Topic: Star Trek XI writers: Film a re-imagining, not prequel (Read 14558 times)

Commander Maxillius · « **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2007, 10:40:41 am »

I'm all for a re-imagining, but I don't think Trek was ever in need of a new excuse to show skin. In fact, the original was more lenient with girlflesh than any of the other series. Just look as the female duty uniform!! Even the Romulans got in on it!! If they'd stuck 7 of 9 in an original series micro mini instead of that metal mesh jump suit, she would've drawn the entire Federation out to meet Voyager by that alone.

If they can pull that movie off and get a series going with a lot of the same actors, Trek will be saved.

Commander La'ra · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2007, 05:16:18 pm »

Quote from: IKV Nemesis on July 23, 2007, 06:53:37 pm

I'll stick with Sheba. Remember her role. Fighter pilot and commander of a fighter squadron. Showing skin isn't part of the role.

But this is the 21st century. So now they can be strong role models and still show us the goodies rather than show up in frumpy brown every damned episode.

*nods*

A random thought, though: What is the Trek reimagining IS really good? Will we see the same thing we did with BSG, with lots of old converts and new fans praising it, with a small but vocal minority claiming the original's greatness and the new show/movies awful state despite it's superiority?

Seems so silly with BSG. Anyone who watches the new show objectively knows it's better than the cheesy crap from the 70's, yet people nevertheless try and defend the original. They can't really, and end up throwing off bitter one-liners. Will the new ST leave those with a refusal to adapt in the dust?

Vipre · « **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:20:34 pm »

Something to remember as well is that this is most likely going to be a one shot deal. All of the previous movies began with the series and hit the big screen using the tv cast, this one is going straight to theaters with an A-list cast. No way they'll be able to spin off a series with that lineup if they do have Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise in line for it.

Being a modern movie it'll probably be 95% special effects/action scenes and 5% story to boot, think "Transformers" with starships. It may end up being a great stand alone movie but I really don't think it's going to shelve or make TOS obsolete.

I wonder sometimes what the view on the original BSG would be if it were to receive an "enhancement" similar to the one TOS Trek has, as one up the biggest issues with the series even back then was a low special effects budget.

Nemesis · « **Reply #43 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:24:28 pm »

Quote from: Commander Maxillius on July 24, 2007, 10:40:41 am

I'm all for a re-imagining, but I don't think Trek was ever in need of a new excuse to show skin. In fact, the original was more lenient with girlflesh than any of the other series.

I guess you haven't seen the unedited T'Pol "nude" scene yet. It showed more than any other trek.

Quote from: Commander Maxillius on July 24, 2007, 10:40:41 am

Just look as the female duty uniform!! Even the Romulans got in on it!! If they'd stuck 7 of 9 in an original series micro mini instead of that metal mesh jump suit, she would've drawn the entire Federation out to meet Voyager by that alone.

If they can pull that movie off and get a series going with a lot of the same actors, Trek will be saved.

That uniform was of course insisted on by the actresses themselves. The uniform was supposed to be the same for both sexes as it was in the pilot.

FPF-Tobin Dax · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2007, 03:43:53 pm »

Quote from: IKV Nemesis on July 12, 2007, 08:41:37 pm

Quote from: Ravok on July 12, 2007, 02:29:47 pm
Why anybody over the age of 13 would like it was beyond me.

Sheba.

Athena, Cassy.

S'Raek · « **Reply #45 on:** July 27, 2007, 08:33:22 am »

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/27/people.leonardnimoy.ap/index.html

Sylar as Spock. I think my brain is going to explode.

Don Karnage · « **Reply #46 on:** July 27, 2007, 08:48:52 pm »

also here: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/entertainment_startrek_col

a 11th movie is too much.

when they change the basic of it and you have a recipe for disaster.

