind of argument against change is trivial; it has all the strength of tissue paper. There must be better arguments to be made in favor of the "hard traditionalist" position on Trek - but then, since no one is really making them, perhaps not.
 
^ Exactly. Geroge Lazenby was the only Bond as far as I am concerned. The Bond franchise went astray when they veered away Lazenby's portrayal of Bond. Craig takes Bond and brings him back to basics, by portraying him more like Lazenby!!
 
My only real fear about the reboot is that they're going to give some major character or other key element of the Star Trek universe a bit too radical a departure from its original characteristics. It only takes one such "rogue" element to stick out like a sore thumb and detract from the rest of the movie big time. The trailers depicting an emotional Spock send up more red flags than a May Day parade in Beijing.
But don't you think that a young Spock learning to control his emotions could be an interesting plot point in this film?

I agree that I don't want to see an "overly emotional" Spock in this film, but I think that one of the story lines this film will explore will be how Spock learned to control his emotions, even when being provoked (as Pine's Kirk was obviously doing in the trailer).

Young Spock can get emotional -- e.g. he broadly smiles at blue plants that make chiming noises, he gets angry when provoked by Pine's Kirk, and he frenziedly yells "THE WOMEN" when Colt and Number One disappear off the transpoter pad. Older TOS Spock has learned to control those emotions.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top