What really worries me...

[Gepard]

Well, there is the whole 4th and 5th year of TOS that never existed, and there is that 5-yr mission after TMP that we never saw. maybe this IS the phase II Enterprise...

Or maybe it's just a different version. Same history, different look. It's happened how many times now in Hollywood...?

Here now, that's a calm and easy-going approach to your entertainment. You bad Trekkie. Where's the righteous outrage? Where? WHERRRRRE??????

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Explain to us why Trek has to be changed visually, and also how a visual change doesn't overwrite what came before (especially when we were told that's not what this film is all about)?

Doesn't matter now whether it had to be changed.

It has been changed.

Someone should at least apply that trite "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy to some aspect of "Star Trek" that really deserves it - like, say, Trek's supposedly high-minded "philosophy" or the claims that it has anything to say that's of social significance - or even that "Star Trek" fandom is composed largely of open and future-minded people.

 

[ancient]

Here now, that's a calm and easy-going approach to your entertainment. You bad Trekkie. Where's the righteous outrage? Where? WHERRRRRE??????

I promise to fly into a homicidal rage if they don't spend at least 20-30 minutes of screen-time justifying the use of welders for the Enterprise construction in the teaser. That will totally ruin the movie for me.

Because I don't go to movies to be entertained. I go to movies to get confirmation that Star Trek can never change. Because Change = Death.

Better?

 

[Gepard]

Better?

Meh. Needs more hysteria. But you're getting there.

 

[ancient]

I don't know if I have the energy for hysterics. Bitching, maybe.

 

[Gepard]

I don't know if I have the energy for hysterics.

Red Bull? It gives you wings. And vectoring nacelles.

 

[xortex]

Well, there is the whole 4th and 5th year of TOS that never existed, and there is that 5-yr mission after TMP that we never saw. maybe this IS the phase II Enterprise...

Or maybe it's just a different version. Same history, different look. It's happened how many times now in Hollywood...?

If only that made a little sense I would be so happy. I guess a nonthinker's second option is to be a tinkerer.

 

[JuanBolio]

Then again... its by the writing team from Transformers. Try as I might, I cannot remember one intelligent exchange or line of dialog from that film.

Well, don't forget that Transformers was a Michael Bay movie. I suspect MB specifically removes any dialogue that is not a macho one-liner that can be yelled out over the sound of deafening explosions.

Yeah... but it wasn't just the dialog. The plot was pretty lame and full of holes, too.

Also, it's a movie about giant children's toys. Buy the toys, dammit.

I did. I have the buyer's remorse.

 

[Therin of Andor]

We never were worried about change before.

The "redesigned and refitted" Enterprise, its destruction and its being replaced by the Enterprise-A, TNG, DS9, Voyager, even Enterprise...

I wouldn't say Trek fans are frightened of change.

Huh?

I became a ST fan in 1979. I was staggered how many 60s ST fans were critical of every change in TMP: the Klingons' makeup, the uniforms, Spock's brown hair instead of black, the uniforms, the wrist communicators, the Perscan buckles, the transporter effect, Kirk's promotion, Spock's supposed rejection of his human half, McCoy's resignation, Chekov as a security chief, Ilia as navigator, Decker as captain...

Spock's death in ST II had fans book a full page ad in "Variety" to complain about Spock's death, and that campaign was reported in the "Wall Street Journal", with fans calculating profit losses for Paramount if Spock died. Nimoy reported receiving death threats in the mail.

They changed Saavik actresses in ST III (and her hairstyle, eye colour, eyebrows and approach to line delivery) - and people again complained. Not to mention Kirk destroying the Enterprise.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

Star Trek needs more Star Wars.

Unless they are the prequels, in which case it doesn't.

The prequels needed more Star Wars.

What Star Trek needs is a Wookie.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

We never were worried about change before.

The "redesigned and refitted" Enterprise, its destruction and its being replaced by the Enterprise-A, TNG, DS9, Voyager, even Enterprise...

I wouldn't say Trek fans are frightened of change.

Huh?

