Star Trek sequel scheduled for May 17, 2013 Release (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Getting back to the idiot comment, maybe that was a bit harsh of a word to use. Maybe I should have said the script had the characters do out of character things (ie. all the jokes) for no reason other than to lighten them up. Trek isn't about amusement and guffaws

I seem to remember The Trouble with Tribbles being one of the most popular episodes.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Trouble With Tribbles.

just saying...

Edit - Darn! RobertR beat me to the punchline.

Okay then - A Piece Of the Action!

 

[RobertR]

Trouble With Tribbles.

just saying...

Edit - Darn! RobertR beat me to the punchline.

Okay then - A Piece Of the Action!

I Mudd

 

[Nelson Au]

Wow, I've been out of this thread since the forum change-over lost my subscription to it.

A lot of good points for either side. Its true we have many hours of original Star Trek TV shows on blu-ray and more coming to enjoy. I never tire of revisiting TOS.

A big truth is Star Trek never should have gone to the big screen. I became more aware of that when TNG went to the movies. A recent interview with Ron Moore reemphasized that. The films have to be mainstream event films and focus on one or two of the main stars. So the support characters become even more so support. Every Bond film is an event. Star Trek had to follow that route or it wouldn't pull in the kinds of dollars the investment requires in return unfortunately.

To quote Kirk in Star Trek 6, people are afraid of change. All good things come to an end. Star Trek's recent spin-off TV series had a remarkable run all spawned by TOS. Gunsmoke had a 20 year run on TV, Star Trek outdid that! But it had to end, the Westerns were not in fashion anymore. I've never watched Gunsmoke, but it must have had a similar story structure as Star Trek, mini morality plays each week. I guess that is old fashioned.

Then I was thinking of Sherlock Holmes. I'm not a fan of that either. But I know of the many film adaptations with Basil Rathbone and other actors who came later. PBS showed a Hammer film adaptation with Peter Cushing in the title role. Apparently that film was considered a really good one.

This has been said a few times before, but Star Trek has reached a point now where Roddenberry himself once said that he was happy of the day another guy takes a crack at it and interprets it his own way. It's a good thing the characters are living on and the name Enterprise and Star Trek continues to endue and hopefully bring in the new young fans to rediscover the original.

So like Holmes, Star Trek has now a new adaptation. (As had Batman and Superman, etc. James Bond is sort of still in the original hands of the original film makers, but they changed with the times. Barbara Brocolli is probably the likely person who is readapting it.)

I'm not a big fan of Abrams Trek, obviously. But I have been reminded of how it can keep the name out there for those to discover the original adventures.

To get back to my point, we are at a point now that we are actually living through and experiencing a new adaptation of the Star Trek universe. Good or bad, it is what it is. The studio wants new fans, it really is the Next Generation and the franchise is evolving.

Its funny how a little TV show that was trying to be a little innovative and tell modest human stories would turn out like this! I'll go see Into Darkness and I'm sure it will be a fun little movie.

(Side note, In another thread, we tangentially talked about the possibility of a new Star Trek TV that could come some day. It's always a topic of discussion in Hollywood. I was thinking if it did come back, if it's in the Prime Universe or Alternate, and I can't see why it couldn't be in the Prime Universe, would it be a better place to be on cable where the ratings are not so important? I look at a show like Mad Men that is so well done drama that it seems it could be done well there. Galactica proved a re-imagined version could be very successful. Just thinking out loud.)

(Another side note, something really cool I'm seeing in a totally different world- model kit building. There are people who are very skilled and talented at building model kits of the Star Trek ships. Some guys have businesses of building very good replicas of the Motion Picture Refit Enterprise from a 3 foot model kit which has a really hard paint job to replicate. Looks nearly identical to the original filming model. And the biggest news in this hobby is a new extremely accurate release of the TOS Enterprise model kit that is a 3 foot long kit too. That is a long awaited kit and people are going nuts over it as it's based on plans from a fan who actually got to see and measure and document the 11 foot original model before it was "restored" for the Smithsonian in the early 1990's. I'm still trying to get my hands on one or two. Seeing the amount of people still passionate about the TOS world is encouraging!)

 

[Jason_V]

Point #1: popularity never equates with quality. If it did, The Phantom Menace would be the fifth best movie ever made (and Avatar would be the best ever, based on domestic box office).

Point #2: Wait...there was a prior argument in this thread that if Trek doesn't "boldly go, explore new worlds and new civilizations," it isn't Trek. "I, Mudd" is arguably a revenge story: Harry wants revenge on the Enterprise crew and he wants revenge on Stella. "Trouble with Tribbles" is more of a look on bureaucrats than anything else. Kirk is exasperated by the situation, leading to the comedy. Trek IV thinks of comedy first and then a way to get it into the story.

