The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > To The older fans of Star Trek
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:20 PM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

*Peter David would likely be writing the script in that case. But no one seems interested despite the popularity of the books.*
Peter David? Ugh. Not sure about "popularity".
Take a poll and you'll find most of the WTF? Trek books (and comics) are from him.
I've read his Buffy comic offerings as well, and they plainly suck.

To each his own I guess.
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:05 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSnyder4 View Post
*Peter David would likely be writing the script in that case. But no one seems interested despite the popularity of the books.*
Peter David? Ugh. Not sure about "popularity".
Take a poll and you'll find most of the WTF? Trek books (and comics) are from him.
I've read his Buffy comic offerings as well, and they plainly suck.

To each his own I guess.
I have to agree with you there Snyder. I think a script by Peter David would effectively shoot the Star Trek franchise in the foot. A film and /or series built around books like Imzadi? I had trouble choking down that book let alone the sequel to it. I still have not read the sequel book.
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-21-2009, 02:24 AM
thestartrekker's Avatar
thestartrekker thestartrekker is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 293
Default

Well I've yet to hit my thirties, and I probably fall into the 'old timer' camp, as a fan of TOS. Can new actors play the roles, obviously, it's already been filmed. Wiil people accept it, probably, for some, if they pay to go and see the movie. They are still pretty big shoes to fill though, which is why I can understand some sense of trepidation about going to see it.
__________________
You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true." Spock (Amok Time)

Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-21-2009, 02:44 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starbase63 View Post
The main thing is, JJ and Co. are supposed to be these creative geniuses...

I mean, aside from Felicity and Lost, what has he done?

He took the character of Rollin Hand from the original Mission Impossible, made him a hot chick and called it "Alias"...

He took on the third installment of the established Mission Impossible movie franchise...

He took Godzilla and crossed it with "The Blair Witch Project" and called it "Cloverfield"...

He took the X-Files, changed the tack from the supernatural and the paranormal to the scientific and called it "Fringe"...
You've basically accused Abrams of the same "creativity" that a lot of other praised writers are guilty of: drawing inspiration from other materials and making their own product. Good for you, here's a cookie.

Or how about Gene Roddenberry took a character from C. S. Forester's novels, plopped him in a futuristic setting and called him James Kirk?

Oh, uh, you got nothing to say to that now do you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starbase63 View Post
He took a job as one of the co-writers of "Armageddon"...

With all that "creative genius" they couldn't have come up with a truly new Trek, instead of going back to the TOS era and calling it "new"? Yes, I know the reasoning that the general public is most familiar with Kirk and Spock and therefore potentially more bankable, I get it, especially since this movie is admittedly made more with Johnny-on-the-street in mind than us Trekfen...

But they couldn't put that creativity to work for more than just another reboot?

Yes, the time of the original cast members has passed...just as we've seen their characters' lives, promotions, retirements, even deaths...why can't it be left that way and do something new? Are remakes and reboots all Hollywood knows anymore?
Without getting into a long drawn out debate about remakes and reboots, I'll keep it short: Hollywood has been doing remakes since the beginning of Hollywood. Actually you may find the ratio of remake to not-remake much closer than you think if you look at film history.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-21-2009, 04:36 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool

Actually, I do, wiseguy, but you probably expected it...

The point is, what has Abrams done that's wholly his own that makes him regarded as such a genius?

In fact, Roddenberry took Horatio Hornblower, TV Westerns, Shakespeare and "Forbidden Planet" and boiled them down to create the basis for Star Trek, just as he ripped off Buck Rogers for the original version of "Genesis II" which decades later would be reworked by others to become what we now know as "Andromeda."

The fact he took his original version of Star Trek and reworked it into the arguably more successful Next Generation says something for his creative ability, methinks.

And there was a time when new movies did outpace remakes, depending on your age you may or may not remember such things first hand. Remakes were not the norm, now every time you turn around movies that are coming out are remakes. Just like Broadway these days, how many plays are original and how many are just stage versions of movies?
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-21-2009, 07:10 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Default

Any good myth is worth re-telling in my opinion...yet in the re-telling there will always be variations. That is just the way it is.
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-21-2009, 09:14 AM
FanWriter45's Avatar
FanWriter45 FanWriter45 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Conway, Arkansas. It's a nice little town with three Universities in it, and surrounded by woods.
Posts: 3,051
Default

I dunno.. sometimes, when I think about Trek (which is often) I feel like maybe Abrhams is taking the wrong tack... maybe... maybe... what REALLY needs to happen is to take the whole concept of the franchise, wipe the board clean, and start anew. Maybe the folks at "Bad Robot" will fail because they just aren't going far enough with the reboot of Trek.

