The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Would a JJ's version of Trek I-III be too much to ask?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-09-2009, 02:25 AM
Ennex Ennex is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 28
Default

I doubt it'll happen.

But if they ever did the emotion picture, I hope THEY GET RID OF THAT DAMN SPRING NOISE!

Seriously, every 2 seconds, a wide shot of a purple cloud, with maybe a small sight of the enterprise then...the spring sound "PBOW" *echoes out*.

Ok now I'm done with that, I doubt it'll happen because they're too classic to touch, but a take of similar events would be nice, I'd like to see a take on the doomsday machine.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:10 AM
notlad notlad is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
If you can call JJ Abrams "Abramsdisaster" can I call you "Maggot" rather then "Magnum"?
My thoughts exactly for Mr. P.I.!!!!!

It is rather pitiful though to hear that one shrill voice crying in the wilderness. "I want my plywood sets back!!!!!". LOL!!!

Like another poster said if this new ST is JJ destroying ST then I say fire all phasers.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:12 AM
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 omegaman View Post
If you call what JJ has done a disaster, then JJ I beg of you please...
fire everything!
WOOT! WOOT!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:16 AM
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 kevin View Post
None of the previous films are going to get remade. We are in a new universe and it will have broadly new stories in it.
Precisely. The original time line continues unaffected. We're in a new universe. If people can accept multi-verses in Marvel Comics, why can't they in Star Trek? Sakes. The concept of multi-verses is a quantum physics theory. Shouldn't "the enlightened" be able to accept this more readily than we who go by faith?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:28 AM
notlad notlad is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominus of Megadeus View Post
Precisely. The original time line continues unaffected. We're in a new universe. If people can accept multi-verses in Marvel Comics, why can't they in Star Trek? Sakes. The concept of multi-verses is a quantum physics theory. Shouldn't "the enlightened" be able to accept this more readily than we who go by faith?
What is great is that this new universe has big budgets so at last Star Trek can be done justice.

Many of the TOS and TNG films were good films within the budget paramters they had and the special effects available for those budgets and at that time.

However ST was never treated as blockbuster / tentpole material with a topline budget. I remember being frustrated that ST was compared to and supposed to compete with flims that had several times the budget ST had.

I also think that if ST VI had followed ST IV momentum and fandom would have kept building. Star Trek V was a total embarressment to the ST World and once again proved the Peter Principle as we found out that being an actor who is a fantastic James T. Kirk does not make you a director.

I remember sitting in the theater watching ST V for the first time and thinking "Oh my God ST is in trouble" as I saw terrible fx inferior to that of TNG that was airing on TV the same time. Not to mention the stupid story.

Last edited by notlad : 05-09-2009 at 05:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:30 AM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Leave the original movies alone...for crimeny sakes...you've rebooted, now take the reboot and do something original that's never been done before with it.

As for the pacing of the film...while I enjoyed it, I must be getting old, because I was barely able to keep track of everything. I actually like the slowness of the Motion Picture because, just like on a road trip, I'm not as interested in getting to the destination as in enjoying the ride to the destination. I like looking out the window at scenery slowly rolling by.
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:42 AM
Grenville Grenville is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
Default

Well, it had some of the visual spectacle of TMP, the Big Bad battle in space of WoK (as well as the lovely little brain-bite-bug thingy) and the Spock-centricness of SFS, so in a sense, I think the new film DID touch on those three.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:47 AM
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 Scribbler View Post
If you can call JJ Abrams "Abramsdisaster" can I call you "Maggot" rather then "Magnum"?
LOL!!!

Magnum, I once, on another thread, made this proposal to you. I began with the old, "let me tell ya what I'm gonna do" line and the proposal went like this:

I'm going to go to see this movie with an open mind. If I disliked it, I'd tell everyone why I think this film blows chunks, shake hands with everyone, and then depart. I'd depart the forums because I don't take part or engage in something that I don't like or interests me. And since this forum IS about the New Star Trek Movie, I can find better use of my time and energy. After all, time is something you can't get back.

On the other hand, if I liked the movie, then I would tell everyone why I think this film rocks, and then the forum members would be hearing from me because we're talking about something that interests us. It's worth my time, because we'd be talking about the New Star Trek Movie. After all, time is something you can't get back.

I also said that I never stay or waste my time on something I don't like. It's like being invited or taken to a banquet where the main dish selection is either shellfish or cabbage. I am allergic to both. One makes me break out. Both make me sick. If invited, and I'm told what's on the menu, I respectfully decline. If I'm taken. I'll ask for a glass of sweet tea, sip, then respectfully depart since being around the stuff not only makes me sick to the stomach, it's a waste of time. I said that to re-enforce my actions if the movie failed to impress me enough to give a thumbs up. I've met a lot of cool people and made some cool cyber friends. I didn't want to depart without setting the expectation to them, or to you.

That was my proposition to you.

So, Mangum, here we go: This movie ROCKS on so many levels. Movie critics don't compel me to see or not see a film, but this time, with a Certified Fresh level on Rotten Tomatoes, the majority of the critics are spot on. On so many levels this film excels: writing, acting, special effects. On so many levels this film respects and even enhances The Original Series time line (which still "exists", if you follow quantum physics...I do). This film deftly combines science fact with science fiction (the effects of a time traveler on a continuum...the proposed effects of "red matter"--even as scientists grapple with "red mercury" and the devastating affects it can have). I have to agree with one of the critics of "At the Movies." As glorious as the special effects were, they paled next to the words penned by the writers and the life the actors gave these characters. This was, first and foremost, a character driven story. I agree with his sentiment. I never used the cliché before now, but it is so apropos: "I laughed...I cried (well, almost)...I want to see it again!"

So, guess what? I was not invited to a dinner where all was served was shellfish and cabbage. I was treated to a delightfully well spread banquet where I could have humor, drama, action, emotion: all in one magnificent spread. Was it cabbage and shellfish, I'd tell the forum members ONCE, and then be done, rising up from the table and bidding everyone a fond adieu. So, Mangum, since this forum TO YOU is still serving YOUR equivalent of "shellfish and cabbage", and everyone here LOVES this meal that TO YOU is your equivalent of "shellfish and cabbage"--and we love this meal sooo much, we're going to continue to talk about "shellfish and cabbage", why are you still spending your precious time here? If I may be so bold, and I will, it's not like you've made many cyber friends with your posts. You've dined. You didn't like it. Why are you still at the banquet…The ambiance of giddy chatter about "lobsters and crabs"?

After all, time is a precious resource that can't be taken back.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-09-2009, 06:03 AM
jtrek79's Avatar
jtrek79 jtrek79 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Athens,Greece
Posts: 3,330
Default

the movie was brilliant,during the first 10 minutes,(i am not going to spoil) i panicked from the spectacle,i also was ashamed not to clap like the others when we first saw nimoy,but i claped afterwards during endtitles,the truth is i wanted to restrain my self and not to let my friends see me goin mad.

i am going to get mad here

oh my god.........best trek ever..........are u still here!!!!!! go see it now!!!!!!!!
__________________
B E H O L D T H E N A R A D A
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-09-2009, 11:45 AM
EnderW EnderW is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 12
Default

I would be too much to ask. This won't happen because if JJ.A continues to be smart about being handed StarTrek he'll move on to the next step with it not re-tell a story so specific from I-II-II. My guesstimate is that now that the principle characters have been re-introduced he'll focus on telling/showing/reminding the audience what the philosophy of Trek is. He should imho revisit what Gene Rodenbarry wanted to tell us about his "vision" of Trek. All the while keepin' it entertaining of course.

my 2 slips of latinum.
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 06:04 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.