Sirgod · « **Reply #47 on:** August 05, 2007, 12:00:32 pm »

Did you hear? In order to attract the 20 something crowd, the next Star Trek movie is going to be rife with nudity and violence.
I heard it was so bad it was going to be rated NCC-1701.

Stephen

Nemesis · « **Reply #48 on:** August 05, 2007, 04:53:27 pm »

Don't give up your day job cowboy.

Malystryx_XC · « **Reply #49 on:** September 04, 2007, 08:16:03 pm »

Uh oh... this has the potential to piss off a lot of people.

I'm still not sure if this is going to be a good step for the franchise. I love the fact they are going back to the roots but using an alternate timeline to do it?? If I didn't know better I'd say it seems like some sort of sick joke from the minds of Berman & Braga.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070831c.php

An interesting and apparently solid rumor about the upcoming J.J. Abrams-produced "Star Trek" feature at Ain't it Cool explains not only the potential plan to reboot the franchise and why there is no Captain Kirk casting rumor as yet.

The theory has it that a group of Romulans are thrown back into the past and plan to kill James T. Kirk's father, and as a result Spock must somehow stop this event from happening. In the process Trek continuity proceeds along an alternate timeline, essentially rebooting the entire franchise.

Meanwhile TrekMovie.com reports that 29-year-old actress Zoë Saldana ("Haven," "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl") has been offered the part of Uhura - the USS Enterprise’s communications officer originally played by Nichelle Nichols.

One outstanding issue may be related to her schedule starring in the James Cameron sci-fi mega movie "Avatar" which is still in production and doing location shooting starting in October - a month before "Star Trek" is slated to start shooting in November.

Commander Maxillius · « **Reply #50 on:** September 08, 2007, 03:20:58 pm »

Quote from: Malystryx_XC on September 04, 2007, 08:16:03 pm

Uh oh... this has the potential to piss off a lot of people. I'm still not sure if this is going to be a good step for the franchise. I love the fact they are going back to the roots but using an alternate timeline to do it?? If I didn't know better I'd say it seems like some sort of sick joke from the minds of Berman & Braga.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070831c.php

An interesting and apparently solid rumor about the upcoming J.J. Abrams-produced "Star Trek" feature at Ain't it Cool explains not only the potential plan to reboot the franchise and why there is no Captain Kirk casting rumor as yet.

The theory has it that a group of Romulans are thrown back into the past and plan to kill James T. Kirk's father, and as a result Spock must somehow stop this event from happening. In the process Trek continuity proceeds along an alternate timeline, essentially rebooting the entire franchise.

Meanwhile TrekMovie.com reports that 29-year-old actress Zoë Saldana ("Haven," "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl") has been offered the part of Uhura - the USS Enterprise’s communications officer originally played by Nichelle Nichols.

One outstanding issue may be related to her schedule starring in the James Cameron sci-fi mega movie "Avatar" which is still in production and doing location shooting starting in October - a month before "Star Trek" is slated to start shooting in November.

They could use that excuse to include SFB history into canon ver. 2.0. Odds: 1:1000000000000000000, but it's a thought

Centurus · « **Reply #51 on:** September 08, 2007, 03:28:28 pm »

Quote from: Stephen NCC -73070 on August 05, 2007, 12:00:32 pm

Did you hear? In order to attract the 20 something crowd, the next Star Trek movie is going to be rife with nudity and violence.
I heard it was so bad it was going to be rated NCC-1701.

Stephen

*looks at the rimshot guy and hears him say the joke is so bad even he doesn't want any part of it*

Centurus · « **Reply #52 on:** September 08, 2007, 03:31:56 pm »

Personally, I'd rather have the film be a prequel rather than a re-imagining, if this is the course of action they're gonna take with the storyline. I agree with Malystryx, this sounds like something B&B would think of. And here I thought with those two gone, the franchise would have a chance to get back on its feet. It's very wrong for me to be wishing they'd come back with a Trek story for the 11th movie.

