So what do folks here think of the new Star Trek movie, anyway?

Link



Obviously, we can't know for certain what the film will be like until it's released next May. That said, however, I'll admit I'm both looking forward to it while simultaneously dreading it -- looking forward to it because it's a chance to finally revive the Trek franchise after years of mismanagement and drudgery, yet dreading it because it could just as easily be the last miserable gasp of what was once the proudest name in science fiction.

I wait, and worry, and hope....

I'm kind of in the same boat Martok, but probably leaning more towards the negative. I'm hoping my lowered expectation might catching me pleasantly surprised when the movie comes out. I guess if the Bond series can swap out actors, maybe Star Trek can pull it off too. I only ask that there are no more mega-alien probes bent on destroying Earth...again...

Negative to be honest...


...Didnt 'Enterprise' teach us that going backwards in time and doing prequels is a bad idea? And this time T'Pol's sweet bum wont be around to save it :2thumbsup:



...I would go for something way radical and groundbreaking. I.e. 2000 years forward, significantly changed political and social balances like a mixed Klingon-Human race in a world where earth no longer exists. Or Vulcans turning rogue and adopting Borg like enhancements to turn against the federation in a dramatic change of their social background. :P

rasoforos, i think this is meant to be a reboot of the entire series. They're not just going back in time and doing a prequel, they're redoing absolutely everything.

I for one await our new Abrams Trek overlords with wary anticipation.

I'm way over into the dread side of things.

I read recently that Kirk is going to be written as a over-emotional bully. I can believe it, because studio chiefs will want to appeal to the "youth" demographic so having him as some sort of gangsta-rapper will go down well with their focus groups.

Remakes are invariably a disaster. And I can't believe any actors will be able to re-create the chemistry between Kirk, Bones and Spock because it evolved out of years of working together, and fond memory.

I watched only two episodes of Enterprise because they lost the plot in an attempt to change Roddenberry's vision to "gritty realism". I doubt if I will go to the new movie - I'll just watch "A Taste of Armageddon" once more and marvel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Remakes are invariably a disaster.

---

Sorry, but I gotta play devil's advocate for a moment: What about Casino Royale? Or Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? Did you find these to be crappy films?

Not that all "reboots" are successful, of course (and is certainly no guarantor of how good/bad the new Trek movie will be in any case). I'm just saying. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Sorry, but I gotta play devil's advocate for a moment: What about Casino Royale? Or Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? Did you find these to be crappy films?

---

Well, yes, actually. :beam:

One can argue that Casino Royale is merely a following installment of a long-running series, no more a remake than Star Trek:Nemesis was (at a stretch, you might claim the David Niven film as progenitor, if you must). I hated Batman Begins with its silly martial arts pandering to modern demographics, and I haven't bothered with The Dark Knight.

I would however, grant you The Magnificent Seven, if that helps. :2thumbsup:

I think it's going to bomb. This is not, as some people have said, supposed to be a reboot. It's not just a continuation either though. Instead they've decided to go the Superman returns route and put it somewhere in the middle, meaning it won't actually fit into regular continuity, but they'll say some time travel technobabble to explain why it doesn't.

I am, and I say this as a big Star Trek fan, glad it's going to bomb. If dutifully sitting through 4 fairly terrible seasons of Enterprise has taught me anything, it's that Star Trek has really run it's course. After about 30 years of constant shows and movies, the franchise is stale right now. I think it's much too soon for a reboot. Let it die off completely and stop trying to beat a dead horse. Maybe after 5 or 10 years, someone will come along with fresh ideas and reinvigorate the franchise. Until then, i'll stick to reruns to get my trek fix.

I am just reading this thread in the hope that of one of you geeks will start speaking in Klingon... ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Well, yes, actually. :beam:

One can argue that Casino Royale is merely a following installment of a long-running series, no more a remake than Star Trek:Nemesis was (at a stretch, you might claim the David Niven film as progenitor, if you must). I hated Batman Begins with its silly martial arts pandering to modern demographics, and I haven't bothered with The Dark Knight.

I would however, grant you The Magnificent Seven, if that helps. :2thumbsup:

---

One can argue that about Casino Royale, but they are wrong. The plot of Casino Royale is Bond's first job as a double O, completely dropping and sort of plot connection to any of the other Bond films, therefor it is a complete remake. Just because there have been Bond films since the 60's does not mean that these new ones are inherently tied to the old ones in any way.

