The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I can't read any more without saying this.
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-30-2008, 11:01 AM
McCarthy2000's Avatar
McCarthy2000 McCarthy2000 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6
Default

i just hope they stay true to star trek of that time period the bridge is over done but thats hollywood. I think the enterprise will look alot diffrent but i think the reboot had to be done.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-30-2008, 11:03 AM
McCarthy2000's Avatar
McCarthy2000 McCarthy2000 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6
Default

everybody just needs to get over all there problems with the movie and look forward to it. Shatners not in it so what .they killed off his charcter
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-30-2008, 11:18 AM
JBElliott's Avatar
JBElliott JBElliott is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 651
Default

Meh, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. It could be good, it could be bad. So what?

So it could have been good and closer to TOS. At least things could look closer to how they did in TOS. It remains to be seen how the characters and story jibes with TOS. However, chances are the characters and story won't jibe with TOS any more than the images do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-30-2008, 11:22 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Well said, Cannibal. I think part of the 'panic' some fans are experiencing now will be eased when we/they actually KNOW facts about this story which we do not know now. There are so many leaps being made to 'conclusions' about this film which will simply be proven wrong by the actual story once it's revealed. There's a good deal of 'fear of the unknown' going on here, and some of it is just going to seem plain silly in a few months.

On the other hand, this film will clearly be too different for some TREK fans to tolerate, if only because they like their particular view of the franchise -- and that's their right. TREK is what fans make of it... which is why there is no "one" TREK anymore, because fans have taken it to heart in themselves to help keep it alive. Some fans will simply not want to relinquish control of 'their' TREK again to have someone throw a bunch of new variables into the equation. Thing is, there is no way to avoid this, no matter who makes the film.

The majority of fans (old and new) will take what they like from Abrams' film, leave what they don't prefer, and carry on... just like every other incarnation of TREK before it. Right now we just have one foot on the boat and one ashore; the transition is always the trickiest move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetlescott View Post
I love the Halloween movies almost as much as Star Trek. I love the original, and part 2, but on part 4 they decided to go with a differnt timeline and set of actors, then in part 7 they decided to go back. Now the fans are left with a mess. Some fans love part 1,2, 7,8, 9 while others want 1,2, 4,5, & 6.
One small point: I'd disagree that H4 went with a "different timeline"... certainly not in the TREK-terms to which you're comparing it. Jamie was simply Laurie's "orphaned" daughter and Michael's niece... but all directly part of the same timeline from H1 & 2... just about 10 years later. H20 was the film which effectively erased H3-7 as if they'd never happened, but that wasn't H4's fault -- more a product of Dimension taking over the franchise than anything else. Agreed, that makes franchise continuity a mess, but only after H20.

I don't see this same thing happening with TREK at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisko89 View Post
If this is indeed the story of how TOS crew came together I have a few concerns;

1. If Pike is killed off in order to lay the foundations for an ending which involves Kirk taking command there is a serious lapse of continuity. The Cage essentially becomes defunct.

2. There appears to be a considerable undermining of established and logical historical patterns. How old is Checkov and has he been shoe-horned into the script? What has happened to the Cage crew (Piper, Number 1 etc)?

3. If Kirk is a Cadet in the beginning of the film how is it possible that he takes command at the end of the film *speculation (I understand that the 24th century Spock intervention is a a cornerstone of the plot but what happened to Starfleet protocol?). Furthermore is Kirks' career on the Republic and Farragut to be ignored?
See, this is where I get confused by those worrying about alternate timelines and such.

Where has it been said that Pike gets killed so Kirk can take command? Pike didn't die for Kirk to take over in TOS... as the episodes proved explicitly when the two appeared together... so why would Pike have to die this time? Does every promotion in Starfleet result in the death of the superior? Of course not.

How do we not know Pike's TOS-seen crew isn't aboard his ship? Has there been one printed word about Pike's crew members so far?

How does Kirk start as a cadet and end as captain? How does any film show progress in the life story of a character? Picking relevant scenes from a character's life and showing the passage of time. The same way we'll see Kirk as a boy then see him as an adult... or do you expect we'll watch Kirk age in real time on-screen?

As for Kirk's career aboard the Republic or Farragut: as we move ahead in this story and Kirk's career, wouldn't it be terribly easy to fit in short reference scenes or dialogue to include his service on the two ships... just like they did with TOS? If it worked before, it can work the same again.

There is only so much information that can be squeezed into a two-hour film, and filmmakers have gotten quite good at compressing events as needed to keep the story moving ahead -- I expect no less in TREK than from any other film.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-30-2008, 11:38 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Well said, Cannibal. I think part of the 'panic' some fans are experiencing now will be eased when we/they actually KNOW facts about this story which we do not know now. There are so many leaps being made to 'conclusions' about this film which will simply be proven wrong by the actual story once it's revealed. There's a good deal of 'fear of the unknown' going on here, and some of it is just going to seem plain silly in a few months.