Vipre · « **Reply #53 on:** September 08, 2007, 04:59:08 pm »

You can almost see where the whole thing is leading. They'll release a movie that derails so badly what makes Star Trek "Trek", that the only bright spot will be getting to see Nimoy as Spock one more time. It'll be a flop at the box office and the makers will blame it on the fans lack of interest in the franchise. Because as we all know, no matter how badly conceived, produced or enacted by the studio if a franchise movie flops it the fans fault.

Ravok · « **Reply #54 on:** September 08, 2007, 08:31:51 pm »

I honestly think the problem is that our real life tec is progressing faster than anticipating in ST. we allready have data storage disc's smaller than they used, communicators ( cell phones) etc.

Plus our knowledge of space in the 60s was rudimentary at best. Not to mention the original show had a shoe string budjet.
They got away with allot that would not fly today.
The re imagining might just be a way to fit it all in seamlessly.

Just a thought!

Dash Jones · « **Reply #55 on:** September 09, 2007, 12:21:51 am »

I think it sounds interesting. If utilized in the right way, it could ressurect the Original series and TNG series with new actors. Let's face it, Shatner and Nimoy aren't getting any younger, and there wouldn't be no more Scotty nor Bones with the originals. To continue the series, or remake it, they need someone to actually play the roles.

I think it could be very good, or very bad. I'll have to see it and then decide.

Vipre · « **Reply #56 on:** September 09, 2007, 01:22:11 am »

Agreed and agreed. One issue with the tech is that Trek itself influenced technological advancement. A generation of fans looked at the devices and wondered if they could make a real one. Three prime examples being communicators, hyposprays and P.A.D.D.'s

TOS influence can be seen in flip top cell phones and hyposprays, TNGs can be seen in communicators that look and work in similar way as the series ones and the I-phone which from advertisements looks and works just like the padd devices on the Ent D

If they can utilize in the right way it'd be great but they are probably way more interested in making a quick buck than adding anything of substance to what's been done. Everyone can say what they like about how poor the visual effects, costumes and sets were in TOS, but those things were never the point of the show and never should be the point of good science fiction. I mean c'mon Jules Verne shot men to the moon in a steam or might have been coal powered rocket made out of bricks, but you don't bash it as being stupid or unrealistic because what they were in isn't the point of the story. (correct me if I got that wrong, just a drawing I saw once attributed to that story)

TOS was a fluke that the network disliked and the fans loved and it's something that's hard to recreate. In the end when you look at some of the fan series done with new digital graphics based on TOS like "New Voyages", "Starship Farragut" and "Starship Exeter" you have to wonder why reboot anything at all. Why not just pour serious money into these series? Give me a TOS based series with Kurt Carley in the captain's chair and you'd have me tuned in every week.

Just my nickle worth of thoughts for today.

Dash Jones · « **Reply #57 on:** September 09, 2007, 01:14:54 pm »

The things that made Star Trek TOS so good wasn't the effects, it was the science fiction. It was pure science fiction where it took the ideas of man vs. man, man vs. nature, or man vs. himself and put into a futuristic context where it examined these scenarios of philosophy and introspection in a story format.

TNG followed that, but not quite as much. It was enough to keep it interesting.

DS9, tried to do that, and it did, but had a lot more emphasis on action...and that's where trek started falling apart.

Voyager had an even greater emphasis on special effects and the action of the week with technobabble instead of the story and philosphy portions...and it showed.

Enterprise...they missed the boat. They concentrated on effects and story, but forgot the introspection and philosophical debate of it all most of the time...as well as just plain making a mess of things (such as the Akiraprise). They started to come back with some interesting episodes during the fourth season but it was too late at that point to save it.

I think you're right, the core of Star Trek isn't special effects or the action, it's the philosophical debate in the stories and the science fiction plots (NOT science fiction/fantasy/opera) that are involved. If they remember that it should do okay...if it concentrates on special effects and action...well....

News: