Star Trek

Blade Borge said:
With that said, JJ did the impossible and I'm actually going to pay to see a star trek movie!
Click to expand...

Did you see the red carpet stuff wth all the Playboy Playmates, Girls From Next Door, (robert grabbin ass) etc?

Nerds are the new 'hip' 'sheik' people in the world (thank god) , big bang theory will have a few lines about Trek this Monday!

I'll be hit by lightning Tuesday FTR.
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
I am just not buying the dude playing Kirk. Maybe I'm prematurely judging, probably, but from all I've seen so far, there is just no way that anyone can fill the Shat's shoes. Shatner freaking owned James T. Kirk, and I think that these clips really show that. No offense to the actor playing Kirk in the new film. It is a nearly impossible role to step into, and anyone that goes into it full hog and tries to make it work I respect. I still want to see it but this seems to be the biggest thing that I would suspect to not work for fans of the original series/films.
Click to expand...

My feeling all along, as it's become more and more clear that Abrams' film is, in fact, a "reboot" of the franchise despite early protestations to the contrary, is that (as per pretty much usual) rebooting wasn't necessary, because there was really nothing in the concept that required wiping the slate clean and starting over. All he had to do was make a couple of tweaks, and the film could easily have fit into established continuity (at least as well as anything can fit into existing continuity, as non-continuitous as it is :D ).

But I've been thinking lately, particular after reading this post yesterday morning... maybe, just maybe, there is one factor that makes rebooting almost a necessity for Star Trek. And that factor is... William Shatner.

As Nektonic said, it is nearly an impossible role to step into; almost any homage to Shatner's style is doomed to come across as ridiculous. What happens in the course of the "reboot," though, seems to primarily affect Kirk, with his father dying, and so Kirk is the character changed the most in this alternate timeline, thus freeing Chris Pine to bring a new interpretation to the screen. (Although I could quibble, again, about what's actually changed--there's next to no canon info on George Samuel Kirk, Sr., but several non-canon sources have suggested that he wasn't around much anyway through Jim's early years, and that their relationship may not have been the greatest. Diane Carey's novels "Final Frontier" and "Best Destiny" explore this territory; the latter, in particular, shows us a teen Jim Kirk that's not too far removed from the Corvette-stealing punk of the first trailer. :) )

At any rate, from what I've seen in the trailers and clips so far, I am really liking what Chris Pine is doing. Even without it being an altered version, I see what I'm expecting: a younger Kirk that's all attitude and cockiness, without any of the tempering that eight or ten years in Starfleet has given him by the time we see him in TOS.
 
I don't think Chris Pine is screwing anything up, or that it is his fault. And the script might've nailed the young Kirk as a character, but once they try and fill those shoes with any actor besides Shatner, I think that it just doesn't seem to work.

Some actors + their role = iconic characters that wouldn't have been what they were with a different actor portraying them. How about Ripley from Aliens? What if they remade those films with some young new actress taking over Ripley? Wouldn't work. How about Bill Adama from the new Battlestar (which is a remake but he freaking owned that role)? In BSG: Razor they had a young viper pilot version of him for a few scenes, which sorta worked since it was a short amount of screen time, and now in Caprica they have a little kid version. It is just odd and doesn't really work.

Not that it is any reason to not see this movie. I'm excited and am going to go in with the attitude that it is a remake and a different interpretation of Kirk, Spock, Bones, the rest of the crew, and the Star Trek universe. Star Trek is more than just Kirk and Spock. Judging from the clips and trailers, they've captured the essence of Star Trek while bringing something new to it at the same time. One thing I like is that Uhura seems to actually have a lot more to do this time, and seems to be a much more rounded out character.
 
Last edited:
Captain Pierce said:
My feeling all along, as it's become more and more clear that Abrams' film is, in fact, a "reboot" of the franchise despite early protestations to the contrary, is that (as per pretty much usual) rebooting wasn't necessary, because there was really nothing in the concept that required wiping the slate clean and starting over.
Click to expand...

I disagree for one simple reason.


SPOILER

If you are going back and telling the story of a young Trek crew without tweaking things the way they did (by having Bana's Nero go back in time to permanently alter the past), there is no jeopardy at all, because you know none of them could die. Now that JJ has hit the reset button on the timeline, anything could happen. I think it's a smart choice if you're going to tell the story of a young Kirk and Spock.
 
ChipG said:
Nerds are the new 'hip' 'sheik' people in the world (thank god)
Click to expand...

Yes, but I have a theory that there are the hip/fashionable nerds (Napolean Dynamite, the character) and the authentic nerdy nerds (Napolean Dynamite if he where real). There are certain nerdy things that are considered cool, things like Spiderman and Batman, and now Star Trek. These things happen to become nerd sheik once Hollywood or the mass media latches onto it, meaning there is usually large sums of money involved. Before that happens though, the fans of those things are considered to be part of the undesirable class of nerds.

Basically, look what happened to punk rock or hip hop. At first it was underground and shocking and most people would see a "punk" and be scared or repulsed, even just confused. Eventually these things then become popular and later on go into decline, finally losing their mustard and the general public is not shocked or amused anymore.

Now that there is this notion of being a nerd as a mainstream thing that is "cool" and accepted, there are probably people who were the uber-popular people in high school and college, got all the girls, went to all the hip parties, and are now saying that they are nerds.
 
Batutta said:
I disagree for one simple reason.


SPOILER

If you are going back and telling the story of a young Trek crew without tweaking things the way they did (by having Bana's Nero go back in time to permanently alter the past), there is no jeopardy at all, because you know none of them could die. Now that JJ has hit the reset button on the timeline, anything could happen. I think it's a smart choice if you're going to tell the story of a young Kirk and Spock.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from on this, but (for this movie at least) I don't really see that as a huge factor, since (IMO) it would be pretty silly to kill off one of these characters in the process of telling the story of how all these characters came together in the first place. :) Now, I know they're thinking franchise, and what could happen down the road in the sequel(s), so you're certainly right there.

Still, if I was an actor auditioning for one of the sequels, and your up for a character named "Gary Mitchell" or "Lee Kelso," I wouldn't worry too much about what your options are for the next movie... :D

(Which reminds me, where the hell are Mitchell and Kelso in this, anyway?!?)
 
Captain Pierce said:
Still, if I was an actor auditioning for one of the sequels, and your up for a character named "Gary Mitchell" or "Lee Kelso," I wouldn't worry too much about what your options are for the next movie... :D
Click to expand...

Especially if the costume department hands you a red shirt.
 
Nektonic said:
Yes, but I have a theory that there are the hip/fashionable nerds (Napolean Dynamite, the character) and the authentic nerdy nerds (Napolean Dynamite if he where real).
Click to expand...

Napolean was hyperwarped in.

1241335584.jpg
 
Just saw a Comedy Channel commercial, they are showing Shawn of the Dead, and Simon Pegg is Hosting. Of course, he'll be Pimping Star Trek, with clips and BTS stuff.
 
Now what did they shoot this on, in the second pic... left side? is that just a BTS videographer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top