STAR TREK

[Cerr]

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]

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.

[Neil]

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.

[HVC]

What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.

Keaton was a much better Batman, Bale a better Bruce.

[DisturbedPervert]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Darth Wagtaros]

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. 

[Neil]

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.

[Faeelin]

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]

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.

[Grallon]

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 




G.

[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]

say 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.