Anchorhead

C3PX said:

You took them out of context, which has the ability to make a lot of things sound dumb.

 

Which was exactly the point I was trying to make.  Everything we've seen so far with Trek 09 has been seen out of context.  I've not seen a single thing in any of the Trek 09 clips that sounds any worse than what came before it.  In a few cases, it appears deeper and more serious than what came before it.  To me, that's a good thing. There have been some moments in past Trek films that were so poorly written & acted that they're tough to watch.  Nothing so far with 09 feels like that, to me.

Look, you guys have known me for a long time.  You know I don't follow sequels blindly. Nor do I pull punches where their shortcomings are concerned.  However, I don't speak for films I haven't seen yet either.  It's the pre-haters that get tiresome.  Just trying to throw a little logic their way.  I get that they're concerned.  That said; where the matter-of-fact statements and absolutes are concerned - before they've even seen the film - they're going to get some push-back. A second opinion with an occasional example.

  In my world, Kirk & McCoy singing Row Row Your Boat is old Trek at it's most fucking ridiculous. If that scene were in one of the 09 clips, the internet would have imploded by now. 

The same can be said for Scotty-isms.  The "exciting" clip doesn't even remotely come off sounding as asinine as Scotty's "I know this ship like the back of my hand....*bonk*". And don't even get me started on "there be whales here", or "how many times do I have to tell ya - the right tool for the right job".  Scotty has been comical for decades.  "Hello compuytair".

A little perspective, man, that's all I'm after.

Hunter6 said:

Oh it is so bad!
The Dialog is Horrible.
....t makes Ed Wood seems like shakespeare. 

skyjedi2005 said:

"How did you beam aboard this ship we are at warp speed" Rofl, dialogue certainly not going to win any awards ...

Take off the rose-colored glasses fellas. That scene is as well-written as anything that's come before.....

*switches to Scotty voice*

.....aye, and a damn sight better than some of 'em too.

_____________________________________________________________

Guard:  Admiral. They're moving him to the Federation funny farm.
Kirk: Yes, poor friend. I hear he's fruity as a nutcake.

Khan: We are one big, happy fleet! Ah, Kirk, my old friend, do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It is very cold in space!

Kirk: What it needs in order to evolve... is a human quality. Our capacity to leap beyond logic.
Decker: And joining with its creator might accomplish that.
McCoy.: You mean this machine wants to physically join with a human? Is that possible?
Decker: Let's find out.

McCoy: My God man. Do you want an acute case on your hands? This woman has immediate postprandial, upper-abdominal distention. Now, out of the way! Get out of the way!
Kirk: What did you say she has?
McCoy: Cramps.

Kirk: Row Row Row your Boat

McCoy: …... Row Row Row your Boat

C3PX said:

The whole old Spock contrived bit of continuity management annoys me to no end though.

It would be like Casino Royale, if Casino Royale had felt the need to explain why Bond was going on his first mission in modern times, when he has been a kickass spy since the 50s. It was a reboot, didn't need to be explained. We knew we were starting over from scratch, back at the beginning, none of that stuff from the other films has ever happened.

I get that there are differences with regard to the respective time lines. I'm speaking in a more general sense - just as a 007 film & a Star Trek film to see and enjoy the stories of. 

Where continuity is concerned during the span of 40-year-old franchises, unless you use the same cast, it can't really be addressed correctly anyway.  You can bend the rules a little with Trek because the series were only vaguely connected and because it's science fiction.  With 007 - reboot or not - continuity went out the window a long time ago.  If it hadn't, 007 would be a 90-year-old man struggling with these blasted cell phones, trying to navigate the interweb, and complaining that he's only allowed to smoke outside.

As a fan of certain franchises, I definitely want, and expect, some continuity.  However, I'm much more concerned that the continuity be in the premise, not so much every plot point.  There are guys going off on how Kirk shouldn't see a Warbird yet because it conflicts with a 1966 TV episode.  I don't care if those bits are conflicting.  There's a much bigger message & ideal to be conveyed. What I want is for Kirk to be a good guy who can handle the pressure of the assignment - that Spock is a guy struggling with his emotions - that McCoy is a little pessimistic - that Uhura is an intelligent woman - Scotty a little left-of-center, etc, etc. 

I want to be excited to go on the journey again and to give a damn about what happens to the characters.  I didn't have that anymore with the last few entries in both franchises.  Casino Royale fixed that - even to the point of becoming my favorite 007 film ever (by far).  I'm hoping Star Trek does something similar.

Really nice to hear in-depth, positive reviews.  From the sound of things, they did with this film exactly what I'd hoped they'd do with it - give Star Trek the depth & respect that the idea & characters deserve.

The whole thing reminds me very much of James Bond.

