• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

The casting, the characters, the attitude is all too uncharismatic and insipid for an exciting big screen movie.

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.

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

I guess that transwarp beaming bullshit doesn't count as technobabble?

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.

Talking about intelligence here, eh? If you seriously think that nuTrek is more intelligent than old Trek, then there is nothing more to discuss.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Talking about intelligence here, eh? If you seriously think that nuTrek is more intelligent than old Trek, then there is nothing more to discuss.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
And the nuTrek cast/performance is more charismatic? Excuse me, but the TOS/TNG era cast/performance was at least ten times more charismatic.

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.





Oso Blanco said:
I guess the most charismatic character of STID will be the Cumberbatch character!

Yes, he may very well upstage the main cast!

Just goes to show that's the xfactor high profile movies like Star Trek needs.
 
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?
 
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.


This is pretty simple: no
 
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.

News flash: The Abrams film is a part of that continuity.
 
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.

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!

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.

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 ... :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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?

:rommie:

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.
 
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!

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.







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 ... :rolleyes:

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.
 
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.

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.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top