There are some active discussions going on elsewhere about this upcoming Star Trek prequel. I wondered what my fellow paizo-messageboarders had to say about it.
Link: Star Trek (at IMDb)
Have any thoughts? Concerns? Observations?
I was really excited about this movie. It has a number of actors I like. Harold from Harold and Kumar, Shawn from Shawn of the Dead. A chance to update the TOS to include more modern ideas of what the future will hold. I was thrilled.
Then I found out J.J. Abrams is doing the movie and my heart sank hard. The mind behind the disasters that are Fringe and Armageddon. Producer of the DOA movie Cloverfield.
Being a former Trekker, I'm going to see the film. But I am not holding out hopes that its going to relaunch the franchise.
EDIT: I read an interview with Abrams late last year and he admits that he is not a Trekker but more of a Star Wars fan. That's what officially made me give up hope on the movie.
Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor not a miracle worker...
The trailers have looked interesting. Definitely not skimping on special effects. But in an interview, Abrams mentioned that story took precedence over "canon". Which has me a little worried about taking too many liberties with the timeline. Too many deviations, even if "better" than the standard history, will interrupt immersion into the story. Hope it does well.
There are some active discussions going on elsewhere about this upcoming Star Trek prequel.
Technically, from what I have heard, this is not a prequel, but an alternate universe/timeline.
I still don't understand with the entire federation and its history why people have to get so hung up on always doing stuff with the Enterprise and its crew. Part of the reason I enjoyed DS:9 and to lesser extent Voyager.
|
The trailers have looked interesting. Definitely not skimping on special effects. But in an interview, Abrams mentioned that story took precedence over "canon". Which has me a little worried about taking too many liberties with the timeline. Too many deviations, even if "better" than the standard history, will interrupt immersion into the story. Hope it does well.
As pres man says, it's an alternate timeline. The canon history is, in fact, being actively changed as part of the story's plot - which I suppose is in some ways a nod to the canon itself. I think the intention, however, is to set up a new franchise that can launch from a fresh start, which means some table-clearing needs to be done.
I'm looking forward to the movie. From everything I've heard Abrams is changing things but is also taking great pains to keep it "Trek". Most of it is going to be modernization along the lines of the hyper-advanced ship Khan was found on (made in 1996 after the Eugenics War) wouldn't have transistors running their computers. Also it's going to be in the more optimistic vein of the earlier series.
The problem with keeping it "Trek" is that there are so many different ideas of just what Trek is amongst the fans. The opinions of the various shows (DS9 vs. TNG for example) mirror the vitriol of the 3rd ed vs. 4th ed arguments.
My only real fear is that the movie is going to be too cool and focused on the MTV crowd.
There are some active discussions going on elsewhere about this upcoming Star Trek prequel.Technically, from what I have heard, this is not a prequel, but an alternate universe/timeline.
I still don't understand with the entire federation and its history why people have to get so hung up on always doing stuff with the Enterprise and its crew. Part of the reason I enjoyed DS:9 and to lesser extent Voyager.
Well, I can think of one reason.
Miniskirts.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm dreading this movie. I like JJ's work on other movies and Lost and Fringe, but I'm afraid that the "reboot" of Trek can only go wrong. The only reason I have a glimmer of hope is JJ being involved. Aside from lots of canon breaking elements that have already been shown in the trailers, I simply don't want a reboot. I don't want to see acadamy Kirk and copmany. I'd much prefer something that continued the existing ST universe and stories - or for that matter something not at all ST related that was the start of a great new sci-fi series.
I know this may be blaphemy...
But I was really excited that it was a reboot of Star Trek. I thought this movie was going to be the ST version of Batman Begins.
Once I heard about time travel and old Spok being in it and how it ties into canon I lost a lot of excitement.
And now Im hearing again how it is a changing of the timeline and its a reboot. Im so confused.
I'll see it anyway because my friends are interested but I really dont care that much any more.
I dislike the original series.
Heretic!
|
From what I have read, this is a sequal, not a prequal. The basis is that after Nemesis a faction of the Romulans decide to go back in time and kill James T. Kirk, thus allowing them to take over the galaxy. I don't know if this is true or if it's one of Abrams' notorious red herrings, but it would explain a lot.
Get a rope!I dislike the original series.Heretic!
A hangin' is too good for him. Start a bonfire!
A hangin' is too good for him. Start a bonfire!Get a rope!I dislike the original series.Heretic!
"It's a trick. Get an axe." -Ashe
The big question is, can Chris Pine speak in Shatnerian?*
* (from William Shatner’s trivia section on IMDb) “His clipped, dramatic narration, peppered with dramatic pauses, is often referred to as "Shatnerian".”
