This is the first *real* Trek movie

[AJBryant]

Allow me to make a suggestion that this film is the first real "new" Trek film.

For a decade or more, we have had motion pictures being made of classic TV series of the 50s and 60s. Maverick, Wild Wild West, the Brady Bunch, the Addams Family, SWAT, the Dukes of Hazzard, and one might even suggest Batman and Superman. There have been talks of a possible Hogan's Heroes film, a Green Hornet film, and the list goes on.

Each of these films has been a real, new envisioning (for better or worse) of the TV series. Each has had some changes (some good, some bad) from the original, and the telling mark has been that EACH has been made using a WHOLE NEW CAST to recreate the original character roles.

Up to now, ALL the Trek movies have actually used the TV series' cast.

This is the first time we have a Trek movie where the "old" characters are being portrayed by *new* actors.

Likewise, it is somewhat of a "relaunch" of the franchise. Is that so wrong? Virtually every one of the "remake" movies takes the roll of an origin story, or some sense of setting out on something new.

It is thus my contention that this is the first true NEW Star Trek movie. All the rest have merely been the equivalent of over-budgeted, longer episodes on a big screen.

Anyone agree with me?


Tony

 

[AdmiralGarak]

Each of these films has been a real, new envisioning (for better or worse) of the TV series.

I don't see why this is "real" and the films made by people who actually were part of the television series were not. Logically, it would be the opposite.

Each has had some changes (some good, some bad) from the original, and the telling mark has been that EACH has been made using a WHOLE NEW CAST to recreate the original character roles.

Up to now, ALL the Trek movies have actually used the TV series' cast.

Serenity, Sex and the City, South Park, Reno 911, The Simpsons, The X-Files, and all of those Disney tween shows like Hannah Montana have all gone on to do movies based on the original casts. The only difference is that the movies you listed were adapted long after the show ended, and the ones that I listed were made during or shortly after their tv runs. That's the only reason why Abrams recast. If Trek 11 were being made five years after the end of TOS, it would star William Shatner. If the X-Files movies were made 30 years later, Mulder and Scully would be recast.

It is thus my contention that this is the first true NEW Star Trek movie. All the rest have merely been the equivalent of over-budgeted, longer episodes on a big screen.

While some of the movies-- namely Generations-- fell into that category, I disagree with you for most of them. The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan certainly don't feel like over-budgeted episodes.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I know where the original poster is coming from, though it's a bit of an odd idea.

I do think that this new movie is what we would've gotten in some alternate universe if the first 10 Trek movies were never made, if that makes sense.

I mean, imagine after Trek went off the air in 1969, was in syndication in the 70s, people loved it, but then interest died down, and nothing else was done with it.
Then, JJ Abrams decides to do something...this is what we would get. That's how I'm going to look at it when I see it. Try to forget about how huge and bloated Trek is and just think of the original TV show....then this movie.

 

[btflash]

Allow me to make a suggestion that this film is the first real "new" Trek film.

For a decade or more, we have had motion pictures being made of classic TV series of the 50s and 60s. Maverick, Wild Wild West, the Brady Bunch, the Addams Family, SWAT, the Dukes of Hazzard, and one might even suggest Batman and Superman. There have been talks of a possible Hogan's Heroes film, a Green Hornet film, and the list goes on.

Each of these films has been a real, new envisioning (for better or worse) of the TV series. Each has had some changes (some good, some bad) from the original, and the telling mark has been that EACH has been made using a WHOLE NEW CAST to recreate the original character roles.

Up to now, ALL the Trek movies have actually used the TV series' cast.

This is the first time we have a Trek movie where the "old" characters are being portrayed by *new* actors.

Likewise, it is somewhat of a "relaunch" of the franchise. Is that so wrong? Virtually every one of the "remake" movies takes the roll of an origin story, or some sense of setting out on something new.

It is thus my contention that this is the first true NEW Star Trek movie. All the rest have merely been the equivalent of over-budgeted, longer episodes on a big screen.

Anyone agree with me?


Tony

the thing that worries me is that the studios track record with relaunching old series as movies is poor at best. all the films you mentioned with the exception of batman sucked! that doesnt bode well for trek.

 

[xortex]

Allow me to make a suggestion that this film is the first real "new" Trek film.

For a decade or more, we have had motion pictures being made of classic TV series of the 50s and 60s. Maverick, Wild Wild West, the Brady Bunch, the Addams Family, SWAT, the Dukes of Hazzard, and one might even suggest Batman and Superman. There have been talks of a possible Hogan's Heroes film, a Green Hornet film, and the list goes on.

Each of these films has been a real, new envisioning (for better or worse) of the TV series. Each has had some changes (some good, some bad) from the original, and the telling mark has been that EACH has been made using a WHOLE NEW CAST to recreate the original character roles.

Up to now, ALL the Trek movies have actually used the TV series' cast.

