[Big D]

Originally Posted by MonsieurHood

That is also true. It is also true that piracy today isn't the romantic, swashbuckling piracy we are familiar with from literature and film. In fact, neither was piracy in the days of sail. But since pirates today operate usually out of the limelight, in unfamiliar and faraway places, interest in it diminished considerably. Since it happened mostly "out of sight, out of mind", it has been largely forgotten by the general populace, until it's emergence of late on the evening news.

Yep... the western world only really cares about piracy again because it's got the potential to harm oil prices. It's pretty sad that something has to aim for our wallets before the news media take notice...

[VeridianIII]

While it's really difficult to know what the film will be like from the trailer, the few things it shows I really don't understand, I don't understand the boy who looks like a young Ron Howard saying he is James Kirk, He doesn't look like either of the Kirks IMO, I don't know why he's driving a car, it looks more like something that belongs in a Mission Impossible movie, I don't understand the phrase "Buckle Up". I'm not getting a Star Trek feel from that at all. And the new Spock, the costume just doesn't look natural. I mean even in TOS Spock's costume looked more believable, it looks more like the goofy costumes of TNG->.

[Damage75]

I wanted to save space and not quote your letter (which by the way was nicely written). I do have one question: What specifically have you seen that leads you to believe that this movie does not represent GR's ideas?

BUT I DON'T WANNA BE A PIRATE!!!!

I can see not getting a "Star Trek feel" from it. Because all you have seen is a trailer and a few pics, that's about all you should have....a feeling.

[MrQ1701]

Damn good post Fullphaser!!! I agree with you. I have enjoyed everything you describe in your post. I believe what you describe in Trek is the major contributing factor to the "nerd" stereotype. I have always said "so what? If that makes me a nerd, than I am a nerd, but I can still kick your a*s!!".

I too, am fearful Trek will lose it's thoughtfullness and "soul" in order to sell more box office tickets.

[fullphaser]

Originally Posted by Damage75

I wanted to save space and not quote your letter (which by the way was nicely written). I do have one question: What specifically have you seen that leads you to believe that this movie does not represent GR's ideas?





BUT I DON'T WANNA BE A PIRATE!!!!


I can see not getting a "Star Trek feel" from it. Because all you have seen is a trailer and a few pics, that's about all you should have....a feeling.

It's a bit more than that, and something I think comes from having seen what JJ Abrams has done in the past, how casually he is willing to toss away the show's limited canon (I mean we are talking about the show in which the viewers pressed the writers into explaining why the Klingons didn't have head ridges, and we all know that was more about makeup and budgeting), so to be willing to make such a massive leap, Is I think indicative of where the movie is going. In addition to that, every interview with people respsonsible for the movie's release have stated they don't want Star Trek to be as "nerdy", and it makes me cringe when people start talking about one of Science Fictions key syndicated series / franchises and what to make it apply more to pop culture. There is a reason that MtV should never be involved with Star Trek, and even past that the trailer alone showed a focus on action and sex, and while Star Trek did have its fair share of those moments, I think it degrades the show to boil it down to nothing but. Star Trek is not about romance, that's why season 3 of Enterprise bombed like a b-52, its not about the pew pew, if it was again I reference Enterprise, and why people went out of their way to avoid the show. When Star Trek does action, it does it with a purpose (like the domion war, etc.)

Everything I have seen has show nothing but wanting to broaden the appeal, and it makes me wonder if Paramount understands just how large the Star Trek fanbase really is, and if they think the next generation (the kids) are that shallow that all they care for is explosions and sex. And if that is all they care for, than Star Trek shouldn't be the show to cater to them.

[VeridianIII]

If a trailer isn't meant to give viewers a feel for the movie, what is it for then ? To sell cars ?

[Damage75]

Can't tell if this was aimed at me....but I said that the trailer is meant to give you a feel for the movie...but not to pass judgement.

I've seen great trailers and then the movie blows, or bad trailers and the movie is great. I just don't get on board with judging how the new staff is interpreting GR's ideas from a trailer...