The big question is, can Chris Pine speak in Shatnerian?*
* (from William Shatner’s trivia section on IMDb) “His clipped, dramatic narration, peppered with dramatic pauses, is often referred to as "Shatnerian".”
I hope not. :D
|
|
It's gonna be a good sci-fi movie regargless if it's 'true Star Trek' or not. I'm looking forward to it.
[typical nerd rage geek taunt]I bet you play 4e too![/typical nerd rage geek taunt]
Rich Baker really screwed the pooch, so I think everything after Gene died should be considered "outside canon" anyway...
So, as long as Abrams doesn't mess with Roddenberry's creation too much, and doesn't get too "cute", I think all will be well with this movie.
The big question is, can Chris Pine speak in Shatnerian?*
* (from William Shatner’s trivia section on IMDb) “His clipped, dramatic narration, peppered with dramatic pauses, is often referred to as "Shatnerian".”
I read an interview where Pine said he and Abrams discussed this, and decided it would seem to much like a parody.
From what I have read, this is a sequal, not a prequal. The basis is that after Nemesis a faction of the Romulans decide to go back in time and kill James T. Kirk, thus allowing them to take over the galaxy. I don't know if this is true or if it's one of Abrams' notorious red herrings, but it would explain a lot.
I hadn't realized it was set in an alternate timeline, and your theory explains the prescence of the Romulans which previously didn't make sense to me. But at some point, they have to stop using the time-travel schtick.
It's gonna be a good sci-fi movie regargless if it's 'true Star Trek' or not. I'm looking forward to it.[typical nerd rage geek taunt]I bet you play 4e too![/typical nerd rage geek taunt]
Rich Baker really screwed the pooch, so I think everything after Gene died should be considered "outside canon" anyway...
So, as long as Abrams doesn't mess with Roddenberry's creation too much, and doesn't get too "cute", I think all will be well with this movie.
Really?
Gene Wesley Roddenberry is responsible for the creation of Wesley Crusher.
So, no, I don't give Mr. Roddenberry too much credit here. That, and a lot of people really liked Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
(Who is the "Rich Baker" person? I know who "Rick Berman" is, but what is the connection to "Rich Baker"?)
|
|
(Who is the "Rich Baker" person? I know who "Rick Berman" is, but what is the connection to "Rich Baker"?)
I think I was mixing up media, names and all kinds of stuff there. I was getting Berman and Keith Baker mixed up in my head, probably because I like Eberron about as much as I like any of the series past TNG, that is, not enough to care what the guys name is...
|
The big question is, can Chris Pine speak in Shatnerian?*
* (from William Shatner’s trivia section on IMDb) “His clipped, dramatic narration, peppered with dramatic pauses, is often referred to as "Shatnerian".”
I read an interview where Pine said he and Abrams discussed this, and decided it would seem to much like a parody.
There was a theatre version (i.e. treading the boards, not a movie theatre) of Star Trek in the UK. It was done mainly for laughs, but the guy playing Kirk did a quite wicked interpretation of Shatnerian. (He also seems to have a strap-on stomach, which was rather cruel but amusing.)
|
|
It's gonna be a good sci-fi movie regargless if it's 'true Star Trek' or not. I'm looking forward to it.[typical nerd rage geek taunt]I bet you play 4e too![/typical nerd rage geek taunt]
Rich Baker really screwed the pooch, so I think everything after Gene died should be considered "outside canon" anyway...
So, as long as Abrams doesn't mess with Roddenberry's creation too much, and doesn't get too "cute", I think all will be well with this movie.
Really?
Gene Wesley Roddenberry is responsible for the creation of Wesley Crusher.
So, no, I don't give Mr. Roddenberry too much credit here. That, and a lot of people really liked Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
I don't know how apocryphal this story is or not, but apparently TNG was plagued at one point by industrial action and they had to run with some pretty insipid storylines because they didn't have the writers / effects / whatever and Wesley's stories came to the fore as a result.
I suspect he was intended as a young counterweight to Ol' Baldy for the kids to identify with (given that Shatner was much younger-looking when he was captain than Picard was).
There are some active discussions going on elsewhere about this upcoming Star Trek prequel.Technically, from what I have heard, this is not a prequel, but an alternate universe/timeline.
I still don't understand with the entire federation and its history why people have to get so hung up on always doing stuff with the Enterprise and its crew. Part of the reason I enjoyed DS:9 and to lesser extent Voyager.
Well, I can think of one reason.
Miniskirts.
Actually, branching off from this.
