Trek XI Set for Xmas 2008 release

darth_librarian said:

I kind of lost it with Trek continuity when I and my family did not die in the Eugenics Wars of the 1980s.

Click to expand...

Now I've never known a fan who really is surprised when quite amazing stories haven't "happened on time and schedule" like "1984" or "2001". That doesn't bother me any tiny bit.

And when Archer met the Romulans. And when the Borg went back in time.

Click to expand...

Now that's when a franchise isn't listening to itself anymore. That is a genuine show-time-continuity problem.

Ah heck... Still, something like Kirk and Spock meeting should be given respect.

Click to expand...

Yes, it shouldn't be done, but left to the imagination.

If done, it should at least be set at the right time, according to the story set forth in TOS.

I know that creators/artists/directors/whatever have found a lucrative market in "touching up and reissuing" work. I am amazed at how popoular this is, since no actual time-damage is being fixed here, historical shows and movies are being "reconceived".

More apparant proof that real imagination fled the entertainment industry a long, long time ago.

Sorry, but I really do find it to be pathetic, and sad. So you'd rather Han Solo just sort of didn't shoot first, now that you've grown up and had some kids of your own, eh? Well, just re-edit the sequence, what the hell. You'd prefer to screw the original actor inside the Darth Vader suit, to link into a far-too-young Darth Vadar in the death scene then? That would have been laughable is it weren't just so pathetic.

Remakes, and interpretations (or re-re-re-re-interpretations) of comic books seem to be keeping the "creative" element quite happy right now.

I just hope such trends never spread very far.

Oh, and Archer I believe never met the Romulans, the only Romulans I remember in Enterprise had contact with Vulcans, or with a single Andorian.

Actually, I'd love to remake Star Wars in another 40 years or so -- and replace all the Ewoks with Wookies.

(The prequels don't deserve to be called Star Wars -- but with the right minds remaking them, perhaps they could still be salvaged.)

So not to take this too far off topic, but why weren't the Wookies used in Return of the Jedi as they were supposed to?

What, they ran out of money in the budget and instead of spending money for 7 foot tall furry costumes they could only afford 3 foot tall furry costumes?

Recoil said:

So not to take this too far off topic, but why weren't the Wookies used in Return of the Jedi as they were supposed to?

What, they ran out of money in the budget and instead of spending money for 7 foot tall furry costumes they could only afford 3 foot tall furry costumes?

Click to expand...

I always assumed it was down to "cuteness" and marketing to the audience that would prefer the "cuter" Ewoks.

So not to take this too far off topic, but why weren't the Wookies used in Return of the Jedi as they were supposed to?

Click to expand...

The Wookies were originally conceived as non-technological forest-dwellers, taller Ewoks, when Lucas wrote the first draft of Star Wars - the 700 page version that tried to squeeze the entire story into one film.

When he took what amounted to the second act of that script and rewrote it as a stand-alone (and possibly sole) film, he still wanted the Wookies represented, so he created Chewbacca as Han's co-pilot. In Lucas's mind this invalidated the idea that Wookies were pre-technological, since Chewie pilots starships. (As though you couldn't take someone - probably a kid - from an isolated tribe in the Amazon basin or somewhere and train him or her as an astronaut. Lucas is often strangely limited in his thinking on topics like this.) Anyway, having decided that the Wookies could not be primatives, he had to invent new primatives for the new final chapter. Again, Lucas's serious imagination deficit came into play. Having once conceived of a conclusion involving at least somewhat cute, furry forrest-dwellers, he was unable to see that he could make the same point with jungle-dwelling lizards or hairless woodland creatures, so he basically sawed the Wookies in half and called them Ewoks. (Lucas's inability to think his way out of a well-worn rut is even more evident in the climax of Jedi. Having used his original ending of the Death Star attack in the 1977 original, he literally could not think of anything better than to repeat exactly the same ending with bigger special effects for the final film in the Luke Skywalker trilogy. This is like JMS ending B5 by having Babylon 4 reappear yet again and having Sheridan take it back in time in "SiL". )

I really don't think marketing played a role in the plan. Lucas didn't become that much of a merchandising whore until the never-should-have-been-made prequel trilogy reared its ugly head.

Regards,

Joe

Sindatur said:

I always assumed it was down to "cuteness" and marketing to the audience that would prefer the "cuter" Ewoks.

Click to expand...

Yeah that was my understanding. The original idea was indeed Wookies, which would have been cool, seeing Chewbacca amongst his own, maybe being a leader. It also would've been cooler setting it in more of a wild jungle setting, thus matching the wookie "personality" and the battle sequences better than a pretty little forest populated by teddy bears.

The marketing of the first two movies was so insanely successful that they felt they needed to cater to it in Jedi.


