B5TV.COM. Babylon 5 forums Babylon 5 message for the fans from Claudia Christian Babylon 5
Old May 7th 09, 22:45   #1
Chilli
High Treason Prevention Officer
 
Chilli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 7,496
Send a message via ICQ to Chilli Send a message via MSN to Chilli
Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Hah. Seems like I got it a day earlier than everyone else.

This whole thing was stupid. The idea was stupid, the plot was stupid, it never should have been done. But it was still rather fun, in an entirely not Star Trek way. Just for Simon Pegg alone, who was way too awesome to be a believable Scotty. Chris Pine was actually pretty cool too, which surprised me more than anything.

And I told you Uhura was banging Spock! Hah! Of course, anything I might have said is completely irrelevant, because all the Trek we've ever seen never really happened. Yay.
__________________

Chilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th 09, 23:56   #2
Recoil
First One
 
Recoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,991
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli View Post
And I told you Uhura was banging Spock! Hah! Of course, anything I might have said is completely irrelevant, because all the Trek we've ever seen never really happened. Yay.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but don't care about spoilers so I read your post. Frankly, you didn't really spoil anything key plot wise that I saw. I did want to reply to your last sentence though. From the early rumors about this movie, that scenario was hinted at, and even stated. That this was a "reboot" that could, in theory, change everything that has happened in the Star Trek universe that we have seen and "open a new book."

There are two schools of thought here.

1) People who treat everything they see on camera as bible. If you take that stance, then yes, this movie might mean (and I'm guessing since I haven't seen it) that everything that happened in Trek TOS, Trek TNG, DS9 and even Enterprise has been changed and may never have happened as a result of the plot of this movie. However, if you take that stance, there is SO MUCH contradiction anyway in movies and TV shows continuity wise, that you would probably go insane. I don't think anyone can take everything literally.

2) People that tend to separate works by creators and directors of the medium. What I mean here, is that there was Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. Then was the Rick Berman era of Star Trek after Gene passed away, and now there is the JJ Abrams era of Star Trek. Why do these all have to be considered the same thing? Many people do not treat them as such, and rightfully so as they are VERY different.

I'm of camp #2. Personally, for me. I don't put the TNG era movies in the same universe as the TOS series, and movies canon wise. Why should I? Rick Berman very openly had an extreme dislike for the TOS Trek era. He hated it. He didn't respect it, and he went out of his way to pretend like it never existed. His treatment of Kirk and the TOS crew in Generations was done to spite the TOS era. Enterprise as a series entirely, was also there to spite the TOS era and almost "pretend like it didn't happen" to a degree. So I've never felt that Generations, First Contact and those movies were "canon" in the same universe as TOS and Gene Roddenberry's vision. Similarly, why would I consider a JJ Abrams reboot to be gospel and make Gene's Trek as if it never happened. It did. I watched it. It had a huge impact on our culture. So for me, these are three different artists creating from a similar concept. This happens all the time in comic books to the point of characters and people being alive in one adaptation, dead in another, and totally different in a third --- but they are all looked upon as separate works.

This is how I have approached Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry for TOS and early TNG. Rick Berman for Generations TNG and beyond, and now JJ Abrams for this "reboot." You can't get away with this for Star Wars since its all Lucas, but for Star Trek you certainly can.

So I guess the short version is I'm not going to be walking out of the theater thinking to myself "well I guess Kirk never fought Khan" or anything like that. I already believe that Gene Roddenberry's Kirk didn't sacrifice himself on the Enterprise B and Veridian III because Gene would have never done that. I keep them separate so I'll watch this for what it is, probably won't be to crazy about it, and move on.

Wow, long post.
__________________
The Operative: "Do you know what your sin is?"
Malcom Reynolds: "Aw hell, I'm a fan of all seven... but right now, I'm gonna have to go with Wrath."

Last edited by Recoil; May 8th 09 at 07:38.
Recoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 01:06   #3
Chilli
High Treason Prevention Officer
 
Chilli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 7,496
Send a message via ICQ to Chilli Send a message via MSN to Chilli
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Heh .. yeah, my SPOILERS!! note might have indicated more spoilers than I've posted. I'm sure they'll come.

