Will Trek XI be remembered as "TOS"?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by darkshadow0001, May 4, 2008.

  1. Sharr Khan

    Sharr Khan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Location:
    USA Ct
    This is an absurd statement, since dramatics and if they're entertaining or not do not depend in any meaningful manner on dates on a calender. When I read things like this on this board or across the internet - it reads as sour grapes, those mad that their particular vision of Trek isn't the one getting produced.

    Sharr
     
  2. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Agreed... this is another "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. "If this is true and this is true, then the second thing is the case because of the first thing."

    We know that the Star Wars prequels weren't all that great. We know that Enterprise wasn't all that great. Neither were abject failures, but both have widely acknowledged flaws.

    But the flaws don't seem to have any real connection to the fact that they were prequels. Simply BEING a prequel, and being unsuccessful, doesn't mean that all prequels are necessarily unsuccessful. What it means is that bad shows are unsuccessful, and these particular prequels were widely considered to be bad shows.

    Draw a real, logical connection between "prequel" and "bad show" and the argument stands. Otherwise, it's just mindless nattering. ;)
     
  3. Sharr Khan

    Sharr Khan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Location:
    USA Ct
    Successful storytelling is good... because, well its good. It appeals to a person, the viewer or reader on various levels, resonates some emotional chords and the reader or viewer can find what they're watching or reading to be emotionally engaging. All this stuff can take place in either 30th and One-Half Century, or the 1st Century, if it carries a emotional resonates chances are it will be a success. There's ZERO reason that a Star Trek film can't do this or aspire to become this, but for the fact it has very seldom ever tried to.

    The notion that Trek is a different animal, so special a piece of artwork it can't appeal to anyone beyond the likes of those who come to this bbs is wrong, anyone who asserts such a notion, though they might not know it are Geek-Elitist afraid to open the door of the club for the unwashed masses.

    Sharr
     
  4. darkshadow0001

    darkshadow0001 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana
    I didn't think people were going to take me that seriously here. What I probably should of said was (to more of my meaning), some sci-fi prequals don't work. Look at Enterprise, while the show wasn't all that bad, they had somewhat of a difficult time making a prequal show that had four shows and ten movies of onscreen canon and the canon was broken easily with this show because some of the elements of TOS were either forgotten, or chose to ignore, or just found it difficult to make it work because of all the onscreen history Star Trek had.

    The Star Wars prequals. I saw all three in the theatre, (not a fan of Star Wars but gave them a shot), I thought they were ok, but I remember a lot of fans complaining about them because of either to much CGI of some characters or characters like Jar Jar Binks being introduced.

    These were the main prequals I was speaking of (I never really saw any others, except Smallville).

    Now Smallville worked I think because it didn't have all the "onscreen canon" as Star Trek does, so not much was complained about as far as I can recall. And I'm sure other prequals worked, like Batman Begins, but I haven't seen a lot of them so I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I should of been more clear.
     
  5. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    For fuck's sake!!

    It is spelled prequel!!!

    Sorry, but that drives me batty!!
     
  6. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    No-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-NO! (ahhh... taking a deep breath...) ;)

    Seriously, the problems that they had were UNRELATED to the history. It's easy to avoid contradicting "history." SIMPLY DON'T TELL NEW STORIES ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO CONTRADICT. Easy!

    The real problem wasn't that they were bound by all the "history." The real problem was that they CHOSE TO STICK TOO CLOSELY to that "history" instead of trying to tell new stories.

    The most maligned bits on Enterprise had to do with "Vulcan Mind Melding as an analogy for gay sex" or the inclusion of the Borg or the Ferengi or so forth. The choice to renovate the Akira model rather than do a truly different design. The choice to use the same damned technology as every TNG-era show has had, but to try to fake out the audience by giving it new names ("phase pistols?" "polarized hull plating?" sheesh!) instead of showing something more TOS-ish. And the overt efforts to make it a TNG prequel rather than a TOS prequel (until the 4th season when Coto was in charge, when he TRIED to fix it, though with what's widely considered to be with mixed results)

    It wasn't the "history" that caused the problems. It was the LACK OF CREATIVITY on the part of the production staff. Give the same general show concept to someone else... someone who hadn't become psychologically submerged in their own personal version of Trek for the past couple of decades... but instead someone who hadn't had a chance to play in that particular sandbox yet... and "Enterprise" might have been a lot better than it was, and a lot more POPULAR than it was.
    The complaints, really, were about the fact that the films tended to be more focused on imagery and less on real, identifiable people. The first movies were really about a group of people who were people we'd generally want to hang out with if we knew them in real life, and who we could imagine BEING. But the SW prequels were all about CGI to the exclusion of likeable people. Ewan McGregor was the one significant acting highlight of the prequels... if it hadn't been for him, the whole thing would've been a disaster, IMHO.