Look, lets get back to talking about STID. There's a new ad out which I haven't watched. Video of the score being recorded is out there.

 

[RobertR]

Point #1: popularity never equates with quality.

Your argument was that Trek was never about comedy. Now you want to drop that argument and talk about "quality" (BTW, I've never seen anyone contend TTWT is a bad episode).

"I, Mudd" is arguably a revenge story: Harry wants revenge on the Enterprise crew and he wants revenge on Stella.

Nonsense. It's a comedic episode, and Harry's relationship with Stella is part of the comedy.

"Trouble with Tribbles" is more of a look on bureaucrats than anything else.

It's a comedic episode (you know, the kind of thing you said Trek isn't about). That it spoofs bureaucrats is part of the comedy, but not the sole basis (maybe you forgot things such as Spock delivering the straight line "he simply could not believe his ears").

 

[Jason_V]

Your argument was that Trek was never about comedy. Now you want to drop that argument and talk about "quality" (BTW, I've never seen anyone contend TTWT is a bad episode).

My argument, going back pages and pages and pages, has always been that Trek 09 is as much Trek as anything else. Others have said it changes the characters to such an extent it is no longer Trek, partly because no one is "boldly going" anymore. That's how this all started.

And now I'm done.

 

[Tommy R]

I know I made a comment that I prefered the "boldly going..." style of Trek some pages back, but I totally see your point in everything, Jason_V. I'm don't have an encyclopdic knowledge of Trek in all it's incarnations, but I'll just say that the original series is what I think of everytime I hear the words "Star Trek", and it's what I love the most out of everything Trek. And I think that a big budget "event" film can be made in the more "boldly going..." style, and I've been thinking this since last summer when Prometheus came out. I think that film had quite a "boldly going..." feel to it, and would love to see that feel in a Trek film.

As for ST:ID, the trailers have far left me VERY much in the cold. I'm not saying that it looks un-Trek, or un-what-Trek-has-been-in-the-recent/unrecent-past, or un-what-I-think-Trek-MUST-be-PERIOD. Just saying based on my enjoyment level of Trek '09 and what I've seen so far trailer-wise, I'm left pining for something else. I'm not saying that I expect it, but, uh...well, there it is.

 

[TravisR]

As for ST:ID, the trailers have far left me VERY much in the cold. I'm not saying that it looks un-Trek, or un-what-Trek-has-been-in-the-recent/unrecent-past, or un-what-I-think-Trek-MUST-be-PERIOD. Just saying based on my enjoyment level of Trek '09 and what I've seen so far trailer-wise, I'm left pining for something else. I'm not saying that I expect it, but, uh...well, there it is.

I really enjoyed the first movie so I was always going to be interested in the sequel but once I saw the trailers, I became excited to see the movie. I can't really think of one summer movie that I'm looking forward to other than Star Trek. The rest of the summer movie trailers I've seen haven't really interested me at all- one of the Iron Man trailers was awful (ohhhhh, he's pulling his costume in the snow), Man Of Steel wasn't doing much for me and The Lone Ranger looks like it might be fun in the same way as the first Pirates picture but Trek actually looks exciting, fun and good.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Yeah there are so many flavors of Trek in movies and on TV it is impossible to satisfy all factions with any specific iteration.

The original Trek movies never captured the energy and sense of youthful optimism that the series did. Times had changed and the cast was older.

TNG - which is likely the most popular series of the generation of fans after the original Trek - made space exploration boring to me. It felt less about exploration and more of just another day in the office. Not to mention all the Trekbabble. If not for having the best actor of any Trek incarnation in Patrick Stewart, there is little to no impetus for me to revisit that series beyond such episodes as Yesterday's Enterprise and Inner Light. As more time passes I also like the overall look of the show less and less. The Enterprise D exterior and interiors look so 1980s. My least favorite bridge set too. The Engineering set was cool though.

Deep Space 9 and Enterprise had their problems too but are aging better for me.

JJs movies are aimed at expanding the viewing audience beyond the established fan base. They are following the course set by other big movie franchises. I accept that decision and enjoy JJs Trek on that basis.

I hope for more of the Trek that I prefer at some point when the show returns to TV.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

the franchise is evolving.

Yes. We went from women wearing short skirt uniforms, to wearing full fledged uniforms all the way back to short skirt uniforms again. Can we evolve the franchise that doesn't set women's rights back a whole 50 years?

