News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

STAR TREK

Started by Phillip V, May 05, 2009, 09:46:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cerr

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that.
I haven't seen all the episodes but I think that storyline ended in second season. The third season was about the Xindi and the fourth was mainly about the birth of the federation.
Meh, it was still a dominant part.  But the series was so awful that that was no surprise.  In the end they couldn't even let it stand on its own and had to have a TNG tie in.
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

Delirium

Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen, and keep your eyes wide the chance won't come again; but don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin, and there's no telling who that it's naming. For the loser now will be later to win, cause the times they are a-changin'. -- B Dylan

Neil

Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

HVC

Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Keaton was a much better Batman, Bale a better Bruce.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

DisturbedPervert

Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

Still better than the final episode of BSG.

vinraith

#65
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.

No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?

vinraith

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

Still better than the final episode of BSG.

Everything is. I have to admit, it was almost worth the awfulness just to have a cultural reference point to which everything else compares favorably.

Darth Wagtaros

Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Best Batman.
PDH!

Darth Wagtaros

Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.

No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?
Sadly, Trek was never interested in continuity, and at times the writers went out of their way to eliminate it as much as possible.  My concerns are similar to yours.  The characters were all defined by the actors who played them, the friendship between the actors came out onto the screen. 
PDH!

Neil

Quote from: HVC on May 06, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Keaton was a much better Batman, Bale a better Bruce.
I can accept that.  The recent movies have done a much better job at showing Bruce Wayne as frivolous and flighty.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Faeelin

Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?

Why not do so?

Nobody will go out and see a new Star Trek movie about a bunch of nobodies; the movies were terrible, Voyager was terrible, and Enterprise was, well, terrible. So you have to try to make Star Trek fresh and exciting, while at the same time giving people a positive reference point.

20 somethings blowing shit up will do nicely, and by repackaging the movie as Kirk, you get some buzz and name value.

vinraith

Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?

Why not do so?

Nobody will go out and see a new Star Trek movie about a bunch of nobodies; the movies were terrible, Voyager was terrible, and Enterprise was, well, terrible. So you have to try to make Star Trek fresh and exciting, while at the same time giving people a positive reference point.

20 somethings blowing shit up will do nicely, and by repackaging the movie as Kirk, you get some buzz and name value.

*shrug* To each their own. Recasting those parts puts me right off, but it's clear enough I'm in a small minority in that regard. Then again, I'm kind of used to that by now. :D

Grallon

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 06:20:52 AM
I'd like to see it. Maybe my dad will come with me.



I'll go with you GF - haven't had a proper date in ages.  Time we get aquainted properly anyway  :P




G.
"Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

~Jean-Fran├žois Revel

Josquius

I think this film actually looks quite good.
When I first heard of it I was just banging my head at the horror- a prequel about how Kirk and Spock met at the academy...It just had everything wrong about it.
This though looks like it may work; its only the Star Trek tag that could ruin it. Star Trek is never gonna be cool.
██████
██████
██████

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AMsay the Tim Burton version is better as a whole,

Tim Burton is the Michael Bay of pseudo-fantasy shit, chock full of heady uber-goth Victorian-steampunk Timmay-spooge goodness.