I became a ST fan in 1979. I was staggered how many 60s ST fans were critical of every change in TMP: the Klingons' makeup, the uniforms, Spock's brown hair instead of black, the uniforms, the wrist communicators, the Perscan buckles, the transporter effect, Kirk's promotion, Spock's supposed rejection of his human half, McCoy's resignation, Chekov as a security chief, Ilia as navigator, Decker as captain...

Spock's death in ST II had fans book a full page ad in "Variety" to complain about Spock's death, and that campaign was reported in the "Wall Street Journal", with fans calculating profit losses for Paramount if Spock died. Nimoy reported receiving death threats in the mail.

They changed Saavik actresses in ST III (and her hairstyle, eye colour, eyebrows and approach to line delivery) - and people again complained. Not to mention Kirk destroying the Enterprise.

I was a ST fan in 1968. When I saw TMP I stood in line for the first showing which was something like 9:00 am and I was interviewed on the radio on the way out. I loved all the redesign, what I didn't like about the movie at the time was it just seemed like a rewrite of a TOS episode.

After watching years and years of both good and bad Trek that followed, I now watch TMP and see that it was a really really good movie, and while I will always think that someone should have said "This thing reminds me of Nomad" I can watch it over and over and enjoy it.

The thing with TMP, they didn't care if it looked like TOS or not. I don't care how Star Trek 2.0 looks. I care if it's a good movie on it's own merits.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I'm curious - what does this mean to you? I'm gathering the production designs looking like the 60s production designs is a really big deal for you, but otherwise - what is it you want? What exactly is "what we had before"?

You know EXACTLY what I mean, so stop pretending you don't.

I'm very curious why my speaking out from my heart on this has attracted your attention so much. You did this (or tried to) the other day in another thread, and now you're trying to do it again.

Uh-uh.

Ain't gonna let'cha.

You want to play games?

Oh, unwad yer panties.

All I did was ask what you think are the essential elements of Star Trek, a question I've discussed with dozens of people on this board over the years. If you don't want to talk about that, no problem. I will try to recover from my disappointment.

You know, some people actually visit this board for fun and interest in talking to fellow Star Trek fans about their differing opinions, rather than imagining themselves to be in some sort of pitched battle for the soul of Star Trek.

It's just a movie, dude.

 

[darkshadow0001]

What really worries me is they should of let Nimoy direct and produce this instead of Abrams. Nimoy knows Trek, and therefore it would of been a good movie.

 

[Baldus885]

What really worries me is they should of let Nimoy direct and produce this instead of Abrams. Nimoy knows Trek, and therefore it would of been a good movie.

Should HAVE, not should OF.

While Nimoy is talented enough, he may well have produced a movie in the traditional Trek style - which is now proven to be stale and lifeless. Personally I found his Trek movies quite mediocre. A Trek movie needs to be handled by a real movie maker so we get a real Star Trek Movie, not an overblown episode or a load of old arse like Nemesis was. Trek movies have arguably been at their best with an outsider at the helm.

 

[cynical dreamer]

"Should have..."
"Would be good if they had..."
"Will fail because they..."
"Would be better if..."

Alot of people phrasing their arguments as though they had a crystal ball in to the future.

They could make the Enterprise yellow with the words "school bus" written on the side and the movie could still do well and be a good story. Could.... not should or would

 

[xortex]

We never were worried about change before.

The "redesigned and refitted" Enterprise, its destruction and its being replaced by the Enterprise-A, TNG, DS9, Voyager, even Enterprise...

I wouldn't say Trek fans are frightened of change.

Huh?

I became a ST fan in 1979. I was staggered how many 60s ST fans were critical of every change in TMP: the Klingons' makeup, the uniforms, Spock's brown hair instead of black, the uniforms, the wrist communicators, the Perscan buckles, the transporter effect, Kirk's promotion, Spock's supposed rejection of his human half, McCoy's resignation, Chekov as a security chief, Ilia as navigator, Decker as captain...

Spock's death in ST II had fans book a full page ad in "Variety" to complain about Spock's death, and that campaign was reported in the "Wall Street Journal", with fans calculating profit losses for Paramount if Spock died. Nimoy reported receiving death threats in the mail.

