The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The Fear of what could be...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 05-15-2008, 04:21 PM
RonSalon's Avatar
RonSalon RonSalon is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
Maybe your not old enough to remember, but he was a fairly big star in the 70's. Films like Deliverance, Midnight Cowboy, Catch-22, Conrak, The Odessa File.
It's funny, we were talking about this today in the salon -- in a round about way. I had read an article about the new Indiana Jones movie and the writer thought the film might under-perform at the B.O. And believed that is why they added Shia and Cate to thie mix -- to draw in younger viewers. Who knows? it has been a number of years since.

Their point: to people in their late teens and early twenties, Harrison Ford is not that big. They also pointed out that he is 66 and too old to be an action hero.

Do I agree? Huh. I'll tell you after the Crystal Skull opening weekend.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 05-16-2008, 02:35 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonSalon View Post
It's funny, we were talking about this today in the salon -- in a round about way. I had read an article about the new Indiana Jones movie and the writer thought the film might under-perform at the B.O. And believed that is why they added Shia and Cate to thie mix -- to draw in younger viewers. Who knows? it has been a number of years since.

Their point: to people in their late teens and early twenties, Harrison Ford is not that big. They also pointed out that he is 66 and too old to be an action hero.

Do I agree? Huh. I'll tell you after the Crystal Skull opening weekend.
Well with Star Wars still being big, I can see younger people knowing who he is. Harrison never really quit manking films, he was a trooper through some pretty bad films...lol.

But I agree about having Shia and Cate, something for everyone?
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:39 PM
Oregon_Coast_Trekkie's Avatar
Oregon_Coast_Trekkie Oregon_Coast_Trekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,271
Default

Man, I need to have an IJ marathon soon...
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 05-23-2008, 12:20 PM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radoskal View Post
I want it to look unmistakably like a Constitution Class Starship. Not a Constitution refit or an Ambasador class crossed with an Intrepid or anything like that. Original Constitution Class, want to put more lights on it? Fine, want to change the off white color a bit? Fine Want to change the design of the engines to 24th century stylings No, because then it's no longer Constitution class. The overall design elements should look the same as in TOS.
Exactly. I've seen Gabe Koerner's re-imagined Enterprise, and as cool as it is, the NCC-1701 should remain true to it's design in TOS. Changing the ship design in any way, shape or form would be a monumentally BAD idea.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 05-23-2008, 01:14 PM
Gunny1's Avatar
Gunny1 Gunny1 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Exactly. I've seen Gabe Koerner's re-imagined Enterprise, and as cool as it is, the NCC-1701 should remain true to it's design in TOS. Changing the ship design in any way, shape or form would be a monumentally BAD idea.
While I am a big fan and a fervent believer in the TOS design, I am not allowing my own prejudices to overcome my intellect in this case; I grant them a certain amount of 'leeway'. As this takes place pre-TOS, it is possible the iconic design seen in TOS wasn't quite finalized. I will, however reluctantly, concede anything that looks like it COULD be leading up to the TOS design, in time for the TOS 'canon' era. (i.e.; using GR's definition of 'seen on the screen' as canon.)
__________________
XI COUNTDOWN CLOCK:

Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 05-09-2009, 01:43 AM
kilon kilon is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
Personal I believe that this movie will fail.

I do not believe that JJ Abrams is capable enough to withstand the enormous weight of Star Trek.

MI:3 was a huge disappointment . I am a big MI fan and I love MI1 and MI2 .

Cloverfield was also mediocre to failure. It was saved by being a bold and a unique approach but really it shown a clear luck of special effect from JJ perspective.

And this worries me most with the new Star Trek movie as special effects is the cornerstone of Star Trek. Not That the effects wont be impressive, I know they will. But will they be appropriate? I think not . And I see this already with the aproach of the first trailer.

Of course I keep an opened mind , but none the less I am very worried.
BOY WAS I WRONG?????

I am afraid I was, the movie was AMAZING!!!

All my fears were vaporised.

And because I am a man that admits his mistakes , I have posted a detailed review of why I liked the movie which I watched yesterday. You can read my review here.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...&postcount=115

But as I promised I kept an open mind when I watched the movie and I was fully rewarded.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 05-09-2009, 02:35 AM
TNG_Trekman's Avatar
TNG_Trekman TNG_Trekman is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Posts: 439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Exactly. I've seen Gabe Koerner's re-imagined Enterprise, and as cool as it is, the NCC-1701 should remain true to it's design in TOS. Changing the ship design in any way, shape or form would be a monumentally BAD idea.
But when you think of it. The TOS Emterprise had skinny paper-towel tube naccells. How could any non-trek fan accept an exact TOS design and pass it off as our future with cell phones now looking more advanced?
__________________
"WHERE'S THE KA-BOOM? THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN EARTH SHATTERING KA-BOOM!!!" -- Marvin the Martian
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 05-09-2009, 02:39 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Because the warp nacelles on the classic Enterprise look far more advanced than the warp nacelles we have today?
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 05-09-2009, 06:10 AM
CaptainBoeing CaptainBoeing is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Default

No they don't. When I was in the movie theater, and I'm a Trek fan as well, and that movie came on I knew that Abrams had, um, lets say co-created a new Star Trek for us Trekkies wanting more action and "less talking." Sure, nothing can beat a classic, but seriously, that was a long time ago, technology has changed and it needed updating. This is the best damn Star Trek movie I have ever seen. I hope he makes more. Sorry, glad Shatner wasn't in it, his ego is too big nowadays anyways. Chris Pine did a hell of a job. You people need to get over the fact that "TOS" has just been reinvented. It did'nt settle well with me when I first heard they were remaking Star Trek. As a fan, I was just satisfied to know that SOMEONE is trying to keep the franchise alive. You whiners don't seem to care about that.

"Oh no, they messed with MY special Star Trek..." Get over it. Be happy the franchise is alive, and lets hope that Abramsawesomeadventure doesn't do what past Star Trek's have. Keep the ship the same (with minor tweaks and updates, or even a refit, but it's too early for that). Don't change anything. Keep the story line the same as well (what I mean by that is keep with what you know), same characters, planets,...etc. And don't skip 200 years into the future, AND this time, don't kill Kirk. We saw what happened the first time and people got all pissy because there Jim Kirk is dead.

Last edited by CaptainBoeing : 05-09-2009 at 06:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.