And if you knew anything about Batman, you would wonder how a super hero without super powers is going to stop the bad guys. The martial arts was not there just to pander toward modern demographics. I laugh at how you dismiss the new Batman movies while saying "I haven't bothered to watch The Dark Knight."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I am just reading this thread in the hope that of one of you geeks will start speaking in Klingon... ~:smoking:

---

Hey Louis - Hab SolI' Quch! :laugh4:

"Your mother has a smooth forehead!" - a very nasty insult according to the Klingon Language Institute

Some enterprising soul uploaded a phone grab of the new trailer, which you can catch here. Enjoy.

I voted I'm eager, but worried, but actually stopped caring about Star Trek a long time ago. Rebooting the franchise was a good call, but we'll just have to wait and see. If it doesn't get good reviews I won't bother checking it out myself.

Just found out about this recently and wiki'd up the movie and each of the main actors. I'm skeptical, and will do what I usually do--wait, listen to/read about what those who went to see it thought, and then decide whether to see it in the cinema or just wait til it's out on DVD.

From what I saw of the bridge, it looks pretty silly. Somehow I don't think I'm part of the audience to whom they're trying to appeal (I began as a Trekkie in ... 1970 or so, a hardcore TOS, though I did enjoy much of TNG). As said, I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Some enterprising soul uploaded a phone grab of the new trailer, which you can catch here. Enjoy.

---

Already watched a leaked version yesterday (or was it Friday night?). Anyway, color me *extremely* unimpressed. I'm suddenly much more in the Gregoshi/BG camp of "this is going to suck". :thumbsdown:


EDIT: Of course, I was also not looking forward to the new Transformers movie last year, and I was very pleasantly surprised then. Who knows, maybe lightning will strike twice (but I seriously doubt it). :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

EDIT: Of course, I was also not looking forward to the new Transformers movie last year, and I was very pleasantly surprised then. Who knows, maybe lightning will strike twice (but I seriously doubt it). :shrug:

---

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...multiple-times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I guess if the Bond series can swap out actors, maybe Star Trek can pull it off too.

---

But then again the Bond franchise thrives on changing Bond's face every few installments. It is almost the opposite with Stra Trek-- Kirk is William Shatner, Spock is Leonard Nimoy, Scotty is James Doohan, and Sulu is George Takei. They have become so entwined that one rarely thinks of the character without the actor, and vice versa. The new actors are going to have a hell of a job to pull off.



Never been a huge fan of the old Star Trek, so I will go into the movie eagerly but without the baggage of expectations, just as I did when I went to see Batman Begins or Superman Returns.

I rest my case.

Quote:

---

A furious Spock then lashes out at Kirk,...

---

:shocked2: :no:

What a load of tosh.

That would be highly illogical. :inquisitive:

Photos comparing 'classic' crew members and the 'new' crew members...

http://screenrant.com/images/star-trek-crew.jpg

I swear the new Spock is Romulan in that picture :no: and Sulu looks like a chav... and Chekhov look far too young...

I fear for the future of Star Trek :skull:

(Incidentally, I liked Star Trek Enterprise...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I rest my case.

:shocked2: :no:

What a load of tosh.

---

Perhap a youthful Spock is still embroiled in his conflicting Vulcan/Human halves and doesn't quite have the Vulcan control he does later on. Some parts of the trailer looked pretty good, but there is something nagging at me about it that I haven't yet put my finger on. Trailers/"coming next week" scenes can be very misleading, especially with Star Trek, so I'll continue to withhold my very guarded judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Perhap a youthful Spock is still embroiled in his conflicting Vulcan/Human halves and doesn't quite have the Vulcan control he does later on.

---

Not unless you rewrite the established story from scratch. The whole essence of the early episodes showed Spock as too emotionally controlled, having carved a career in Starfleet working among humans by repressing all emotions. Witness "This Side of Paradise" from TOS series 1 - one of the first truly great episodes of that great season.

We also know he had conflicts with his father for being too "human" and thus had swung completely to cold logical control. It is Kirk who slowly enables him to understand and embrace both sides of his heritage, a process only close to completion by "The Wrath of Khan".

This narrative is consistent with the character's development and mirrors the struggle many men of the 1950's had with expressing their emotions openly. This depth is what makes TOS fascinating.

To jettison all that for some cheap thrill fight because modern audiences apparently can't do subtlety (studio execs, not my opinion) is disappointing.

