The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Will the 'Final Frontier' come to an end here?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-13-2008, 05:41 AM
cajunandorian's Avatar
cajunandorian cajunandorian is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 17
Default

So what it seems like we have to me here is a guy standing on the corner of the of a street holding up the sign that says "The End is here". So they are doing a retake on TOS instead of something brand new, what's the big deal? The fact that you want something brand new and never seen before in the 27th century? No offense but even your thoughts on the 27th century with the instant I want to be here, pooh my ship teleported there seems pretty drab and boring. I wont get into the argument of how flying around was part of the fun.

My point is the same as everyone else's before me. JJ is taking a very hard task and while I have some reservations, I still have an open mind. We as a community need to be supporting this instead of writing it off or Paramount will NEVER reconsider a new show, I guarantee it. Also unfortunatley we need to realize that since Ent failed () that we're going have to wait another few years before they give a new series a go (if they do one). A big rule in the industry can be equated to the saying don't beat a dead horse. Let everyone have a break, Star Trek will be back, because it can not be forgotten. In the mean time please stop your crying and support the community or leave it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-13-2008, 06:22 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Default

Cajunandorian, if you're who I think you are, you're familiar with Sullivan's ramblings...

If not, you ain't seen nothing yet...!
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 02-13-2008, 07:13 AM
cajunandorian's Avatar
cajunandorian cajunandorian is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 17
Default

I dont think I'm who you think I am but I have seen some of his ramblings before....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-13-2008, 08:09 AM
delliott101 delliott101 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 74
Default

On thinking on this more, I think Trek has gotten to such a point that they HAVE to get back to basics... BACK to the beginning. It's the only way to go forward.

And yep, it's the CHARACTERS that make Trek, not the technology or the setting, even. It's the human experience!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-13-2008, 11:35 AM
DJCo DJCo is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon_Coast_Trekkie View Post
I'm not a stickler for canon either. In fact, I find some of the mistakes rather humorous (General Order 7 or 4, what the... a phaser?, is Spot a "he" or a "she?" when the f did Klingons start haivng horns? I never forget a face Checkov, I bet ol' Jim Kirk himself, need I go on?)
Indeed. As Nicholas Meyer pointed out on the ...Khan commentary, in defense of the Chekov mistake, Arthur Conan-Doyle made lots of continuity mistakes in the Sherlock Holmes novels and claimed, "I have never striven for accuracy of detail. Why should it matter, so long as I hold my readers?"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-13-2008, 11:45 AM
dead meat thompson's Avatar
dead meat thompson dead meat thompson is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wheeling, WV
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Sullivan View Post
Put Star Trek so far into the future that ships themselves become self-contained transporters, able to leap between galaxies because of well-mapped stable wormholes, and able to leap between star systems instaneously because of self-contained whole-transportation transporters, where the whole ship is transported across vast distances instaneously.

This might have been the longest sentence i've ever seen. It actually loops back around on itself. I think the sentence itself is stuck in a wormhole.
__________________
www.myspace.com/grhome
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-13-2008, 12:21 PM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Default

He does that often, deadmeat...

Wait til he starts telling you about his amazing life...
__________________
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
  #18  
Old 02-13-2008, 01:08 PM
notlad notlad is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Sullivan View Post
I have long said that what Star Trek needs most is a boost forward ... something so revolutionary that it would indeed be "the next generation" on the Final Frontier. From ENT to VOY ... we all had relatively fixed technologies ... acloves that could transport people from a disco floor to an underside planet surface ... all of the weapons looked like matter-antimatter capsules surrounded by a deteriorating photon field (photon torpedoes) or phased lasers (phasers) ... and people got around by Warp Drive powered by bottled matter and antimatter tanks that could at best be called the #1 reason no starship could be allowed into orbit, because they are nothing more than "the China Syndrome" on steroids ... massive planet-killing photon torpedoes in slow motion.

Star Trek died (and will die in this endeavor, for sure) because of a total lack of original thought. By now, we should have a 27th century technology that has something of mankind's advances from the chariot and wheels, or the invention of steam locomatives, and yes ... even the transporter and warp drive. We have a "genre" that has indeed saturated world thought of fiction by the impossible possible already superceded by technolgoies that have overcome tricorders, communicators and phaser beams ... proving already obscenely irrelevant and outdated the very generation on which this movie is to be based.

So who really cares that Chekov doesn't appear until the 27th Century, or that Nichelle's character should appear on screen to show that Condi Rice aside, she is the first Black Woman to ever make a difference in world history ...

... the real point is Star Trek is trying to reinvent the wheel, in a world where Star Trek should instead be trying to reinvent Star Trek - but in a way that does not (as it inevitably will in most arguments) try to pretend that ENT, TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and VOY never existed. I refuse to get heavily embroiled into these CANON arguments because the fact is, there are plenty of epiodes that have already proven CANON to be a foolish argument of post 1996 world history.

Star Trek - this movie - will fail miserably, and that's fine with me. After all, fools tried to recreate the magic of Alexander's Greece even as Rome came into town with something better, and even as Rome tried to hold on to irrelevance, Catholicism came in to fill the void of the falling Roman empire. All of these efforts ultimately were based on human and technological progress, and this effort does little but try to make Alexandar a converted Christian.

Where "the powers that be," and I have said this to them all before, no matter who "the powers" are now," need to hear is that Star Trek is about the future ... not the past. Put us into a setting to tell the story where no one in the common culture knows the difference between Kirk and Janeway, just as many today don't know the difference between St. Francis of Asisi and Joan of Arc - about the same spread in time.

Put Star Trek so far into the future that ships themselves become self-contained transporters, able to leap between galaxies because of well-mapped stable wormholes, and able to leap between star systems instaneously because of self-contained whole-transportation transporters, where the whole ship is transported across vast distances instaneously.

There, Star Trek has a future. As box-office receipts come in from this movie, don't be fooled by idle interest of those sold on the false branding of something new .. give us something new - and this won't be it.

Your post is obviously heartfelt and full of emotion. Unfortunetely not much basis in fact.

Paramount has a first rate creative team and an adequate budget for the new Star Trek film to be a great success.

Just because a few die hard TOS fans won't leave their parents basement to see it out of fear that the nacelles on the Enterprise are bigger than in TOS doesn't mean the average fan won't make the trip or that millions of new fans won't be cultivated.

Are you willing to eat your words about "failure" if you are wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-13-2008, 02:59 PM
Indiana Jones's Avatar
Indiana Jones Indiana Jones is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notlad View Post
Your post is obviously heartfelt and full of emotion. Unfortunetely not much basis in fact.

Paramount has a first rate creative team and an adequate budget for the new Star Trek film to be a great success.

Just because a few die hard TOS fans won't leave their parents basement to see it out of fear that the nacelles on the Enterprise are bigger than in TOS doesn't mean the average fan won't make the trip or that millions of new fans won't be cultivated.

Are you willing to eat your words about "failure" if you are wrong?
I always find that its those people who need to make comments about "parents' basements" are usually those who are also lacking in some way in there own lives.

We all start out in our parents basements, but those of us with successful careers, marriages and a little bit of money no longer need to insult others to make ourselves feel better.
__________________
"Come on, if you do well you can at least put me in the sequel right?"
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 01:47 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.