After we have seen the movie, then we can argue those points, and I may agree with you! But I won't be able to make an educated argument until I see the movie.

And fullphaser, if the following points are in response to me asking what specifically leads you to these conclusions, then I am even more confused:

It's a bit more than that, and something I think comes from having seen what JJ Abrams has done in the past, how casually he is willing to toss away the show's limited canon (I mean we are talking about the show in which the viewers pressed the writers into explaining why the Klingons didn't have head ridges, and we all know that was more about makeup and budgeting)

JJ hasn't done anything in the past with Star Trek...this movie is his first foray into the Trek universe. The Klingon head ridges were explained in ENT....JJ had nothing to do with that show.

There is a reason that MtV should never be involved with Star Trek, and even past that the trailer alone showed a focus on action and sex, and while Star Trek did have its fair share of those moments, I think it degrades the show to boil it down to nothing but. Star Trek is not about romance, that's why season 3 of Enterprise bombed like a b-52

TOS was full of sex...it was the 60's!!! Look at those outfits! Kirk bedding women in every episode (an exageration). Star Trek may not be all about romance, but it was definitely a key element in TOS! And there is nothing wrong with that....romance is part of exploring relationships, which is part of what Trek is about.

And Season 3 of ENT was not liked by many because of the season long Xindi story line........not alot of romance going on in that season!

its not about the pew pew

What is the "pew pew"? Is this is in reference to Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin? If it is, it should be "pew pew pew"! LOL.

[justafan]

Originally Posted by canadianrosey

Who said the prequels "never worked" for Star Wars, fullphaser? You? Boo-hoo! Star Wars was a series of stories from day one, but Episode 4 was the best one to introduce the series with and that's what we got in 1977. Trek went off the rails all on its own: Get over yourself! If you don't like Star Wars then good for you. Star Trek is not the same as Star Wars, or 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Fantastic Planet, or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or Incredible Voyage, or Andromeda Strain, or The Black Hole, or Space: 1999, or Battle Beyond the Stars, or Battlestar Galactica... Star Trek is one sci-fi story with a fan base, like so many others. If all you can do is whine about how Star Trek is better than so-and-so because they're not the same as Star Trek then who cares?

You, sir, missed the whole point of what Fullphaser was saying. You focued on on small point pointing out prequels DO NOT work and ran like a champion for George Lucas.

Read what was typed and then reread it. There is no attack on Star Wars or any other movie for that matter. Having been around when Star trek came out, I agree with phaser's opinion. To end this, Gene Roddenberry said himself, nothing but the movies and TV show he produced are set in stone. That means all the years of novels, fan produced, comics, etc are other people's ideas, not his and therefore not valid to HIS story. The cartoon series is up for debate, Mr Roddenberry never said one way or the other.

I also agree that Star Trek is character driven. The interaction between the crew and their surroundings and each other is what makes Star Trek what it is. Accept the movie as entertainment. Toss out what you don't like. Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is dead as is Glenn Larson's BattleStar Galactica. At least the characters haven't swapped sexes.

[jerhanner]

Trek wasn't about any one thing. It was large, it contained multitudes. From sex to violence to peace to friendship to spores to Apollo to Gangsters, it had everything.

We just cherrypick the parts that resonate most clearly within ourselves and then call that "canon." I can assure you that MY canon and YOUR canon are two totally different things, even though we've watched the exact same shows. There are some episodes I'd just as soon never see again, but to others they were among the best.

Judging a movie by a trailer that lasts 30 seconds is like trying to describe a camel when you can only see it's foot.

[mmoore]

trying to describe a camel when you can only see it's foot

Nah, too easy.

Here's the thing. In a series you have multiple episodes to explore any number of things. You have the luxury of doing an action packed adventure one week, tugging at the heartstrings the next, lighthearted comedy the next, so on and so on. In a two hour movie you have to tell the story a concisely as possible and hold the viewers' attention. There isn't always time to pack in everything for everyone and still tell the story.

So I say, canon-schmanon. Hit the high points and make it a good story that will finance the next one.