Bootleg: New ‘Star Trek’ Trailer
Posted by Dirty Harry on Sunday, November 16th, 2008
Who knows what to make of this. It’s all CGI’d sound and fury. Spock and Kirk fighting each other feels off — forced. And why is Uhura a stick figure? The woman had a figure — a woman’s figure — not a heroin addiction.
Here’s the problem: It doesn’t matter how good the script is, the special effects, or anything else… What made the original timeless and special was the unspoken chemistry between the actors. THE ACTORS. By all accounts no one liked each other much off screen, but on screen the ease and warmth displayed between the players could be evoked through something as simple as a look. And that’s something that can’t be reproduced.
And it’s the trying to reproduce it where you get into trouble.
Four reincarnations of Star Trek on television couldn’t recreate it. The four Next Generation films couldn’t recreate it. None came close. Part of the problem is that the original crew is actually made up of MOVIE STARS. They belong on the big screen. Other than Patrick Stewart, none of the Next Generation came close to filling that screen.
I’m not knocking the Next Generation films. They were perfectly fine stand-alone sci-fi actioners. The problem with this new film is that it’s not a stand-alone. It’s intentionally bringing back the original crew in a conscious attempt to recreate that which can’t be recreated. In other words: There’s no way to sit through this and not feel something missing, lacking, gone forever…
And if it wasn’t my job to review it, I would never see it. When it comes to the original, those characters are part of the family. And I understand film well enough to know that what made them special were the actors who played them. So…
Paramount can just go ahead and shove their cynically produced Stepford Metrosexuals. There’s only one Kirk; one Spock; one McCoy; one Scotty; one Uhura; one Chekhov; one Sulu.
I hate Paramount and hope they get run over by a train.
P.S. Anyone else get an Anakin/Phantom Menace vibe from the true awfulness that is the opening? Where’s my train?
Found this video via Ed Driscoll, who found it through Christian Toto, who found it at Infinite Monkeys. Hat tips all around.
Filed in General |
misterdon 16 Nov 2008 at 8:39 am 1I’m a huge Trek fan, particulalry of the original series and DS9 (which I would argue had the best cast of any of the series). My enjoyment of TNG was… uneven, and the films, all of them, were weak. I won’t even bother with Voyager and Enterprise.
My biggest gripe with this film is that they are making it a film. Trek deserves to be a series. Its not like TV can’t do the effects still. Franchise movies today demand big action spectacle. That’s not Trek. Not really. Trek is exploration, its encounters on a more human level. You can’t do that in film.
As for who are the real Kirk, Spock, etc… I half disagree. No one can take the place of the originals for me. I grew up with, and I love them. But we’ve lost two of them so far, and more are soon to follow. This begs the question: Do these characters die off with them? I think that’d be a shame.
For years we have called these characters modern myths or legends. If they are timeless, the characters need to live on just as Robin Hood, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond and Superman live on.
I do have high hopes for this film, but little confidence. I don’t know whether Abrams gets it or not. I don’t know if this cast is the right one to pick up the mantle. But the fundamental concept, the notion of scapping all the baggage from the Trek narrative and starting over with an eye towards getting it in tune with the modern era, is a sound one (just as it was for James Bond).
Kenn Christensonon 16 Nov 2008 at 8:44 am 2Sort of a live-action version of “Clone-Wars.” You remember what Roger Ebert said about “strip mining” a franchise - looks like a perfect case-in-point.
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 8:44 am 3Yep. A mistake from the get-go.
Cynical, is right. There is absolutely no reason to make this movie whatsoever other than profit.
I have nothing against profit. I love it. It’s still the best way to judge market demand vs cost. But profit is the reward for satisfying customers. It is not the reason for a business to exist.
Do you know what they call people in business solely for profit without interest in customer satisfaction?
They’re called con men.
NCCon 16 Nov 2008 at 8:45 am 4I saw the first episode of Star Trek as it aired in 1966. I was 10. I have been a Trek fan ever since.
I look forward to the new film.
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 8:52 am 5Just a thought, but I would argue that the new Bonds were more about scrapping all the baggage that had developed on Bond over the more recent years and they were more about getting back to basics.
As far as modern narratives and Hollywood storytelling (or lack of it) the Pierce Brosnan films are far more contemporary, and the Craig versions are more throwbacks.
Judging from the trailer, at least (and admittedly that may be unfair), this is not the case with the Trek film so I’m not convinced that the success of the revamped Bonds are an apt comparison.
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 8:55 am 6Do you know what they call people in business solely for profit without interest in customer satisfaction?
They’re called con men.
Do you know what they call teenagers and Star Trek fans looking forward to the new film?
The Marks.
Stephanieon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:02 am 7Are you kidding me. I am sitting here at an airport SHOCKED. Holy crappeth….this….looks…AWFUL!
kinlawon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:08 am 8misterd
If by that you mean adding all of modern hollywoods agenda b**ls**t then no, that is a horrible idea, not a sound one.
Global warming doom, environmental bs, capitalism is evil, “tolerance”, hell, it wouldn’t even surprise me if they found a way, however unlikely, of working in a little bds.
Count me WAY out.
cloudbusteron 16 Nov 2008 at 9:09 am 9Well, this looks like a big bag of suck. A Star Trek trailer that opens with a high-speed car chase? From which we learn that there was supposed to be something cool about a young Kirk ditching a classic Corvette off a cliff for what appears to be nothing more than a vain attempt to avoid a traffic ticket?
When did Kirk get emo? “You’ve always had a hard time finding your place in this world, haven’t you? Never knowing your true worth.” Ugh. Gag.
Yes, seeing Kirk as an obnoxious, mouthy, emo teenager does indeed smack of Anakin. It was bad enough when George Lucas destroyed the greatest movie villain of all time, reducing him to a whiny, emo teenager. Apparently they want to do the same with Kirk.
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 9:19 am 10Wow. Excellent point. Right on the money.
NeoConJedion 16 Nov 2008 at 9:26 am 11I’m not a huge Trek fan, but I think I’ve seen every episode of every series except Voyager.
I love the mythos, and I don’t see this film being a problem — in fact, I’m pretty excited about it.
As for Kirk being a rebellious youth … it fits. It’d be pretty boring if Kirk grew up knowing exactly what he wanted to do, and always took the necessary steps to get there.
That certainly wouldn’t be the person who rewrote the programming to beat the Kobayashimaru.
JohnFNWayneon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:30 am 12Craptastic.
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 9:33 am 13NeoConJeid,
I don’t think cloudbuster is complaining about Kirk being a rebellious youth. My Trek knowledge is limited, but didn’t he manipulate a computer in some training session? He was rebellious.
I think he’s complaining about him being an Emo Rebellious Youth (“You’ve always had a hard time finding your place in this world, haven’t you? Never knowing your true worth.” )
Tangoon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:34 am 14Great point, Neo…i said it before on here: if i can buy into these actors as a younger version of the originals, count me in. The script is another story, of course. Agree 100%, it MUST not be a Star Wars Redux.
Mr Sideouson 16 Nov 2008 at 9:35 am 15oh…no no no no no no no no
memomachineon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:36 am 16Hmmmm.
1. What’s with the fistfight between “Spock” and “Kirk”??
I always thought Spock was far more rigidly logical than most Vulcans because of his half-human heritage. A sort of “the converted are more devout” thing that completely underpinned the whole Spock persona. Taking some data from the animated series, that had one episode involving the young child Spock, he had to continually prove himself to others that he wasn’t a human with vulcan features but a serious vulcan.
I can’t imagine a person that is so invested in logic and the rigors or trying to be more vulcan than vulcans would get into a ridiculous looking fistfight. Plus nobody in their right minds would get into a fistfight with Spock because his vulcan heritage gives him enormous strength.
Very ridiculous.
2. The whole metrosexual thing simply doesn’t work for me. If they’re trying to market this to the young crowd, good luck with that. Maybe they’ll bite, maybe they won’t but I sure won’t bother wasting my time on this.