When Casino Royale was first announced, I was a little concerned.  I've been a huge 007 nerd since 1973.  I didn't really think the idea & character needed to be changed.  It just needed to be brought back into focus.  I had been very disappointed with the previous two films. When Casino Royale came out, I was beside myself - they'd finally made the 007 film that I'd always wanted.  It instantly became the standard-bearer for me.

The very same situation looks to be presenting itself again with Star Trek. I didn't like the last two Trek films I'd seen and didn't even bother with Nemesis.  However, I don't really think the idea needs to be scrapped - just a return-to-form. It certainly looks - and now sounds - as though that's what they've done.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this.

1977

1981

1978

1979

skyjedi2005 said:

I will pay to see the sequel if....they have New writers and a new director

Then you won't be paying to see it.

Why go backward instead of forward?

Because it's a part of the story that many people have wanted to see for decades.  It's also a part of the story that the studio has wanted to tell for quite a while.

In fact the only prequel that worked imho is the batman Begins and Dark Knight reboots. 

There are plenty of prequels that have done very well and have legions of fans – whether you like them (or approve of them) or not.

….have a cameo role for William Shatner as Captain Kirk.

They’ve moved past Shatner needing to be part of every film for it to be accepted as canon. His involvement – as iconic as it has been in the previous films – is not necessary anymore.  Star Trek can exist, and do so very well, without Shatner. 

……plus i was not a huge batman fan anyway.

That’s the most important part of your post.

Because you weren’t a huge Batman follower, the changes & additions to the story & characters were acceptable.  That very same situation is now taking place with Star Trek.  People who are less dug-in – or at least more open-minded - are looking forward to the pre-TV part of the story.  They’re were you were with Batman Begins.  Along those same lines, the way you feel about the new Enterprise is the way I feel about the new Batmobile.

I've been a big Star Trek fan since I was a kid, not rabid like some people, but a fan for sure.  Personally, I'm looking forward to a clean look at the early part of the story.  Truth is, I was hoping they'd make it even cleaner and break from the 60s & 80s completely by not having any of the original cast involved. For me, they've gone to the well too many times already.

Johnny Ringo said:

doubleofive said:

...in elementary school (early 90's) and every time we sat at our Apple-IIs ...

 

I think we've all been there...

Well,  not all of us.      ;-)

Hunter6 said:

Dude - there are considerably better screen grabs to post.

FanFiltration said:

I like the new poster too.

 

 

Here is one I HATE!

 

*shudders*

That one is tough to look at.

FanFiltration said:

You know what? I am going to have to admit something now that I never truly fully realized until just this very moment.  I think "Star Trek IV" truly sucks.

At this point in time, I have much more respect for "Star Trek V". I don't know why it took this long to sink in. The jokes are so lame, and the Characters act like they lost 70% of their I.Q.  when they time traveled.  The music was atrocious.  It's even more of a let down, because it's part 3 of the trilogy, and is forever linked to the Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock's story arc. But I still enjoy it to a point, and would not think of removing the DVD from my collection.

I've always been ok with it.  It's a nice breather after the heaviness of the three preceding it. Yeah, it's silly.

However, it does have one of my favorite Spock moments from any of the films -  "One damn minute, Admiral."

I have to say - now that I've had time to get used to it, I really dig the teaser one sheet.  I love it's simplicity, as well as it's nod to the original.  The International is fine I suppose.  It fits with the others.  I've just never really dug any Trek one sheets that much.  Not a big fan of the floating head\zooming ship style that has been there since the beginning.

FF,
With God as my witness, I was going to post that same silly "Hello compyutair" scene.

Well done, sir. ;-)

Here's the international version;

Much better.

It's also very much in the style of several of the previous Trek one-sheets.

The art department and\or marketing firm handling the new film certainly did their homework where the one-sheets are concerned.

C3PX said:

That new Star Trek poster is pretty lousy.

I have always liked that old ST The Motion Picture poster, I remember seeing it as an ad in some of my comic books when I was a kid.

Yeah, I really miss drawn one-sheets.  They still make an appearance occasionally, but rare these days.

Clearly the new one sheet is a take on the old one, but it's pretty lame.

C3PX said:

The rest of us, like FF and I and many others are pretty grounded in reality, we're just saying that it looks pretty bad and we are disappointed with the new direction. Despite my complaints here, I am not shedding any tears over this or losing a single wink of sleep over it. To me this is the same difference as them not even making a new Trek film, which if something I am fine with. But that does't stop me from agreeing with, or pipping in to add my two cents to others ST discussion. Just talking here, no harm done...

Yeah, for the most part I'm following the discussions. The grounded conversations are good reads.  I find it interesting seeing how different people respond to additions to the stories & characters they're passionate about - not just Trek, but any film series.

