The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > JJ Trek canon slaughterfest or another Mediocre Next Gen outing?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-23-2008, 03:46 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

I don't know what we're in for anymore than you think you do. Just because a trailer focuses on the action parts of a film is not conclusive as to it's entire content. Whether anyone likes it or not, Paramount wants to bring Trek back as a summer event film. So, yes I can understand perfectly well why the trailers will focus on action to draw in people. It's a potential example of lulling in a potential audience with action, then giving them more to think about with the full film.

Of course it's also going to have action pieces in it - every Trek film since TWOK has had explosions, fights, etc in it (except perhaps Voyage Home), but in TWOK and TSFS there were other character elements at work. So both were balanced to make successful films. First Contact also managed to blend those elements to be the most successful of the TNG films - so it's not an impossible combination.

As for 'the look', well as far as I'm concerned 'loving' Star Trek is about more than set design or hardware used. They're an element, I don't disagree, but it's the characters and their stories I care most about. I'm not saying I'll love everything when I see it, I'm not saying I didn't think the bridge wouldn't have been closer to TOS when it was unveiled, I'm not saying I get the point of the bulbous parts of the new nacelles - I'm not without questions on things either, but I'm not going to lose sleep over them because they aren't the most vital parts to me, and there's still nothing to suggest explanations will not be forthcoming between now and May. If you think everything has been fully revealed so far, I'd not be so sure. There is plenty more information to come forward.

So, why is it that fans who are remaining open to changes until the full facts are known are also being met with attitude and a 'then you don't really love Trek' mentality?

You look for understanding - why assume you aren't going to get some? If you're not getting that information fast enough that's not my problem, nor anyone else's who supports the film. But they may come in the months ahead.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-23-2008, 03:57 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
If you're not getting that information fast enough that's not my problem, nor anyone else's who supports the film. But they may come in the months ahead.
And if that happens, my tune will change back to excitement and hopeful expectation. That's where I started, just like everyone else here -- otherwise, logically, none of us would have come here to talk about it in the first place.

But right now, I'm going on what I've seen and what I've deduced, and all that adds up to disappointment in the main and disgust in a few specific areas. It's a little unfair to condemn anyone's negative feelings when they're just as well founded as anyone else's positive feelings. Those who think this will be the greatest thing to happen to Trek are not on better footing than those who think it's a bad turn.
__________________
"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
  #13  
Old 11-23-2008, 04:04 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
It's a little unfair to condemn anyone's negative feelings when they're just as well founded as anyone else's positive feelings.
Interesting point, given the equal condemnation you yourself have offered to the very people who do have positive feelings.

Quote:
Those who think this will be the greatest thing to happen to Trek are not on better footing than those who think it's a bad turn.
True, which as I always say, is why I will reserve absolute final judgement until I see the film. As, I think, everyone should.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-23-2008, 04:11 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Again I point you all to my sig.
|
|
|
|
v
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-23-2008, 04:12 AM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

JJ Trek! VERY GOOD POINTS!
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-23-2008, 05:19 AM
Frenzy's Avatar
Frenzy Frenzy is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 424
Default

JJ will be forced to forego story for action, i can live with that if Trek lives for another 2 outings as a TOS brand. God i cant tolerate TNG after Nemesis. I kinda is like TMP as we can really see how old Riker has become, Sirtis also. Though i must admit Picard still looks young as a stallion Perhaps because he always looked 60 XD
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-23-2008, 05:21 AM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

Lol!
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-23-2008, 05:41 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Again I point you all to my sig.
Very good point, actually. What Roddenberry considered canon and what he did not has always been pretty random and arbitrary, with new stuff trumping old stuff, even important old stuff. When Roddenberry was gone, his replacements were the exact same way - some parts of the movies and shows were canon, some parts weren't, and there was simply no formula one could use to find out which. It was all whim.

Following in the tradition of Roddenberry and Berman, then, this newest film does not "reject" canon; it merely updates it, which is the way things have always been for Star Trek since it was first created.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-23-2008, 06:49 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
......

Every canon based thread is a round of the same thing. Based on what we've seen, people either think it's all automatically thrown out, or people think it's being respected but stretched, though not broken. At the moment there's no definitive proof either way so the two sides can never be reconciled.

Star Trek was never supposed to be about adults arguing over the canoninical inconsistency of Kirk's driving abilities, or Klingon ridges, or the colour of Vulcan's sky and how many moons it has. I wouldn't be surprised if Gene Roddenberry was laughing his *** off at some the things that seem vital to people nowadays.

Never mind the optimistic vision of the future, of mankind working together to better themselves, of morality tales and stories about the characters - let's all get het up about the inaacuracy of the curve of the warp pylons on the new Enterprise.

It's exactly why other people laugh and the nerd stereotype evolved.
You hit the nail on the head!! BOTH sides of thid debate really have to wait and see what happens.

Nit-picking the nacelles or the bridge layout does indeed add to the "nerd" stereotype. That's why I will state my preferences, but ultimately things like that don't bother me very much. I have, many times, voiced concerns over whether or not this movie will lose the "soul" of Trek in order to become a blockbuster. I am hoping the answer is NO. I hope this movie remains true to what made Trek popular in the first place, yet includes elements of action, suspense, or whatever else JJ threw in, in order for it to do well at the box office.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-23-2008, 10:52 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
The new look upsets old fans because aside from their being no good reason for it, the reason there is for it is one that isn't good.
SOME old fans. You really cannot speak for every longtime fan here, Saint.
__________________

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
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 12:33 AM.


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.