# STAR TREK by JJ Abrams - new photos



## horacethegrey (Oct 16, 2008)

Well, it seems the hell has indeed frozen over. After months of intense speculation and waiting, the makers of the new _Trek _have released actual images from the film itself. Here's a few of them for your viewing pleasure:

First, the cover of the new Entertainment Weekly:





Second, a picture of the new crew (sans Spock):





Third, the newly designed bridge of the USS Enterprise:





Fourth, Eric Bana as Nero. The image is a little too wide, so please view it via this handy link.

Fifth, Chris Pine as Kirk, emerging from what seems to be a Federation escape pod:





And finally, Zachary Quinto as Syl- er, Spock choking the life out of Pine's Kirk.


----------



## Blackrat (Oct 16, 2008)

Uh... I dislike the new design of the bridge. It might be more in line with modern scifi... But it doesn't look like the bridge of Enterprise...


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Oct 16, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Uh... I dislike the new design of the bridge. It might be more in line with modern scifi... But it doesn't look like the bridge of Enterprise...




Agreed. Whats the premise that requires the characters to be so frickin' young?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 16, 2008)

horacethegrey said:


> And finally, Zachary Quinto as Syl- er, Spock choking the life out of Pine's Kirk.




Ha!  I knew Kirk had the power to seduce Alien women!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Uh... I dislike the new design of the bridge. It might be more in line with modern scifi... But it doesn't look like the bridge of Enterprise...




I fear it is impossible to keep the old bridge design. It just doesn't work anymore. 

But then, I am actually a fan of the idea of "reimagining" Star Trek - "fix" the storyline where it needs fixing (plot holes, inconsistencies, ambiguties). And possibly even change the story where it just sucks (several parts of Voyager, Enterprise or the movies  )


----------



## Joker (Oct 16, 2008)

Eric Bana looks cool and I'll watch it to see Simon Pegg do Scotty.  But the very teenage looking Kirk is annoying me a bit.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 16, 2008)

I put this in the same alternate universe that includes Highlander 2 and choose to ignore its existence.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I put this in the same alternate universe that includes Highlander 2 and choose to ignore its existence.




I would at least wait until the audience and critics say it sucks.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

My take:

The cast _does_, overall, look too young.

The set looks good... it's a nice re-imaging of the TNG bridge with touches of the TOS bridge (like the flexible bowling alley lamps visible on the one console).

The male uniforms look like pajamas and the female uniform is a miniskirt. Perfect.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 16, 2008)

Blackrat said:


> Uh... I dislike the new design of the bridge. It might be more in line with modern scifi... But it doesn't look like the bridge of Enterprise...



Ditto, but there's still hope that it's due to the perspective. I still see the classic handrails, love the captain's chair, and the hi-tech feel isn't bad, so we perhaps have to see it "in action".

The crew... I'm split. Quinto makes a very cool Spock, I think, and he's surprisingly non-Sylar on the cover. Even on the "choke-Kirk" picture, it's a different "psycho-look".

Uhura is okay, McCoy gives a _different_ feel than the original McCoy, but I have to see him in action first, I think that could turn out well. Sulu could turn out okay as well... seems to fit, not too sure about the new Scotty - on the shot on the bridge, he looks old, compared to original Scotty and the current cast.

But Kirk... he lacks some sort of authority. He doesn't convey _captain_ to me on the pictures.

So: Mixed feelings, nothing completely bad, but things I have to wait until I can judge them properly.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Blackrat (Oct 16, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> Uhura is okay, McCoy gives a _different_ feel than the original McCoy, but I have to see him in action first, I think that could turn out well. Sulu could turn out okay as well... seems to fit, not too sure about the new Scotty - on the shot on the bridge, he looks old, compared to original Scotty and the current cast.




Actually, I have some memory of Scotty being quite a lot older than Kirk so that fits IMO.

Sulu... That guy doesn't look anything like Sulu... No, I don't like.

But, I'm definetly going to see this movie, and start real complaining only after I have something to really complain about 

Edit: According to Memory Alpha, Scotty is 11 years older than Kirk.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I would at least wait until the audience and critics say it sucks.




I don't care if it actually sucks or not, this falls into the remake category that I absolutely despise with a passion.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 16, 2008)

I don't mind the John Cho the guy who played Harold from Harold & Kumar...

As Sulu though that remains to be seen how he fits that role.  Though he looks sort of incomplete without Kumar.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I don't care if it actually sucks or not, this falls into the remake category that I absolutely despise with a passion.



Why? If the film's quality isn't an issue, what is?


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I put this in the same alternate universe that includes Highlander 2 and choose to ignore its existence.



Even better is in the article where he's quoted as saying he never really liked star trek.  That's what you want to relaunch a franchise, a guy who doesn't even like the material.  

I like the bridge of stargate antlantis's ship more than i like this. It looks too bright, to blue.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Why? If the film's quality isn't an issue, what is?




People shouldn't make remakes, period. If you want to make something using the same themes as something else that is fine but give it another name. 

In this case in particular there is absolutely no need to redo the past when there are thousands of possible stories that can be set in the current universe.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Why? If the film's quality isn't an issue, what is?




Same reason I hated Final Fantasy: Spirit Within, if all you're doing is using the original material to launch a bastardized version of what you think it SHOULD Be, then you're just bying a franchise name to pimp your own product.  It's like buying a big mac and realizing that Burgers and us purchased the name and changed the beef to tofu and beans.  I might like tofu and beans, but not on my big mac.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> People shouldn't make remakes, period. If you want to make something using the same themes as something else that is fine but give it another name.



Aha... that's fair. I'm on the other side, art's all about remaking and reinterpreting prior works. If something worth doing once, it's worth doing again, differently. I dislike being stuck with only one version of something I find interesting.



> In this case in particular there is absolutely no need to redo the past when there are thousands of possible stories that can be set in the current universe.



Sure, but sometimes you want another Hamlet, not a story about someone else set in the rotten state of Denmark.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Same reason I hated Final Fantasy: Spirit Within, if all you're doing is using the original material to launch a bastardized version of what you think it SHOULD Be, then you're just bying a franchise name to pimp your own product.



From what we know now, Abram's Trek is far closer to the source material the Spirits Within (also, what's fair source material for a Final Fantasy movie? I thought the only constants in the games where moogles and those riding chickens)


----------



## horacethegrey (Oct 16, 2008)

Just to remind everyone again of who's cast as who:

*James T. Kirk* - Chris Pine
*Spock *- Zachary Quinto
*Leonard 'Bones' Mccoy* - Karl Urban
*Montgomery Scott* - Simon Pegg
*Hiraku Sulu* - John Cho 
*Pavel Chekov* - Anton Yelchin
*Uhura *- Zoe Saldana

Now as to my feelings about the cast, well, I must say I was pleasantly surprised by Chris Pine. He looks quite good in those pics as Kirk (not so much in that EW cover, makes him look like a pretty boy), though I'm hoping his acting is up to par. Not feeling Yelchin as Chekov though. The rest of the cast look perfect, especially Karl Urban, whose almost a dead ringer for DeForest Kelley!

As for the complaints about the bridge, I can certainly understand them. But really, in this day and age of scifi, can we honestly take the Original Series cardboard sets and dated sound effects (which I love BTW) seriously at face value?


----------



## F5 (Oct 16, 2008)

I am absolutely, completely buying Zach Quinto as a young Spock.  I like the other casting, but Spock is dead-on.

The bridge looks as if it was the TOS bridge, redesigned by Steve Jobs.  I'd be shocked if you can't find an apple logo on it, somehwere, if you look hard enough...


----------



## Umbran (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> People shouldn't make remakes, period. If you want to make something using the same themes as something else that is fine but give it another name.




Well, I guess all of Shakespeare is dead to you then?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

F5 said:


> The bridge looks as if it was the TOS bridge, redesigned by Steve Jobs.



Thank you for explaining why I like it better than I did.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 16, 2008)

I can understand the weariness for this, but these images actually make me feel much better about the movie. The cast just looks great, and while they're young...that is kind of the point. I'm willing to ignore details like supposed character age, etc, as long as the overall look and feel is handled well. So far, it seems to be.

As for the bridge, I think its beautiful. Its a perfect retro look without being a direct copy, which would be pointless and look silly. The fact that it keeps so many bright colours, hell the chairs are still red in a couple of places, really adds to the effect. The screens are great, with the kinds of designs one would expect even if you don't know what they are. They've got that bright, retro feel to them while still looking like something that would actually be futuristic.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 16, 2008)

What's with all the little kiddies running around the Enterprise's bridge? Weird.

But I don't mind the bridge design (and I really like the costumes) - seems like a reasonable mix/compromise to me.

Hijack:


Mallus said:


> (also, what's fair source material for a Final Fantasy movie? I thought the only constants in the games where moogles and those riding chickens)



"_Not_ Earth". Go from there.