 

[Nelson Au]

I can't believe I wrote that long babbling post above! Regarding the mini-skirts. I see that as simply an aesthetic choice. Perhaps misguided, like the men's tunics, it felt like an attempt to pay homage to the original costume designs, right or wrong.

 

[TravisR]

Regarding the mini-skirts. I see that as simply an aesthetic choice. Perhaps misguided, like the men's tunics, it felt like an attempt to pay homage to the original costume designs, right or wrong.

Thank you.

 

[Chris Will]

Can we evolve the franchise that doesn't set women's rights back a whole 50 years?

Compared to what many young people wear these days, the skirts in Star Trek are pretty modest. Maybe they want to wear the skirts, Starfleet is in San Francisco and it does gets warm there.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

Maybe they want to wear the skirts, Starfleet is in San Francisco and it does gets warm there.

Well, I would argue that Star Trek, especially the original series mostly takes place in space, but seeing as how JJ and team want to make Earth the center of the universe where everything happens, I guess I should expect comments like that actually ringing true.

 

[Gary Seven]

A lot of comments since I was last here. Since I am not entirely happy with Abrams take, this is how I would have done it.

1. Cast is fine. No changes there.

2. Reboot the franchise with the origina story? Great. This has never been explained via the TV show (they did address this in the books many years ago) so this is wide open. There are a few vague references in the series upon which to draw upon but nothing too elaborate. The structure of the movie (not the story itself) would remain the same. The opening can be similar except instead of sacrificing the ship and the XO, the ship (the Farrugut?) can be saved by one Lt James T Kirk. And this introduces the audience to him.

3. Try to keep the classic Trek references to what they are SUPPOSED to be. McCoy explaining his wife left him with nothing but bones was STUPID. Bones nickname was derived from "sawbones" and Kirk addresses McCoy that way at least once (in A Piece of the Action). Why he was addressed as "sawbones" originally would be more interesting then my wife left me angle.

4. The crew would have to be part veteran and Starfleet graduates. Some event brings the crew together on a smaller ship where Kirk becomes captain, again through some event, and we see the crew work together for the first time.

5. Spock is the hardest to reconcile since he is serving with Pike but some thought there could make his presence in the movie relevant as he would HAVE to be there.

6. In the end, Kirk would get the captaincy of the Enterprise from Pike, the crew would be together (even a brief introduction of Gary Mitchell) and the movie ends with them being on the Enterprise ready for their five year mission. Sets us up for the sequel.

This takes place well before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" so the rest of the movies can happen before that time. We are only going to have so many movies (let's say 10) and not starting a new TV show so I don't see cannon problems with a decent set of writers.

If the writers want to go between classic series missions, then by all means why not? The series was never serial so there is little one episode has to do with the other.

So following this type of structure, what does that give us? One, you are pleasing long time fans who will have fun connecting the dots so to speak. Two, new fans will come in for the adventure. When new fans go and watch the classic series (new fans can be kids to adult) they can better equate the movie to the series. As it stands now they are so different that new fans may pass it off quickly.

If the producers need help achieving this, they can hire Garfield Reeves-Stevens and Judith as consultants to keep Star Trek as Star Trek.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Whatever quibbles there may be about the current state of the franchise, this is a helluva of a trailer:

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Here's Giacchino's theme for Cumberbatch's character:

 

[Nelson Au]

That does look like an exciting trailer, should do the trick to bring in the audience. Thanks Lou.

It appears Section 31 has built themselves a big battleship of a starship that Harrison has in his command. And it looks like the Enterprise is in deep trouble. I keep hoping that they replace that Enterprise with one that's less grotesque in proportion. But that's just me.

It does look like it should be a fun movie. I hope they have some heart in the story to end on.

 

[mattCR]

That does look like an exciting trailer, should do the trick to bring in the audience. Thanks Lou.

It appears Section 31 has built themselves a big battleship of a starship that Harrison has in his command. And it looks like the Enterprise is in deep trouble. I keep hoping that they replace that Enterprise with one that's less grotesque in proportion. But that's just me.

It does look like it should be a fun movie. I hope they have some heart in the story to end on.

What is really happening here is that out of all of the Treks, DS9 is really proving the most influential. Maybe it won't get it's own movie, but "Section 31" which was a DS9 invention (and a great one) really pivots to the way a movie structure can work far better than most of the TV villains. DS9's wide range of aliens and philosophies also seems to be more at play, not just in this movie, but in it's predecessor.

Which, BTW, is why I love this article: http://www.hollywood.com/news/tv/55002516/get-thee-to-the-geek-star-trek-ds9-deep-space-nine?page=1