Forgot your password?
John Crichton, 10 Jan 2010
Posted 21 Apr 2010
He deserves the retirement.
Posted 22 Apr 2010
wish he'd done Big Bang, and really then he could retire with two consecutive success, Fringe and Big Bang. it would get that bad taste out from star trek.
Posted 26 Oct 2010
'Star Trek 2' Villain Will be a "Classic Character," but Not Khan
There was a story about that on AICN yesterday too, I find it dubious. I can see someone like Harry Mudd making a driveby cameo, but not a major appearance. I could always be wrong, though.
But I want a Klingon movie, dammit!
Well, thank God. Khan would have been just about the worst possible choice.
I still say the new movie should open up with a Klingon ship coming across a piece of space debris and blowing it to pieces just for the hell of it, and afterward we see a scarred chunk that says "Botany Bay".
That would be so bad, but it'd be amusing.
I suppose I'm glad Khan (purportedly) won't be in the new film. Some things are better just left alone. "Space Seed" and TWOK gave us enough Khan. Good episode and great film, but that doesn't mean we need to see him again. I'll be curious to see who the central villain is instead.
If this is true I'm leaning toward the Talosians first, and Gary Mitchell next.
I'd definitely take the Talosians over Gary Mitchell, but I'm not sure they'd be my first choice. Not sure what my first choice would be, actually...
Posted 27 Oct 2010
I don't trust in the script writers enough to do any of these "villians" credit. Nero was so week, even moreso than the previous better "romulan" villan. Harry Mudd isn't a menacing villain but he is a comedic one. Gary Mitchell could be a souless bastard of major proportions. Trelane was a child, and the Horta was a rock, Charlie Brown gets a rock each Halloween, it's not a villain.
Nero may have been sympathetic in that he was trying to avenge his wife, but during the span of "20 years later," he went crazy and became irrational and impossible to deal with. Weak or not, he was in possession of an unbeatable superweapon. That made him dangerous.
Trelane would make an interesting villain given a large SFX budget, but since the creation of Peter David's excellent "Q-Squared" novel (one of only five or six Star Trek books that I've ever read), it's widely accepted by some fanboys that Trelane was a Q.
Blah blah blah, Q is Captain Picard's personal foil. DS9 and Voyager used him to bait viewers, and even Enterprise didn't want to muck up the timeline with him 200 years before Picard. I know Star Trek XII is an alternate prequel reality, but still. Isn't De Lancie too old to play an ageless omnipotent? Since I don't want to see Q ruined in a movie, I don't want to see Trelane (or his superior parents) or I'd ask where's Q.
The Doomsday Machine should be roaming the quadrant.
I've really got to wonder, did any of Kang, Kor, and Koloth die when Nero blew up those 47 Klingon warbirds?
I can't really see the Talosians as being "bad guys" on a scale worthy of the next film. Not the architects of a crime, anyways. But then again, I want a "threaten the galaxy" villain that can present a Federation vs. Somebody war, not a more personal, "threaten one or two characters" villain (Khan was both by way of Genesis). The Talosians are stuck beneath the surface of a barren planet without technology, so they can't leave on their own. They don't want to, they just want people for breeding stock to live in their illusions. Their cause is not entirely without merit, since they are what's left of a nuclear holocaust that fried their world; they're doing the best they can, and indeed, "The Menagerie" painted them in a more sympathetic light as they helped Captain Pike. Was his wheelchair in Star Trek XI a dropped hint of foreshadowing or just a meaningless way to fill the movie with more TOS lore?
Now if someone removed the Talosians from Talos IV, and presented them with ships and armies and planets to tinker with, or made them the slaves of a more diabolical schemer, then they could be dangerous.
Otherwise, General Order 7 worked pretty well for 120+ years to keep Talos IV out of the minds of everyone in Star Trek.
I really hope they stay away from God-like aliens. More than enough of that in TOS.
I think that if they're going to avoid Khan, the villain of the most or second-most universally acclaimed TOS film, they have to avoid the villain of the most or second-most universally panned TOS film even more.
Omnipotence runs amok in TOS. Gary Mitchell. Trelane. Plato's stepchildren. The Orions. Aliens like these blur the lines between science fiction and space fantasy if a superior being can make something appear out of nothingness, rather than through some legitimate process (and no, I don't mean "beaming").
I've borrowed seasons 1 and 2 of TOS on Blu from a friend and watched them all the way through, the only thing that annoys me nearly as much as all the God-like aliens are all the inexplicable parallel Earths, mostly in season 2.
I would love it if the main is Kang, Kor or Koloth. We definitely need to have Klingons as the main villain for the next film.
There are definitely a lot of godlike beings in TOS. It worked for that series, but it's another element that I don't think needs to be included in the films at this point.