Another hintie-poo for those who might still 'not get it':
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children = right way to do it
Final Fantasy: Spirits Within = wrong way to do it


----------



## Rykion (Oct 16, 2008)

I really like the casting for McCoy and Scotty.  They look the part.  Spock seems a little young, but being half Vulcan can explain the youthful appearance.  I have mixed feelings on the actors for Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov.  Their performances might sway me into accepting them in the role.  Kirk looks too young.  He doesn't look like someone I'd trust to park my car, let alone command the Enterprise.  They should have cast an actor who could pass for someone in their thirties.

The bridge set looks alright except the console with the lights and joystick looking things sticking up.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Hijack:
> 
> "_Not_ Earth". Go from there.



So you don't need the riding chickens?


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> So you don't need the riding chickens?



Well, c'mon... that's a loaded question. Just like bacon and monkeys, _everything_ needs riding chickens.

But Advent Children managed to get away with not having them!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 16, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Well, I guess all of Shakespeare is dead to you then?




Shakespeare wrote plays, a medium that is designed to be staged repeatedly. I have seen lots of Shakespeare and love it, but when I see a Shakespeare play I am listening to the exact plot, characters, and dialogue as originally written. Now Shakespeare was a great writer and his plots and themes have been used over and over by many writers but when Shakespeare is rewritten it needs to have its name changed. West Side Story is based off of Romeo and Juliet but they had the respect to rename it when they did.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Shakespeare wrote plays, a medium that is designed to be staged repeatedly.



How are plays substantially different from television or film scripts in that regard? They're all performed fiction.  



> I have seen lots of Shakespeare and love it, but when I see a Shakespeare play I am listening to the exact plot, characters, and dialogue as originally written.



I can't speak about the performances you've seen, but I can tell you that isn't generally true with theater. Different productions use the same words to produce different characters (and meanings). For example, in some performances Hamlet's a sly and cunning genius while in others he's a nut.


----------



## A Passing Maniac (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Shakespeare wrote plays, a medium that is designed to be staged repeatedly. I have seen lots of Shakespeare and love it, but when I see a Shakespeare play I am listening to the exact plot, characters, and dialogue as originally written. Now Shakespeare was a great writer and his plots and themes have been used over and over by many writers but when Shakespeare is rewritten it needs to have its name changed. West Side Story is based off of Romeo and Juliet but they had the respect to rename it when they did.




I think Umbran's point was that Shakespeare's works were often based on existing stories. Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello or Romeo & Juliet are, basically, remakes of the earlier stories, legends, and plays about the same characters and events; you object to different takes on the same material on principle, but what makes Shakespeare any different from J.J. Abrams in this case?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> How are plays substantially different from television or film scripts in that regard? They're all performed fiction.




Television and Film scripts have always been designed to be single use items, plays are designed to be staged multiple times with multiple actors and directors. Television and Film are often written for particular actors and those same actors  play an equal role in creating the character that is presented. In addition the sets and cinematography in television and films is much more an integral part of the overall product and form part of the experience in a way that far exceeds set creation in theater. I go to theater to see the dialogue as presented by the actors, I watch TV for both the visuals and the words.




Mallus said:


> I can't speak about the performances you've seen, but I can tell you that isn't generally true with theater. Different productions use the same words to produce different characters (and meanings). For example, in some performances Hamlet's a sly and cunning genius while in others he's a nut.




But they are the same words though. When a play is written it is assumed that different actors and directors will interpret things differently. If the writer is concerned that a character or scene be interpreted in one particular way they will include set directions or notes as to how it should be performed. 

In theater the playwright is generally considered the owner of the concept and is the one recognized for a particular work. In film and television the writer is often considered a disposable part of the creation process. Some scripts are rewritten dozens of times by dozens of writers before being accepted. In film the director is usually given credit for the work and practically no-one knows who the writer is.

Since I consider Film and TV a more visual medium I would compare it more to artwork. Would those who are into remakes be equally enthused with remakes  and reinterpretations of things like the Mona Lisa and consider them on the same par as the original?


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 16, 2008)

A Passing Maniac said:


> I think Umbran's point was that Shakespeare's works were often based on existing stories. Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello or Romeo & Juliet are, basically, remakes of the earlier stories, legends, and plays about the same characters and events; you object to different takes on the same material on principle, but what makes Shakespeare any different from J.J. Abrams in this case?




I"m all for making a remake, but Star Trek is one of those things you don't remake because it has an established universe that is iconic.  Not only that, it has 3 somewhat sequal series that has established a canan history.  To remake it is worse than adding three prequels to your movie.  Essentially you are taking the world that has been created for decades out back and saying it never happened this is what really happened.  I think someone mentioned earlier, like Highlander 2.  

This movie is like publishing fan fiction.  Interesting story, b;ut doesn't fit in the universe.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 16, 2008)

A Passing Maniac said:


> I think Umbran's point was that Shakespeare's works were often based on existing stories. Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello or Romeo & Juliet are, basically, remakes of the earlier stories, legends, and plays about the same characters and events; you object to different takes on the same material on principle, but what makes Shakespeare any different from J.J. Abrams in this case?




But them Shakespeare took those plots and themes, remade them in the way he wanted  and *Gave Them Their Own Unique Name* and did not try to represent what he did by pretending it was the same as what came before.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Just like bacon and monkeys, _everything_ needs riding chickens.



So true.



> But Advent Children managed to get away with not having them!



I believe I'll add Advent Children to my Netflix queue.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Television and Film scripts have always been designed to be single use items...



And this is evidenced by the fact that television and film scripts never get rewritten or remade. Hey wait a minute... 



> Would those who are into remakes be equally enthused with remakes  and reinterpretations of things like the Mona Lisa and consider them on the same par as the original?



I would. Art's a conversation. Sometimes a topic from the past gets brought up again and is restated in a startling way.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 16, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> I"m all for making a remake, but Star Trek is one of those things you don't remake because it has an established universe that is iconic.



I don't mean to sound mean, but the idea of a sacrosanct, iconic, _canonical_ universe is the most toxic part of genre fandom. The only way to breathe new life into the franchise is to, well, breathe new life into it; approach the material in a new way, disregarding canon when necessary. 



> I think someone mentioned earlier, like Highlander 2.



Highlander 2 isn't bad because it violated Highlander's canon. It's bad because it did it badly.


----------



## EricNoah (Oct 16, 2008)

I'll be very interested to see if they can breathe a spark of life back into the ol' girl, remind me what I liked about the series and the characters, etc.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> People shouldn't make remakes, period. If you want to make something using the same themes as something else that is fine but give it another name.
> 
> In this case in particular there is absolutely no need to redo the past when there are thousands of possible stories that can be set in the current universe.



As far as I understood, it's not a remake, it's a... prequel. A story set before TOS.

Aside from this, as a big fan of Battlestar Galactica TNS, I think sometimes remakes are a very good idea. For example if the first run wasn't really good, or does no longer hold up.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 16, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> People shouldn't make remakes, period. If you want to make something using the same themes as something else that is fine but give it another name.




Not even Battlestar Galactica?


----------



## Pbartender (Oct 16, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The cast _does_, overall, look too young.




Heh...  That's mainly due to Hollywood's propensity to cast twenty-somethings as teenagers.

Note the actors' actual ages:

Chris Pine - 28
Zachary Quinto - 31
Karl Urban - 36
Simon Pegg - 38
John Cho - 36
Anton Yelchin - 19
Zoe Saldana - 30

Yelchin as Chekov is the notable exception, but seeing as Chekov was always the considered by far the youngest member of the original bridge crew, it's entirely credible that they cast someone who's at least ten years younger than the others.


----------



## Pbartender (Oct 16, 2008)

A Passing Maniac said:


> I think Umbran's point was that Shakespeare's works were often based on existing stories. Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello or Romeo & Juliet are, basically, remakes of the earlier stories, legends, and plays about the same characters and events; you object to different takes on the same material on principle, but what makes Shakespeare any different from J.J. Abrams in this case?




Or any different from Gene Roddenberry, for that matter...  Gene's original pitch for the show referred to the ship's captain as a "space-age Captain Horatio Hornblower".

...Horation Hornblower, a literary character who was inspired by Admiral Nelson.


----------



## Silver Moon (Oct 16, 2008)

Rykion said:


> I really like the casting for McCoy and Scotty.



Yep, not much choice there, I'm pretty sure that Deforest Kelley and Jimmy Doohan weren't available.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 17, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Not even Battlestar Galactica?




Especially not Galatica. They took a fun show I still enjoy watching episodes of and twisted it into something dark and ugly and I have zero desire to watch it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 17, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> Or any different from Gene Roddenberry, for that matter...  Gene's original pitch for the show referred to the ship's captain as a "space-age Captain Horatio Hornblower".
> 
> ...Horation Hornblower, a literary character who was inspired by Admiral Nelson.




As is common in pitching ideas they person pitching compares it to something people are familiar with. If the series had been called Horatio Hornblower it would have been wrong. I have no problem with recycled ideas as long as they they call it something else.


----------



## horacethegrey (Oct 17, 2008)

Really cool photo of Quinto as Syl- er, Spock.







