DS9 was not and never was a huge success, unless you restrict your attention to the first airing of the pilot episode.
Doesn't need to be if it earns my opinion of being the best of the bunch.
DS9 was not and never was a huge success, unless you restrict your attention to the first airing of the pilot episode.
The casting, the characters, the attitude is all too uncharismatic and insipid for an exciting big screen movie.
While hardcore trekkies ignore all this and gets excited about the application of ablative armour or the latest technobabble phaser upgrade Voyager gets to defeat the borg of the week
the intelligent paying customer who invests 2-3 hours of their time to watch a film will not want it wasted on such TV filler.
I've been a fan of TOS since the mid-seventies. And I have been a fan of TNG era Trek ever since it premiered. I just think that rehashing TOS is kind of pointless, although I can live with the "alternate timeline" explanation. But I will never care for nuKirk or nuSpock the way I did for the original characters.
Are you refering to the scene where they're talking about grapefruits and dogs?I guess that transwarp beaming bullshit doesn't count as technobabble?
DS9 was not and never was a huge success, unless you restrict your attention to the first airing of the pilot episode.
Doesn't need to be if it earns my opinion of being the best of the bunch.
Talking about intelligence here, eh? If you seriously think that nuTrek is more intelligent than old Trek, then there is nothing more to discuss.
uncharismatic casting and performance.
Not sure if serious. Especially in the case of The Next Generation.uncharismatic casting and performance.
And the nuTrek cast/performance is more charismatic? Excuse me, but the TOS/TNG era cast/performance was at least ten times more charismatic.
And the nuTrek cast/performance is more charismatic? Excuse me, but the TOS/TNG era cast/performance was at least ten times more charismatic.
Oso Blanco said:I guess the most charismatic character of STID will be the Cumberbatch character!
OK, for the sake of argument, say Abrams had decided to revisit TNG characters instead of TOS characters.
-- He would've recast the crew of the Enterprise with new actors.
-- He would've updated and changed the look of the Enterprise and its techonolgy to reflect a 21st century vision of the 24th century and not a 1980s view.
-- To justify the big budget, the story would've fit in with the action-adventure genre that's popular with general audiences, today. (It is a commercial film, after all, and is after a wide audience.)
-- He'd have directed the movie in his fast-paced style.
-- He'd have violated some parts of "canon" in order to shed baggage or tell a better story. For example, maybe Picard never spent 23 years as captain of the Stargazer.
So, I guess that means the movie wouldn't have been TNG. And it certainly wouldn't have been "Star Trek". Right?
What were they thinking? The possibilities were endless…
Looking at the shared universe franchises of THE AVENGERS, the X-MEN and soon to join the club STAR WARS and DC Comics, I wonder if the analysts at Paramount will knock their heads on their tables after realizing the stupidity of the decision they took back in 2006 to re-invent STAR TREK.
Yes, we have to go back half a decade to discuss this matter further.
2006: BATMAN BEGINS and CASINO ROYALE launched a very successful reboot of their respective franchises. It was hard to sell established continuity, since the producers and managers thought that the average Joe, who goes to the movies is unable to remember more than 2 films back into a movie series. And no doubt, both relaunch movies were great.
But now, half a decade later, cinema changed once again: Movie franchises which span not only one, or two sequels, but consist of sidequels, prequels and spinoffs are more popular than ever. Marvel started the trend, having produced 6 films in the shared continuity in less than 10 years! The X-Men are following suit having so far released 5 films, with number 6 and 7 following; joining the club will be the fantastic four… but that was just the beginning…
It appears now that every studio tries to create it’s own shared universe: DC comics will launch it with MAN OF STEEL this year, Fox is connecting dots in the Alien/Prometheus/Predator franchise, and it is possible that Blade Runner is/will become part of it, too; universal is creating a spy franchise out of the Bourne series... and I guess we will see a sidequel to the teen-loved Twilight series down the road, too!
Now look at TREK. How outdated it feels (again). Yet, Paramount failed to realize… all the other studios are craving for… are building up… all that was already there. There is no other universe like the established TREK universe, spanning more than 700 hours of TV and 10 movies. A sandbox for every author.
Imagine how an AVENGERS-style TREK film could look like, teaming up original Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer!
They had it all, yet they failed to see… I wonder how you guys think about it... let me know.
Xavier_Storma said:Yet, Paramount failed to realize… all the other studios are craving for… are building up… all that was already there. There is no other universe like the established TREK universe, spanning more than 700 hours of TV and 10 movies.
I am very impressed with nuUhura - a natural strong female character. She is not an irritating forceful token female like say Kira or Seven of 9.
Some performers carry out the concept of the character effortlessly, that makes them likeable. Those who force their characters (poor acting and writing) results with something unconvincing and insincere.
OK, for the sake of argument, say Abrams had decided to revisit TNG characters instead of TOS characters.
-- He would've recast the crew of the Enterprise with new actors.
-- He would've updated and changed the look of the Enterprise and its techonolgy to reflect a 21st century vision of the 24th century and not a 1980s view.
-- To justify the big budget, the story would've fit in with the action-adventure genre that's popular with general audiences, today. (It is a commercial film, after all, and is after a wide audience.)
-- He'd have directed the movie in his fast-paced style.
-- He'd have violated some parts of "canon" in order to shed baggage or tell a better story. For example, maybe Picard never spent 23 years as captain of the Stargazer.
So, I guess that means the movie wouldn't have been TNG. And it certainly wouldn't have been "Star Trek". Right?
Why must you introduce logic into the debate?
Kira? A token female? Have you ever seen a single episode of DS9? Kira was probably one of the strongest female characters ever on TV!
You have repeatedly accused TOS/TNG actors of bad acting ... that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this board! We had some very brilliant actors there that actually made the characters their own. That's something that the nuTrek actors have yet to accomplish. The only one who has convinced me so far is Bruce Greenwood. Quinto was much better as Sylar and nuScotty is nothing more than a parody. And nuChekov? Don't get me started ...![]()
Acting-wise, TOS is often campy but it's still very entertaining. TNG is often cringe-worthy. This past year I made it through rewatches of TOS, ENT and VOY, and on the whole enjoyed them. But TNG has been a real struggle. There are some great moments, but far too much suck inbetween.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.