In her SFX interview, Jolene Blalock stated
"Enterprise star Jolene Blalock blasted the producers of her series in a scathing interview for the British SF magazine, SFX. "You can't substitute t#*@ and ass for good storytelling," she told the magazine. "You can have both, but you can't substitute one for the other, because the audience is not stupid. You can't just throw in frivolous, uncharacteristic... well, bull and think it's gonna help the ratings!"
However, it is true with the miniskirts and the costumes of female guest stars (created by William Ware Theiss) that "Fanservice" has been part of Star Trek even from its earliest days.
(And, yes I do feel that the removal of this element from Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Star Trek: Voyager until the appearance of 7-of-9 is part of what led to the franchise's decline.)
|
|
I don't know how apocryphal this story is or not, but apparently TNG was plagued at one point by industrial action and they had to run with some pretty insipid storylines because they didn't have the writers / effects / whatever and Wesley's stories came to the fore as a result.
I suspect he was intended as a young counterweight to Ol' Baldy for the kids to identify with (given that Shatner was much younger-looking when he was captain than Picard was).
I'm fairly certain that there were a couple of industry-wide writers' strikes during the TNG run, so you may have something there.
I think you’ve got something there.
...
Well, I can think of one reason.
Miniskirts.
Do you remember the TNG pilot? Lots of men in mini-skirts *grin*
The only good season of Enterprise is when the recreated things from TOS. When it was trying to be its own series it was too copy cat (same story different characters). IMHO it worked when they expanded on things like the eugenics war, Spock's kitty, Klingon foreheads, Orion traders, those crystal people, etc.. If the film works on this part of the cannon then I am for it.
That said Alias and Lost do give me hope for JJ Abrams creation. As long as he is not allowed to go into a third of fourth season it should be edge of the seat. *grin*
Still Nimoy saying 'Space, the final frontier...' gave me (and my mate) goose bumps. I will be there opening weekend.
It might also be nice to see Winona Ryder on screen again. ... got one word for ya: "eskimo"..........
I just hope she doesn't ...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It might also be nice to see Winona Ryder on screen again. ... got one word for ya: "eskimo"..........I just hope she doesn't ...
** spoiler omitted **
zing
I'm looking forward to it. I'm a lukewarm Trek fan. Seen most of the original eps, probably about half of TNG, and smaller numbers of the other shows. I didn't see the last Trek movie.
Hence, I'm not much of a stickler for the ST canon, and I'll be happy if it's a fun sci-fi picture, which it looks like it will be.
Some thoughts of mine on this film’s title:
I think just plain and simple ‘Star Trek’ is a good name in that it doesn’t sound like a sequel. And you don’t feel that to understand it you have to know a lot about the star trek franchise, it is Star Trek.
An unfortunate aspect of the title is that the original series is also called ‘Star Trek’, and this could be confusing, especially if you’re trying to look up one or the other.
What do you think of the title they chose for this film?
Some thoughts of mine on this film’s title:
I think just plain and simple ‘Star Trek’ is a good name in that it doesn’t sound like a sequel. And you don’t feel that to understand it you have to know a lot about the star trek franchise, it is Star Trek.
An unfortunate aspect of the title is that the original series is also called ‘Star Trek’, and this could be confusing, especially if you’re trying to look up one or the other.
What do you think of the title they chose for this film?
Well, given that one of their goals is to completely restart the series (and incidentally recant everyting that Rick Berman did), I think that they may want that confusion.
They want to make STAR TREK something new and fresh. Not something that has been around since September 8, 1966.
They want to make STAR TREK something new and fresh. Not something that has been around since September 8, 1966.
This, this and thousand times this!
Don't get me wrong I love the original series and, to a slightly lesser degree, TNG. There were some parts of DS9 I liked but more that I loathed and Voyager, while starting out with an interesting premise imo, completely failed.
I am looking forward to the new Trek movie a lot more than I did the last 3 TNG movies.
Important question.
Will this new Star Trek still have redshirts?
|
|
Important question.
Will this new Star Trek still have redshirts?
If you look at the previews Kirk is wearing a 'redshirt'.
|
|
This is a great time to be alive. The highlight of this news is the following:
DIRECTOR: J.J.ABRAMS
It might also be nice to see Winona Ryder on screen again. ... got one word for ya: "eskimo"..........
Life Sucks! We'll miss our little eskimo.
As for me, I look forward to seeing something amazing first. I will forget everything I know about Star Trek and just enjoy the film. I do no see the success or failure of this film as anything more than an earnest attempt by Hollywood to create a Big Budget Sci-Fi Thriller for Summer '09. I will not let my trekker loyalty or sensibilities be threatened by something that is supposed to be entertaining.
If this film is a good film on its own merits, than I believe it has earned its place in Star Trek Lore.