Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Xavier_Storma, Feb 7, 2013.
Doesn't need to be if it earns my opinion of being the best of the bunch.
I don't see anything uncharismatic in neither the cast nor the characters of TNG/DS9. Maybe you should go watch it again?
And the original TOS cast had ten times the charisma of the nuTrek cast.
I guess that transwarp beaming bullshit doesn't count as technobabble?
Talking about intelligence here, eh? If you seriously think that nuTrek is more intelligent than old Trek, then there is nothing more to discuss.
That's not the point.
With a TV series you have to want to see the same people do he same things week after week after week for years for the show to be considered a success. You need some sort of connection.
Movies just need you to be bored for a couple of hours. If enough people are bored you get a sequel and throw down some more disposable income a few years later.
Are you refering to the scene where they're talking about grapefruits and dogs?
Regardless of how much some like DS9, it never had and never will command a big enough audience at the theater to justify making a DS9 motion picture, which—in context—was my point.
You are confused.
The majority - millions of paying viewers are likely to be rational and intelligent people, you can be sure that many appreciate movies that are made well and entertain without boring people to death with bland tech driven dialog and uncharismatic casting and performance.
This applies to all forms of arts, such as live theatre, music and dance.
And the nuTrek cast/performance is more charismatic? Excuse me, but the TOS/TNG era cast/performance was at least ten times more charismatic.
I guess the most charismatic character of STID will be the Cumberbatch character!
In mass marketing, what matters is what appeals to the biggest audience. That's how charisma is measured in this context. That small minority with the strong opinions can't buy enough tickets fast enough to get catered to as much as they think they deserve. And, they can't seem to grasp that point, either.
For what it's worth, as many here know, Paramount had a chance to try something "new" with Erik Jendresen's "Star Trek: The Beginning" script. It was supposed to be an "epic" trilogy of films filling in the blanks between ENT and TOS, including the Romulan-Earth war. One of the main characters was an ancestor of James T. Kirk. The idea was scrapped when they got J.J. Abrams to come aboard and heard his pitch.
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?
Not sure if serious. Especially in the case of The Next Generation.
The nuTrek cast are fresh and likeable, and naturally fits in well with contemporary cinema.
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.
That's the difference. 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.
A bit like a bad chat up line, very cheesy.
Yes, he may very well upstage the main cast!
Just goes to show that's the xfactor high profile movies like Star Trek needs.
Why must you introduce logic into the debate?
This is pretty simple: no
News flash: The Abrams film is a part of that continuity.
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 ...
Unfortuantely, aside from Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner, the TNG regulars were dull as ditchwater. The Original Series crew and their nuTrek equivalents were colourful and far more interesting.
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.
I was in graduate school when TNG first aired. So I was around a bunch of mid-20-something geeks raised on TOS. We were so excited about TNG we felt that must be what it's like to anticipate sex. (OK, we weren't that geeky. Some guys were even married, so I suppose at least they were having sex. One had a son, so I know he did it at least once. ) TNG was great Trek. As good as TOS on TV, and in some ways, better.
But as others have said, TNG and its characters were played out compared to TOS characters. They had a great run. Historic in some ways. While TOS died in season three before it could even hit a stride, TNG went on for almost 100 more episodes. When Kirk and his pals finally made the big screen, they were ready for their AARP cards, so we really didn't get to see them at their best (which the movies even played on). We saw little of them young or in their prime.
Marketability and name recogntion of characters aside (though they're important), in terms of available fresh material, the widest gaps in time to choose from for setting a story, and for the most new directions in which to go while still presenting an identifiable "Star Trek" product, in my opinion, TOS was the better of the two series to reboot.
When I said TNG, I meant TNG era. Especially DS9 had some fantastic actors, including recurring cast.
Only in your own opinion. I find the character of Kira and Seven very similar, and simply would not work on the big screen. Too much baggage, very little charisma and quite hammy too.
If you look at the best female roles on the big screen, they are not highly strung women in tight uniform tussling with Klingons and robots every week, the best roles tend to be characters that speak loud through being quiet and sensual, which is a huge aspect of being a woman.
That alone makes all the difference.
Very few actors in TNG had good performances, Patrick Stewart and John Delance stand out the most. They are true thespians which carry the episode or the entire series.
nuTrek actors are clearly the right choice for ST2009 as the movie was a success, not only commerically but critically from experts who ARE NOT Trekkies.
The performances in TOS were very typical of the 1960's, heavily derived from live theatre style performances, hence why in some eyes and ears seem a bit OTT.
Al Pacino had a very strong theatre background, and is one of the greatest actors and he is known to be OTT in is best stuff.
Separate names with a comma.