    The problems with the SW prequels weren't related to 'em being prequels, they were related to them being POORLY TOLD and, more significantly, POORLY ACTED, overall. That said, they're still "good" movies... just not on the same par as the originals.
    Oh, GOOD LORD... I know you qualified that with "onscreen canon" but c'mon... the sheer volume of "canon" associated with Superman is orders of magnitude more than anything ever envisioned relating to Trek... and that's including every book, every magazine, every fan-fiction story, every damned "slash story"... EVERYTHING... ever told about Star Trek. Superman, or Batman for that matter, make Star Trek's "canon history" look like a speck by comparison.

    And just so ya know... the "canon" arguments you'll hear about Trek are likewise dwarfed by the canon arguments you'll hear leveled at "Smallville," both in the level of nastiness and in the frequency of complaint.
     
  7. DaveyNY

    DaveyNY Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Location:
    DaveyNY from Skin-Neck-Ta-Dee (Schenectady)
    Damn....

    Just about every post has the key word in it...

    P R E Q U E L

    It's soooooo OBVIOUS People...

    It's gonna be....


    Pre TOS
     
  8. darkshadow0001

    darkshadow0001 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana
    Eh, I don't care either way. I never meant for this thread to get so complicated. Reason why I strayed away from this BBS years ago. It's just a TV show. Geez people! :P
     
  9. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    It's called a FORUM. Forums are places for DISCUSSION. Discussion means looking at a topic in a fair amount of detail and actually... gasp... discussing it. ;)

    I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you'd be surprised, much less ANNOYED, that people were interested enough in your originally-posted topic to actually choose to discuss the topic you'd raised.
     
  10. JRS

    JRS Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Location:
    Finland
    I hope it will be remembered as Star Trek...great Star Trekm with at least two sequels. That would be enough for me.
     
  11. Sharr Khan

    Sharr Khan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Location:
    USA Ct
    Couldn't agree more!

    Sharr
     
  12. darkshadow0001

    darkshadow0001 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana
    I just didn't expect my topic to go the distance. I think I get annoyed because I will say one thing, then someone else misinterprets what I'm saying, and then the misinterpretation goes into arguments. I just never take things as seriously as a lot of folks here do... that's all. I think it's rather amusing.
     
  13. darkshadow0001

    darkshadow0001 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana
    Don't you mean sequals? :rommie:
     
  14. Lyon_Wonder

    Lyon_Wonder Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    NeoTOS, NuTOS, or JJ Trek.
     
  15. ST:RPG

    ST:RPG Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Location:
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    It will not only be refered to as TOS, but it will in fact take the place of TOS...better yet:

    I hearby revoke all previous versions of Star Trek in favor of the new, better, best version of Star Trek.. and forget the XI too.

    Star Trek, The Movie.. Star Trek Begins.. JJ Abrams all the way baby!

    yeah, I said it. so watcha gonna do about it?
     
  16. ST:RPG

    ST:RPG Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Location:
    3rd Rock from the Sun

    Strange, I don't recall anyone /cannonically/ being Captain of the Constitution-class Enterprise besides C. Pike. April /technically/ doesn't count, but is generally accepted.

    Pike and April would be Pre-TOS. Hell, "Enterprise" is PRE-TOS.

    My friends, better sit down if you're not already. I repeat:

    This movie..

    Let me start again.

    No other version of Star Trek is going to be remembered after this movie comes out.

    And that's why they are making this movie, you fools. To brush the tripe of the past down the drain, and into the gutter.

    GET IT?
     
  17. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    No. I don't "get it." And neither does anyone else except for a few "fanboys," it seems. PPC doesn't "get it." Abrams and his team don't "get it." Who, exactly, "gets" that?
     
  18. Iowagirl

    Iowagirl Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    Germany, UFP
    Ok guys, it will not be remembered as TOS, as there's only one TOS for good!

    And imo it shouldn't be just called ST, because ST a) used to be the name for TOS in the beginning, because there were no spin-offs, and b) today Star Trek is more or less the general term for all things ST, i. e. the general name. That's also why I think that Abrams' & Co. calling the film just Star Trek is inappropriate.

    How about calling it TFTWTBST (The film that wanted to be Star Trek) or just IT (Imposter Trek)...:devil:
     
  19. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Star Trek - Posers?