And a close up photo of John Cho as Sulu.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Especially not Galatica. They took a fun show I still enjoy watching episodes of and twisted it into something dark and ugly and I have zero desire to watch it.




I am glad I never got the chance to see the first galactica, because i too would probably feel like you.  If you're going to make a completey different show, call it something different, don't pimp the franchise name for marketing.  

It's easy for a comic book to wiipe out 5 to 10 years of history, but to wipe out 40 years and still have interesting stories to tell... that's going backwards.  As a fan of star trek i'd love to see a good story about the dominion wars, the end of the borg, other characters in the current history. INstead it seems like a starsky and hutch retread.  It can't possibly capture the 60s flavor that made the show, nor will it have an actor as charasmatic as william shatner at the helm. So what we get is a pretend version of the tos with a special effects budget.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> I am glad I never got the chance to see the first galactica, because i too would probably feel like you.  If you're going to make a completey different show, call it something different, don't pimp the franchise name for marketing.



nBSG is actually a great example of what I was talking about. The original was a fine children's show, and I loved it when it first aired and I was ten. The new show takes the same (wonderful) concept and the same characters (well, at least in name) and makes them into one of the finest dramas in recent television history, entertainment suitable for that ten year old boy now grown into an almost forty year old man.

It would have been a shame if that concept had only been executed once, in all it's seventies disco scifi glory. Some things should be remade and reinterpreted.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 17, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I fear it is impossible to keep the old bridge design. It just doesn't work anymore.



What do you mean? All they have to do is go down to Radio Shack and buy them switches, buttons, and mechanical knobs.

In a way, I agree with the other posters. It looks too iPod-y.


----------



## Orius (Oct 17, 2008)

Reveille said:


> Agreed. Whats the premise that requires the characters to be so frickin' young?




They're supposed to be in their Academy years or something, IIRC.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I fear it is impossible to keep the old bridge design. It just doesn't work anymore.
> 
> But then, I am actually a fan of the idea of "reimagining" Star Trek - "fix" the storyline where it needs fixing (plot holes, inconsistencies, ambiguties). And possibly even change the story where it just sucks (several parts of Voyager, Enterprise or the movies  )




I can't agree on the bridge design, cause it's a classic.  But then, if we can just say the Enterprise was retrofitted before TOS, then that works.  I swear they changed the bridge in every movie from TMP to VI anyway, so I guess that can be overlooked a little.

Toss out some of the crappy parts of Voyager?  Yeah.  Keep the Hirogen though, they weren't bad.  Enterprise, check, dump the whole TCW.  There were a few pieces of that that were ok, but not enough to mask the TCW for the continuity rape that it was.  Really, much of Enterprise that wasn't TCW was pretty good, except for the inevitable filler episodes.



horacethegrey said:


> As for the complaints about the bridge, I can certainly understand them. But really, in this day and age of scifi, can we honestly take the Original Series cardboard sets and dated sound effects (which I love BTW) seriously at face value?




Except that bridge is kind of a sacred cow.  And it's a bit jarring to go from very modern style effects to the Enterprise bridge of TOS and the movies.



Arnwyn said:


> Another hintie-poo for those who might still 'not get it':
> Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children = right way to do it
> Final Fantasy: Spirits Within = wrong way to do it




I'd say they were both wrong.  AC was nice eye candy, but really the plot was near-incomprehensible.  Too much in the way of fast-paced action scenes that made little sense and voilated the laws of physics.

I suggest a fork if you want to discuss this further.



DonTadow said:


> As a fan of star trek i'd love to see a good story about the dominion wars, the end of the borg, other characters in the current history. INstead it seems like a starsky and hutch retread.  It can't possibly capture the 60s flavor that made the show, nor will it have an actor as charasmatic as william shatner at the helm. So what we get is a pretend version of the tos with a special effects budget.




No one...can play...Kirk like...Shatner did.  

I'd like to see them do a return to the post-DS9 situation, but then they tried that a bit with Nemesis and look how well that turned out.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 17, 2008)

Well, I guess I'll be a voice of dissent here.

I'd much rather see a Star Trek reboot than any further continuation. I have no interset in revisiting the Dominion War, or finding out what happened post-Voyager. AFAIAC, those ceased to be Star Trek in any meaningful way years ago. I'm not saying they were bad shows (well, DS9 wasn't), but they weren't Star Trek, to me.

But a chance to revisit the era of Kirk and the others? The original Enterprise? If the remake can even come close to capturing the feel of that--and I admit that's a big "if"--_that's_ Star Trek to me.

In fact, the one that bothers me is that this _is_ a prequel, with ties to the previous series' canon. I'd rather have seen a _true_ reboot, a la _Batman Begins_ or _Casino Royale_.

That said, I'm not 100% taken with the photos. But then, I learned long ago to wait and see characters and costumes _in action_, rather than judging from still pics.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 17, 2008)

Look enough like Star Trek to me.

I'm in.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 17, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Same reason I hated Final Fantasy: Spirit Within, if all you're doing is using the original material to launch a bastardized version of what you think it SHOULD Be, then you're just bying a franchise name to pimp your own product.  It's like buying a big mac and realizing that Burgers and us purchased the name and changed the beef to tofu and beans.  I might like tofu and beans, but not on my big mac.



Err, what?

_Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_ was written and directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi, the original creator of the Final Fantasy series, and was entirely created by Square itself. The commercial failure of that movie had a lot to do with why he was ultimately forced out of Square and had to move on and create his own game company (Mistwalker Studios). Say all you want about whether it was _Final Fantasy_ or not, but it could not possibly be called a product of some outside figure stealing the _Final Fantasy_ brand to slap on something totally separate.

Anyways, I vastly prefer reboots and re-imaginings to dragging continuity through hell and back. It is why I liked new _Final Fantasy_ games, but hate the glaring continuity issues and character re-writing filling _Final Fantasy: Advent Children_ and the other _Final Fantasy 7_ sequels.

I really have not paid any attention at all to _Star Trek_ in years, but if this movie gets some good reviews I may go see it.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> But them Shakespeare took those plots and themes, remade them in the way he wanted  and *Gave Them Their Own Unique Name* and did not try to represent what he did by pretending it was the same as what came before.



Shakespeare was not the first guy to write a play about two lovers from Verona named Romeo and Juliet. Not by a long shot. He put his own unique spin on the story (others had the romance between the two last years, he twisted it around so that it lasted all of a single night), but the basic plot and characters are not at all unique. Actually, from what Wikipedia tells me, the title of the play Shakespeare used as inspiration was... _The Tragical History of Romeo and Juliet_, made 30 years or so before Shakespeare's version. Go figure.

And no, Shakespeare did not try to "pretend it was the same as what came before", but neither are the makers of this new _Star Trek_ movie. After all, trying to pass of your work as something old is a far less effective scheme than passing it off as new and shiny.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 17, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> What do you mean? All they have to do is go down to Radio Shack and buy them switches, buttons, and mechanical knobs.
> 
> In a way, I agree with the other posters. It looks too iPod-y.



I didn't mean the technical side. It would just remind me of how dated the old show was. 



Orius said:


> They're supposed to be in their Academy years or something, IIRC.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree on the bridge design, cause it's a classic.  But then, if we can just say the Enterprise was retrofitted before TOS, then that works.  I swear they changed the bridge in every movie from TMP to VI anyway, so I guess that can be overlooked a little.



I prefer this idea: Each Startrek Show is our retelling of a "real" Startrek ship/station made with our available (TV) technology. (Oh, and all the continuity errors, inconsistencies and bad science - it's just because we didn't understand the real thing, and if we were to revisit - reiminage - the stories, we would fix that.)  
The real Enterprise bridges might have looked even more different.



> Toss out some of the crappy parts of Voyager?  Yeah.  Keep the Hirogen though, they weren't bad.  Enterprise, check, dump the whole TCW.  There were a few pieces of that that were ok, but not enough to mask the TCW for the continuity rape that it was.  Really, much of Enterprise that wasn't TCW was pretty good, except for the inevitable filler episodes.



I think even the Kazon can work, or the Vidians (sp - you know, the guys with the disease). And the Borg, too - just make any victories against them rarer, harder to achieve, and more bitter. 
My favorite idea is to use the basic idea in the title of "The Year of Hell" and make it a borg episode/multi-parter/season. The Voyager enters a space where the Borgs begin their attacks - and they try to help their allies. The Voyager is badly mangled in the process, crew members split off, questionable alliances are forged, the Borg even assimilate entire planets with the Voyager Crew watching. At the end, the Borg are still defeated, but the cost were horrendous. Though I dare say that I am fine with the Voyager coming out a litte "improved" - but people died, ideals were betrayed, relationships broke, and entire populations have been killed off - by the Borg, in the name of science, by failures, for victory...). The "high note" would probably be that the Borg are defeated and that the survivors have found a new appreciation and might found their Federation equivalent... 



> Except that bridge is kind of a sacred cow.  And it's a bit jarring to go from very modern style effects to the Enterprise bridge of TOS and the movies.