This is the first time we have a Trek movie where the "old" characters are being portrayed by *new* actors.

Likewise, it is somewhat of a "relaunch" of the franchise. Is that so wrong? Virtually every one of the "remake" movies takes the roll of an origin story, or some sense of setting out on something new.

It is thus my contention that this is the first true NEW Star Trek movie. All the rest have merely been the equivalent of over-budgeted, longer episodes on a big screen.

Anyone agree with me?


Tony

This is the only new Star Trek film.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I think you're really stretching the point here. If there had been no such thing as Star Trek on TV, we wouldn't suddenly be getting this wholly original new Star Trek movie with a bunch of characters named Kirk, Spock, etc who we've never heard of.

There might be some slight difference in the feel of the new Star Trek going forward because it was launched on the big screen and migrated back to TV (I have no doubt that's where it's headed if successful) but it's not going to be the overriding factor. Future TV series will be shaped by the constraints of TV. Maybe the production values will be a bit better because of being ported over from movies.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment, at least not entirely.

This movie appears to be a comination Origin Story (Story-wise)/Reinvention (Visually/Stylistically).

The basic idea is that it tells a legitimate story in the Trek canon, but with a far more modern take on things, updated for a modern audience.

In order to tell this Origin Story, it is obvious that the original cast could not return.

Therefore, a recast, and if you're going to recast, it is the best oportunity to redesign the film visually so that going forward, it would not look or feel as dated.

This is a necessity for a general audience to discover Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and what we as fans already know as a great thing.

When assessing JJ Abrams' credentials to make this movie, we have to realize that an outsider, with some help of professionals with varying degrees of fandom to keep him straight, allows a creative filter that hopefully can take what's good, replace what would not work today, and figure out what makes Star Trek really work at it's core.

Remember, Star Trek II and Star Trek VI, two of the best of the Star Trek movies, was made by a Trek Outsider who initially thought of star trek as "The one with the guy with the ears."

Nicholas Meyer distilled with the writers a list of things that everyone liked from countless early scripts, as well as some general ideas, and created the Star Trek II screenplay in a couple of weeks.

 

[EyalM]

This is maybe the "first *real* TOS movie "

 

[Jon1701]

Wait

This movie is real??????

 

[StarMan]

It is no more or less real than the previous ten Star Trek films.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Allow me to make a suggestion that this film is the first real "new" Trek film.

For a decade or more, we have had motion pictures being made of classic TV series of the 50s and 60s. Maverick, Wild Wild West, the Brady Bunch, the Addams Family, SWAT, the Dukes of Hazzard, and one might even suggest Batman and Superman. There have been talks of a possible Hogan's Heroes film, a Green Hornet film, and the list goes on.

Each of these films has been a real, new envisioning (for better or worse) of the TV series. Each has had some changes (some good, some bad) from the original, and the telling mark has been that EACH has been made using a WHOLE NEW CAST to recreate the original character roles.

Up to now, ALL the Trek movies have actually used the TV series' cast.

This is the first time we have a Trek movie where the "old" characters are being portrayed by *new* actors.

Likewise, it is somewhat of a "relaunch" of the franchise. Is that so wrong? Virtually every one of the "remake" movies takes the roll of an origin story, or some sense of setting out on something new.

It is thus my contention that this is the first true NEW Star Trek movie. All the rest have merely been the equivalent of over-budgeted, longer episodes on a big screen.

Anyone agree with me?


Tony

Not in every respect, but I see where you're coming from with this and I think similarly in some ways.

 

[number6]

Wait...There's a new Star Trek Movie???

 

[Beyerstein]

but Leonard Nimoy is sposedta be a central character so it's still gonna go back to the original tv show

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The significance of the choice of the word "real" in this context is lost on me.

 

[sbk1234]

Wait

This movie is real??????

Of course it's real. They'll have the film to prove it.

 

[Tomalak]

the thing that worries me is that the studios track record with relaunching old series as movies is poor at best. all the films you mentioned with the exception of batman sucked! that doesnt bode well for trek.

The Adams Family films did not suck!

 

[bintak]

Cross your fingers.

I'm going to be optimistic.

This will not be a "Get Smart" ---- fest.

 

[AdmiralGarak]

That avatar is brilliant!

And I agree with you that Addams Family most certainly did not suck.

 

[btflash]

the thing that worries me is that the studios track record with relaunching old series as movies is poor at best. all the films you mentioned with the exception of batman sucked! that doesnt bode well for trek.

The Adams Family films did not suck!

they were nowhere near as good as the show!

 

[btflash]

That avatar is brilliant!

And I agree with you that Addams Family most certainly did not suck.

if you go to the internet movie data base both addams family movies scored a 6 out of 10 which means they were slightly better than average ,while the original series scored an 8 out of 10.also while the first movie did respectable box office grossing 113 million at a cost of 40 million to make the sequel was a dismal failure making only 45 million domestically.