Yes, but it was always my impression from TOS that Kirk and Spock had known each other for a long time before the series began, or am I mistaken? I don't know. We (or is it just I?) know so little about the movie. Judging from the "scenes from next week's show" from STNG (in which the Enterprise was shown blowing up every other week), maybe the Spock freakout attack on Kirk was just a dream. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Yes, but it was always my impression from TOS that Kirk and Spock had known each other for a long time before the series began, or am I mistaken? I don't know.

---

Not to my knowledge. AFAIR, Spock served on the Enterprise for a decade or more under Captain Pike before Kirk joined as replacement. Kirk would have been a teenager when Spock was a serving officer. Spock only became the Enterprise's first officer when Gary Mitchell (of the shiny silver eyes and laddish close friend of Kirk's) was killed in the episode "Where No Man has Gone Before".

Somebody may correct me, but I don't think the two had any relationship before Kirk joined the Enterprise.

You are, no doubt, right about some plot device to explain the change. I just don't think it is necessary - the backstory is rich enough for development, but one suspects it's easier to script a fight than dialogue.

EDIT: I'm probably being more than unfair. Lady Ghost has just reminded me that Spock did indeed slap Kirk (so hard he flipped over a table) in the early stages of TOS, namely "The Naked Time". So, I'll shut up now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

Never been a huge fan of the old Star Trek, so I will go into the movie eagerly but without the baggage of expectations, just as I did when I went to see Batman Begins or Superman Returns.

---

Problem with Superman is that he's somehow... outdated. Guy fighting for "truth, justice and American way". Too much cold war type character. You can reboot the series all you want but Superman won't get that much attention.

Batman on the other hand isn't tied to politics. He's the guy that doesn't have superpowers, he uses his skill and equipment to get the job done. Also, he doesn't fight for justice (at least in the original comic books). He does it because he's fighting a personal demon, because he witnessed the death of his parents and subconsciously he's avenging his parents every time he kills or puts away bad guys. His type of story is personal, and as such can never stop being interesting due to big political or social changes in the world.

Now, why have I brought this up - because Star Trek somehow suffers from the same cold war syndrome as Superman, maybe even worse. Yes, all people live happily in abundance on Earth, free from diseases, vices, racism and children pornography and at the same time, those free people live together with other races in a federation that very closely resembles idealistic view of the western free world. It's main opponent is the Klingon Empire, technologically roughly on the same level, but their technology is more crude, they're very warlike, careless when it comes to lives, even that of their own men. All that pretty much resembles Soviet Union. Federation tries to fight the good fight, spread peace and prosperity throughout universe, explore new world while it is being hindered by the Klingon Empire. That setup was interesting during the cold war, but ir's pretty much "old news" now.

It would have been far more smarter to move the series forward. Maybe after decades of prosperity and lacking a real and powerful enemy, confederation slowly gets corrupted and eaten from inside. It turns to oligarchy or dictatorship. Maybe civil war starts. Or just about any other thing that would move the series forward and not backwards.

That's why I think that reboot of the series to that setup won't bring revival of the franchise. It may end up in an enjoyable movie, mind you, but renaisance of Star Trek franchise - no.

Damn, I never knew Banquo was so into Star Trek. :laugh4:

And double damn because the preview showed a lot of promise but there were parts of it I really didn't like. I wonder how they're going to retool it for the 21st century. There is HUGE potential in the special effects, if they get the physics right. I liked the wild west and mysterious feel of TOS when I was a young explorer myself. Now I can't watch it without giggling. I really hope the new movie is good.

Okay, now I have serious doubts about this movie after reading an article at IGN.com. The article does contain some spoilers regarding what is known about the storyline. The only thing I'll say is...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...time travel?! AGAIN?!!! :wall: Why don't they just rename the franchise "Back to the Future"? Oh, that's right, that name is already taken. The Federation boys spend more time time traveling than they do in their "present" these days. I rue the day time travel was introduced into Star Trek. It has become a Pandora's Box of bad stories (except Star Trek IV, but even then it was a tired idea).

Is that Simon Pegg? :jawdrop:~:eek:

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/...Sypglass/1.jpg

from greg's article

And Mr. Scott (Simon Pegg), with some help from Spock Prime, comes to Kirk's aid when the two officers meet on the same planet they have been banished to.

Simon Pegg ?! in a star trek film ?!

very strange....

Is Mr. Scott the comic relief in the original Star Trek?