It is jarring either way. Either it looks ridiculously dated or it just doesn't fit the established continuity.


----------



## horacethegrey (Oct 17, 2008)

More photos popping up online.

Karl Urban as Leonard Mccoy, w/ Chris Pine as Kirk in the background






John Cho again as Sulu, looking anxious about something.






A even more close up look of Eric Bana as Nero.






And a shot of Pine as James Tiberius Kirk.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Especially not Galatica. They took a fun show I still enjoy watching episodes of and twisted it into something dark and ugly and I have zero desire to watch it.



QFT.  
I watched the new show into the second season.  I quit once I realized the only ones left worth rooting for were the Centurions.  I don't want perfect characters, but a series needs at least one character that I can actually like.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 17, 2008)

Rykion said:


> I don't want perfect characters, but a series needs at least one character that I can actually like.



What's not to like about Gaius Baltar? (OK, he can be a bit of a drag when he's in prophet/Messiah-mode, but still...)


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 17, 2008)

Arnold Schwarzenegger played Hercules.

Kevin Sorbo played Hercules.

A lot of people have played Hercules.

Captain Kirk is a mythic character now, like Hercules. The core story concept remains the same -- "half-god son of Zeus deals with challenges mortal and divine" or "Iowa boy becomes daring, sexy captain of the Starship Enterprise" -- but the specific stories change. As long as you're true to the character, and tell a good story, who cares about the details, or continuity with a version that came out before you were born, or what actor is playing him?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2008)

Rykion said:


> Kirk looks too young. He doesn't look like someone I'd trust to park my car, let alone command the Enterprise. They should have cast an actor who could pass for someone in their thirties.




Meh. According to Wikipedia, Kirk got command of the Enterprise at 31. Chris Pine is 28.  And this is supposed to be the Academy era.  Looks pretty much spot on, age-wise, to me.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> I"m all for making a remake, but Star Trek is one of those things you don't remake because it has an established universe that is iconic. Not only that, it has 3 somewhat sequal series that has established a canan history. To remake it is worse than adding three prequels to your movie. Essentially you are taking the world that has been created for decades out back and saying it never happened this is what really happened. I think someone mentioned earlier, like Highlander 2.
> 
> This movie is like publishing fan fiction. Interesting story, b;ut doesn't fit in the universe.




Star Trek, as a franchise is dead.  Dead, dead, dead.

The owners of that franchise have two choices: shelve it forever, or reboot it.  Given the decades of effort and invenstment in that franchise, trying to get some value out of it is hardly a bad thing.

This is the best thing they can do, in my opinion. A reboot, going back to the Kirk era.  That single thing has the best chance of keeping Star Trek alive.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> Arnold Schwarzenegger played Hercules.
> 
> Kevin Sorbo played Hercules.
> 
> ...




Yeah. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Robin Hood, King Arthur, James Bond, Zorro.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Oct 17, 2008)

Joker said:


> But the very teenage looking Kirk is annoying me a bit.




Works for me. Kirk was always young. I watch the show now and he seems kind of brash. 

I wonder how Urban will handle the Southern accent. Kelly was actually Southern, so he didn't have to fake it. 

Uruha is hot.

Edit: So what does the Big E look like from the outside?


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 17, 2008)

The new bridge design is jarring, but well-executed. I'm looking forward to this. Bad reviews or no, I'll be in the theatre to see this next summer. (Hell, I saw ST V on opening day - if I can sit in a theatre and watch that, I can watch anything Trek-related.)


----------



## Umbran (Oct 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> ...but when I see a Shakespeare play I am listening to the exact plot, characters, and dialogue as originally written.




Um, you realize that usually, that's not the case?

For one thing, for most of Shakespeare's works, there are multiple versions, and there is much argument over which is "correct".  There is no single originally written dialog.  

For another, most individual productions make changes in the staging (because Billy gave almost no staging instructions), as well as dialog.  Kenneth's Branaghs' film Hamlet is the only one around that tries to use every single line, and it is usually considered a slow, turgid piece.  Most stage and film productions cut things out.  And then the actors get at it, and usually change it somewhat.

And then, you get to things like _West Side Story_ - which really is Romeo and Juliet, but darned sure, there's probably not a single line of Shakespeare in there.

The history of human storytelling is a history of re-tellings: Shakespeare's plays are mostly stories that already existed before he got to them, that the audience knew before they entered the theatre.   Norse mythology, greek mythology (basically, every mythology or legend ever) King Arthur, Robin Hood, all retold more often than the sun rises.  Modern comic book characters pass through the hands of many authors and artists, each putting their own spins, twists, and alterations.  And we won't even get into Doctor Who...

The more iconic a character or plot is, the more ripe it is for this treatment - for an iconic character, the audience already starts with a handle on the beast, so the authors and performers can spend less time giving you the basics, and you can concentrate on the nuances, and differences in interpretation.  The best way to explore the depth of an icon is to look at it in as many ways as possible.

The problem with Hollywood remakes and sequels isn't that they're remakes and sequels - it is that they're _bad_ remakes and sequels.  If someone who understands the tradition of Shakespeare, mythology, and legend gets a hand on Trek for a reboot, it could be nice.

I won't be surprised if it is crap, but if it is, it won't be because retellings stink by their nature.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> But them Shakespeare took those plots and themes, remade them in the way he wanted  and *Gave Them Their Own Unique Name* and did not try to represent what he did by pretending it was the same as what came before.




Um, sorry, that's just not correct.  The history plays, especially, blow that right out of the water.  Shakespeare did not rename King Henry III, or Anthony And Cleopatra.   

And, to be clear, the audience knew this.  That was part of the point.  Other playwrights of his day were producing their own versions.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 17, 2008)

The guy playing Kirk is 28, Kirk was 30 when he became Captain of the Enterprise.  

Fans of Star Trek and Star Wars can be some of the worst, it is a small group that seem to live and crap all things related to them.  It is these people that seem to think they own the franchies and everything must pass through them, they pick and worry things apart.  

This killed Star Trek, because the producers wanted to make their fan base happy.  The problem, what they saw as the fan base was the fanatic base.  Most fans want a good movie!  The producers want a movie that makes money.  The meeting ground is a re-boot or leaving it alone!


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 17, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> This killed Star Trek, because the producers wanted to make their fan base happy.



While I don't necessarily disagree with your assertions, the above is a highly specious argument and a load of bunk.

I see absolutely zero evidence that the above was even remotely true. Quite the contrary, actually.

(But I generally agree with the rest. The franchise is dead, and something 'wild and crazy' will have to be done to revive it. There is a good chance, though, that it will turn out that it simply _can't_ be revived... and that a reboot would simply waste everyone's time and money.)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 17, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> While I don't necessarily disagree with your assertions, the above is a highly specious argument and a load of bunk.
> 
> I see absolutely zero evidence that the above was even remotely true. Quite the contrary, actually.



I may be remembering wrong but for both ST:V and ST:E there were fan sites and groups that were consulted for feedback and the activly promoted the shows.  But that was a long time ago.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 17, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Meh. According to Wikipedia, Kirk got command of the Enterprise at 31. Chris Pine is 28.  And this is supposed to be the Academy era.  Looks pretty much spot on, age-wise, to me.



I know Chris Pine is actually close to the right age, but he doesn't look it.  Like a lot of people in Hollywood, he looks about a decade younger than he actually is.  My understanding is that they scrapped the Starfleet Academy idea and that the movie takes place with Kirk as commander of the Enterprise, or that he gets command during the movie.  I'm definitely seeing the movie.  I'd just prefer a more mature looking Kirk.


----------



## EricNoah (Oct 17, 2008)

I don't mind a reboot, new cast, etc.  I do fear that maybe they aren't changing enough (maybe just in terms of visual style, but we'll have to wait and see what the performances are like as well).  I don't think I will be satisfied with something that looks like a parody or just an immitation -- I should get a good, deep taste of each character's core idea and how they interract.  And I think science fiction should go forward from what we know now, not what was known in the 60's.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 18, 2008)

EricNoah said:


> I don't mind a reboot, new cast, etc.  I do fear that maybe they aren't changing enough (maybe just in terms of visual style, but we'll have to wait and see what the performances are like as well).  I don't think I will be satisfied with something that looks like a parody or just an immitation -- I should get a good, deep taste of each character's core idea and how they interract.  And I think science fiction should go forward from what we know now, not what was known in the 60's.



I'll agree with this.

Among other things, I think it is something of a mistake that they are just recasting all of the old characters and leaving things mostly the same. It would probably be more interesting if they changed the cast around at least a bit, possibly adding some more aliens or mixing it up so they didn't get stuck trying to emulate the character dynamics of a well-known series with different actors. There are just so many different ways that can go wrong...


----------



## Silver Moon (Oct 18, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> Arnold Schwarzenegger played Hercules.
> 
> Kevin Sorbo played Hercules.
> 
> A lot of people have played Hercules.




