Greg1138 3 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Indeed, an it would be a shame to all if he were cheapened in that way, the same way I consider Walter Koenig was in Generations....Doohan and Shatner managed to rise above it.....just.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 does anyone see this for what it will end up beingNew Coke, Old Coke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 And when it was all said and done, New Coke turned out to be crap and the demand for Old Coke was so great it was brought back (Although that can't really happen in this case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaderbait1 1 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 And when it was all said and done, New Coke turned out to be crap and the demand for Old Coke was so great it was brought back (Although that can't really happen in this case).There really was no need for "New Coke". There is a serious need for "New Trek". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 There really was no need for "New Coke". There is a serious need for "New Trek".Not really, Star Trek had gotten over exposed. It was time for a long rest.But I'm not complaining, I was just adding to Joe's Coke reference because I'm sure there's someone out there who has no idea there was a New Coke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg1138 3 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 New Coke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted July 27, 2007 Author Share Posted July 27, 2007 Not really, Star Trek had gotten over exposed. It was time for a long rest.That's making excuses for the fact that it was a crappy formulaic, predictable, dated, and depthless show when everyone abandoned it.The last compelling hours of Star Trek we got were in 1999's "What You Leave Behind." By the time the Star Trek movie comes out, that'll be almost a decade past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,179 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 This is JJ Abrams directing. Time frames are never simply linear with him.Indeed. Why bother getting Abrams if all you want is just another straight forward Trek action movie. I sincerely hope they let him do his thing - that's why I'm quite excited about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 But it's too bad that Abrams isn't being allowed to go out and do something totally original, but being forced to try to recapture the old magic. He should be able to pull off something decent, but this is still wasting a great opportunity to really take the franchise in a bold new direction.John- who, despite the bitching, will get all pleasantly nostalgic when Kirk and Spock show up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 .....Then die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 As much as I love Star Trek, I think it should just take a break for a while and I'm sick and tired of all these remakes or reboots of series. Star Trek doesn't need a damn reboot...Edit: BTW speaking of Star Trek, just saw this article on Star Trek's website.mmmm TOS in high def goodness. I guess there's buzz too that TNG might get it's visual effects redone in CG so it can get an HD remastering. What's next, are they gonna redo DS9's and Voyager's visual effects for the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,179 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 I still don't see how taking a break would make anything better. It's not *when* you make a new Trek movie, it's *how* you make it that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Well considering the Next Generation films and the last couple of TV series didn't do as well as expected it makes sense to take a break. You keep turning out the same tired project and people are gonna give up on it. If you wait for awhile, people tend to forget and build up that desire to see it again. Plus you can weed out those who were involved behind the scenes and allow new blood to take over without restrictions.And yes that can have the opposite effect as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Edit: BTW speaking of Star Trek, just saw this article on Star Trek's website.mmmm TOS in high def goodness.I'm really interested in seeing these remastered episodes of the original series, I haven't been able to find a station here that shows them. The stills that have been shown on AICN as episodes aired looked really good. That DVD price tag is too much though, plus I don't have HD anyway. Hopefully a cable company will pick them up sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 The new effects did not look that good to me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 What I've seen has looked good to me, but: a. they were only stills, and b. I'm not as crazy about the original series as you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Me? I didn't get into Star Trek untill TNG. And I'm really a Niner.But it you are goinne redo those old, low budget effects, would you replace them with new, low budget effects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Yeah, but you're a bigger fan of the original than I am.John- also very much a Niner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 I appriciate it, I'm not sure I can call myself a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Im a fan, its wonderful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 You grew up with it, so you have a different perspective on it then I have. I grew up on TNG and DS9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 I've enjoyed Trek even from the original series... all though I wasn't born until 81' but I grew up watching the re-runs of the Original Series. When they weren't cut up so much while on TV...As far as this new film.. I'm having doubts about it ...but maybe my mind will be changed once I see trailers for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 my Star Trek experience consists of.....Star Trek II. Thats it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Hoyt 13 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 my Star Trek experience consists of.....Star Trek II. Thats it That is never a bad thing!Im waiting for new Trek... there has been Trek ever since I was born and this dry spell is killing me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Oh I'm not complaining about the movie (loved it), its just that they've never played on TV at the right time for me to catch them (the first 6 movies are being played on a movie channel here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 This just in....Anton Yelchin in talks to play Pavel Chekov.http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...43c401da6415f43Sounds interesting to me, and the fact that they're doing young actors means they won't be old prunes in 10 years time if the movie is a hit and becomes a series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Well supposedly IGN has reported that a possibility Tom Cruise might play Captain Christopher Pike.Abrams Wooing Cruise For Trek XI?IGN Movies reported that J.J. Abrams, who is directing the next Star Trek film, would like to bring on his Mission: Impossible III star Tom Cruise for a cameo appearance as Capt. Christopher Pike, according to a "trusted source."Pike was the first captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise and Spock's (Leonard Nimoy) commanding officer prior to Capt. Kirk (William Shatner), which would fit with the reported flashback storyline in the upcoming film. The character was played by Jeffrey Hunter in the original 1966 Star Trek TV pilot "The Cage," which was later edited into the two-part episode "The Menagerie."There have been previous reports of Cruise's involvement in the project, which were denied by his spokesman, Arnold Robinson, last fall. At the time, it was thought that Cruise's public falling out with Paramount head Sumner Redstone, who controls the rights to the Trek franchise, would prevent him from working with the studio again in the near future. But tensions between the two have cooled off lately and, according to IGN's source, the cameo role would be seen as a favor to Abrams and not to Paramount.Man if this turns out to be true, I am definitely not seeing this film. Cruise isn't worthy enough to be in a Star Trek film cameo or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 You won't see it just because Tom Cruise might be in it? Come on . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Man if this turns out to be true, I am definitely not seeing this film. Cruise isn't worthy enough to be in a Star Trek film cameo or not...If he's worthy enough for Spielberg (twice) then he's worthy enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beowulf 4 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 As kooky as Cruise seems in real-life, i've learned to separate the actor from the person he is in reality.I actually like most of the films he's been in and i'm eagerly anticipating the WWII Hiter film he's doing with Bryan Singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 With the right material Cruise can be a very good actor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 With the right material Cruise can be a very good actor.Okay I admit that I agree with...but for him to be in a Star Trek film? No way...that's just not suited for him I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsmithfan 6 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Well supposedly IGN has reported that a possibility Tom Cruise might play Captain Christopher Pike.Abrams Wooing Cruise For Trek XI?IGN Movies reported that J.J. Abrams, who is directing the next Star Trek film, would like to bring on his Mission: Impossible III star Tom Cruise for a cameo appearance as Capt. Christopher Pike, according to a "trusted source."Pike was the first captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise and Spock's (Leonard Nimoy) commanding officer prior to Capt. Kirk (William Shatner), which would fit with the reported flashback storyline in the upcoming film. The character was played by Jeffrey Hunter in the original 1966 Star Trek TV pilot "The Cage," which was later edited into the two-part episode "The Menagerie."There have been previous reports of Cruise's involvement in the project, which were denied by his spokesman, Arnold Robinson, last fall. At the time, it was thought that Cruise's public falling out with Paramount head Sumner Redstone, who controls the rights to the Trek franchise, would prevent him from working with the studio again in the near future. But tensions between the two have cooled off lately and, according to IGN's source, the cameo role would be seen as a favor to Abrams and not to Paramount.Man if this turns out to be true, I am definitely not seeing this film. Cruise isn't worthy enough to be in a Star Trek film cameo or not...I'm with you. Not only is Cruise not what Star Trek needs, but neither is a prequel. People kill me saying that this is a new direction for the franchise. Hmm.... last I checked, Star Trek left off with a prequel series. But I may be mistaken.Star Trek doesn't need a re-tooling. It needs fresh writers who can see beyond what's already been discovered as marketable and return to its roots. Star Trek is about exploration and delving into complex ideas through metaphor. But instead of going in the original, optimistic and philosophical direction that Roddenberry intended, the writers have constantly tried getting darker and darker. That's why the fans left the shows. Return to exploration and optimism and you'll have your precious audience back. That's what they fell in love with.Hiring J. J. Abrahms who's "fixing" it by populating the film with pretty faces and actors from the original series is a completely idiotic and over-commercialized idea at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I'm mostly with you Goldsmithfan (although I much prefer a DS9-style character and plot heavy, "darker" piece to a pure Roddenberry ideal), I've never been a fan of the prequel idea, much less with the original characters. My idea was always to jump ahead another century or so with a fresh cast, hopefully with the used up, now boring Borg somehow totally wiped out and the Dominion ready to rise again. But, this isn't really JJ Abrahms idea per se, he's just the guy Paramount's brought in to implement an idea that's been around for a long time. And it's a good choice. He has a good track record and should at least be able to make something watchable out of this. And if nothing else we should get a killer Giacchino sci-fi score, possibly his big coming out party to the upper echelon of composers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I too am tired of this prequel crap with Star Trek. I wish they would go back to the 24th Century or maybe after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 With the right material Cruise can be a very good actor.Indeed. Just look at Magnolia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 The only thing Star Trek has always been about is humanity, and how if work to better ourselves....the future will be better. 23rd century or 29th century...if it sticks to that humanity, I will watch and enjoy and be excited for each new film...Enterprise failed to do that. That is why it failed. It wouldn't have been the least bit better or worse if it were set in the 24th century or the 26th because it missed the fundementals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Enterprise got good in it's 4th season when they hired fresh writers...but it was a little too late. All though fan support during the 4th season increased and Paramount could have kept the show going. There were quite a few tie ins to the Original Series which was pretty nice.The first three seasons of Enterprise practically sucked because of all that time travel crap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 By it's 4th season it finally got up to par with Voyager. Not much of an accomplishment. The characters just...sucked, and when you can't connect with the characters you lose emotional investment in the story and plot. Music for the series was excellent though....past season 3. Beat the three preceeding Star Trek series in terms of packing punch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsmithfan 6 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 By it's 4th season it finally got up to par with Voyager. Not much of an accomplishment. The characters just...sucked, and when you can't connect with the characters you lose emotional investment in the story and plot. Music for the series was excellent though....past season 3. Beat the three preceeding Star Trek series in terms of packing punch.I don't know if I'd go that far with my description of the music. Sure, it wasn't the wallpaper that we heard all through most of DS9 and Voyager, but I wouldn't say it came close to Jones' or McCarthy's best work on TNG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artyjeffrey 20 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Here's his selection... interestingly, the actor portraying Sulu will be older than Kirk.http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index....=rss_topstories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Hoyt 13 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 That can't be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeNewGuy 0 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 It certainly looks as though this movie will have a lighter side. Definitely looking forward to it with a whole new perspective now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Simon Pegg? Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 I like it. This film is all about casting, and I think they know that they have to get more than just big names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Simon Pegg actually is a big name, in England. It was a pretty big deal when he did a guest spot during Doctor Who's first series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Still, my statement stands. It looks like they're going the character actor route, which I think is a great thing.They could easily cast someone like Dane Cook . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Oh I'm totally with you there. We need actors, not celebrities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,645 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Maybe they could get Cruise for McCoy ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Matt Damon would be a great Kirk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now