Hyp, since you love the comic book movies so much, dig this: a couple of years ago they made an Incredible Hulk movie. It sucked, so now they're doing another one that is completely unrelated to that one, and it's only been a couple of years between 'em. Movie studio to audience: "Damnit, we'll make you like a giant green smashing monster if it's the last thing we do!"

the continuity of trek has never been great, too much time travel. the idea of them meeting at the academy isn't a sadly necessary plot device (ala B5), it's the product of a bloated ego belonging to a twat who thinks he is a lot smarter than he really is.

the trek XI i would really love to see, is a big screen remaster of the wrath of kahn, with an IMAX version (which i would definitely pay the air fare to the US just to see). or the same for the undiscovered country (although at least i was around to see that when it was released).

GKarsEye said:

Hyp, since you love the comic book movies so much, dig this: a couple of years ago they made an Incredible Hulk movie. It sucked, so now they're doing another one that is completely unrelated to that one, and it's only been a couple of years between 'em. Movie studio to audience: "Damnit, we'll make you like a giant green smashing monster if it's the last thing we do!"

Click to expand...

That sounds exactly how I think of them talking, too.

I've enjoyed some of them. But, I just hate how when one thing is popular, suddenly everyone goes brain dead and just wants to imitate that "great breakthrough". Sometimes, as you have noted, with very sad results.

hypatia said:

That sounds exactly how I think of them talking, too.

I've enjoyed some of them. But, I just hate how when one thing is popular, suddenly everyone goes brain dead and just wants to imitate that "great breakthrough". Sometimes, as you have noted, with very sad results.

Click to expand...

sometimes it really creates a gem though. if it weren't for the current trend do you really think they would have brought batman back?

Yea, and I hear that's quite a good one. Fine, I'm not saying "all or nothing" here.

In fact, I'm wondering why the business seems to be so "all or nothing" these days. To save theatrical art in the USA, I so wish they'd honestly bring the "B" movies back.

Besides, some of those were just FUN.

One thing I will admit, in general there is enough variety, now that technology has opened up things like the British market to me. All of the sudden comedies that took risks (would 'Allo, 'Allo create anything but horror among a studio chief in the USA?) were available to me en masse.

I have never in my life seen a "sit-com" as downright funny as "Coupling". And no, I didn't know they tried to make an American version. Recalling that show may cause my brain to hemmorage.

i can't belive you mentioned two of my favourite sitcoms, allo allo would never have been made in the US probably because it can be viewed as being both rascist and offensive (though that would require an ignorance to the fact that everyone gets the piss taken out of them equally). coupling is just brilliant, for geoff alone.



Good moaning, i was just pissing by.

Yea, those two gave me hope again, as I realized there is good comedy being made... somewhere.

Here, your best shot is the news.

The Office is proof that the whole Brit > American TV thing is bunk. Developed there, adapted here, both loved, both brilliant, same type of humor.

Besides, some of those were just FUN.

Click to expand...

The main criticism of The Hulk movie actually was that it was long and serious and ponderous.

GKarsEye said:

The main criticism of The Hulk movie actually was that it was long and serious and ponderous.

Click to expand...

My main criticism of the HUlk is that Banner became the Hulk by being an idiot, not by risking his life to save an innocent kid, as he did in the comics.

Yea, the Office is a smash hit. So there's one good one out there. It didn't catch my taste (either version) but it had its funny moments.

I do mean to say I think our audiences and/or broadcasters just don't push things to the edge the same way. They're probably simply not allowed to.

the office was well made but wasn't to my taste either, gervais got his real break on a show called the 11 o'clock show, same place as sascha baron cohen. but office (workplace) based sitcoms are great, two firm recommendation's are Drop The Dead Donkey a newsroom topical comedy from about 15 years ago, though the topical element was tiny, it was more about the relationships between the dim but supposedly attractive female newsreader, the seasoned (read old) journalistic behemoth of a male newsreader, the adrenaline junkie field reporter with no morals, the researcher with an addiction to both gambling and married women, the useless and overstressed editor and the wanker who runs the place in the name of RM (work that one out). and the thick of it, which is just about incompetent politicians, and an evil sadistic spindocter.

anyway the hulk sucked because it always has done, it was never anything like as good as spidey or X-men or preacher or anything from 2000AD.

Ranger1 said:

anyway the hulk sucked because it always has done, it was never anything like as good as spidey or X-men or preacher or anything from 2000AD.

Click to expand...

BS!

I haven't really read The Hulk since the late 80s, so it may not have been good for a while, but it once was great, rife with existential philosophy and anti-war politics. Its political parody of the Chicago Eight (later seven) Trial, with the Hulk as Black Panther Bobby Seale, was one of the best things Marvel has ever done.

why do i get stuck with all the marvel fans? please tell me there are at least some preacher or hellblazer fans in da house.

They need to bring back Captian America and have him beat on some radical islamist's