3. If they want to resurrect the Star Trek brand then they need to roll back time to the 1st Federation Romulan War and have a series based on that. A real dark series involving space battles along with the many different missions that take place during a war … and with the losses that happens during wartime.
4.-Or- they could base a series on the grandson of Harry Mudd as he tries to make a go of being an independent trader along the edge of the Federation, Klingon space and so forth.
Problem of course is that it’s a little too similar to Firefly.
But it would still be pretty cool.
cloudbusteron 16 Nov 2008 at 9:40 am 17“4.-Or- they could base a series on the grandson of Harry Mudd as he tries to make a go of being an independent trader along the edge of the Federation, Klingon space and so forth.
Problem of course is that it’s a little too similar to Firefly.”
If more sci-fi was similar to Firefly, that’d be a *good* thing.
memomachineon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:42 am 18Hmmmm.
“As for Kirk being a rebellious youth … it fits. It’d be pretty boring if Kirk grew up knowing exactly what he wanted to do, and always took the necessary steps to get there.”
The problem is that to be a ship’s captain in the US Navy you pretty much -have- to have this point of view. And that’s the US Navy and not Star Fleet.
There are only so many ships and so only so many captains of said ships. And you’re in competition with anywhere from dozens to hundreds of other officers at every stage of rank and promotion and every phase of your career development.
And handing over a billion dollar ship with enormous firepower to someone with a history of being “rebellious”? Not happening.
As for TOS Kirk and the Kobeyashi Maru scenario I’d suggest that wasn’t being “rebellious” at all. Reprogramming the computer was not excluded as an option because nobody at the time conceived of it. And since cadets are encouraged to seek out every advantage it was acceptable. Otherwise TOS Kirk wouldn’t have passed.
Bradoxon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:46 am 19I’m with Misterd on “DS9″ being the best of the Star Trek series. Fire away, if you will. I never watched the originals, scheduling kept me from “Enterprise,” enjoyed “Next Generation,” but thought “Voyager” was too PC. Making Capt. Janeway both the Iron Lady and Dear Mother at the same time didn’t work.
I won’t be seeing “Star Trek” for a variety of reasons. The metrosexuality of it all reeks. You just can’t replace the originals, sorry, doesn’t work. I’m irritated with the movie treatment of the series anyway. They should have made a DS9 movie instead of going retro. And how in the name of Gene Roddenbury could Janeway become admiral before Picard?
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 9:47 am 20I am going to defer to Memo for all things Trek from now on.
memomachineon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:52 am 21Hmmm.
“If more sci-fi was similar to Firefly, that’d be a *good* thing.”
It’s pretty funny but some friends of mine and I were having a good laugh about what the next Trek would be like. I suggested the Mudd scenario because it would take the series away from the massive power the Federation has.
It would instead focus the series on aspects that were never really explored in any previous series or those that only were lightly touched upon such as the story arc involving Ro Laren. Plus the flip side of such a powerful entity like the Federation is it’s bureaucracy which would have it’s own hand in everything.
So basically the story would revolve around the young Mudd and a scratch pickup crew he finds. Nobody really trusts each other but they all need a quick exit from the space station and to be elsewhere. Mudd is viewed with suspicion by everyone because his grandfather has probably screwed over everyone in known space. Aside from trading, and smuggling, he also works as a spy for several different groups, but not willingly. But having these connections are occasionally useful so he goes along with it but does the absolute minimum possible.
etc etc etc.
We had a lot of fun imagining different episodes. Pity something like this will never happen. Instead we’ll get tepid nonsensical plotlines that inevitably become resolved with the discovery of the “nu-lame” particle that’ll fix everything if it’s emitted from the primary dish emitter.
memomachineon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:55 am 22Hmmmm.
“I am going to defer to Memo for all things Trek from now on.”
*laugh*
I grew up on a big hill in rural New Hampshire where we got 2 channels + 1 UHF channel from Quebec. Nothing much to do in the wintertime except watch Star Trek or the French language version of Gilligan’s Island.
Or worse Hee Haw.
ScottDSon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:08 am 23IMHO, there are two schools of thought:
1. Why not make a new Trek film and try to cater to the widest possible audience and maybe even bring in some new fans (or, as Paramount sees them, $$$)?
2. Trek will always be a niche thing and will never be popular like Star Wars (or Batman, Harry Potter, etc.) and to even try to cater to a mass audience risks diluting the property and alienating the fans who’ve been with it for this long.
I was always ambivalent about the prequel idea. I’m trying to keep an open mind and yes, I watched the trailer with an ear to ear grin on the whole time. As far as the whole metrosexual thing, I will reserve judgement until I see the film (and I don’t think that label applies to Pegg or Urban).
It’s nice to have ILM back in the Trek world (they haven’t produced Trek’s FX since First Contact in 1996). I’m also looking forward to Michael Giacchino’s score. On the other hand, it’s entirely possible they royally screw up and Trek is buried for another 20 years until some enterprising (pardon the expression) writer or producer convinces the studio to give it another go.
NCCon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:23 am 24“Yes, seeing Kirk as an obnoxious, mouthy, emo teenager does indeed smack of Anakin.”
Actually, I thought Paramount pretty much portrayed the older Kirk in films II-VI (essentially after Roddenberry lost control) as much more reckless than Kirk of TOS.
The TOS Kirk was not really disrespectful of authority. The nature of his position gave him enormous responsibility in situations where his superiors either could not give him direction, gave him contradictory direction, or gave him inhumane direction.
TOS Kirk was memorable because of his great imagination and courage made the system work in unforseen and/or difficult circumstances, not because he loved giving the system the finger.
Jaredon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:23 am 25I think Abrams learned all the wrong things from Episode I.
Not a Trek fan but could deduct from the trailer that he has: Emo whiny main character who is destined for something far more. Tommy V was talking about the metrosexual in a different post and stated,
“He has to be a man, and a boy just won’t do. The way I kept addressing this in meetings was, “Yes, but can he take a punch?”
Gabriel Macht or Scott Speedman should be Kirk.
Abrams also apparantly doesn’t know what the phrase “CGI Hell” means, and how just because it is the future, a far future, and an optomistic one, that doesn’t mean you have every scene bathed in synthetics. CGI should be used where it has to be, but that doesn’t mean *everything*. Will the time where you could do the future with little CGI like Aliens ever come back? I doubt it, but that prop-and-set approach should be what the effects people used.
Simon Pegg better clock someone at least once in the film. Go Shaun!
Jaredon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:33 am 26Possibly if you want someone younger then Speedman or Macht (both are in there 30’s), I think he might be in the pupae stage between “Boy” and “Man” is Zach Levi.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1157048/
Mulholland Kevinon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:34 am 27When did “profit” become a dirty word around DHP? Isn’t that a Leftist meme? Are filmmakers supposed to lose money now? No. Repeat after me: Profit is Good. It’s how people get paid.
As for producing a new Star Trek: It’s high time. Two generations have gone by since the sixties version. The grandchildren of the kids who watched it can’t be expected to enjoy it the way their grandparents did. It would be like expecting kids in the sixties to enjoy films from 1926. Sure, sixties kids who were nascent film-buffs might have done so, but most of their contemporaries would find those great old silent movies pretty hard to get next to.
Go ahead: Try watching those old STs without the nostalgia factor — and without regarding them as campy comedy. Not so easy: those plywood sets, ill-filling costumes, hambone overacting and the Méliès-level special effects are hard to overlook.
Ronsonicon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:40 am 28I could not stand to watch the Next Generation series. The scripts could not have been worse if they’d been ad-libbed by the actors themselves. How much time did they spend role playing on the holodeck or putting on shows for each other. It wasn’t a military or scientific enterprise (Enterprise) it was a fooking theater troupe. Cub Scouts organize search parties and their games of capture the flag better represent military action than the charlie foxtrots of that series.
This on the other hand, this looks truly and deeply wretched. I cannot imagine watching this based on what I’ve seen so far. Kirk is the anti-emo.
