The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Important Abrams interview
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-06-2009, 06:12 PM
mdhprime's Avatar
mdhprime mdhprime is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhaige View Post
I am referring to Phase 2.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-06-2009, 06:19 PM
ThePhaige's Avatar
ThePhaige ThePhaige is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: florida
Posts: 618
Default

You are correct that the proposed Phase 2 in early pre production as a follow up series was never made, but that is not what was referred to here. I believe the point was that Cawleys project attempts to follow Treks next evolution from TOS and emulate what Phase 2 would have been had it been made.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-06-2009, 06:32 PM
mdhprime's Avatar
mdhprime mdhprime is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhaige View Post
You are correct that the proposed Phase 2 in early pre production as a follow up series was never made, but that is not what was referred to here. I believe the point was that Cawleys project attempts to follow Treks next evolution from TOS and emulate what Phase 2 would have been had it been made.

Ahhh. I misunderstood.

I guess my only point was there could have been more of an effort to keep certain elements of the design of the original series than making it look a bit sharper. I think there was a conscious decision by the creators of the new movie to diverge from anything that would resemble TOS. I know the characters have the same color uniforms and the Enterprise exterior looks mostly the same, but all in all it is a completely different vision. I am sure it will be well done and well liked, I just don't think it has much to so with Star Trek.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-06-2009, 06:46 PM
ThePhaige's Avatar
ThePhaige ThePhaige is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: florida
Posts: 618
Default

They could have done a lot of things, but at this point its useless to cry over spilled milk so to speak. The jury is still out until May 8 weather or not they made a good move or not. So far it feels like Star Trek to me, but I decided to open my mind awhile back and since then the excitement has risen consistently from week to week for me. I hope you too come to embrace it if its well done.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-06-2009, 07:15 PM
Magnum Magnum is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 185
Default

I just want to add something. If the Name of the ship was USS Exeter, and Kirk, Spock etc were not in the movie, I would be more willing to watch this (Exeter is just a name drawn out of thin air it can be any good starship name). As we saw with Voyager. That ship was not the Enterprise, Captain Janeway was not Kirk. Yet the series to me was very good. The Ship even landed on the planet. (Making of Star Trek said in the early begining of the show they thought about landing the USS Enterprise on planets but that was abandoned due to budget problems) So if JJ Abrams had used a new crew (Not Kirk, Janeway etc) and named his ship differently I would had been a lot happier with it.

Thank you for reading my Opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-06-2009, 07:16 PM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Default

mdhprime,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

To me, it feels like Star Trek. It doesn't feel like the Star Trek we've known through Rick Berman's command, nor the Original Series.

I didn't expect it to.

It has Captain Kirk and crew in an adventure on the Enterprise.

Star Trek, the Original Series, was always primarily an adventure. Captain Hornblower in space.

I think this is what we're going to get here.
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-06-2009, 07:55 PM
TMRiddle1912's Avatar
TMRiddle1912 TMRiddle1912 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum View Post
I just want to add something. If the Name of the ship was USS Exeter, and Kirk, Spock etc were not in the movie, I would be more willing to watch this (Exeter is just a name drawn out of thin air it can be any good starship name). As we saw with Voyager. That ship was not the Enterprise, Captain Janeway was not Kirk. Yet the series to me was very good. The Ship even landed on the planet. (Making of Star Trek said in the early begining of the show they thought about landing the USS Enterprise on planets but that was abandoned due to budget problems) So if JJ Abrams had used a new crew (Not Kirk, Janeway etc) and named his ship differently I would had been a lot happier with it.

Thank you for reading my Opinion.
To me, and this is just my opinion mind you, this would be a horrible idea. The whole point of going back to the basics is to get the non-Trek fans into the movie theater. And when those people think of Star Trek, they think Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the Starship ENTERPRISE. I would bet, although I don't know for sure, that most non-Trek fans don't even know who Picard, Sisko, Janeway or Archer even are. Before I became a fan of Star Trek, I thought Picard WAS Kirk, just played by a different actor, lol. So that's why they've gone back to TOS. It is THIS crew of THIS ship that people think of when they hear STAR TREK.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-07-2009, 01:42 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Well I appreciate and understand that a lot of people will avoid the spoilers and reviews of those starting to see the film - but it seems (since I am one who does check these things out) that this is not any kind of wrecking of the original series.

I still support everything that's been done. And when it came to the changes - I can only say that the writers knew everything they were 'changing', they don't appear to have done it arbitrarily. So I give them some leeway because it's becoming clear the film does explain itself in that way.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-09-2009, 06:15 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

The new bridge may still grow on me one day. I still think the design is too different from previously established UFP design. I know, I know... this is a "reboot", an attempt to make Trek more "relevant", but really... would have a more recognizably UFP bridge really made this impossible? When I see the new Bridge I think a jewelry store!
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-09-2009, 07:44 PM
Dominus of Megadeus's Avatar
Dominus of Megadeus Dominus of Megadeus is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jla1987 View Post
Great interview and I agree Captain Tom.

Yes, and very well said, Captain Tom.
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 09:39 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.