Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Star Trek sequel scheduled for May 17, 2013 Release


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
437 replies to this topic

#421 of 438 OFFLINE   Gary Seven

Gary Seven

    Grand Poo Pah



  • 1,504 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 2003
  • Real Name:Gaston
  • LocationLake Worth, Florida

Posted April 29 2013 - 07:42 AM

Movies are a business, and ultimately they need to make money. Star Trek at the theater was a sinking ship before 2009, peaking with First Contact wit a substantial fall-off with Insurrection before Nemesis flat-out bombed. Only Voyage Home way back in 1986 crossed the $100 million mark at the box office. And the franchise's records with new ships and new crews is spotty, at best. Next Generation did extremely well, but Deep Space 9 never found its audience until DVD and Voyager was weak. Enterprise wasn't exactly loved either.This is not a franchise studio execs had much faith in, and with good reason. New ship new crew without any recognizable characters would probably never have been green-lighted in the first place, the ROI just wouldn't have been there.

 

So I can definitely appreciate the choice they made. Kirk, Spock, and co. are iconic. Next Generation was loved by many (myself included), but the original crew on the original Enterprise IS Star Trek in the hearts and minds of the mass audience. The current choice allows them to shed the continuity problems of 28 seasons, 10 movies, and countless books (and yes, I realize the books aren't officially canon) filled with minutiae that's far too easy to stumble upon. Instead all of that still exists without anything being discarded. They can go back and set more books or even another TV series in the Prime Universe without a single issue arising, but the movies are now freed to do whatever they want without worrying about contradicting an episode of TOS.

 

So yeah I have little doubt that going back to the original characters was the only way we'd get a new Star Trek movie at all. At least the writers had the courtesy of leaving the original continuity completely intact and setting this in a new universe instead of simply throwing it out entirely.

 

For the "origin" of the crew there was very little continuity to worry about.  The books and spin-offs are not even a consideration.  At best they had maybe 2 - 3 episodes that had vague references so it was pretty wide open to do without having to CHANGE the characters completely.  This is the biggest problem I had.  It was lazy writing with cheap shock values thrown in.

 

It's interesting to note that (I hate to do a Star Wars comparison but...) when Lucas changed Han Solo to not fire first, everybody was in an uproar because it IMPLIED a change in character.  In Abrams' movie they explicitly change the characters completely(with the exception of Bones who was closest to the original) and the majority are ok with it.

 

They have set precedent.  The "prime universe" is now in the past and over-written.  For all intents and purposes, this new "timeline" in the new prime universe and everything that follows will be based and referenced on that.



#422 of 438 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor



  • 793 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted April 29 2013 - 06:08 PM

I thnk there is a big difference between going back and changing a character's motivation with CGI in a 20 year old movie (at the time) vs. rebooting a franchise while making some slight changes in the process. I say slight because I thnk the things fans are harping on are not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

They have set precedent. The "prime universe" is now in the past and over-written. For all intents and purposes, this new "timeline" in the new prime universe and everything that follows will be based and referenced on that.

As a fellow Trekkie, I'm completely ok with this. Why, because I can go back and watch any of those 28 seasons and 10 movies and enjoy them just the same as I always have, even while enjoying these new movies.

Edited by Chris Will, April 29 2013 - 06:11 PM.


#423 of 438 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer



  • 5,560 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted April 30 2013 - 06:13 AM

Right on Chris!


Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#424 of 438 OFFLINE   Gary Seven

Gary Seven

    Grand Poo Pah



  • 1,504 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 2003
  • Real Name:Gaston
  • LocationLake Worth, Florida

Posted April 30 2013 - 10:10 AM

As a fellow Trekkie, I'm completely ok with this. Why, because I can go back and watch any of those 28 seasons and 10 movies and enjoy them just the same as I always have, even while enjoying these new movies.

 

I see no difference... changes in characters are changes in characters.

 

Regardless, it's fine you and others are fine with the changes.  It does not change the fact that the effort (or lack thereof) was an exercise in lazy writing and cheap shock values.


Edited by Gary Seven, April 30 2013 - 01:24 PM.


#425 of 438 ONLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,606 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted May 01 2013 - 08:28 AM

I thnk there is a big difference between going back and changing a character's motivation with CGI in a 20 year old movie (at the time) vs. rebooting a franchise while making some slight changes in the process. I say slight because I thnk the things fans are harping on are not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Lucas defenders say the same "it's no big deal" thing about the Star Wars changes.  That doesn't change the fact that it IS a big deal to a lot of people, no matter how you try to paint your opinion as "objective" fact.



#426 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted May 01 2013 - 01:05 PM

This reminds me....I remember in 1975 or 1976 there was talk of a new Star Trek series or film being considered on a flyer being distributed around. (Way before the internet. ) It would star all new actors playing the same roles. I was in high school and my geometry teacher showed this flyer to me that described this potential project because she knew I was a big fan. It was like heresy then! I was too young and stupid to know what to think or do about it. But it did have an address and suggestions for who to write to at Paramount to tell them it was a stupid idea.It would seem that a generation or two of time would need to pass before we can look at the new films objectively.