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:42 am 29This is one topic where I’ll part ways with DH.
First of all there’s this comment, “Part of the problem is that the original crew is actually made up of MOVIE STARS.” You have got to be kidding me.
George Takei a MOVIE STAR?!? Leonard Nimoy a MOVIE STAR?!? Walter Koenig, Deforest Kelly, James Doohan … MOVIE STARS?!?
And with all due respect, but the only reason William Shatner is still around is because of his ability at self-parody. It strikes me that Shatner doesn’t take himself to seriously, which is why he can riff so easily on Kirk characteristics.
And the only career most of these folks, who are still around, have is at Sci Fi conventions.
These folks just happened to be in the right place at the right time. They all got lucky enough to have their careers attached to what might be the greatest show in television history; certainly the show that had perhaps the biggest pop culture impact. It was the Star Trek idea that made these folks name. Is anyone talking about making M.A.S.H. XI? Anyone?
No doubt they brought what little acting skill they had to their roles, but lets be honest, their roles did not require that much depth. All Nimoy had to do to be Spock was not smile. Period.
There are a lot of movies that can be derided from their trailers, but this isn’t one of them. And there are a few television stars that can be rightly be described as MOVIE STARS (I’m thinking of Christopher Reeve here) but no one in the original Star Trek cast (nor any of the subsequent Trek casts) can fit that title. No one.
Buck Turgidsonon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:46 am 30“And why is Uhura a stick figure? The woman had a figure — a woman’s figure — not a heroin addiction.”
She must be really thin here because I didn’t see her at all.
Breadon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:47 am 31All the Abrams I have seen is strong on the tease but weak on the delivery.
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:47 am 32It strikes me as somewhat absurd how everyone is bashing the cast for no other reason than they are playing your childhood heroes.
It is akin to people who hate every single Bond film since Sean Connery stopped playing the character.
I’m sorry, folks, but your provincialism is showing. Badly.
Opuson 16 Nov 2008 at 10:57 am 33For those praising DS9, it could have been a good show if it had been handled more along the lines of the reboot of BSG, I know some of the same people were involved.
Problems with the trailer, Kirk came from Iowa, that sure as hell doesn’t look much like Iowa.
The inside of the new ship sure doesn’t looked like something designed for combat. TOS and Enterprise had the design right, a warships should be designed around function but beauty. Everything being a glossy white looked more like something from Galaxy Quest.
Lastly, based purely on assumption. How likely is it that a young officer in his mid-late 20’s would be given command of a ship like Enterprise? There’d be a thousand other older, more experience and politically connected officers more likely to get it. Even in science fiction you can push things too far.
With all that said, I’ll go see it anyway, hopefully it won’t be as disappointing as the new Bond flick.
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 10:59 am 34Daniel,
If it was akin to that then wouldn’t we hate every single Bond film since Sean Connery?
I think this example is the very thing that contradicts your point entirely.
One would logically conclude that since we don’t hate every Bond since Connery then that would be evidence that our aversion to the new Star Trek is, in fact, more than they are simply “playing our childhood heroes” since that sort of thing has not always offended us in the past.
CrippleHawkon 16 Nov 2008 at 11:01 am 35When did Kirk get emo? “You’ve always had a hard time finding your place in this world, haven’t you? Never knowing your true worth.” Ugh. Gag.
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Dirty Harryon 16 Nov 2008 at 11:23 am 36What Tommy V said #33. To which I’ll add a simple, “duh.”
maatkareon 16 Nov 2008 at 11:53 am 37You guys sure love the word “metrosexual.” It makes you sound kind of bitchy circa 2003. The young cast doesn’t bother me. If Starfleet is essentially the military, shouldn’t its new recruits be played by people in their 20’s? Don’t a lot of flailing youths join the service where they discover their true strengths and potential and go from callow to capable? This is where Spock et al learned their stuff. They SHOULD be goofy and green and wet behind the ears. I was a little kid watching older people in the Trek world. Now I’m older than those actors were, and I’m used to watching actors much younger than me play, well, people much younger than me. What’s the big deal? Anyway, I think the trailer looks like fun. I’ve enjoyed the original series and most of TNG, but never followed Voyager et al. This isn’t Young Hamlet. They can tweak it a bit. The original series is still watchable for the camp and preachiness and nostalgia, but it was a 3rd rate show with a b-level cast that worked because the actors had skill and the setting was unique. And remember, sometimes you even get better with a reboot, like that cheap little indie flick “Dark Knight” many here seem to admire
Tommy Von 16 Nov 2008 at 11:58 am 38Maatkare,
It is not the youth that bothers us. I think we might not share the same idea of what a metrosexual is.
As it is most widely understood, it is not a reference to youth.
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:11 pm 39Uh, no it does not contradict everything I wrote , Tommy V & DH.
My Bond comment is what some folks call an analogy, or to simplify a bit, if that is too obtuse, it is an example.
Where others are provincial about Bond (whether that be Connery or Moore - I hope everyone here agrees that Brosnan was no Bond), this thread seems to be driven by the provincialism of who plays Kirk, Spock, et al in Star Trek. If it isn’t the melodramatic Billy Shatner (so perfectly spoofed by this dude) in the Captain’s chair, or the one note Nimoy staring into that thingy in the Science Officer’s spot that seems to know all and tell all, then it just isn’t Trek.
It is entirely possible that one can be provincial in one area but not another. I completely acknowledge the reality that Tommy V, DH, and many others here love Bond no matter who plays the character (with the obvious exception of Pierce Brosnan).
But comment #33 is no response to what I wrote and what I wrote is not contradicted by the fact that you like Daniel Craig as Bond.
Joe Weldonon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:12 pm 40No matter how wrong it looks - and it looks wrong in so many ways - I’ll be waiting in line to see it.
There are teenage Star Trek fans and 90-year-old Star Trek fans. This is Paramount’s franchise and this will not be the last incarnation of Star Trek we see, anymore than Christian Bale will be the last Batman.
Of course they wanted to reinvent the franchise for newer audiences and I’m glad they did.
Now onto the problems.
Harry’s right about the actors. Shatner and Nimoy had talent, AND chemistry. Watch some old clips on YouTube.
I don’t see a lot of presence in any of these actors. They’re just reading lines.
The first Star Trek episode that aired was The Corbomite Maneuver. At one point, after a dangerous encounter with an alien ship, Kirk asks Spock for his analysis.
After Spock gives it, he says, “If you’re asking me as to how we should proceed…”
Kirk says, “No. Our orders are to continue on course.”
Spock replies, quietly, puzzled, “Captain, do you see a certain…inefficiency in asking me for advice in dealing with matters you’ve already made up your mind about?”
Kirk: “It gives me emotional security.”
Both men smile knowingly at eachother.
This was a great scene displaying great chemistry between two great actors.
Even when Matt Damon was briefly considered to play Kirk for this movie, much as I don’t like the man, I thought he’s a decent actor - decent only, people, not great - who could’ve worked with some other decently trained actors in pulling this off.
In this trailer, although I see some recognizable faces, Nicholas Pegg most of all, I see a completely generic Kirk and Spock.
The actor playing Spock especially is far from convincing. The actor playing Kirk does not radiate a command/Captain’s presence whatsoever. Just a young guy on an adventure. No sense of duty or mission.
Visually it looks great, the story and actors will weaken it, for sure.
But I’ll be waiting on line to see it. No doubt.
PerfectTommyon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:19 pm 41In the Kirk/Spock fight in the episode “This Side of Paradise” (Kirk eggs Spock into a fight with racial epithets, “you belong in the circus, right next to the dog-faced boy”, to get rid of the spores, it’s complicated), we learn that Spock could easily whip Kirk’s rear, so I hope we have the same result in the film.
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:24 pm 42BTW, I actually like some of Star Trek, The Next Generation. I thought it actually made clear that the Enterprise was a military vessel, and that Starfleet was a military organization.
I think these were elements mostly ignored, by in large, in the original Star Trek series.
Of course, once you recognize that Star Trek was all about military life in space, it raises all kinds of issues, and this libertarian professor does a very good job discussing them and making clear Star Trek’s fascistic elements.
It looks like the story has Kirk being impressed into Starfleet, rather than making an entirely voluntary choice, based on that trailer, but I can’t be sure.
Johnon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:28 pm 43I want to add my vote for DS9 as the best series. Besides a strong cast, they were able to develop a strong collection of recurring characters. Surely there’s a market for a series of TV movies a al Alien Nation.
Maxtypeon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:30 pm 44To me,it looks like a bunch of skinny kids in a CGI mess. Why didn’t they just do a “Bond” style recast,as in just recast without bothering to explain it with another razzle-frackin’ time travel story. Grrrr.
I agree too-Emo Rebels don’t command warships-and James T. Kirk never has been a Emo-Rebel.
Jaredon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:36 pm 45Maatkare
Part of is because of the fancy styled-up ovverly-conditioned hair. If I were a commander in a military-type body like Starfleet, any pretty-boy with the frosted hair that looks like it was commissioned in a beauty-salon instead of a barbershop would have to scrub the latrines with a brush made up of the hair we shaved off his head.
Growltigeron 16 Nov 2008 at 12:38 pm 46Couldn’t tell much from the trailer, but, as always, the problem looks to me to be casting. “Star Trek” the original was perfectly case. Like him or hate him, Wm. Shatner was a perfect James T. Kirk. Same with Nimoy. Uhura, Sulu, Checkov, Scotty — all perfectly cast. That’s something that rarely happens in tv or film these days. Are there such a thing(s) as casting directors these days? Or is it all done by who looks the most like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and/or Jennifer Aniston?
As a huge “Star Trek” fan, I have no problem with redoing the original characters — they just need to be cast correctly.
Growltigeron 16 Nov 2008 at 12:40 pm 47Addendum: “case” above was a typo. Should be “cast”.
2) Current examples of excellent casting: “Bones” (a TV) show and “Lost”. “House” WAS well cast until they got rid of Cameron, Forman and the Aussie actor as the foils for House. The ones who replaced them just don’t cut it. Same writing, same storyline — different cast. Shows how important good casting is.
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:44 pm 48I am thinking that a lot of this love of Shatner, Nimoy’s, Deforest, Doohan’s, Koenig’s, Takei’s, etc. ad nauseum acting chops has more to do with nostalgia than anything else.
Excuse me for knocking another Sci Fi icon (I may very well lose my Geek-dom membership card for this) but here goes. For a very, very, very long time I thought Star Wars was one of the greatest movies of all times. Then I watched it again a few months back. It is just laughably bad. It has to have some of the most hackneyed writing and acting I’ve seen. Harrison Ford is good as Solo, but even his lines are junk.
I thought it was so bad, the only way I could get through, now that I’m in my forties, was to pretend it was the 70s and I was still a pimply-faced teenager, or to just laugh at it (the latter was easier than the former).
I think the nostalgia people have for the original Trek and the folks who played those
characteristicscharacters is coloring opinions today.I would argue that the original series had “chemistry” (and I agree that there was something going on there) because they were being driven by a man with a vision: Gene Roddenberry.
And for an example at how bad Nimoy is, try watching Star Trek VI: The Voyage Home, for which he was responsible; the lets go back in time to San Francisco so we can rescue whales to save the universe entry. Good lord, was that a stinker.
John Drakeon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:46 pm 49There seems to be very little desire to respect what has gone before. And the emo shit is just so very tiresome.
This looks like a completely different vision entirely, just using the trappings of Star Trek to try and rescue the franchise.
abeon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:47 pm 50I didn’t grow up with the original series nor have I seen the majority of the episodes, but I did catch all the famous episodes recently when CBS made the entire series available on its website. They were “City on the Edge of Forever,” “Space Seed,” “Balance of Terror” and the two-parter episode where they salvaged the original pilot by writing another story around it…I forget the title. I think “Balance of Terror” might be my favorite of the ones I’ve seen.
Anyway, J.M Stracyznski, the writer of the film “Changeling” and the creator of the brilliant series “Bablyon 5,” came up with an idea for a new Star Trek series a while ago. He and this other guy got together and did a full fleshed proposal for a new Star Trek series. Check it out:
http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf
Their was to REBOOT the entire series…essentially remake it.
J.J Abrams and his writer are doing something that’s sort of a reboot but at the same time a betrayal of Star Trek. They’re saying some villain goes back in time and alters the timeline…so all the Star Trek stories we know could possibly not happen at all.
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:52 pm 51Just one more defense of the trailer and the new movie (for which I may regret if it is as bad as many here think it will be); isn’t this new film supposed to be set at the very outset of the “Five year mission”?
In the series we saw characters who were well into that mission. Here we are getting characters just coming together. Isn’t it a bit unreasonable to expect characters, that are supposed to be fully fleshed out human beings, to be exactly the same at the beginning, midpoint and end?
And if the characters never change, then isn’t that sign of bad story telling?
abeon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:55 pm 52Instead of giving the film to Abrams/Kurtzman/Orci they should have let Stracynzski, with his undeniable science-fiction CHOPS, helm the film. Instead of interesting characters or a thoughtful story it’s clear from that trailer that mindless action will be the main draw.
steevyon 16 Nov 2008 at 12:56 pm 53God that looks like it’s going to be bad.I hope I’m wrong.
steevyon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:03 pm 54I agree with Abe.There’s something I thought I’d never write…heheh
Joe Weldonon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:11 pm 55I wonder if they’re gonna mention that the first captain of the Enterprise was Captain Christopher Pike.
James T. Kirk was the second captain of the Enterprise.
God, I’m still a geek.
Maryon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:20 pm 56Slightly off-topic, but I just had to agree with Growltiger about House. Heh. My enjoyment of the show fell by half once the new team was established - especially since they’ve been focusing so much screentime on the new girl, who is not engaging me in the slightest. Really disappointing.
As far as Star Trek goes…I like Simon Pegg? Other than that, this trailer didn’t stir any strong feelings in me either way. Could be annoying, could be fun. Then again, I’m not a Trekkie (Trekker?).
Rather Readon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:22 pm 57Well, I watched some of the original Trek recently and I have to say it is the suck. Not the characters though, the characters are great but a lot of the stories are bad, bad, bad!!
Joe Weldonon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:28 pm 58I also see that brassieres look the same in the 23rd century.
For a lunchroom scene in the the original TV series, they needed futuristic salt and pepper shakers. They came up with some interesting devices, but soon realized that no-one would recognize them as salt and pepper shakers.
So they got some S & P shakers from Paramount’s cafeteria instead.
The 23rd century salt and pepper shakers they came up with became Dr. McCoy’s medical instruments.
maatkareon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:32 pm 59Yikes, jared, that’s a hell of a mental image in #44.
Jared and Tommy, I know what metrosexual means, I just feel it’s a sly way of saying you think a guy looks gay without coming out and saying so. But I suppose the truth is I’m just sick of the word altogether. It’s been used to death in every context, and I hold the posters here to a higher literary standard.
And Daniel, well said, but I confess I really dug the movie with the whales.
whiskeyon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:32 pm 60DH sort of touched on the main problem of making a TV series into a movie.
It’s in competition with the series. It’s just like the Get Smart movie. Carrell is not an idiot, but he could never play the role the way Don Adams did, and he did not have a young Mel Brooks and Buck Henry writing his lines either. Anne Hathaway was not Barbara Feldon. The Rock did not belong in the movie. No wonder it failed — it was not “Get Smart” which people can see for free on TV Land.
Even something like the Starsky and Hutch movie loses out to the original, which at least did not have contempt for the whole idea, see also the Dukes of Hazzard movie.
Metrosexual? We are talking here maat the kind of gay vibe that Hollywood insists on pushing. Guys don’t like it — they want leading men who are tough, not highly groomed, salon-friendly, sort of gay Russell Brand types.