Personally, I liked the Lou Ferrigno version of Hercules.


Looking forward to the Trek film, and I'm a huge Star Trek fan.


----------



## EricNoah (Oct 18, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:


> I'll agree with this.
> 
> Among other things, I think it is something of a mistake that they are just recasting all of the old characters and leaving things mostly the same. It would probably be more interesting if they changed the cast around at least a bit, possibly adding some more aliens or mixing it up so they didn't get stuck trying to emulate the character dynamics of a well-known series with different actors. There are just so many different ways that can go wrong...





The other thing that occurs to me is that they end up with the "Smallville Problem" if they are too bound to the existing continuity.  They will be locked in a segment of history that has a known outcome and that could be a straitjacket to the development of this "new franchise".  Let's say this movie is successful -- how far can they go with the next films before they start treading into ToS territory?


----------



## Silver Moon (Oct 18, 2008)

EricNoah said:


> Let's say this movie is successful -- how far can they go with the next films before they start treading into ToS territory?



Shouldn't really be a problem, they could always just skip ahead and use this cast for Years 4 and 5 of the original five year mission.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 18, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Star Trek, as a franchise is dead.  Dead, dead, dead.
> 
> The owners of that franchise have two choices: shelve it forever, or reboot it.  Given the decades of effort and invenstment in that franchise, trying to get some value out of it is hardly a bad thing.
> 
> This is the best thing they can do, in my opinion. A reboot, going back to the Kirk era.  That single thing has the best chance of keeping Star Trek alive.



I'd have voted reboot, or rather reform of franchise management.

The only thing that was hurting the franchise was the Un-Dynamic Duo of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. The last two TV series were pathetic. Add to that the last two prior _Trek_ films.

I wonder that with the rebooting of _Star Trek_ there may come a time when we may have to reboot _Star Wars_ as well.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 19, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> The guy playing Kirk is 28, Kirk was 30 when he became Captain of the Enterprise.
> 
> Fans of Star Trek and Star Wars can be some of the worst, it is a small group that seem to live and crap all things related to them.  It is these people that seem to think they own the franchies and everything must pass through them, they pick and worry things apart.
> 
> This killed Star Trek, because the producers wanted to make their fan base happy.  The problem, what they saw as the fan base was the fanatic base.  Most fans want a good movie!  The producers want a movie that makes money.  The meeting ground is a re-boot or leaving it alone!




Actually, its been teh opposite. What is hurting star trek is the producers trying to reinvent it every fuew years. This attempt will fail like the others.  Let's send them to a different part in space. LEt's rewriter the history before the original series. Lets just screw the whole universe. 

The worst thing you can do if you're bringing a franchise to the big screen is to screw the fanbase because that's going to be your word of mouth.  YOu have neve heard of any movie... not one.. where it went completely against canon and was still successful.  

How can you trust the material of am movie from a guy who doesn't even like the franchise.  

Perhaps Morus is right, they should have let it live on in other forms of media


----------



## Morrus (Oct 19, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Actually, its been teh opposite. What is hurting star trek is the producers trying to reinvent it every fuew years. This attempt will fail like the others. Let's send them to a different part in space. LEt's rewriter the history before the original series. Lets just screw the whole universe.
> 
> The worst thing you can do if you're bringing a franchise to the big screen is to screw the fanbase because that's going to be your word of mouth. YOu have neve heard of any movie... not one.. where it went completely against canon and was still successful.
> 
> How can you trust the material of am movie from a guy who doesn't even like the franchise.




What would you suggest they do? The old format: nobody's interested. At least, not in numbers that will pay for the show/movie. They have this franchise: they _could _let it die and avoid offending intranet fanbois. But that's a waste: why not give it a try and try to make it mainstream again? 

At this point, they have nothing to lose. Worst case: the experiment fails, and we're back to the "only thre epeople on the planet care any more about Star Trek". OK, that's clearly an exaggeration (I have to head that off at the pass before fanboi stats are quoted at me), but the fanbase isn't there to support movies in the current format at a budget required to do the series any justice.



> Perhaps Morus is right, they should have let it live on in other forms of media




I did not advocate that.  I believe that, given the situation the franchine was in, they've made the best decision they could have.  It _is_ a gamble, but I think that this approach gives them the best odds they're likely to get.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 19, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> How can you trust the material of am movie from a guy who doesn't even like the franchise.




I'd trust that more than I would someone holding onto it as sacred. It allows for the person to come in unbiased and see what needs changing and what definitely has to stay the same in a way that someone in love with it already won't see. The whole point is to breathe new life into Star Trek, and this is how you do it.

And besides, Abrams not liking the franchise is an exaggeration. What he's said is he was always more of a Star Wars fan, but after really watching the shows(which, I believe, he watched all of the series before diving into this movie) he's turned around and really loves it.

Honestly, if anything is the problem, its the attitude that this movie is already damned right now. We have a few production stills and nothing else. We know nothing at all about this. If you don't like what you're seeing right now, that's one thing and that's fine, but you can't judge the movie on what we have right now.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 19, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:


> I'd trust that more than I would someone holding onto it as sacred. It allows for the person to come in unbiased and see what needs changing and what definitely has to stay the same in a way that someone in love with it already won't see. The whole point is to breathe new life into Star Trek, and this is how you do it.




Agreed.  Witness BSG.  Whether any particular individal loves or hates it, it cannot be denied that the reboot was a good and successful decision.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 19, 2008)

Morrus said:


> but the fanbase isn't there to support movies in the current format at a budget required to do the series any justice.




Yes, you can't rely on the fanbase alone to show up to a sucky movie. The problem was not that the fanbase was too small but the scripts sucked for the last couple of movies. Try spending money on decenct scripts and more than the fanbase might show up.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 19, 2008)

I think it will be a fine romp through a retelling/reimagining of Star Trek. One of my favourite things about remakes (when done well) is to see how someone else would imagine it, if one just has the original thats it, that is the only way it is shown being imagined.

With well-done remakes you can see it evolve and change, like with Batman we see the camp-imagination with the 60's Batman and then the dark, realistic Batman of the new films.

One Star Trek story I would love to see told (and was what I had originally hoped they would do with Enterprise) would be the Earth-Romulan War. Who wouldn't want to watch early-warp ships firing nuclear missiles at eachother in Earth's orbit!


----------



## Graybeard (Oct 19, 2008)

As a long time Star Trek fan, I am somewhat curious to see how this movie turns out. I think most of the cast looks pretty good but I think Chris Pine is too young looking to play Kirk. As for the reboot, it may work or it may not. I would have preferred a completely different storyline. A movie set in the Star Trek universe without the Enterprise and crew could have been really good since the producers and writers wouldn't be tied down to how the fans think Kirk, Spock, etc. would act and would do in certain situations. They would have been free to make a story that appeals to a broader audience.

As for the lack of fans attending the last few movies, that, in my opinion, is a combination of poor scripts and the high price of going to a theater these days. I go to only about 3 or 4 movies a year due to the cost. Between tickets, concessions, etc. it can cost $30 or more.  I'd rather spend that money on something else and rent the movie on DVD.


----------



## Orius (Oct 19, 2008)

Silver Moon said:


> Shouldn't really be a problem, they could always just skip ahead and use this cast for Years 4 and 5 of the original five year mission.




Actually, we've already had that, it's called seasons 2 and 3 of TOS.  The more or less official timeline puts most of TOS in the last three years of the five-year mission.

STARTREK.COM:Article
STARTREK.COM:Biography


----------



## Wayside (Oct 19, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Shakespeare wrote plays, a medium that is designed to be staged repeatedly. I have seen lots of Shakespeare and love it, but when I see a Shakespeare play I am listening to the exact plot, characters, and dialogue as originally written. Now Shakespeare was a great writer and his plots and themes have been used over and over by many writers but when Shakespeare is rewritten it needs to have its name changed. West Side Story is based off of Romeo and Juliet but they had the respect to rename it when they did.



I think Umbran was referring to the fact that many of Shakespeare's plays are themselves remakes.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 19, 2008)

The thing that annoys me the most about this is that it has Checkov. He didn't show up until the second season. (And I always hated the character anyway. Bester for the win!) 

But I do love how people complain about how they might screw with continuity. Might I suggest to those people that they go look at the old shows again? REAL hard. They screwed with their own continuity practically from day one. (The Romulan Neutral Zone being one of the more obvious examples. Crossing the line is an Act Of War, no ifs, ands or buts. So says the first episode to show them. So, how many times was the line crossed without the Feds and Roms going to war? At least twice during ToS, NOT including that first one.)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 19, 2008)

Silver Moon said:


> Shouldn't really be a problem, they could always just skip ahead and use this cast for Years 4 and 5 of the original five year mission.




OR remake the movies, Wrath of Khan was 26 years ago,  or expand on the shows from TV.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 19, 2008)

Ed_Laprade said:


> The thing that annoys me the most about this is that it has Checkov. He didn't show up until the second season. (And I always hated the character anyway. Bester for the win!)