They don't need to really be god like people in the movies...but you know I was thinking it maybe Koloth. I remember with the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations", Jadzia told Sisko that she remembered Koloth telling Kurzon (Jadzia's previous host) that he (Koloth) traded insults with Kirk on a Space Station near the (Federation/Klingon) border. However, he (Koloth) had always regretted never meeting James Kirk in battle. If memory serves me right, Kirk did meet Kor and Kang in battle at one point during the original series but never Koloth.
I don't want anything we've seen before. New life, new civilisations - I want this, not simply going back to TOS again. I'd like something that escapes the TWOK mode as I'm a little tired of that in Trek. Not that I trust Orci and Kurtzman to come up with something particularly good and original, but I just want to see something different.
I could definitely see it being Gary Mitchell. Makes it a more personal, emotional storyline for Kirk, which is kinda what they're going for in the Abramsverse it seems.
Of course, the quote could be a huge smokescreen and it's none of them.
I'm personally pulling for the Horta.
not trusting Orci and Kurtzman is wise as they are two of the biggest hack writers in Hollywood, the wouldn't know a coherent story line if it swam up and bit them on the ass. They are clearly the swiss cheese writers in favor these days (though Michael Bay didn't want them back).
At least Rick Berman's no longer in charge and we don't have to worry about them dragging in the boring, out of place Borg.
I don't want anything we've seen before. New life, new civilisations - I want this, not simply going back to TOS again. I'd like something that escapes the TWOK mode as I'm a little tired of that in Trek. Not that I trust Orci and Kurtzman to come up with something particularly good and original, but I just want to see something different.not trusting Orci and Kurtzman is wise as they are two of the biggest hack writers in Hollywood, the wouldn't know a coherent story line if it swam up and bit them on the ass. They are clearly the swiss cheese writers in favor these days (though Michael Bay didn't want them back).
I kinda agree with Joe.
I loved Star Trek (2009), but the script is lazy, obvious, at times condescending and simply not original at all.
I would love for Star Trek to go were no man...no one has gone before.
Holy shit! If I were a Trekkie I'd be all over THIS. Surely a geek's paradise?
Damnit, stop costing me money!
That's awesome. I didn't have a Haynes manual for my first car, and I don't have one for my current car, but I have referred to them before for other cars, and they're pretty informative. You still have to have a very good working knowledge of what you're looking at because they're not idiot-proof (I'm qualified to say that).
I'm just not sure that this manual can live up to Haynes' practice of completely disassembling the vehicle to its components, and then putting it back together.
Especially as it allegedly covers nine or so ships.
Holy Dark Knight Rises, you're right! I counted seven at first, but forgot the refit and 2009 versions of the original.
Holy shit! If I were a Trekkie I'd be all over THIS. Surely a geek's paradise?Damnit, stop costing me money!
It's on sale! A steal at the price!
It's not available for six more days, so any "markdown" is just the result of a deflated markup.
You must be seeing something different to me, because I could have it delivered Oct 29th, in the UK.
Know how I know that's considerably cheaper than the RRP? This website is where I found it. THE best shopping site on the UK web. If it gets rated "hot" there, it's a good deal. Trust me, that bloody place costs me a LOT of money! Scary how moorish it is.
No, you're right. I was looking at the publisher, which states "1 Nov 2010." That hasn't happened yet in the US, but I'm not sure about the date line and all that.
Bring on the Gorn!
The Gorn would be interesting. There's a new book where the Hegemony comes into play during the time of Sisko and Riker, so nobody's forgotten about them as adversaries.
How about a "villain" that's more of a non-humanoid threat, like a disease that transcends worlds and jeopardizes entire species?
The Haynes Manual does not include the 2009 Abrams Enterprise.
That would interest me more than the usual. As long as there's no freaking whales.
You're right even though you don't say why.
"Why isn’t the Enterprise from the J.J. Abrams movie included?
That's because at the moment the real pleasure of that ship is that we don't know anything about it. I want to go into those movies full of excitement because I'm going to find things out. There will come a time for a manual that covers that Enterprise, but for now it's best for it to stay a mystery."
The info at TrekMovie.com simply stated "NCC-1701 (Original TV series plus Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock, in which it was destroyed. A reinterpreted version of this Enterprise featured in the 2009 film)." I misinterpreted that last sentence.
The Haynes Manual does not include the 2009 Abrams Enterprise.You're right even though you don't say why.
Because I'm always right.
I didn't have the link handy nor the time to dig it up before I had to scoot, sorry.
We know it was ridiculously scaled up. And that it's not much different, outside of an Budweiser sponsorship on its lower decks.
That interview also has a comment by the most enthusiastic Trekkie ever. Unfortunately he's not the most attentive Trekkie ever, as he clearly hasn't heard of the TNG technical manual.
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Already have an account? Sign in here.