There is no way this film could compete with the real deal done forty years ago, any more than Lucas could compete with himself in the Star Wars movies.
Choosing the guy who plays the creepy, sort of gay/Norman Bates type serial killer as Spock was dumb. No matter how skilled he is, he cannot overcome that stereotyping this fast, and the audience’s perception.
Jaredon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:37 pm 61maatkare
That’s why I’m the damn captain.
Whiskey put it better then I could
“…they want leading men who are tough, not highly groomed, salon-friendly.” Which is what I think. It isn’t about sexual orientation, it’s a vibe, one of being ovverly-concerned with personal/physical appearances.
Jaredon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:40 pm 62I think it hard to think of someone as being a strong confident tough leader when he looks like he could be the cover of Non-Threatening Boys magazine (give yourself ten points if you get the reference)
Kiton 16 Nov 2008 at 1:51 pm 63First, I would’ve preferred a Deep Space 9 film over this. Heck, I would’ve preferred an Enterprise film over this (romulan war?), but this is what Paramount has decided.
I will probably see it. The metrosexual thing doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers others and I’ve seen every Trek film in theatres since FIRST CONTACT (Awesome film), so I willmost likely go this time too. Unless the next few trailers REALLY piss me off.
Someone made a neat DEEP SPACE NINE trailer. Watch and imagine this on the big screen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s-nDssQRtI&feature=related
ScottDSon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:52 pm 64Jared - I believe that was Lisa Simpson’s favorite magazine.
Stephanieon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:54 pm 65First off Metrosexual is an awesome word….
Secondly…WAS THAT ERIC BANA? Holy sh*t dude!
I grew up on the Star Trek reruns but Dad and bros loved it. Loved Star Trek Four. The Whales version. Why? It was irreverant. Funny. Also like Khan. No one was a better Captain than Kirk. This looks like suckage. A metrosexual feast for idiots who caste it with no idea of what the f they were doing. Let me cast one movie PLEASE! please…
ScottDSon 16 Nov 2008 at 1:56 pm 66Kit - after Star Trek: Nemesis, longtime Trek producer Rick Berman was actually attached to produce a prequel film. There was a script written by Eric Jendresen (a writer/producer on Band of Brothers) and it was indeed a Romulan War story featuring Kirk’s ancestors.
Ain’t It Cool News did a write-up on it and it actually sounded very interesting, VERY militaristic, and unlike anything we’d ever seen before.
But the project was scrapped and J.J. Abrams’ company signed a deal with Paramount, effectively getting the keys to the kingdom.
BTW, a few years ago, Ain’t It Cool also published a review of David Loughery & Harve Bennett’s Starfleet Academy script, circa 1990-91. It would be interesting to compare/contrast their idea with the new film.
ScottDSon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:01 pm 67http://www.aintitcool.com/node/22789
The link for AICN’s review of the Bennett/Loughery Starfleet Academy script, circa the late 80’s. I take everything on AICN with a grain of salt but it makes for interesting reading.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34635
And the AICN review of the Star Trek: The Beginning script circa 2002-03. Very interesting.
Kiton 16 Nov 2008 at 2:01 pm 68Romulan Wars, would’ve loved to see that, Scott.
maatkareon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:01 pm 69Jared, aye aye sir!
(maatkare attempts a salute, fails, slinks off to the Starbucks before the clippers come out)
Yes, Steph, it’s Eric Bana.
Buck Turgidsonon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:02 pm 70“I hope everyone here agrees that Brosnan was no Bond”
Your provincialism is showing. Brosnan was fine as Bond.
sauropodon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:05 pm 71I posted this at Ace of Spades, but what the heck, I’ll crosspost here:
What I liked about the original series was that it was basically upbeat and humanistic, with bright colors and free people and the sense that the future will be good.
Most recent SF has been dark, grim, ugly, and it pictures the future as either a postapocalyptic hellhole or a fascist nightmare.
This trailer definitely lurches in the direction of dystopia, at least in terms of the dark, angry, violent tone.
If the movie itself shares those qualities, it may be a hit with today’s audience but it will disappoint those of us who were hoping for a more optimistic approach.
Carolynon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:14 pm 72I have nothing to add about the history of Star Trek which you people haven’t said better. Therefore, I can only add my two paltry reactions.
First. Stupid. To ditch a beautiful car like that over a cliff is stupid. I’m supposed to care, to sympathise with a character who trashes a classic car for no purpose? NO WAY. I don’t sympathise with stupid.
Second. What in hell is this movie about? Next to not bonding with ’stupid’, I don’t bond with total bewilderment. ‘What the hell?’ doesn’t get my empathy. Or my money.
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:33 pm 73Interesting that sauropod brings up dystopia vs. “up beat” in Trek.
Just a few moments ago I read this at Votaries of Horror:
“Utopia v. Dystopia: Star Trek often paints itself as a utopia-centered show (and yes, okay, Roddenberry wanted it to be utopian). However, the first season of Classic Trek is much more dystopia-centered than utopia-centered. I believe that Star Trek, ultimately, is a dystopia phenomenom and that its dystopia status is inevitable; in fact, I would argue that all science-fiction writers eventually end up dystopia writers since dystopia provides conflict. However, I will grant that Star Trek tried really, really hard to be utopian in the 1980’s.”
Up beat? Again, more nostalgia. I agree with Ms. Woodbury. Utopia is boring. Dystopia is where the conflict is, cf the movie Equilibrium (if any of the threedonia boys are reading this far into the comments, you’re right. Gun katta rawks!)
And again I want to refer folks to the essay I linked above about Star Trek fascist ideology.
And if anyone gets the idea that I think Star Trek was bad television. You would, of course, be completely wrong.
And Pierce Brosnan was a terrible choice for Bond.
Growltigeron 16 Nov 2008 at 2:42 pm 74Glad to see someone above agrees with me. I thought “Star Wars” was crap the first time I saw it. The second in the series was a little better, but the third returned to crapville. I won’t even go into the three “pre-quils” which stank to high heaven.
For good, compelling science fiction, watch “The Martian Chronicles” with Rock Hudson. It was a TV series, I believe. Dated now, of course, but at the time extremely well done.
“Star Trek” suffered from it’s time period (60’s) and low budget, but there were some episodes that were excellent.
Nevertheless, even the bad ones were acceptable owing to the excellent cast.
pandaxon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:44 pm 75I saw this trailer when I saw the new Bond flick (should have been a warning of things to come). As a life long Trek fan I’ve been worried about this reboot. This didn’t help..Star Trek 90120. I like J.J. Abrams other shows like Lost and I’ve been watching Fringe but I think this was the wrong match up. I knew things weren’t good when he said he was always more of a Star Wars fan then Star Trek. Then go make a Star Wars movie leave this alone. That’s another problem I have with Paramount they always seem to get people who love to say how they never watched Star Trek and want to appeal to a wider group then the fan base. First maybe if you get some people who actually know something about and like Star Trek it would help things. As has been said it’s the fans who’ve kept this thing going for 40 plus years but it seems in the last 10 years they go out of their to discount us. How bout appealing to the audience have?
Danielon 16 Nov 2008 at 2:48 pm 76Regarding that Michael Straczynski (or however you spell his name) Star Trek reboot treatment; I was reading and I realized they did what he wanted.
Only Sci Fi Channel did it to Battlestar Galactica, which is a series I never caught on to. And it was a huge hit with fans.
I also think it is laughable for a guy like Straczynski to talk about “innovative” storytelling. He’s such a knee-jerk liberal-lefty that he wouldn’t know innovative story telling if it hit upside the head. I tried to watch Babylon 5, and was so put off with the liberal cliches in the first season that I ditched watching the rest.
Daveon 16 Nov 2008 at 3:06 pm 77It looks like a Starship Troopers sequel. Starship Troopers 1 that is. All the teens fighting aliens and what not.
Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateuron 16 Nov 2008 at 3:16 pm 78I wonder if they’re gonna mention that the first captain of the Enterprise was Captain Christopher Pike.
