A Vote Of Confidence.... - Page 2

mmoore · #11 11-12-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Seven

No doubt the naysayers will be in line (wearing trenchcoats and sunglasses) to see this movie. If only to see if they're were right. Then magically they'll cross over. Folks don't understand this movie is a: win/win. For all intents and purposes the franchise was dead. The mainstream argued NCC1701 should sit idle for several years before any attempt of a cold engine restart.

Enter J.J. and his bold vision of Trek. We need something bold and provocative. A Star Trek for today..not yesterday. I can appreciate the concerns of the ST purists but J.J. owes them nothing. This is his Trek and he's running with it. And, it's time for most of us to let things go. I've read topics where posters wondered if a minor character or circumstance would be included in the new film. This is a new Trek for a new day.

I'm 50 years old and have been a Trek fan from the start. That doesn't make me better than anyone else. But with this movie I've learned to let go. Star Trek must evolve, it must go beyond traditional while retaining something of it as a basepoint. J.J. won't let us down.

Damage75, thanks for posting James Cawley's article. Very insightful.

Well said.

Cawley is obviously considered to be an important voice in the world of Trekkorieism (did I miss anyone?

). That's why he was given a tour of the sets and a small part in the film. Paramount obviously respects his vision since they've "handed over" the Phase II concept to him. I wouldn't dismiss Cawley's opinions.

Two cents, no charge.

starbase Britain · #12 11-12-2008, 03:02 PM

Well said Gary seven

This was always going to be a very difficult task. These are characters that people have loved for over 40 years with the same people playing them for all of that time.

I must admit that im sad to read issues about 'it not being the same' although i do recognise that people are entitled to vent their feelings. some of it is over the top in my opinion. The point is that Star Trek cant stay the same or else it dies. Its as simple as that. I dont think the changes are too drastic from what ive seen but ultimately we have to judge this when the film comes out. we cannot pass judgement until then.

we have those wonderful 79 TOS episodes forever and nothing will change that. The actors who played those parts are now too old but now we have a chance to boldy go where no MAN has gone before - again - if we at least try to embrace them. If its done right, seeing these characters re born and young again will be thrilling.

JJ is trying to relaunch Trek as its currently on its knees. he has to be bold in some respects. Im so excited about this movie. I want younger generations to see Kir, Spock and mcCoy etc saving the universe again and in some way enjoy what we enjoyed. this is only going to create brand new interest in TOS and that can only be a good thing.

as Bones said in Trek 5 ' try to be open about this'.

starbase Britain

Damage75 · #13 11-12-2008, 03:19 PM

I just like that he commented on what he thought of the new 1701, after having seen it last year.

It seems that most on this forum site don't like it, which is fine and well. But they make it sound like they are "owed" their 1701 from TOS.

Here is a person who by all means can be considered a "canonite", giving his approval of the new ship. He's not dissecting every last detail of it in disgust.

Great line..."JJ owes them nothing". Hopefully all those who are so turned off by the new 1701 read his quote....but I fear as T'Aerwynd said, it will probably fall on deaf ears.

number 3 · #14 11-12-2008, 03:24 PM

ok maybe this is just a rant, but they picked actors that looked similar to the original cast, some (Quinto) very similar, but the one thing they had total control over, how it looks, was the ship.hard to redesign a legend, but they went for it and IMO failed misserably. the look of said garbage scowl is just gonna throw it for me. but, I'll see it.maybe they'll crash it by the end of the film and get a new one...hopefully designed by someone else.

Lord Pork · #15 11-12-2008, 03:38 PM

His batman analogy is poor. Batman is more like James Bond. There's a new guy every few years. None of the Batman movies are really connected together except by the current director. E.X. Batman and Batman Returns. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Where ST everything is canon.

mmoore · #16 11-12-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by number 3

ok maybe this is just a rant, but they picked actors that looked similar to the original cast, some (Quinto) very similar, but the one thing they had total control over, how it looks, was the ship.hard to redesign a legend, but they went for it and IMO failed misserably. the look of said garbage scowl is just gonna throw it for me. but, I'll see it.maybe they'll crash it by the end of the film and get a new one...hopefully designed by someone else.

It's scow. Garbage scow. Sheesh, if you're gonna whine at least spell stuff right.

number 3 · #17 11-12-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoore

It's scow. Garbage scow. Sheesh, if you're gonna whine at least spell stuff right.

ooops sorry...and am I to assume that you spell everything correctly 100% of the time?..

and maybe it shouldn't be hauling garbage so much as it should be hauled away as garbage.

happy?.....hired a proof-reader for this post..LOL

Futality is Resistable