Star Trek XI- Official now- 12.25.2008 (merged) - Page 28

Nelson Au · 08-26-2008, 01:49 PM

I had to look up "epigonal". Here's what I found, if the correct definition: epigon; an inferior imitator of some distinguished writer or artist of musician.

As you've said Rex, it does remain to be seen if Abrams Trek will be epigonal Trek.

What is sort of surprising, is the inversion of thinking here. Classic Trek is being embraced here, and I am strictly speaking of the aesthetics and look and feel of the film. Story-wise, I'm sure it wil be quite modern.

And you nailed exactly what I was questioning about Abrams quote, the films have been for the most part, quite well done technically. No models on strings. Some had better stories then others. Perhaps Abrams is not into Horatio Hornblower, or Wagon Train to the Stars or Joseph Campbell.

Norm · 08-26-2008, 02:44 PM

The one thing that really bugs me about TOS movies 2-7 are those Maroon uniforms. I hate them so much you can't even see the insignia on them. Then in later movies they felt the need to match those uniforms when the crew was in civies. Kirk is always wearing Maroon of some sort. I'm so glad they changed them in TNG, which was a take on another Roddenberry uniform from his pilot Planet Earth.

Planet Earth

DavidPla · 08-26-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Bachmann

[font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]The effects you and others so casually belittle were "state-of-the-art" for their time and place and did NOT "plague" anything. Go find better from American tv of the time. "Sci-fi" simply was not considered a financially viable genre, for the most part, at the time. No one was going to spend the equivalent of the budgets of whole poor ((condescendingly) so-called "Third-World") countries to make a tv show or even a film in those days (2001 being the notable exception that proves the rule).

Star Trek TOS was many things but "state-of-the-art" special effects it was not. Forbidden Planet can be considered for its "state-of-the-art" special effects which was made 10 years beforehand. You even said, the budget did not warrant it so how could the effects be so "revolutionary". They were at most "adequate" for the time but nowhere near the best that TV or film could offer. What drove the series were the stories characters and designs.

Cassy_w · 08-26-2008, 04:55 PM

The overanalyzing of throw away statements by J.J. is really something. We have almost a year to go and nothing to go on, so how about we don't worry about it?

To me STAR TREK II, III and IV will always be the shining moment of STAR TREK. More II than III and IV, but all had a true sense of nostalgia and an energy to them that carried from one film to another. I'll never forget seeing each of those films in the cinema (I was just a young gal when II came out) and I watch them all once a year, every year.

The fifth film was a shocking letdown, of course and while VI was good, it does not hold up as well as II - IV. The NEXT GEN films are nothing special and range from pretty good (First Contact) to so-so (Generations) to kill me now (the rest).

My hope is that J.J. can give us something akin to II-IV. Something brings in non-Trek fans and excites the public. Remember, adjusted for inflation, TREK II is a huge huge blockbuster by today's standards.

Norm · 08-26-2008, 05:33 PM

I always wondered if we will we ever get a new Star Trek movie that doesn't involve war or conflict? I would like a new ST movie based on exploration.

Rex Bachmann · 08-26-2008, 05:41 PM

Cassy_w wrote (post #814):

Quote:

The overanalyzing of throw away statements by J.J. is really something. We have almost a year to go and nothing to go on, so how about we don't worry about it?

I'll bite. Let's just end the thread right here, what say?

Lou Sytsma · 08-26-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Bachmann

Cassie_w wrote (post #814):
I'll bite. Let's just end the thread right here? What say?

Absolutely not!

BSG fans - if you are not caught up with all the episodes the BSG portion contains spoilers!

Here is an excellent interview from a local, to me, Toronto SF online community - HardCoreNerdity, with Simon Pegg.

Pegg talks about several other projects but his comments on Star Trek are very insightful.

For BSG fans Edward James Olmos and Aaron Douglas finish up the audio interview. Aaron makes some specific, but nonspoilerish, points about the last 10 episodes.

BTW, feel free to browse the site, there are many communities there for genre lovers.

Nelson Au · 08-26-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norm

I always wondered if we will we ever get a new Star Trek movie that doesn't involve war or conflict? I would like a new ST movie based on exploration.

That's one of the issues I've always felt was the problem of translating any of the Star Trek series to films. In a film, you need some kind of exciting or big event to get the plot going.

The beauty of the series was you got smaller films once a week that had 26 opportunities to explore all kinds of stories, and you got opportunities to allow the other characters to shine and set up continuing story lines.

Because Star Trek The Wrath of Khan and First Contact were the big box office champs, then the metality is you need that kind of movie to succeed. Star Trek 4 didn't have a villian and crossed over to mainstream with a feel good story that really succeeded well! But the more contained and personal stories didn't do as well. So my guess is that the studio heads want Star Trek films to be event films, rather then what Star Trek was really good at. Those were the character driven stories or what I like to call Twilight Zone stories like Errand of Mercy, Arena, Devil in the Dark and Metamorphasis and the surprise endings where humans learn, you're not the center of the universe or this monster is really an intelligent being. You got a broad range of stories.

So my opinion is Star Trek films are not the optimum way to continue the franchise if the studio's focus is just for event films with hopes of huge box office. That's just my opinion based on the past films. It will be interesting to see where this new film goes.

Mark Hawley · 08-26-2008, 11:57 PM

To be fair IV did have a villain as the probe was in the process of destroying Earth. It didn't have malicious intentions but the plot was still "save the Earth"...and "save the whales".

Pete-D · 08-27-2008, 02:26 AM

Agreed now that we've had a few years off, I'm starting to get hungrier for a Star Trek return on TV moreso than another movie.

I'd like to see a new Enterprise crew set *after* The Next Generation. Shoot for 2012.