James T. Kirk was the second captain of the Enterprise.
God, I’m still a geek.
I can trump your geekiness with the knowledge that Robert April was the “first” captain of the Enterprise. I forget which technical manual that was in…
I agree with the sentiment about a DS9 movie. Captain Sisko was the real deal in terms of commanders.
And Daniel, you might try the later seasons of B5. Season One was about introductions. For Substance, try season three. Anyone who could author some of the stories about the breakaway from Earth jurisdiction and the infamous Sheridan “Apology” is most assuredly NOT a knee-jerk-liberal-lefty.
NCCon 16 Nov 2008 at 3:22 pm 79First of all, in response to Joe Weldon’s question, I heard at one point that Ray Liotta had been cast as Pike. I don’t know if that is true. (Incidentally, Pike may not have been the first Enterprise captain; the cartoon series posited that a Captain Winter was, though that is generally not thought canon. But he did precede Kirk.)
Secondly, the trailer is a faux bootleg. My friend saw it Friday before the Bond movie. (I saw the Bond movie at a different theater in the same MSM, which did not show the Trek trailer.)
moviebobon 16 Nov 2008 at 3:23 pm 80Star Trek, as a franchise, has sucked for over a decade, owing from a unique combination of producers who decided not to care about any audience outside of the established, continuity/minutia-obsessed fanbase and filmmakers who weren’t even good at THAT. It’s the epitome of an all-but DEAD franchise.
So, wanting to “blow it up and start over” to a degree? That I get. Trying to turn what’s known as the nerdiest of all nerdcore franchises into a big action-oriented speed-cut “Top Gun”-style summer blockbuster (replete with this stupid “Fast & Furious” car scene, even)? I’ll give them points for TRYING that at least. And the self-consciously retro look (shiny white early-60s-version-of-the-future tech, primary-color uniforms) makes me hopeful.
This? I dunno. The trailer smacks of trying to sell a “Star Trek” movie to a Michael Bay-approving audience… which is fine if it’s just the trailer cause you have to get the Great Unwashed into seats to turn a profit. But if the actual MOVIE plays out like that? Big problem.
The worst news is that, while Abrams gets this kind of material… his writers here are less reliable: Granted, they cut their teeth on the Hercules/Xena shows - thats a big plus - but they went on to write “Transformers”… probably the worst “big budget reboot” of a scifi franchise ever concieved.
Zundfolgeon 16 Nov 2008 at 3:36 pm 81Roddenberry’s Trek had always been mildly socialist propaganda … since his death its gone the full on Marxist propaganda route, so I don’t think this move version will “ruin” it as its been ruined since the time the original series went off the air.
I used to be a HUGE trekkie (well not so huge that I dressed up and went to conventions but big enough that I quoted cannon as though it were real history). And during the Next Generation years my fanboyishness grew and grew. Then one summer I re-read a bunch of Heinlein and I realized how evil and vile the leftist propaganda I’d been sucking down all those years was.
I still enjoy Star Trek … even the lamer TV series like Voyager and the Scott Bacula thing, because compared to most of the other SciFi on TV its still better done.
I’ll watch the movie and probably enjoy it too … but I don’t have any deep affection for the series any more so I don’t care if they make it a metrosexual CGI fest … its not a religion to me (any more).
So just what actor would make an even halfway decent Lazarus Long? (dare I even say that out loud … Hollyweird would RUIN any Heinlein they touched).
Zundfolgeon 16 Nov 2008 at 3:39 pm 82I guess I should say Hollyweird has RUINED any Heinlein they touched.
DBon 16 Nov 2008 at 4:08 pm 83Look, I abandoned ST bc it’s not dystopian. I love TOS, but can no longer watch TNG or any of the others. I just think the future, if there is one, will be more like Firefly. It’s about a gang of n’erdowells on an unarmed freighter going through space where there are no aliens. And the Alliance, who are the show’s Federation, are the bad guys. Between that and BSG I have been ruined for ST.
All that being said, I think I’ll see it. Abrams has a mixed track record at best, but I can’t resist seeing Pegg as Mr. Scott. Abrams really doesn’t deliver most of the time, but I loved the first 2 seasons of Alias, and his MI:III was entertaining if you could forget that Tom Cruise was in it.
pandaxon 16 Nov 2008 at 5:03 pm 84moviebob
Once again your wrong. The reason recent Star Trek has sucked is exactly the opposite reason. The makers seemed obsessed with getting a mainstream audience. Case in point look at the last show Enterprise, it tried to be the Star Trek that wasn’t Star Trek. It was a steamer. Notice that in the final seasons they tried to lure the fans back with putting Star Trek back in the title and actually writing stories about the founding of the Federation. Star Trek lately seems to go out of it’s way to not acknowledge it’s fans because of the lame excuse that it will alienate the larger audience. Wake up boys the fans are your core audience. Maybe one day you’ll realize it’s us who kept you going.
What’s also funny Bob is you are guilty of doing the same thing you accuse the Trek fans of doing. Only your mad because they didn’t do justice to a cartoon that was really a 25 minute ad for toys. So whose the fanboy now?
abeon 16 Nov 2008 at 5:04 pm 85The whole “Utopia vs Dystopia” discussion is very interesting.
As some of you may not know, apparently after the original “Star Trek” Gene Roddenberry became more of an ardent Utopian.
When “The Next Generation” came around he DECREED that the characters were “perfect” and didn’t have normal human problems. So in the original series you had the characters acting very human all the time, being angry and mad at each at times and lighthearted and humorous at others.
But with “Next Generation” one can’t help but notice how stuck up, serious and stiff the characters are. A fair amount of what sucked about that show (though they had their moments) stemmed from this Utopian obsession of Roddenberry’s, and apparently after he died the people who took over the show were adamant in sticking to it.
There is a long interview that Ronald Moore (one of the writers of Next Generation) gave to IGN where he discusses all of this and much of the back-room politics behind Next Generation and the other the two shows that followed it. Unfortunately IGN isn’t working at the moment…
pandaxon 16 Nov 2008 at 5:05 pm 86Zundfolge
Your right about Heinlein. If anything needs a reboot it’s Starship Troopers. How bout getting someone who doesn’t hate the source material.
pandaxon 16 Nov 2008 at 5:10 pm 87abe
The first season of Next Generation was awful. Star Trek finally comes back and what do we get? A bunch of sanctimonious jerks who show up at some planet and tell them how screwed up they are and how wonderful the Federation is and then talk some more. It is interesting to note that the first season of Next Generation is the one that Rodenberry had full control over and notice after that he was eased out.
bcliebon 16 Nov 2008 at 6:18 pm 88I just saw this promo last night and it left me very concerned about our Kirk. If he ends up saying “I want to be a space man” while staring at whatever he was staring at [in Iowa, I presume], then I will walk out right there. This looked just awful! As for Kirk, let us not forget Jensen Ackles as potential heir to the captain’s chair!
Splashon 16 Nov 2008 at 6:54 pm 89Roddenberry’s Trek had always been mildly socialist propaganda…
Totally. Kirk & Co. were the U.N. in cosmic polyester. The only reason it worked was because characters like Kirk, Scotty and McCoy were basically WWII-era characters whose militaristic, can-do belligerence made all the Kumbaya go down smoothly.
Everything else since — what little I’ve bothered to check out — has been poo on a stick. Y’all should be embarrassed to admit you’ve seen it.
After “Lost,” J.J. Abrams gets a lifetime free pass from me. And Kurtzman/Orci’s ‘The Island’, while not great, got a bum rap, IMHO. I’ll give this a chance.
You know what doesn’t suck, though? “The Unit.” On CBS tonight at 10 p.m. Be there.
VPrimeon 16 Nov 2008 at 6:57 pm 90I took the opening sequence to be Kirk escaping the massacre on Tarsus IV, but I’m just a complete nerd.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King_(episode)
MovieBobon 16 Nov 2008 at 8:18 pm 91pandax
“Once again your wrong. The reason recent Star Trek has sucked is exactly the opposite reason. The makers seemed obsessed with getting a mainstream audience.”
