The wrong direction?

[Warped9]

To be honest I really don't know what direction they're taking with this film. First we hear it's the younger days of Kirk. Then Spock is in it. And now from what I see they're recasting most of the familiar characters mixed with flashbacks.

!!!

Wouldn't it be just better to do a reset? Sure, use some familiar names and references but don't get nailed down with heavy contiuity. That way you get to revisit the TOS era and without risk pissing off a lot of fans by claiming, "This is how it all started." when it's a certainty they're going to ignore aspects of TOS' continuity that they don't like or remember, just like what was done with ENT.

There's enough evidence to support this approach if done right. Casino Royale, Batman Begins, The Mask Of Zorro and Dr. Who.

Just tell a goddamned 5-year mission story and forget about all the stupid "establishing" nonsense.

Entertaining Star Trek was about good storytelling and not being worried that everything and everyone was all neatly tied together in a so cute and tidy package.

 

[Lumen]

It comes out in a well over a year, and shooting has yet to begin. I don't know what it's about, either. I don't think they really want you to yet -- they're probably waiting on focus groups, other market research and maybe some cool footage before they spill the beans.

As for a reset, I agree with you, personally. A complete reset would probably produce a better story. But it might not be as popular, and they've got to worry about that.

 

[Franklin]

Warped9 said:
Just tell a goddamned 5-year mission story and forget about all the stupid "establishing" nonsense.

It's what I'd have hoped for.

But --
We all know Abrams and his chums like TOS. So, I remain optimistic (which is against my nature) and a bit intrigued by the facts starting to trickle out. I doubt any of us really know the direction in which the movie will go.
The only thing I really fear is a totally convoluted story or an overproduced film. That is, they get too cute.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Wouldn't it be just better to do a reset?

No. I want to see Zach Quinto as Spock. It could be JUST him and Nimoy and to hell with the rest, and I'd see it.

 

[Lumen]

That doesn't really preclude a reset, though.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

What I mean is a reset is immaterial to what I want to see. Reset or not, I don't really care. But not to reset would be more interesting because it's more of an acting challenge when we already know the character vs anything goes.

 

[Warped9]

By reset I'm not saying doing something that looks totally unfamiliar. I'm saying just start with a clean sheet of paper. Casino Royale doesn't really gel with what came before in the books or onscreen, but it was damn good and felt like a good Bond film should be. Same with Batman Begins. They got the major elements right and then went from there. They weren't in rigid continuity with what came before but I embraced them anyway because they were well done. They also didn't get bogged down as origin stories.

That's what I'm saying.

As a diehard TOS fan I'd be more inclined to give a new Trek project a chance and judge it on its own merits if it was its own thing rather than trying to be shoehorned into what came before.

 

[Lumen]

I agree, but you've got to realize that the number of diehard TOS fans left alive is extremely small, and the number of them who would be happy to see Star Trek get that treatment is probably even smaller, given sentiment on this board, and the statements they've made (assuming they're privy to some market research that we aren't, which they really ought to be).

At this point, I don't particularly mind that they're going the "safe route" in setting, so long as the story isn't so "safe". They've chosen the most easily justifiable approach, and I'm hoping they did that because their story is portable and powerful enough to work anywhere.

 

[number6]

Warped9 said:

As a diehard TOS fan I'd be more inclined to give a new Trek project a chance and judge it on its own merits if it was its own thing rather than trying to be shoehorned into what came before.

STAR TREK: 1964-1979

Lets get back to space adventure, strange new worlds and the final frontier... Contemporary Trek has failed.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Exactly. Because you will never be able to recreate what we had before. Best to go for something new that evokes the feeling of what we had before without trying to slavishly (or fannishly) play to the lowest denominator.

Modern Trek overall sucked huge partly due to its fixation with minutae and trivia rather than telling engaging stories.

I didn't like ENT's "Mirror" episodes, but it did show that those sets still work if you wanted to do a feature with them. Similarly with the costumes. But ENT's episodes were a rehash of so many things we'd seen before as well as being fixated with continuity. We weren't shown anything new of real interest, the characters sucked and the story was lame.

I will never again see anything "new" of the TOS I love. But something just might be done with a fresh take on it as long as you go forward and showing something new along with the familiar.

But everything I've heard so far convinces me they're just going to do the expected and the predictable. That's not the way to win over new and old fans.

 

[Holytomato]

"Modern Trek overall sucked huge partly due to its fixation with minutae and trivia rather than telling engaging stories."

DS9 told engaging stories.

I'm confused, before it was

"Its a REBOOT, AAAAAAAAAAARGH! Yes it is! Stop lying! You traitor!"

Now its

"ITS NOT A REBOOT, AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!"

What's next?

"No it isn't! Stop lying! You traitor!"

 

[GreenBlood]

Lumen said:
... but you've got to realize that the number of diehard TOS fans left alive is extremely small...

Careful, there will always be diehard TOS fans around. Those who are no longer living have metamorphed into 'elementals' (like in Chron. of Riddick)

 

[Warped9]

Holytomato said:
DS9 told engaging stories.

Not to me they didn't. I found DS9 very predictable and ploddingly written. I found next to nothing fresh about it except in the very beginning.

 

[xortex]

They have plenty of time to think about wiping the slate clean. There's a good five years before Kirk took over the Enterprise (that could be a lifetime if handled right) to explore why he became the youngest Captain ever on this bizarre and desperate mission to seek out new life and civilizations, to bodly go where no man has gone before. They could tell prequels forever.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

this thread and so many others is based on the premise that there is only one possible way for star trek to be successful, and that if they dont get the structure, cast, setting, crew, etc right it will kill the franchise forever. Everyone has their favorite notion of how to 'save star trek' but to think that only your personal preference is the only one that can work and all others will doom the franchise is a bit egotistical.

could a total rewrite and restart of the franchise work? yes
could a respectful canon friendly 'gap filling' movie work? yes


it is all about the execution.

 

[Warped9]

The fact that they've already signed Nimoy and possibly Shatner as well speaks volumes to me about their intentions. As such my cynicism towards the project remains very high.

 

[number6]

No surprises there.

 

[Aragorn]

PowderedToastMan said:
this thread and so many others is based on the premise that there is only one possible way for star trek to be successful, and that if they dont get the structure, cast, setting, crew, etc right it will kill the franchise forever. Everyone has their favorite notion of how to 'save star trek' but to think that only your personal preference is the only one that can work and all others will doom the franchise is a bit egotistical.

Uh... what board do you think you're on?