While we didn't _see_ Chekov until season two, according to official continuity he was on the ship in some capacity or other during season one. That's how Khan recognized him in the second movie, for instance.

Although I certainly agree that Bester is the cooler character.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 20, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> The only thing that was hurting the franchise was the Un-Dynamic Duo of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. The last two TV series were pathetic. Add to that the last two prior _Trek_ films.




Specifically, for those of you who were diehards (and who had boring evenings to fill) that watched Enterprise through to the end...

In the fourth season of Enterprise, Berman and Braga were off doing other things.  They gave the reins to Manny Coto, and the improvement in quality was nigh instantaneous.  Coto knew what Enterprise should have been about, and he rapidly took the series in that direction.  Unfortunately, it was too late to save the series.  If he'd had it from the beginning, with the same cast, I believe we'd have a far better opinion of the show, and the franchise now.


----------



## stonegod (Oct 20, 2008)

Umbran said:


> In the fourth season of Enterprise, Berman and Braga were off doing other things.  They gave the reins to Manny Coto, and the improvement in quality was nigh instantaneous.  Coto knew what Enterprise should have been about, and he rapidly took the series in that direction.  Unfortunately, it was too late to save the series.  If he'd had it from the beginning, with the same cast, I believe we'd have a far better opinion of the show, and the franchise now.



Yup. Last season was just getting good. The finale was a kick in the pants, though, as it was really a TNG ep, not an Enterprise ep.


----------



## Orius (Oct 20, 2008)

Ed_Laprade said:


> But I do love how people complain about how they might screw with continuity. Might I suggest to those people that they go look at the old shows again? REAL hard. They screwed with their own continuity practically from day one.




Oh yeah, early first season TOS has tons of holes like this.  Local reruns (with all the fancy new special effects) just had "Mudd's Women" on and there's lots of technical holes in how the ship's engines work.  "Balance of Terror" as you mentioned is another glaring example, with Romulan ships not having warp drives, but some how being able to fight an interstellar war.  Starfleet and the Federation were't there from the start, and there's some inconsistancies with mentions of things like a United Earth (though some of that was later worked back into pre-Federation _Enterprise_.  And the approximate date of those early episodes fluctuate from the 22nd to the 28th century.  Some of that background information on Star Trek sort of got put together piecemeal mostly during the first season.  Heck, the whole 4-quadrant system didn't get established until season three of TNG!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2008)

stonegod said:


> Yup. Last season was just getting good. The finale was a kick in the pants, though, as it was really a TNG ep, not an Enterprise ep.




And guess who was responsible for that again! 

Ultimiately, you could probably create a new Startrek Series or Movies and they won't suck. But you need people that just make shows and movies that don't suck. The principle is simple, finding the right people for it not so much. 



> Oh yeah, early first season TOS has tons of holes like this. Local reruns (with all the fancy new special effects) just had "Mudd's Women" on and there's lots of technical holes in how the ship's engines work. "Balance of Terror" as you mentioned is another glaring example, with Romulan ships not having warp drives, but some how being able to fight an interstellar war. Starfleet and the Federation were't there from the start, and there's some inconsistancies with mentions of things like a United Earth (though some of that was later worked back into pre-Federation Enterprise. And the approximate date of those early episodes fluctuate from the 22nd to the 28th century. Some of that background information on Star Trek sort of got put together piecemeal mostly during the first season. Heck, the whole 4-quadrant system didn't get established until season three of TNG!




It's even worse in German. The Pon Farr episode was re-written because the "sexual" nature of Spocks malady was considered inappropriate at that time (wow, how times change - today I would expect such a claim only from US TV officials  ). _Patterns of Force_ was not shown on German TV for the Nazi ideology part. 
Oh, and warp speed? For some time, it was called "Sol" as in "Mr. Sulu, set course for Vulcan, Sol 8!". I think the scale was off, too, but that might have been in the original, too. But it was changed back to Warp, too, and was so called in all other Startrek Shows (TNG and later)


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And guess who was responsible for that again!
> 
> Ultimiately, you could probably create a new Startrek Series or Movies and they won't suck. But you need people that just make shows and movies that don't suck. The principle is simple, finding the right people for it not so much.
> 
> ...



Regardless of inconsistancies , you still have a solid foundation of a consistant story told in a linear fashion.  The movies realy helped stabalize the continuity. Putting a giant sike on 40 years of storytelling reeks of desperation.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 20, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Putting a giant sike on 40 years of storytelling reeks of desperation.



Or a savvy understanding that today's movie goers and scifi fans have changing expectations of what makes "good" film entertainment.  The James Bond franchise has done the same thing, and it was a great move, IMHO.

Enterprise really shined when it wasn't simply repeating the formulaic story telling of earlier iterations, but when it made connections to TOS in smart ways, evoking rather than imitating. When it moved away from that in some of the seasons, it was revealed for what it was: a pretty mediocre sci-fi show. 

Just pushing the continuity on and on isn't really a solution. Actors have moved on (or passed away) from the franchise, and audiences were losing interest with the movies. A prequel series didn't work. Setting the series further and further into the future would just seem silly - "ST: Now even more super sciencey!"  DS9 did a good job using the space station model but now that scenario has been used. Voyager really failed to capitalize on it's premise of a Feds + Rebels trapped together on the same ship, and simply retreaded alot of TNG territory.

Going back and revisiting what started it all, but using today's effects and more sophisticated storytelling, I think is a great homage to the fans that made the franchise so accepted by the mainstream in the first place, as well as bringing new people to the Star Trek universe. One big thing this reboot will have going for it - people won't feel like they've had to have been watching one of the previous TV series to know what's going on.


----------



## qstor (Oct 20, 2008)

I was thinking that I wasn't going to see this but now I might. The pics looked cool. I don't have a problem with the way the bridge looked but I'm GLAD they kept the old uniforms.

Mike


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> One big thing this reboot will have going for it - people won't feel like they've had to have been watching one of the previous TV series to know what's going on.




The potential here is particularly both attracting new viewers and long-term fans.

Imagine an episode telling a little of Picards life as Captain of the Stargazer - maybe the incident where Crusher (Beverlys husband) died - a story that is interesting in its own right, but was never told and the fans know about. 

The most interesting episodes of Enterprise touched on things we already know basically (Vulcans were one of the first Federation members), but told us stories we didn't know (and Vulcans and Andorians hated each other, and the humans helped bringing them together)


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 20, 2008)

Ed_Laprade said:


> The thing that annoys me the most about this is that it has Checkov. He didn't show up until the second season. (And I always hated the character anyway. Bester for the win!)



He didn't show up on the upper deck as a bridge member until season 2.

He is annoying but he's one of the gimmicks to get girls (in the 60's) to watch the series, with the haircut the same as one of the Monkees.


----------



## Pants (Oct 21, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> He didn't show up on the upper deck as a bridge member until season 2.
> 
> He is annoying but he's one of the gimmicks to get girls (in the 60's) to watch the series, with the haircut the same as one of the Monkees.



Chekov annoying?

Nuclear Wessels buddy!


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 21, 2008)

Pants said:


> Chekov annoying?
> 
> Nuclear Wessels buddy!



That and everything is a Russian invention, including RPG.


----------



## Orius (Oct 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> _Patterns of Force_ was not shown on German TV for the Nazi ideology part.




That's kind of understandable, and it's a forgettable episode anyway.  



> Oh, and warp speed? For some time, it was called "Sol" as in "Mr. Sulu, set course for Vulcan, Sol 8!". I think the scale was off, too, but that might have been in the original, too. But it was changed back to Warp, too, and was so called in all other Startrek Shows (TNG and later)




Different scale in TOS and the new series.  In TOS speed of the warp factor is factor^3*c.  In TNG it was reworked because they felt that TOS episodes that used high warp speeds to generate tension got silly.  For example, in the first season, Warp 8 is supposed to be the upper safe end, but in third season, the ship's going up to Warp 14 in some episodes (though not good).

In TNG, there's anew asymptotic warp scale where 10 is the maximum and by going at Warp 10, one is at all points in the universe at once, and it's generally unreachable.

Technically, Enterprise should use the TOS scale, but they buggered with so much else, so that's a minor nitpick.

Realistically though, warp speed always moves at the pace of plot.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 21, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> That and everything is a Russian invention, including RPG.




How dare you. Russians are just making things up, RPGs like everything else are Klingon inventions.


----------



## Pbartender (Oct 21, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> How dare you. Russians are just making things up, RPGs like everything else are Klingon inventions.




But didn't you know? Klingons were invented by a little old lady living in Novosibirsk.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 21, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> How dare you. Russians are just making things up, RPGs like everything else are Klingon inventions.



Great. Now I have the mental image of Klingon nerds playing Blood & Battle in the engine room of a Bird of Prey.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 21, 2008)

Orius said:


> That's kind of understandable, and it's a forgettable episode anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your Startrek Fu startles me not, Young Padawan... err... err... Ensign!
I knew of the scale change - Hey, I read the Technical Manual of the Enterprise. But the name change from Sol to Warp occurred sometimes during TOS in Germany. (without any scale change).