So dwelling to an insane degree of Federation bylaws and details is going for a mainstream audience? It’s not an accident that the modern outer-fan appeal of the franchise dipped as the original crew films did… the original series and it’s film-spinoffs were largely “about” all the stuff they could go do in space - the TNG-and-on series were all about why they COULDN’T do things because of this or that directive. Yes, it worked for awhile and DS9 was fantastic on-balance but this can only last so long. “Voyager” packed half the cast with anti-Federation rebels and sent them to the other side of the universe and it was STILL all about who had command in this or that situation. “Enterprise” spent four seasons trying to milk “this is how such-and-such came to be” for all it was worth. You can practically FEEL the writers on these shows cowering in mortal terror at the prospect that the fanbase A.) knows more about the layout of the settings than they and B.) will violently disregard even the best possible story if you get the terminology slightly-wrong or break with any aspect of canon. You’d get less fan blowback writing a sequel to the New Testament.
“What’s also funny Bob is you are guilty of doing the same thing you accuse the Trek fans of doing. Only your mad because they didn’t do justice to a cartoon that was really a 25 minute ad for toys.”
“Mad?” No. MAD would be if Uwe Boll signed for the Legend of Zelda movie. THEN you’d see me mad. This? This is WORRIED. It’s one thing to guestimate that a writer won’t be able to “live up” to Gene Roddenberry… but right now the script for “Star Trek” is in the hands of two guys who had damn near a blank check from Steven Spielberg to re-imagine a 25 minute toy commercial and they couldn’t do it. The “Transformers” series was clunky, tonally scattered, frequently baffling, laughably scripted and couldn’t even remember which characters could FLY at any given time… and it was STILL better than a hundred-million dollar movie scripted by these guys. That’s a bad sign.
pandaxon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:01 pm 92moviebob
Show me were the writers were bowing to the fans every whim? What you confuse is a combo of bad writing and over saturation of the market. At one time there were at least two Trek shows on at any given time. I will agree that DS9 became one of the best of the Treks because it was the only one to have a story arc that stretched over more then one season and events from previous episodes did have an effect on later ones. The problem with Voyager was it abandoned its concept of having two sides having to work together to survive and just became recycled Trek from TOS and TNG. As I pointed out before if anything Enterprise was a middle finger to all the fans because it ignored a lot of what had been established previously. You notice the final season they went back to the core audience of true fans, telling the stories we wanted but it was too late. If catering to the whim of the show’s fans was the problem then why didn’t Enterprise attempt to widen it’s appeal even more?
The Transformers is were your arugement falls apart. You complain of Trek catering to much too to the fans then complaining that Transformers wasn’t better then the cartoon? So your saying the makers screwed up the premise? You mean like you saying how Trek fans are getting all in a knot about someone screwing up the premise of something we like? Really you could have saved yourself alot of trouble and just said your a fan of Transformers and not so much of Trek so it doesn’t bother you that much. That arguement would have been fine but once you again you try to be the authority on all things and it doesn’t work.
pandaxon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:10 pm 93Splash
Someone said that Kirk was a Republican in universe controlled by Democrats. I think that sums up the appeal of the original Star Trek.
Maryon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:25 pm 94As for Kirk, let us not forget Jensen Ackles as potential heir to the captain’s chair!
Now, THAT could be great.
Paulmanon 16 Nov 2008 at 10:35 pm 95“I wonder if they’re gonna mention that the first captain of the Enterprise was Captain Christopher Pike.”
Pike was the voice over guy in the trailer.
Mild semi-spoiler alert:
The thing that really feels wrong is that Kirk’s bridge crew are in Star Fleet before Kirk. (In fact, when he first meets them, he isn’t IN Starfleet; he’s a townee who hits on a Starfleet Communications officer in a bar.) Oh, and am I the only one bothered by the fact that they’re building starships dirtside rather than in orbit?
MovieBobon 16 Nov 2008 at 11:35 pm 96pandax
“So your saying the makers screwed up the premise?”
No, I said they wrote a bad movie. I don’t give two figs if they played around with the canon (such as it is, in this case) what bugs me is that they can’t write a 100 Million dollar movie that isn’t BETTER than a cheap 80s cartoon - that doesn’t speak well of their talent.
lordsomberon 17 Nov 2008 at 6:59 am 97“…base a series on the grandson of Harry Mudd…”
Wait, wasn’t Harry Mudd the original Han Solo?
Dougon 17 Nov 2008 at 7:37 am 98A thought on the fight between Kirk and Spock… perhaps Abrams is drawing on classical archetypes of enemies becoming best friends after fighting (i.e., Gilgamesh and Enkidu).
Striker Zon 17 Nov 2008 at 8:05 am 99No, the worst big budget reboot of a sci-fi franchise ever conceived was the new Battlestar Galactica, or as a friend calls it, ‘Terminator in Space’. Managing to turn what was basically light, goofy and fun into a hand-wringing angst-fest where the man who was once iron-jawed Captain Castillo walks around looking as if someone keeps killing his puppy is failure on an epic level, and the only reason geeks like it is because most geeks are idiots who will sing praises to anything with Hawt Chixxors, especially if they’re robots.
And, just so we’re clear, I am friends with, not one, but several geeks who were huge fans of the old Transformers tv show, and also liked the movie - in fact, they continue to like it more than a year later, long enough for them to ’see the light’. This being the case, I’m going to ask if Moviebob would please stop pretending to speak with the Grand Authority of the Geek Collective.
maatkareon 17 Nov 2008 at 8:11 am 100Oh, Doug–a Gilgamesh reference! I am in love! (One could also reference Robin Hood and Little John)
John McClainon 17 Nov 2008 at 8:51 am 101How about this, the Enterprise is attacked and the real captain and #2 is killed etc. Then Kirk being Mr. Cocky takes command and saves the day. Then he is given his own command of a starship. Makes better sense than ManChild being handed his own ship, unless of course Mommy is some Admiral.
Die Hard Fan
Jim Pon 17 Nov 2008 at 10:01 am 102“Seiler” from Heroes as Spock? I actually kind of like that. He is at least intriguing. As to the rest of the cast, metrosexual is right. However, I don’t hold the original cast or even the original series as sacrosanct as the rest of you seem to. Maybe that is because The Next Generation is more my generation and I grew up with that as opposed to the original series. The point someone made about it being a shame to let the original characters die off with the actors is about right. However, it may be that these actors are not the best replacements. That remains to be seen with the movie.
I am a huge sci fi/fantasy reader, and I love anytime a movie comes out in those genre’s. Since these movies are rare, I will take ANY sci fi fantasy movie over just another action movie any day. Thus, I am still excited about this movie.
Joe Weldonon 17 Nov 2008 at 2:02 pm 103Paulman,
The Enterprise was built in the San Francisco Navy Yards and then assembled in space, according to the Star Trek Technical Manual.
And what do you mean Pike voiced-over the trailer?
misterdon 17 Nov 2008 at 5:11 pm 104OK, outside Pegg and Quinto I don’t know most of the cast, and outside the opening scene the whole trailer is a blur of out of context images, so I don’t know how anyone can be drawing any conclusions about this whatsoever.
As I’ve said before, this film has enough good and bad potential to have be completely flummoxed. Much as I would with another Star Wars film, it has me filled with dread and anticipation.
misterdon 17 Nov 2008 at 5:13 pm 105Uhm… the first captain of the enterprise was Robert April. Can you give me the nerd crown, now?
misterdon 17 Nov 2008 at 5:17 pm 106Pandax,
While I agree that Roddenberry’s influence has been terribly overrated, he was not “eased out” of TNG. He was “healthed” out of it. He basically turned over the reigns at the start of season 3 (to a his chosen successor) and died around the start of season 5.
misterdon 17 Nov 2008 at 6:08 pm 107*sigh*
Here’s my 2 cents on when wrong with modern Trek.