Edited by Nelson Au, May 01 2013 - 01:06 PM.


#427 of 438 OFFLINE   Neil Middlemiss

Neil Middlemiss

    Screenwriter



  • 2,940 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2001
  • Real Name:Neil Middlemiss

Posted May 01 2013 - 01:16 PM

 

Lucas defenders say the same "it's no big deal" thing about the Star Wars changes.  That doesn't change the fact that it IS a big deal to a lot of people, no matter how you try to paint your opinion as "objective" fact.

 I see no evidence of anyone trying to paint opinion as fact. It's all opinion we are voicing when discussing how we feel about the changes. Some like the changes, some don't. And that's ok.
"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science" – Edwin Hubble
My DVD Collection

#428 of 438 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer



  • 5,560 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted May 02 2013 - 07:41 AM

I see no evidence of anyone trying to paint opinion as fact. It's all opinion we are voicing when discussing how we feel about the changes. Some like the changes, some don't. And that's ok.

QFT


Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#429 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted May 02 2013 - 11:09 AM

"quantitative feedback theory"?"Quite frankly told"?

#430 of 438 OFFLINE   Steve_Pannell

Steve_Pannell

    Supporting Actor



  • 615 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2003
  • Real Name:Steve
  • LocationNew Albany, MS

Posted May 02 2013 - 11:20 AM

Quit feeding trolls?



#431 of 438 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 23,079 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 02 2013 - 01:26 PM

"Quoted for truth".

 

I've also seen the similar but more profane

Spoiler


Edited by TravisR, May 02 2013 - 01:27 PM.


#432 of 438 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer



  • 5,560 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted May 02 2013 - 01:33 PM

Heheh.  Travis has it but I loved the alternatives.   :)


Edited by Lou Sytsma, May 02 2013 - 01:35 PM.

Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#433 of 438 OFFLINE   Dave Scarpa

Dave Scarpa

    Producer



  • 5,302 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 08 1999

Posted May 07 2013 - 10:51 AM

The bottom line is Star Trek is a very tough thing to accomplish in a mainstream movies, the originals have varying degrees of success doing this. Star Trek was about characters and stories and you just cannot develop either in a 2 hour summer movie. The original films still tried, JJ is obviously shooting for the widest demographic and I guess he has too, but I will alway enjoy my trek on the small screen. It's like trying to adapt games of thrones on the big screen, you could accomplish the visuals but you would be doing a disservice to the characters.


My DVD Collection

The Megaplex

#434 of 438 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,686 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted May 07 2013 - 11:41 AM

Agreed Dave. I'll be interested in seeing this new movie. But it is the fast food version of Star Trek.

#435 of 438 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor



  • 793 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted May 09 2013 - 12:39 PM

I have a chance to see this on Wednesday in a IMAX Dome theater but, I've never seen a regular movie in an IMAX Dome theater before (seen those IMAX documentaries before).  Is it worth it or is there to much image distortion or that fish eye effect for those who are picky about presentation?  I'd like to know what other think before I spend the extra money for these tickets.

 

Also, there is another IMAX theater in Birmingham but, I'm not sure if it is a true IMAX or one of those "not quit as big" IMAX theaters, anyone know or know how to find out.  I googled it but couldn't find any specific information on the size of the screen.


Edited by Chris Will, May 09 2013 - 02:44 PM.


#436 of 438 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer



  • 5,560 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted May 09 2013 - 01:57 PM

So it seems the movie does acknowledge the franchise's roots -  from someone who has seen the movie:

 

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);]Of particular note is a bit more old fashioned Trek morals and ethics which was nice to see [/color]


Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#437 of 438 OFFLINE   Sam Favate

Sam Favate

    Producer



  • 5,176 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted May 09 2013 - 02:27 PM

[font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"]Rolling Stone loved it. Peter Travers said it's "crazy good," and Abrams is "[color=rgb(0,0,0);]on fire here, lacing spectacle with soul. It’s a knockout. Trekkers won’t be alone in cheering."[/color][/font]

http://www.rollingst...rkness-19691231



#438 of 438 OFFLINE   MattBradley

MattBradley

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 171 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 2009

Posted May 19 2013 - 06:14 PM

I've been avoiding this thread until after I saw the movie. So, before I read all that came before my post, I just want to say I saw the movie and enjoyed it. Probably helped that my dad was sitting next to me and he was practically cheering in his seat and this is a man who doesn't get into "that sci-fi crap". haha He walked out loving it.

 

I loved the opening sequence. The villain reveal was not a big surprise for me. I had put it together with the torpedo story. I really enjoyed the performances and was not expecting the surprise cameo where Spock seeked out advice. The ending was familiar and the character death story was very obvious. Knew it would be resolved like that. I am also excited about how the next movie is set to unfold. Let the 5 years begin. Oh, and that Klingon looked freaky!


What is understood need not be discussed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users