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The potential here is particularly both attracting new viewers and long-term fans.
> 
> Imagine an episode telling a little of Picards life as Captain of the Stargazer - maybe the incident where Crusher (Beverlys husband) died - a story that is interesting in its own right, but was never told and the fans know about.
> 
> The most interesting episodes of Enterprise touched on things we already know basically (Vulcans were one of the first Federation members), but told us stories we didn't know (and Vulcans and Andorians hated each other, and the humans helped bringing them together)



The power of the internet. Your convincefu has me somewhat intrigued.  I was die hard not going to see this movie. But reading some of the pros has driven me from hostile to indifferent.  carry on. Best example I have heard of. I actually enjoyed some of enterprises stories.  

I guess i hate the word reboot. If they are doing it in your sense then tell stories i have never heard, don't rewrite the ones I have... and don't give up on the future universe.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 21, 2008)

Orius said:


> Realistically though, warp speed always moves at the pace of plot.



Oh yeah. Some fan back in the day decided to figure out how realistic they were being with it and quickly discovered that it would have taken _centuries _to have gone to even half the places they went to. And let's not forget that the Big E was upgraded by aliens to travel at those high Warp speeds, but the next show had them plodding along at good ol' Warp 6 or so. (Instead of the ship being in dry dock with the R&D people tearing it apart to see how it was done!)

And I'm *still* waiting for the First Federation (Balok? Little Clint Howard hiding behind a big mask. The first one with 'corbomite'.) to get back to them. Their tech was way ahead of Kirk's Federation.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 21, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> The power of the internet. Your convincefu has me somewhat intrigued.  I was die hard not going to see this movie. But reading some of the pros has driven me from hostile to indifferent.  carry on. Best example I have heard of. I actually enjoyed some of enterprises stories.



This power of the internet - it seems to rarely work. But it's cool if it does.

I didn't like the idea of Enterprise at first. And it left a lot to be desired, but there were also highlights that made me think that maybe, just maybe there is a chance that a new series set after DS9 / Voyager is not the only option.



> I guess i hate the word reboot. If they are doing it in your sense then tell stories i have never heard, don't rewrite the ones I have... and don't give up on the future universe.



I like the idea of retconning a little stuff, but keep the core of the story. (There is no need for a BSG-type re-imagination). As I said, there are inconsistencies in the Startrek Storyline. But instead of trying to "officially" fix them by rebooting everything, do it more subtle. For example - when did the eugenic wars happen? Was it the 3rd world war talked about in First Contact? Maybe just tell the story of these wars (or the war). 

The Klingon "make-up" explanation was perhaps unnecessary, but it might be useful to "fix" the idea of the Romulans having no Warp Drive. Just use one of the fan explanations and go with it (my favorite one was that the Enterprise was looking for the typical signature of Matter/Anti-Matter reactors and didn't find them, missing the fact that Romulans rely on Quantum Singularities)

And the rest - there is still a lot to be explored - What was the reason for the Romulans retreat until that TNG episode where they were back? (There was a story in the works that got dropped, IIRC - can it be re-used?)

Of course, there are also some things I personally want to be removed entirely - most of the Voyager stories need at least a serious overhaul, if not removal...


----------



## danzig138 (Oct 22, 2008)

F5 said:


> I am absolutely, completely buying Zach Quinto as a young Spock.




I've been watching Heroes, and I've actually caught myself thinking of him as Spock, and not Sylar, and that's obviously without having seen the new ST movie. I don't know. I'ts like I heard he was cast as Spock, and in my mind, it was as right and natural as Patrick Stewart being cast as Xavier. 

I didn't even recognize Urban as Urban in the photos. Kirk does _look _awfully young though. As I see more pictures of him, I kind of want to punch him in the face. 

But I often got that feeling with Shatner as well, so maybe he is a good choice. 


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> If he'd had it from the beginning, with the same cast, I believe we'd have a far better opinion of the show



 Word. The quality jump was super noticable. It still wasn't that great, but it was too late to save it. If that guy had had it from the beginning and was able to grow with it, I think the show might still be on. 

I don't know. I'll probably go see this. I'm not excited, but I'm far from disgusted with the idea.


----------



## Orius (Oct 22, 2008)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Oh yeah. Some fan back in the day decided to figure out how realistic they were being with it and quickly discovered that it would have taken _centuries _to have gone to even half the places they went to.




And I remember another fan doing the number crunching for the first episode of Enterprise who concluded that given the Warp factor and travel time, the Klingon Homeworld was located in the outer reaches of the solar system.


----------



## horacethegrey (Mar 6, 2009)

Brand new trailer online, though I'm sure some of you have already seen it. Click on the Trailer 3 links here.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Specifically, for those of you who were diehards (and who had boring evenings to fill) that watched Enterprise through to the end...
> 
> In the fourth season of Enterprise, Berman and Braga were off doing other things.  They gave the reins to Manny Coto, and the improvement in quality was nigh instantaneous.  Coto knew what Enterprise should have been about, and he rapidly took the series in that direction.  Unfortunately, it was too late to save the series.  If he'd had it from the beginning, with the same cast, I believe we'd have a far better opinion of the show, and the franchise now.



I won't disagree. The show's fourth season outshined the previous three seasons combined.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 6, 2009)

Ranger REG said:


> I won't disagree. The show's fourth season outshined the previous three seasons combined.




The only downsides to season 4 were the first two episodes where Coto had to clean up the alien nazi mess he was left with, and the final episode where B&B took back over and once more screwed the series.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The only downsides to season 4 were the first two episodes where Coto had to clean up the alien nazi mess he was left with, and the final episode where B&B took back over and once more screwed the series.



That's why I consider the Mirror Universe two-parter as the "real" ending. It was definitely making up for the retro-TNG ending.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 7, 2009)

horacethegrey said:


> Brand new trailer online, though I'm sure some of you have already seen it. Click on the Trailer 3 links here.




A lot of action in trailer 3.  Still not sure on Kirk's casting.  Definitely going to see it though.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 10, 2009)

I'm looking forward to this. I'll be trying to take my wife and kids on opening night (though that is my 16th wedding anniversary.....).


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 11, 2009)

Just saw the new trailer......WOW.  I have to say, I'm not a Star Trek fan.....I watched parts of the TOS, TNG, DSN, and Voyager, and about 3 of the more recent movies, but it was always second fiddle to Star Wars for me...

I have nothing really invested in the canon, etc.

But that trailer.....either they did an amazing job with the trailer, based on a movie that's not so good, or this could be a killer reboot of the series.

Crossing my fingers for May...

Banshee


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 11, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> Just saw the new trailer......WOW.  I have to say, I'm not a Star Trek fan.....I watched parts of the TOS, TNG, DSN, and Voyager, and about 3 of the more recent movies, but it was always second fiddle to Star Wars for me...
> 
> I have nothing really invested in the canon, etc.
> 
> ...



Wow. That doesn't sound good. _Star Trek_ tends to be more cerebral than _Star Wars._ To be anything less is ... _Star Wars._


----------



## Desert Hare (Mar 11, 2009)

You know I was dead set against ever seeing the new Trek movie, but after seeing the new trailer in the theater, I am *Hooked*! 

I absolutely must see it in the theater.


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Mar 12, 2009)

Ranger REG said:


> Wow. That doesn't sound good. _Star Trek_ tends to be more cerebral than _Star Wars._ To be anything less is ... _Star Wars._



That's one of the reasons I still remain skeptical of the new flick. Abrams has said that he was always a bigger fan of _Star Wars_ because of the bigger action quotient and wanted to bring some of that to the new Trek. 

We'll see how it works out. _Trek_ did have some great action pieces, but as you say it all rested on a more "cerebral" base of exploring big ideas.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 13, 2009)

Ranger REG said:


> Wow. That doesn't sound good. _Star Trek_ tends to be more cerebral than _Star Wars._ To be anything less is ... _Star Wars._




Not that I've seen all the episodes, but I was always under the impression that the Star Trek movies were always more action packed than the TV shows were.  I don't seem to remember the Enterprise being destroyed nearly as often in the shows as has happened in the movies.  But I think I've only seen three of the movies...First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis.  And I remember one where they beamed up some great blue whales, and Spoke was wearing a headband to cover his ears.  And I think I've seen pieces of Wrath of Khan.  And one where Spock became a child again, or something.  Admittedly, a lot of the earlier Star Trek stuff kind of bored me so I usually turned it off before finishing the movies.  That's why I'll admit to not being a huge fan.  I mean, I would watch it if it was on, but it was never my first choice.

I have no issues with cerebral movies....Star Trek just didn't jive for me.  Given the past 2000 years of history, I always had trouble conceptualizing a future where people were mainly getting along, instead of finding new and ingenious ways to slaughter each other with better weapons than we have now.  And the whole having sex with aliens thing.....given our knowledge of evolution, reproductive barriers between separate species etc. I thought it was kind of silly that Kirk would be getting it on with all these alien woman who looked like normal women, but with blue skin and antennas or something.....I mean, if we ever do run into another intelligent species, who's to say that their gender organs won't be in their arm pits or something? 