On the other hand, this film will clearly be too different for some TREK fans to tolerate, if only because they like their particular view of the franchise -- and that's their right. TREK is what fans make of it... which is why there is no "one" TREK anymore, because fans have taken it to heart in themselves to help keep it alive. Some fans will simply not want to relinquish control of 'their' TREK again to have someone throw a bunch of new variables into the equation. Thing is, there is no way to avoid this, no matter who makes the film.

The majority of fans (old and new) will take what they like from Abrams' film, leave what they don't prefer, and carry on... just like every other incarnation of TREK before it. Right now we just have one foot on the boat and one ashore; the transition is always the trickiest move.



One small point: I'd disagree that H4 went with a "different timeline"... certainly not in the TREK-terms to which you're comparing it. Jamie was simply Laurie's "orphaned" daughter and Michael's niece... but all directly part of the same timeline from H1 & 2... just about 10 years later. H20 was the film which effectively erased H3-7 as if they'd never happened, but that wasn't H4's fault -- more a product of Dimension taking over the franchise than anything else. Agreed, that makes franchise continuity a mess, but only after H20.

I don't see this same thing happening with TREK at all.



See, this is where I get confused by those worrying about alternate timelines and such.

Where has it been said that Pike gets killed so Kirk can take command? Pike didn't die for Kirk to take over in TOS... as the episodes proved explicitly when the two appeared together... so why would Pike have to die this time? Does every promotion in Starfleet result in the death of the superior? Of course not.

How do we not know Pike's TOS-seen crew isn't aboard his ship? Has there been one printed word about Pike's crew members so far?

How does Kirk start as a cadet and end as captain? How does any film show progress in the life story of a character? Picking relevant scenes from a character's life and showing the passage of time. The same way we'll see Kirk as a boy then see him as an adult... or do you expect we'll watch Kirk age in real time on-screen?

As for Kirk's career aboard the Republic or Farragut: as we move ahead in this story and Kirk's career, wouldn't it be terribly easy to fit in short reference scenes or dialogue to include his service on the two ships... just like they did with TOS? If it worked before, it can work the same again.

There is only so much information that can be squeezed into a two-hour film, and filmmakers have gotten quite good at compressing events as needed to keep the story moving ahead -- I expect no less in TREK than from any other film.
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better. Let's just wait and see before drawing conclusion. Speculating can be fun but this canon vs. non canon vs. what is canon? arguments are getting old. I'm just happy and excited there is a Trek movie to look forward to.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-30-2008, 12:48 PM
Cannibal's Avatar
Cannibal Cannibal is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 217
Default

The bottom line is this... I hope this is a great movie and it spawns a whole mess of sequels so that we fans have much to look forward to in years to come.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-30-2008, 12:59 PM
AJBlue98's Avatar
AJBlue98 AJBlue98 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 208
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisko89 View Post
…If this is indeed the story of how TOS crew came together I have a few concerns;

1. If Pike is killed off in order to lay the foundations for an ending which involves Kirk taking command there is a serious lapse of continuity. The Cage essentially becomes defunct.
First, there is no indication whatsoever that Pike will be injured or suffer serious tragedy, let alone die, in this film. For all we know, he may be planetside when tragedy strikes on the Enterprise, forcing Kirk to take command.

Then again, something just occurred to me. In TNG, Troi had to take a test on the holodeck in order to achieve bridge officer status. Of course, holodeck technology isn’t available to the Federation in the 23rd century, so it might be possible that Enterprise herself is being used to give Kirk some similar sort of test when Nero comes into the picture, and not knowing that this isn’t part of the test (or perhaps as with Wesley’s TNG Academy entrance exam, not knowing that the test was underway), he simply steps up to the plate and does what’s necessary to get through the situation.

Quote:
2. There appears to be a considerable undermining of established and logical historical patterns. How old is Checkov and has he been shoe-horned into the script? What has happened to the Cage crew (Piper, Number 1 etc)?
As for Chekhov, I doubt his age will be much of an issue, since he’s only an ensign or leiutenant. j. g. when the movie occurs, as far as any of us know, so it would make sense for him to appear, especially young, not to mention that he simply could have been transferred back-and-forth between departments around the first season of Trek. As for the crew from “The Cage,” I would assume that it’s unlikely we’ll see them because (1) starship crews often change out crew members over time, so it’s possible that Pike had a complete command staff turnover (maybe even more than one) over the years, and (2) with J.J. Abrams in charge of a sci-fi movie involving time travel, it’s unlikely that even the 23rd-century portion of the film will be in chronological order, so that portion of the timeline likely will get skipped.

Quote:
3. If Kirk is a Cadet in the beginning of the film how is it possible that he takes command at the end of the film *speculation (I understand that the 24th century Spock intervention is a a cornerstone of the plot but what happened to Starfleet protocol?). Furthermore is Kirks' career on the Republic and Farragut to be ignored?
Regarding Kirk, allow me to redux my comment above regarding J.J.’s penchant for out-of-sequence storytelling. I just think that’s how the story is going to work out.

As for Spock’s apparent violation of Starfleet protocol, remember that in “Reunification,” Spock was a Federation ambassador-gone-rogue, so I doubt that he’ll be too concerned with a Starfleet directive that (technically) no longer has jurisdiction over him.

Then again, if travelling back into the past to save the future is the logical course of action, nothing else really matters, does it?

HTH!

-Blue

Last edited by AJBlue98 : 10-30-2008 at 03:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-30-2008, 02:48 PM
Digginonrand's Avatar
Digginonrand Digginonrand is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannibal View Post
I know we've got a lot of hard core fans here who want to see the same Star Trek we've all loved for many years. But lighten up already! This movie is not "throwing it all out the window" or "changing Star Trek..." or whatever. Seriously, think about it. Does this film in any way threaten all the series and movies that we already have and love? It doesn't change those things it all. It's not going to "ruin" anything. We still have those and can watch them as much as we want.

This movie is a new take on Star Trek. Yes, things are going to be different. Some minor, some major. But, do we really want everything exactly the same? That would be pretty boring. We've already seen the original series and all the movies. If this movie has any chance whatsoever to reinvigorate the franchise it MUST be different.



So what if it takes things in a new direction and creates an alternate timeline? I say bring it! We've seen all the TV shows and movies. We know the stories and we know what happens. Why bother starting over if you're just going to rehash. This is an all new Star Trek.

How many of us love Daniel Craig's Bond? He's arguably the best Bond ever. Does that take anything at all away from the original and fan-favorite Sean Connery? Absolutely not. Connery was still the original Bond. Nothing can ever change that. Now we just have more Bond movies to enjoy.

Let's try to look at Star Trek like that. We love Star Trek. Now we have an oppurtunity to see it live on when it seemed to be dead in the water for all intents and purposes.

Bring on the new Trek and the new Enterprise. It's high time we got a fresh look at an old favorite.

PS... I love the new bridge.
AMEN and well said. The Saint can say whatever he wants, but the most important part of ANY film is the story. I can't wait to see what JJ does with these characters in their early years, without the 60's look. I totally agree that a rehash would be BORING!! I've been a fan since the very early 70's and I even want a different look to certain things. Good post, Cannibal. Saint---give it a chance, please.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-30-2008, 03:16 PM
cbx550bertie's Avatar
cbx550bertie cbx550bertie is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: wolverhampton,England
Posts: 30
Post

Kirk has the largest file in the temporal investigative division of Star Fleet.... and that its for me.....plus i dont care i just wanna see the movie and love it for just being star trek......
__________________
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.....
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-30-2008, 07:16 PM
Big D's Avatar
Big D Big D is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,112
Default

Excellent post, Mr Cannibal, and I strongly agree.

When the Bond franchise was "rebooted" a few years ago, this didn't murder continuity and destroy 40 years of films together with the lives, dreams, and memories of millions of fans. Nor have Christopher Nolan's superb Batman films taken a whiz over the umpteen billion comic books that they're based on. Instead, they're treated as a "fresh start" for each series, and a way of re-examining the characters and scenarios with today's narrative styles and acting.

When a film is made that's based on a book, changes are inevitable. It always happens, and is taken for granted, generally being accepted by the audience. When The Lord of the Rings was adapted for the big screen, a lot of changes were made - some minor, some substantial. The book itself stays the same, though. No-one saw the films, when wailed "oh noes, they killed Tom Bombadil! I can't read the books again, because my favourite character doesn't exist anymore!"
Such a position would be silly, since of course the novels still exist, as do their characters and events.

The only difference is that Star Trek XI is based not on a book, but on previous films and TV shows. It's an adaptation, just in a similar medium. What's more, the creative team have stated that it's going to be factually consistent with the established canon. Visual style aside, they're aiming to keep generally faithful to the universe we know and love.

I'm just damn grateful that they consider the Star Trek tale one worth re-telling. That Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the other crew are important and significant enough to bring back. That the Star Trek future is a future that is worth re-making in film.

Star Trek was once a popular cultural phenomenon. The first space shuttle was re-named in honour of the Enterprise. What Abrams' movie will do, is return to that phenomenon and the characters and era that started it. Not the Voyager or Enterprise universes, which are where the 'phenomenon' declined into a hackneyed, self-parodying franchise that the public neither knew nor cared much about. There's now a chance that Kirk and Spock might become household names again, rather than punchlines. This is something that could not have been achieved just by churning out a formulaic Nemesis sequel, or yet another TV series about a crew of nobodies boldly going places that no-one cares about because the plots are so recycled that they've long since worn out.
__________________

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 06:24 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.