Tenebrae Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I couldn't agree more Soval - it's essentially a concession that the franchise wasn't going anywhere... so, why not go back to the tried and tested! BUT NEWER AND EDGIER! Oh, lordy... this is JUST like the 200th episode of SG-1 predicted! A remake but with younger, edgier versions of the existing cast. Let's just hope that Abrahms doesn't exercise his unconvincing wig fetish here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6407135.stm There we have it - the confirmation of doom, as if it were needed. Really, I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this. Only Hollywood would assume that the way forwards was a step backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 damn you beat me to it!!! >:( :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I'm always two steps ahead of you ;) I wrote a fairly extensive rant about the debacle here: http://rantsonapostcardplease.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I don't remember Bones being the drunk. Scotty's character was the hard drinker. Bones just kept a bottle for "medicinal" purposes that he shared with Kirk every now and then. Scotty? Fat? Not fit as a fiddle maybe but not fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Here http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070228/en_tv_eo/b3ea9976_ddad47f6_b0e8_f8f599de18e3 and here http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/preview/1809752800 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 That news doesn't sit well with me... Not at all the direction I would have liked them to take it. It seems the previous rumors are true then... Maybe they need to really fall on their face once more and make a huge loss on the movie before they finally are able to 'see the light' again... It looks to me like the whole of hollywood is out of inspiration, remakes of old movies, going back to the old days... that's all that I hear from that direction. That's not what trek is build on, look forward I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 At first, when i heard they were going back to the old days, i was thinking "oh crap...not back-in-time again..." But now that i think about it, just because they are making a movie of the old days, doesn't mean the story will be bad, or that the acting won't be great, or the movie won't be a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 At first, when i heard they were going back to the old days, i was thinking "oh c##p...not back-in-time again..." But now that i think about it, just because they are making a movie of the old days, doesn't mean the story will be bad, or that the acting won't be great, or the movie won't be a hit. To be honest TFMF, Star Trek has never really attracted big named stars, nor has it attracted a healthy budget.... How many Star Trek films would you say where actual hits? 1st was Star Trek:Search for spock which did well, so did wraith of khan, after that the voyage home, after that we had a poor run, we had one of the worst which was The Final Froniter which was crap, then we had the Undiscovered country which was ok, next was generation which also fell in the ok band, then we finally got a cracker in First contact, then a poor Insurrection and then Back on track with Nemesis. If they cant make hits out of actors and characters we all know well and like, the odds in a new cast is a bad call and a bad gamble and highly risky, I really hope I am wrong but seems like they have learned nothing from the failure of Enterprise!! Damn why didnt they write a DS9 or Voyager film.[br]Posted on: March 04, 2007, 06:38:29 AMSorry i did forget to say.. Spock has been and alway will be :Nimoy Captain Kirk also has been and always will be :Shatner Not some 20 something kid!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Agreed neomaster. Having them played by different actors will be very weird, even if it's in their youth. One more thing that bothers me. Spock graduated and was commissioned as a starfleet officer at least 3 years earlier then kirk was. So how they're supposed to have jolly good times together in the academy is a bit of a mystery to me... Spock as an ensign instructor to kirk? unlikely... ensigns as instructors that is. Breaking continuity... Again?? Will have to wait and see. In any case, I'll go and see it, whether it's good or bad, but still... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 To be honest, if you're going back to an established era and established characters, it means you're not confident that you have a story that would do well on its own. It's best not to expect much, then you're less likely to be disappointed. Also, as I said on ROAP - it's hard to see this leading to a return of the franchise to the small screen, if only because it would mean re-recasting Kirk et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I've heard a lot of people say that they'll like it just because it's Star Trek. I'm sort of like that - i have a very optimistic view on everything. I liked Nemesis - few people did. I liked Voyager - it had it's complaints. I liked half the SG-1 eps that everyone else said was terrible... ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I've heard a lot of people say that they'll like it just because it's Star Trek. I'm sort of like that - i have a very optimistic view on everything. I liked Nemesis - few people did. I liked Voyager - it had it's complaints. I liked half the SG-1 eps that everyone else said was terrible... ::) The same could be said of Enterprise but for Star Trek to be a hit it has to appeal to non-trek fans as well as the trek fans, which with a new cast playing kirk and co aint going to happen due to the lack of character building that is required for a trek film. End of the day trek has had its day, with the likes of the new Dr Who, BSG and ST:A with there unique take on sci-fi makes star trek old hat and needing a long break before it returns, theres been over 500 series and 10 films..surely paramount are over killing trek and trying to milk it as much as it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 If the movie is good (great story) then it doesn't matter who plays what roles. I'll let you know what I thought about ST XI as soon as I've watched it. ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 They can use george costanza wearing his kirk wig from seinfeld. granted he may be a little short and portly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcroft Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The same could be said of Enterprise but for Star Trek to be a hit it has to appeal to non-trek fans as well as the trek fans, which with a new cast playing kirk and co aint going to happen due to the lack of character building that is required for a trek film. End of the day trek has had its day, with the likes of the new Dr Who, BSG and ST:A with there unique take on sci-fi makes star trek old hat and needing a long break before it returns, theres been over 500 series and 10 films..surely paramount are over killing trek and trying to milk it as much as it can. Well I think that there are a couple of problems happening really with Paramount. Star Trek owes its revival in a large part to the success of Star Wars (as does a few other sci-fi shows past a present). When Star Wars first came out there was a sudden rush to find the next big space film. Paramount realised it had Star Trek and so out came The Motion Picture. Based on both franchises successes, it paved the way for the birth of The Next Generation, and effectively revitalised the Trek industry. The trouble is though (and this happens with so many spin offs - that the production teams are pretty much the same across all these series, so although you have differences between shows, these are really quite minimal. So you have the onset of stagnation. Now I think Paramount have semi recognised this fact - by trying to bring in someone new to revitalise Trek. Unfortunately Paramount has also decided to jump on the new band wagon, in trying to reinvent the wheel. (Just like with the reinventions of Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk and to a lesser degree Spiderman). Whilst I remain hopeful that the new film will be good - I have fears that it will just fall on its head. Why reinvent something that is established - because you know that at least in one form its sells. That doesn't mean that the reinvented film/characters will have the same appeal though - as NeoMaster points out. What has made the new Dr Who, BSG good? I would say that the biggest contributing factor is that on a production level you have had an injection of new blood; new idea's which are a departure away from the old. (I have no idea about Atlantis - I see it as a poor Voyager rip off - Sorry - it's not as bad as B5's Crusade though). If you take BSG - in no way could you say that the characters are meant to be the same as the 70's version. With the exception of Commander/Admiral Adama and his son, none of the original characters are even left in the show, with references only by name or call sign. They are not meant to be the same. Why reinvent a Trek series exactly as it is (in terms of characters) but just have them played by new actors? To me that really invalidates the work that the original cast and production crew put into The Original Series. What the powers that be at Paramount should do - is have JJ or someone else step in and take control to revitalise the franchise but yet be original within the Star Trek lore (IMHO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I suppose the real problem with remakes/restarts, is that while we've had a few good ones (Batman Begins/Casino Royale) but much like sequels, most of them are rubbish and I honestly can't see a rehash of The Original Series being comparable to the remake of BSG. If they could do it, it might be cool but then it probably shouldn't be going back and relying upon the holy trinity of TOS so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I suppose the real problem with remakes/restarts, is that while we've had a few good ones (Batman Begins/Casino Royale) but much like sequels, most of them are rubbish and I honestly can't see a rehash of The Original Series being comparable to the remake of BSG. If they could do it, it might be cool but then it probably shouldn't be going back and relying upon the holy trinity of TOS so much. It'll be reimagined/remade... No' date=' friends. "Star Trek XI" is not going to be a prequel. In fact, it's going to take the [i']"Casino Royale"[/i] and "Batman Begins" route -- something that SyFy Portal has reported repeatedly in the past -- and be a reimagination of the Star Trek franchise. We're not going to start totally from scratch," Orci said. "We want it to feel like it's updated and of the now. Thate's actually the discussions we're having now: How to keep the look of the universe, yet have it not look like nothing's new. It's tricky." Read more at the Source: SyFyPortal Someones been watching/reading about BSG. ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I can almost see fans teaming up and asking for the new Trek film to be decanonized. Personally, I think this whole reimagination idea is a big mistake. Star Trek is not BSG. Trek has already delivered too much stuff to start from zero again. It'd be much better if the next movie picked up where Nemesis left off. Why mess with TOS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcroft Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Or even do a Deep Space Nine movie - I would love to see what direction they would take. It's a shame though because I doubt they would ever do one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now