For the record, it's entirely possible I won't like the film myself.  There are a few scenes that seem overly stylized or trendy, but I'll give it a look.  Man, it can't be any worse than some of the others and, to me, it looks to be better than some of them.  But again, we'll see.

C3PX said:

Anchorhead said:

Man, you have to make peace with that. Raging against the director, the story, the studio, the actors, etc - it does absolutely nothing.  It won't affect the box office, it won't change the minds of fans or potential fans, and it won't steer the franchise.

 

I agree with you 100%, I really do. But just curious, if you had like minded friends (maybe you did) who you could lament with back when Empire Strikes Back came out and wasn't to you liking, and then later when ROTJ came out, wouldn't you have?

Sure I would have, and I did - to a point. I still do occasionally. But the conversations are grounded in reality. In fact, I offer up a few on here from time to time.  Man, I'm on a fairly narrow-focused board here.  I get the like-minded thing, and I enjoy it. I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

What I don't get is the "my world is coming to an end" mentality and the "Star Trek is being destroyed - the director must be punished" venom.  It's one film out of eleven - not the end of Star Trek.

Just seems like it may be time for a few people to step back, take a deep breath, and realize what they do have instead of what they don't.

skyjedi2005 said:

Why can't there be room for both.  The 40 years of fandom does not end because of this film.  the original 6 classic films don't simply cease to exist because of this.

That's been my point all along with the people who are "going to war" against this new film, because it doesn't fit with their belief of what Star Trek must be.

I've been a fan of Star Wars since 1977.  I was there for the birth.  Don't think – not even for a second – that I don't know what it's like to feel terribly let down when a series goes in a different direction than you'd prefer. 

Yeah, this new film looks nothing like Wrath Of Kahn.  We all see that. Really, we do. In case you forgot, the prequels are nothing like Star Wars77.

Man, you have to make peace with that. Raging against the director, the story, the studio, the actors, etc - it does absolutely nothing.  It won't affect the box office, it won't change the minds of fans or potential fans, and it won't steer the franchise.

Since 1977, there has been a ton of shit Star Wars – films, TV shows, re-worked DVDs, books, etc. The science fiction film of 1977 became a ridiculous children’s bed time story with cutesy characters and fart jokes.

However, none of it – let me repeat that – none of it has so much as the slightest affect on how I watch & enjoy Star Wars77. 

Hunter, et al. – you’ve had 43 years of Star Trek the way you want it.  I had one year\one film\one radio version\four books that fit my Star Wars world.  I can’t even get an awesome version of the one film I do like.

Certainly you can see where statements like “F*** JJ ABRAMS” seem completely irrational. I feel like someone in a wheel chair listening to someone else bitch & moan because they have a sore toe. 

2009 cannot erase 1966-2008. Skip seeing the new film and enjoy the other 43 years of Star Trek – the 10 films, the 5 TV series, the 720 hours that you don’t hate - that you consider real.  Which, by the way, none of this is.

This is in the New York Times today. Seems fitting for this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/garden/19trek.html?pagewanted=1&hp

“You sit in the chair,”.... “and you’re watching an episode and pushing buttons and you find yourself saying, Fire photon torpedoes or whatever, and you’re making the sounds yourself because I don’t have the sound effects yet.”

“Sitting in it,” .... “I find myself striking an action pose quite unconsciously.”

“When we have a little family powwow — I have four children — I sit in it to lay down the law,”

C3PX said:

I am half expected to find myself in France as an eighty year old man pruning my grape vineyard.

Man, that is one of my favorite Picard moments.

I'm hoping the crew has to travel to Ardana for some reason.  Then we get to spend a little time on the other cloud city and see Droxine.  I think Reese Witherspoon would be perfect.

Tales of the Bounty Hunters, Tales from Mos Eisly, and Tales of the Jedi sound like books I might need to look into.  If they steer clear of the revised miniature Star Wars universe where everyone is related to each other, they would be something I’m definitely interested in.

And when Sluggo least expects it....

;-)

.

Because I have no interest in anything outside of the 1977 Star Wars universe, these four books will probably be the extent of my involvement with the EU;

Splinter Of The Mind's Eye 

Han Solo At Star's End

Han Solo's Revenge

Han Solo And The Lost Legacy

I've read Splinter Of The Mind's Eye and really enjoyed it.  I haven't read the other three yet.  I did read the first chapter of  Han Solo At Star's End and really dug the feel, so I look forward to jumping in.

The Han Solo books were recommended to me by members of this board because they fit the universe I'm interested in, and because they were written by Brian Daley.  He wrote the NPR version of Star Wars - my preferred way to experience Star Wars.

I have two books ahead of them so I won't get to them until this summer.  I'll probably read Splinter Of The Mind's Eye again after that.  If I find any others that fit within the 1977 Star Wars universe, I'll look into them.