Star Trek

Batutta said:
star-trek-20081015025340385.jpg
Click to expand...

This doesn't give me hope for the plot, nor for its respect for the characters. It's kind of hard to imagine a set of of circumstances where James T. Kirk would take an escape pod by himself (implying he'd abandon his ship and crew, even briefly). He'd certainly SACRIFICE his ship and crew for a greater good, threatened to several times, and actually ended up scuttling the ship. But this speaks of something entirely different.

No, sir. Don't like it.
 
Not a trekkie but I can't wait to see it. I think Mr. Abram will be able to deliver a fresh and new look and feel of this new Star Trek. I just hope he will be able to take us where no other previous directors had gone before...lol. What an awesome teaser showing the Starship Enterprise underconstruction.
 
I can imagine a set of circumstances where Kirk would sacrifice himself to save his ship and his friends... If the alleged (SPOILERS) time-travelling, possibly Romulan, bad-guys are trying to kill him specifically, then I can see him escape-podding down to a planet and saying something along the lines of "You want me? Then come and get me!" rather than let them attack the Enterprise and kill everybody...
 
Captain Pierce said:
I can imagine a set of circumstances where Kirk would sacrifice himself to save his ship and his friends... If the alleged (SPOILERS) time-travelling, possibly Romulan, bad-guys are trying to kill him specifically, then I can see him escape-podding down to a planet and saying something along the lines of "You want me? Then come and get me!" rather than let them attack the Enterprise and kill everybody...
Click to expand...

He showed he wouldn't do that in Star Trek II when an offer to do exactly that was a ruse to cover a counter-attack plan. In fact, I think the absolute confidence his crew had him in that he wouldn't leave them made the ruse work like clockwork. Watch that scene again -- it never even occurs to them that he could have meant it.

No way he would say "you want me, come and get me" and then just leave his crew unattended for them to do whatever they wanted after they took care of him. No worthy captain would ever do that.

Maybe THIS version of JTK would, but if so, the problems are hardly limited to terrible set design.
 
As a fan of the original series cast and the TNG cast I have to say that the Star Trek movies has always been "spotty" at best. I'm going in with low expectations so I don't set myself up for a fall... but I am still hopeful. :thumbup:

As for the images on the net, I can't wait to see what it actually looks like after they soften it up in Post. What we're seeing now in the digital stills will probably not transfer to the actual movie after editing. The bridge looks like a futuristic trauma center... way too bright.

-Rob
 
I think we should just wait and see the film before we judge it too harshly.
The said they were going back to the Retro 60's look with a few adjustments here and there and have done so.

It has a nice classy look to it, we have a nice cast of fine actors taking on the monumental task of filling roles most sacred to scifi and we have a moderately credible director and writers behind the script.

So lets just try to be less judgmental and open out minds a little here.
Some of the comments here have been down right snobbish and lets face it, we are all filmmakers, we all have our own ways we would do things from script, to direction to casting etc.

But bitching about something you haven't seen before it even comes out really can get out of hand. Not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule as we all have our own 'black lists' of writers and directors who deserve as much flak as we can give them, but this does seem like an honest attempt to bring back the nostalgia for a new generation, but tat the same time not walk all over mythos.

Lets be patient here and wait until we've seen some trailers(the teaser was an attention grabber, nothing else) ok? :)
 
David Jimerson said:
It's kind of hard to imagine a set of of circumstances where James T. Kirk would take an escape pod by himself (implying he'd abandon his ship and crew, even briefly).
Click to expand...

Well only one person could fit in that pod... who's to say that there aren't dozens more of those off frame and the entire crew had left?

Or, perhaps he's being dropped "behind enemy lines" for a mission of some kind, and the escape pod was chosen so he wouldn't be detected?
 
I am so tired of remakes that don't stay true to the original vision, I mean who the hell do these people think they are, Bayformers, and now this? I'm going to remake the wiseguys and cast seth green, jack black, tom green and andy dick.

it shows nothing less than a lack of respect for the fans, it borders on contempt.
 
Hey, Bay's Transformers was a lot better than Singer's Superman Returns. As Trek goes, I liked Enterprise... a lot. It was pretty close to Gene's vision, and fit the timeline pretty well.
 
Capt Quirk said:
I liked Enterprise... a lot. It was pretty close to Gene's vision, and fit the timeline pretty well.
Click to expand...

:shocked: (Would say more, but I think I broke my hand Thursday.)

More pics, including a starship, at http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-stills/gallery/1176/#photo0. The starship would be pretty cool without the deflector pod coming out of the bridge; it reminds me of the Saladin / Hermes classes from the Franz Joseph Technical Manual. (Oh, and it should be NCC-514, not 0514. :D )
 
TwistedLincoln said:
Well only one person could fit in that pod... who's to say that there aren't dozens more of those off frame and the entire crew had left?
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then it's bad for several other reasons -- not the least of which being that the same thing was done just a few movies back (in another time-travel movie).


Or, perhaps he's being dropped "behind enemy lines" for a mission of some kind, and the escape pod was chosen so he wouldn't be detected?
Click to expand...
I guess we'll see.
 
Brandon Rice said:
I will say I'm excited but skeptical all the same.
Click to expand...

Same here, this is what was said yesterday by one of Paramounts execs:


''We have worldwide aspirations and we need to broaden [Trek's] appeal,'' says Weston [Brad Weston, Paramount's president of production] ''Doing the half-assed version of this thing wasn't going to work.''


Good or bad I can't wait to see it.
 
Well, I was being snarky, but I still don't know what that means. What's the "half-assed" way of doing it?

And since when did Trek not have a worldwide appeal?
 
The full paragraph:

Plus, at heart, Abrams is still more of a Star Wars guy. ''All my smart friends liked Star Trek,'' he says. ''I preferred a more visceral experience.'' Which is exactly why he accepted Paramount's offer in 2005 to develop a new Trek flick; creatively, he was engaged by the possibility of a Star Trek movie ''that grabbed me the way Star Wars did.'' That meant a bigger budget and better special effects than any previous Trek film, plus freedom to reinvent the mythos as needed. ''We have worldwide aspirations and we need to broaden [Trek's] appeal,'' says Weston. ''Doing the half-assed version of this thing wasn't going to work.''
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top