1. As cited earlier, Roddenberry laid down utopian rules for TNG that choked creativity. Because fandom blindly elevated the wisdom of the Gene, despite the evidence of The Motion Picture, Season 1 of TNG, and his disdain for Wrath of Kahn. This carried over into the future series, which all had to come up with some premise tht allowed them to break the rules without breaking them.
2. Yet despite all the problems TNG had, it largely managed to succeed, at least for 4 of its 7 seasons (and the finale is still one of the best Trek outings ever). Its ratings were strong throughout (of course it had little competition), and this convinced Paramount it could have both a film series and a TV series at the same time. Greed got turned up to 9.
3. Deep Space Nine, for my money, didn’t do much wrong, at least no moreso than anyother series, and it still holds up as relevent (moreso in fact) where TNG is terribly dated. Part of this is due to the fact that after season 2, the higher ups had their attention turned elsewhere, and this allowed DS9’s showrunners (Michael Pillar, Ira Steven Behr, Ron Moore and others) to make the series they wanted, and damn the rules. However, this “damn the rules” thing really irritated a particular contingent of Trek fans, and that fractured the audience. However, DS9 did prove successful while TNG was on the air. This convinced Paramount that they could have TWO series AND a movie series all at the same time. Greed was cranked to 10. That brings me to…
4. Star Trek Voyager, part 1. Paramount realized that they could use the popularity of Trek to anchor a fledgling network of their own. Greed went to 11, and Voyager became the flagship Trek show. From that point on, hardly any attention was given DS9. This may have helped on the creative end, but DS9 wasn’t given nearly the promotional push it deserved. Instead, Paramount wanted everyone to watch Voyager which… wasn’t very good.
5. Voyager, part 2. Where Voyager went wrong was mostly in the writing room, possibly due to studio interfence. But they quickly abandoned their central premise to remake TNG, but with less interesting characters. The first 3 seasons were really quite bad (save a few episodes) and the series suffered an identity crisis as it tried to save itself. Decisions were made to make the show “better” like “more action” and “more sex”, but “good writing” never seemed to make the list. In the end, the show did find its feet a bit by season 4 (adding a painfully obvious bit of ratings bait in 7 of 9, who was meant to appeal to BOTH the core fans and the mainstream market), but the show never got as good as it could have been, and had already managed to lose a good chunk of its fan base. Where TNG had successfully united and grown most of the fan base, DS9 and Voyager split (and lost) them.
5. The One. In trying to save Voyager, Jeri Ryan was brought aboard to play sexpot 7 of 9. She proved the most popular Trek character since Data, and naturally became the franchises most prominant face. When Voyager ended, Ryan used her success to land a role on Boston Public and Shark. Her success also gave her the independence to end her marriage to Senator Jack Ryan. The divorce became newspaper fodder, and then a public embarassment for Ryan, who had to drop out of the race for reelection. As such, his opponent managed to waltz into the Senate, and 2 year later win the Presidency. And to think ten years ago people laughed when I said Star Trek Voyager would bring about the end of civilization…
Anyway…
6. Enterprise. By this point, not many people were thrilled with Trek. The films weren’t very good (see below) and Voyager was suffering as any series in its seventh season would (though really, this was the 21st season of Trek since TNG started). Fatigue was starting to set in, and rather than just call it a day and let the franchise rest for a bit, Paramount had to make sure the goose was good and strangled. So they came up with Enterprise, a show which took a story about the future and put it in the past. It was a move guaranteed to bore mainstream audiences who didn’t care how the Federation was founded, and annoy the hardcore fans who would scrutinize every last stardate to ensure historical accuracy. To further weaken their hand, they called on the same writers and producers who failed to deliver with Voyager. Again the Voyager tale played out, though the sex pot was written in at the beginning, and by the time the show found its feet (again in season 4) only a very, very few die hard fans were paying attention.
7. Meanwhile at the movies… Star Trek 4 happened. Trek 4 made a ton of money, and all anyone remembered was the humor, thus every movie that followed had to have humor in it. To wit: When Shatner pitched the idea of Star Trek 5 as “religious fanatics take over the enterprise in an attempt to find God”, the execs replied “but will it be funny?” This gave us some of the most painful moments and subplots of the next 7 films.
8. Also at the movies… they tried to take a largely weak TV cast (note the number of TNG actors who’s resume’s fail to impress outside Star Trek) and turn them into movie stars.
9. Somehow, Star Trek First Contact succeeded, even though its marriage of Kahn-themes and action with Voyage Home humor and time travel was, at best, awkward. This conviced paramount that all Trek films must have action, AND humor…
10. And then there’s the egos. I’m not talking Shatner’s. His may have hurt one movie, but his ego made Kirk, and Kirk made Trek. No, I’m talking about Stewart and Spiner, each of whom had to have their vanity pieces in each Trek movie. Data had to have a subplot, even when it didn’t fit or worse, distracted from the main story. Picard had to get a babe, and had to be a man of action, and had to have at least one scene written for emoting. The rest of the cast was largely ignored.
11. And then there were the stories. Badly written, badly conceived, badly convoluted.
And all of this happening while DS9 and Voyager divided fans, and Enterprise frustrated them. In the end, too much of a good thing proved to be a bad thing. The horse was well beaten from muzzle to tail, and eventually Trek, like UPN, was left in ruins.
Allanon 20 Nov 2008 at 12:46 pm 108For those comparing a Star Trek reboot with the Bond series, remember, that he is alway Bond … James Bond. The basic character is still the same just portrayed a little different.
I will have a problem if they start changing the basic character.
Will the reboot ignore the historical canon we’ve lived by all these years? Remember that Spock was on the Enterprise with Captain Pike as the science officer before Kirk became captain. As far as I know, they didn’t know each other personally before then.
As a military vet, I agree with memomachine, a person who wants to be a naval captain has to know that and aim for it before even leaving the academy.
Now, as in WWII (and other wars), there was a rapid expansion of the military and people rose quickly. Possibly this happened to Kirk in the Romulan War. Altho very few hold onto those high ranks once a war is over the size of the military is reduced.
There’s a lot of good potential here. But I must agree with others that driving a corvette off a cliff doesn’t portend a good script.
As for general comments about the whole ST franchise. Yea, TOS had some cheesy sets but for it’s time, they were pretty good! Most of the episodes were well written.
I was VERY disappointed with the first movie. It was really nothing more than a fancy remake of the Vger episode.
But the “Wrath of Khan” was an excellent story. A few cheesy things but it remains my favorite. I would have been satisfied if Khan has lived and they had done a series of movies based on the person conflict there … plus spreading the eugenically superior humans into the universe would have open many possibilities.
TNG’s first year was pretty sorry … kids on board, the Enterprise separating into two vessels, etc. Most of that was quietly dropped and the series evolved. Patrick Stewart was excellent. Worf’s character evolved into someone fun to watch.
DS9 … pretty good. I enjoyed it most of the time.
Voyager … Tim Russ quickly won me over with his portrayal of a Vulcan. Janeway took time. At first I wouldn’t have followed her across the street much less into combat. She got better but still slipped into some blind utopian philosophy. I wasn’t sorry to see Kes leave and I really enjoyed the 7 of 9!
Enterprise … the cast, except for Scott Bakula, was excellent and played well off each other. His performances almost always seemed stiff and forced.
As for “Star Wars”, again the original may seem cheesy looking back on it but at the time it was great effects. And I was disappointed with the prequel once Anakin became a teenager. Both the script and the acting left a lot to be desired and I never felt the chemistry there.
I’ve enjoyed the BSG reboot. I was leery at first but quickly grew fond of it. Given that the original only lasted one season, it was pretty easy to reboot that with changes that, IMO, improved it.
Who knows, if they pull off the reboot of Star Trek, then maybe we can go on for years like the Bond movies. I still love watching Sean Connery, but I also enjoy most of the other Bond flicks as well. I’m sure I’ll see the new Star Trek when it comes out, I’ll just go in with low expectations so that I won’t be too disappointed if it turns out to be a dud.