They changed Saavik actresses in ST III (and her hairstyle, eye colour, eyebrows and approach to line delivery) - and people again complained. Not to mention Kirk destroying the Enterprise.

And I think the fans were right .

 

[xortex]

Star Trek I is my favorite movie because it came closest to the heart of what Star Trek is and yes I don't know why either. I think it is because the story was so mysterious and deep and slightly metaphysically philosophical although it could have been more so. The rest of the movies are just drop action shoot em ups.

 

[Aragorn]

Praetor, I sure hope you're not judging Abrams as a director based on Cloverfield.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

We never were worried about change before.

The "redesigned and refitted" Enterprise, its destruction and its being replaced by the Enterprise-A, TNG, DS9, Voyager, even Enterprise...

I wouldn't say Trek fans are frightened of change.

Huh?

I became a ST fan in 1979. I was staggered how many 60s ST fans were critical of every change in TMP: the Klingons' makeup, the uniforms, Spock's brown hair instead of black, the uniforms, the wrist communicators, the Perscan buckles, the transporter effect, Kirk's promotion, Spock's supposed rejection of his human half, McCoy's resignation, Chekov as a security chief, Ilia as navigator, Decker as captain...

Spock's death in ST II had fans book a full page ad in "Variety" to complain about Spock's death, and that campaign was reported in the "Wall Street Journal", with fans calculating profit losses for Paramount if Spock died. Nimoy reported receiving death threats in the mail.

They changed Saavik actresses in ST III (and her hairstyle, eye colour, eyebrows and approach to line delivery) - and people again complained. Not to mention Kirk destroying the Enterprise.

And then there were the "We Don't Need a New Crew!" t-shirts and campaigns at the cons in the 80s once TNG was announced, plus plenty of hysteria over having a bald captain, a woman doctor and a counselor as part of the regular crew. Ah, and the outrage over the space station instead of a starship for DS9 - how can it be Star Trek IF THEY'RE NOT BOLDLY GOING??!?!!? Heresy!

pant pantThe destruction of Roddenberry's vision. I just can't go on...

But I hold with another poster in this forum. If the biggest frustration in your life is the new Star Trek movie and you have the luxury and energy to get this upset over it - you are living a charmed and sheltered life. So, more power to you.

 

[xortex]

We never were worried about change before.

The "redesigned and refitted" Enterprise, its destruction and its being replaced by the Enterprise-A, TNG, DS9, Voyager, even Enterprise...

I wouldn't say Trek fans are frightened of change.

Huh?

I became a ST fan in 1979. I was staggered how many 60s ST fans were critical of every change in TMP: the Klingons' makeup, the uniforms, Spock's brown hair instead of black, the uniforms, the wrist communicators, the Perscan buckles, the transporter effect, Kirk's promotion, Spock's supposed rejection of his human half, McCoy's resignation, Chekov as a security chief, Ilia as navigator, Decker as captain...

Spock's death in ST II had fans book a full page ad in "Variety" to complain about Spock's death, and that campaign was reported in the "Wall Street Journal", with fans calculating profit losses for Paramount if Spock died. Nimoy reported receiving death threats in the mail.

They changed Saavik actresses in ST III (and her hairstyle, eye colour, eyebrows and approach to line delivery) - and people again complained. Not to mention Kirk destroying the Enterprise.

And then there were the "We Don't Need a New Crew!" t-shirts and campaigns at the cons in the 80s once TNG was announced, plus plenty of hysteria over having a bald captain, a woman doctor and a counselor as part of the regular crew. Ah, and the outrage over the space station instead of a starship for DS9 - how can it be Star Trek IF THEY'RE NOT BOLDLY GOING??!?!!? Heresy!

pant pantThe destruction of Roddenberry's vision. I just can't go on...

But I hold with another poster in this forum. If the biggest frustration in your life is the new Star Trek movie and you have the luxury and energy to get this upset over it - you are living a charmed and sheltered life. So, more power to you.

And they were right too.