That doesn't mean light sabers et all are any more realistic....but Star Wars did have action.....and fencing  

But just to be very clear....this is all my opinion....just because I've never been a huge fan, doesn't mean I'm criticizing those who are....it just wasn't really for me.  

I think the new movie looks interesting, and hope it's as good as it looks.

I have no idea if it'll be as cerebral as the older material.  Of course, given it's a movie trailer, it's possible that the movie has taken the key action sequences, and highlighted them, in order to generate hype, and in actuality, those sequences are spread out through 2 hours.

But if rebooting it like this saves the franchise, then great.....it would suck to see Star Trek permanently die.  Maybe, to get new fans, they have to change things.  Sometimes it sucks when you like the original, but times change, and unfortunately, what people like doesn't always remain the same.  I've seen with some shows that I've liked that more action and/or comedy variants of them seem to have done better than the originals, which were more cerebral....I think to "Reaper", which seems awfully close to an older show, "Brimstone", that I really, really liked.....Brimstone was far more cerebral, but just didn't seem to catch on.  At their roots, the two shows seem to share a lot of similarities, but the tone is very different.

Banshee


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 13, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> it would suck to see Star Trek permanently die.



Okay.


> Maybe, to get new fans, they have to change things.



Okay.


> Sometimes it sucks when you like the original, but times change, and unfortunately, what people like doesn't always remain the same.



Then why would it "suck" for Star Trek to permanently die, to a certain number of the population?

Just wondering. I only ask as this is along the lines of D&D's lame "save the hobby!" cries we hear every now and then, which often equate to "let's make things that suck to x number of people, just to save the hobby! And you'll be thankful the hobby is saved, even though nothing you like about it remains. But think of the hobby, man! THE HOBBY!" *ahem* 


(Not that I'm saying the reboot sucks - I haven't seen it. It looks okay, actually, even though Kirk looks _way_ too young... real age of the actor notwithstanding.)


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 14, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> Okay.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> ...




It would suck for Star Trek to die, mainly because there are still a fair number of people who seem to be fans.  So it's an "empathic sucking".....it might not hold as much weight with me, but I could see a lot of people being quite disappointed.

Evidently not enough people remain interested for it to remain viable without doing something to try and raise interest...if the TV show was cancelled, and the last movie generated low interest, and they haven't been getting great ratings, then evidently something was going wrong.  Otherwise they wouldn't have low viewership problems, correct?

Banshee


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Mar 14, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> ...if the TV show was cancelled, and the last movie generated low interest, and they haven't been getting great ratings, then evidently something was going wrong.




Yes, something was going wrong and it has a name - Berman and Braga.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 14, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> (Not that I'm saying the reboot sucks - I haven't seen it. It looks okay, actually, even though Kirk looks _way_ too young... real age of the actor notwithstanding.)



I dunno. Back in the mid-60's, the young Shat would be considered young in appearance to those audience. But to us later generations, we look at their appearance and style (with greased-up hair) as being more close to our fathers and grandfathers, hence old[er].

Let's not forget that this Abram film is both a re-imagination as well as an origin/prequel story.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 14, 2009)

Merlin's Shadow said:


> Yes, something was going wrong and it has a name - Berman and Braga.



That's two names and yeah, their unholy alliance is what started the downfall of the franchise, but that doesn't mean it is dead.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 14, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> I have no issues with cerebral movies....Star Trek just didn't jive for me.  Given the past 2000 years of history, I always had trouble conceptualizing a future where people were mainly getting along, instead of finding new and ingenious ways to slaughter each other with better weapons than we have now.  And the whole having sex with aliens thing.....given our knowledge of evolution, reproductive barriers between separate species etc. I thought it was kind of silly that Kirk would be getting it on with all these alien woman who looked like normal women, but with blue skin and antennas or something.....I mean, if we ever do run into another intelligent species, who's to say that their gender organs won't be in their arm pits or something?



Actually, it's not that hard to visualize a society that gets along. Roddenberry have the same vision much earlier than when Martin Luther King, Jr. did when he wrote and oratized the famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

And as for Kirk having sex with aliens, I don't think he was all too concerned about cross-species procreation (except for that one time with Carol Marcus). But he was an "explorer," IYKWIMAITYD. * nudge nudge*



Banshee16 said:


> That doesn't mean light sabers et all are any more realistic....but Star Wars did have action.....and fencing



Meh. I won't knock on the action part, but I prefer a good cerebral story that goes along with the action part. The whole "good vs. evil" theme -- IMNSHO -- have been played over and over and over again.



Banshee16 said:


> "Brimstone", that I really, really liked.....Brimstone was far more cerebral, but just didn't seem to catch on.



I agree about _Brimstone._ Then again, I never counted myself as mainstream as _Star Wars_ casual fans.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 15, 2009)

Merlin's Shadow said:


> Yes, something was going wrong and it has a name - Berman and Braga.




Exactly. The solution has a name as well and it is Manny Coto and not JJ Abrams.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 16, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Exactly. The solution has a name as well and it is Manny Coto and not JJ Abrams.



Last I checked, Manny was working on Keifer Sutherland's _24._ His schedule may not allow him to take on such a feature film endeavor. That and JJ Abrams has more exposure as an A-list producer and director, as well as creator (_Alias, Felicity, Lost,_ etc.).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 17, 2009)

Ranger REG said:


> Last I checked, Manny was working on Keifer Sutherland's _24._ His schedule may not allow him to take on such a feature film endeavor. That and JJ Abrams has more exposure as an A-list producer and director, as well as creator (_Alias, Felicity, Lost,_ etc.).




I know Abrams is big, but he is an action director. I just don't trust him to do Trek apropriately, while I would see a Coto Trek movie without knowing anything about it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 18, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I know Abrams is big, but he is an action director. I just don't trust him to do Trek apropriately, while I would see a Coto Trek movie without knowing anything about it.



Meh. He wasn't just an action director at first. After all, he did _Felicity._

And despite my Pure Hate of Tom Cruise, Abrams did make a better _Mission Impossible 3_ after the second film flop. In many works I have seen, he put more intelligence into one project than Berman & Braga did with all their directly collaborated works combined.

And as I have said earlier, Manny is pretty much busy with _24_. I don't mind Manny write and Abrams direct though, but that is a dream team yet to come to fruition.


----------



## Megaton (Mar 18, 2009)

Keep in mind here, that he's more of a writer producer, besides a few episodes of Lost and Alias, the only film he's _actually_ directed is MI3. Granted that's an action movie, but only one movie isn't enough to base a judgement on, IMO.


----------



## Krug (Apr 3, 2009)

They're carrying the merchandising thing a bit too far:
PREVIEWS: The Comic Shop's Catalog! - Star Trek: Tiberius Cologne For Men



> Star Trek: Tiberius Cologne For Men
> 
> Tiberius Cologne for Men gets physical, quickly blending chemistry and emotion. Crisp and clean; a casual yet commanding fragrance spiked with raised notes of freshness and sensuality. Difficult to define. Impossible to resist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 3, 2009)

Krug said:


> They're carrying the merchandising thing a bit too far:
> PREVIEWS: The Comic Shop's Catalog! - Star Trek: Tiberius Cologne For Men




They do? If it makes me just half as successful as Kirk with women...


----------



## rowport (Apr 5, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> They do? If it makes me just half as successful as Kirk with women...




Sure-- but the catch is that it only works on green-skinned aliens.


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 5, 2009)

> Sure-- but the catch is that it only works on green-skinned aliens.




Well, everybody's gotta start somewhere.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 6, 2009)

rowport said:


> Sure-- but the catch is that it only works on green-skinned aliens.




_Attractive _green-skinned aliens. 

I guess the problem is finding even one of them, eh?


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 11, 2009)

Krug said:


> They're carrying the merchandising thing a bit too far:
> PREVIEWS: The Comic Shop's Catalog! - Star Trek: Tiberius Cologne For Men




Hey...  If it can make the stereotypical convention-goer smell a little sweeter, I'm all for it.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 15, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> it would suck to see Star Trek permanently die.



I disagree. A good death is preferably to an eternity of studios suckling at the necrotic teat of an undead cash cow. Far too many franchises fade intro mediocrity because they are not allowed to come to a good end and instead they defile themselves in hopes of expanding past their loyal core audience.

Remakes can run the gamut from _Masterpiece that breaths a soul into a soulless original_ to a _Rotting flesh golem stitched together from a drained out cashcow_. Unfortunately the latter is more common than the former.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 16, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> Far too many franchises fade intro mediocrity because they are not allowed to come to a good end and instead they defile themselves in hopes of expanding past their loyal core audience.



I'd like to think James T. Kirk (and co.) on their way to becoming characters for the ages, like Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes.

Though it's true I'd _like_ to think that because I've been a Star Trek fan since the age of 4...


----------