Keep the basic format. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and a bridge crew abaord a ship the size of an aircraft carrier, visiting new planets on a mission of peaceful exploration... and just not worry about "cannon" at all. Upgrade all the equipement and sets and effects so you can actually suspend your disbelief again, and just not worry about what came before... Those shows, those movies, will always exist and are a part of television and American and world history...

But all the little mistakes made over the years tend to have a cumulative effect. Trek has become hidebound by it's own backstory sometimes. (Just look at the whole DY-100/Khan/eugenics wars/augments timeline for a good example.) Certainly the clunky tech style of TOS has gone on, well past it's expiration date. Personally, now that special effects has caught up to our imaginations, I'd ditch the transporter. (It cuases too many plot problems.)

The basic idea behind Trek is still relevant. It still has lots of things to say about the world today, and the challenges we all face in the future.

Maybe it's time to drop the first stage, and ignite the second... otherwise the dead weight will keep us all from getting to where we are going.
__________________
Number Two: Conform, Number Six! Conform!

Number Six: I will not be stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am a person.

Last edited by FanWriter45 : 01-21-2009 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-21-2009, 09:31 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by FanWriter45 View Post
I dunno.. sometimes, when I think about Trek (which is often) I feel like maybe Abrhams is taking the wrong tack... maybe... maybe... what REALLY needs to happen is to take the whole concept of the franchise, wipe the board clean, and start anew. Maybe the folks at "Bad Robot" will fail because they just aren't going far enough with the reboot of Trek.

Keep the basic format. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and a bridge crew abaord a ship the size of an aircraft carrier, visiting new planets on a mission of peaceful exploration... and just not worry about "cannon" at all. Upgrade all the equipement and sets and effects so you can actually suspend your disbelief again, and just not worry about what came before... Those shows, those movies, will always exist and are a part of television and American and world history...

But all the little mistakes made over the years tend to have a cumulative effect. Trek has become hidebound by it's own backstory sometimes. (Just look at the whole DY-100/Khan/eugenics wars/augments timeline for a good example.) Certainly the clunky tech style of TOS has gone on, well past it's expiration date. Personally, now that special effects has caught up to our imaginations, I'd ditch the transporter. (It cuases too many plot problems.)

The basic idea behind Trek is still relevant. It still has lots of things to say about the world today, and the challenges we all face in the future.

Maybe it's time to drop the first stage, and ignite the second... otherwise the dead weight will keep us all from getting to where we are going.
The "first stage" would have worked with a face lift, wholesale revisions and redesigns weren't necessary.
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-21-2009, 09:55 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

*I feel like maybe Abrhams is taking the wrong tack..*
I understand the middle ground approach of utilizing the old to get to the new.
Sucky situation all around that a straight-up reboot isn't being done, but then it is entirely possible that it cannot be done legally as well since the movies are the basis for the project and IP. A straight-up reboot may have needed renegotiation of rights.
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-21-2009, 09:57 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FanWriter45 View Post
I dunno.. sometimes, when I think about Trek (which is often) I feel like maybe Abrhams is taking the wrong tack... maybe... maybe... what REALLY needs to happen is to take the whole concept of the franchise, wipe the board clean, and start anew. Maybe the folks at "Bad Robot" will fail because they just aren't going far enough with the reboot of Trek.

Keep the basic format. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and a bridge crew abaord a ship the size of an aircraft carrier, visiting new planets on a mission of peaceful exploration... and just not worry about "cannon" at all. Upgrade all the equipement and sets and effects so you can actually suspend your disbelief again, and just not worry about what came before... Those shows, those movies, will always exist and are a part of television and American and world history...

But all the little mistakes made over the years tend to have a cumulative effect. Trek has become hidebound by it's own backstory sometimes. (Just look at the whole DY-100/Khan/eugenics wars/augments timeline for a good example.) Certainly the clunky tech style of TOS has gone on, well past it's expiration date. Personally, now that special effects has caught up to our imaginations, I'd ditch the transporter. (It cuases too many plot problems.)

The basic idea behind Trek is still relevant. It still has lots of things to say about the world today, and the challenges we all face in the future.

Maybe it's time to drop the first stage, and ignite the second... otherwise the dead weight will keep us all from getting to where we are going.
I like where you are going with this...very interesting.
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
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 09:13 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.