Here's one spoiler: A redshirt dies.

I'm mostly with you - I never cared about Berman ruining Roddenberry's universe. When watching old Trek, new Trek just didn't happen for me. Thus, no forehead bump continuity errors. I was just annoyed with Berman wasing my time with bad, bad shows.

But:
* I'm so over this whole prequel/reset thing in general - also if I loved two of the most notable ones we've had in recent years, Casino Royale and Batman Begins. It just feels like an overused gimmick.
* It's even more annoying to me when a movie really DRIVES THE POINT that this is a reset.
"ZOMG, GOD, THE TIMELINE HAS BEEN CHANGED, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN! THIS IS TOTALLY RESETTY!"
I'd prefer to just ignore anything produced in the past - old Trek has been decanonized by us not having any Eugenic Wars anyways
__________________

Chilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 01:08   #4
Markas
His Majesty
 
Markas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 18,380
Send a message via MSN to Markas
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

I agree with that entire post Recoil. Thanks...I didn't need to type that all in.
__________________
"As far as bright ideas go, this is right up there with having my gums extracted." - Michael Garibaldi
Markas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 01:31   #5
vacantlook
Moderator
 
vacantlook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,909
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

I think in terms of the new one, I'm just worried that the film will feel a bit generic, as odd as that sounds. All of the advertisements I've seen have all looked like miscellaneous action, and I get that that's the route adverts are usually made, but with Star Trek, its presence in my mind's history is one of poignancy, and I just worry if this won't have that kind of poignancy. And, I worry over whether the characters will feel like their namesakes, or if they'll just have their names and little else. I hope I end up liking it though.
vacantlook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 04:15   #6
GKarsEye
First One
 
GKarsEye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 16,754
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...urce=a-section

Recoil, where are you getting this business about Berman hating TOS, and bringing in Kirk in Generations to "spite" fans? Yeah I know he's not a popular figure amongst Trek fans 'cause Voyager and Enterprise sucked, but that's quite a leap to say he "hated" TOS.

Anyway, I'm going to see this on Saturday night in the IMAX. All I expect is a decent action flick with characters that share the same name as those from an iconic but ancient TV show.

and this....



yummy
__________________
"Most smart people cannot watch most TV, because it has generally been a condescending medium, explaining everything immediately, offering no ambiguities, and using dialogue that simplifies and mitigates against the idiosyncratic ways in which people in different worlds actually communicate. It eventually requires that characters from different places talk the same way as the viewer. This, of course, sucks." - David Simon
GKarsEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 07:31   #7
Recoil
First One
 
Recoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,991
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GKarsEye View Post
Recoil, where are you getting this business about Berman hating TOS, and bringing in Kirk in Generations to "spite" fans?
I didnt think that was anything but common knowledge. There have been many examples, situations, and comments over the years that illustrated Bermans lack of respect for the original series. Its not really a secret, its almost common knowledge. Dont feel like digging up ancient articles, quotes, and comments, but that is generally accepted as common knowledge.

In any case, he was just one part of the Star Trek Universe. IMO, the weakest link, but he was a part of it. I cant help but look back at the Berman era with nothing but negativity.

ST: TNG started on a serious decline
ST: TOS was ignored and almost put down
ST: DS9, while a quality show on many counts, was still a B5 rip off
ST: Voyager, while having solid promise fell far, far short, and missed a golden opportunity for some solid story telling
ST: Enterprise was an attempt to erase TOS history be "retelling" some pre TOS history without paying attention to ANY continunity (until Manny Coto took over in Season 4, but it was too late at that point).

Not wanting to get into a debate, but I think there are few people who will dispute Bermans stance on the Trek franchise, and few who wouldnt blame him for its decline.
__________________
The Operative: "Do you know what your sin is?"
Malcom Reynolds: "Aw hell, I'm a fan of all seven... but right now, I'm gonna have to go with Wrath."
Recoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 07:36   #8
Recoil
First One
 
Recoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,991
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

delete (error)
__________________
The Operative: "Do you know what your sin is?"
Malcom Reynolds: "Aw hell, I'm a fan of all seven... but right now, I'm gonna have to go with Wrath."
Recoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 07:45   #9
Recoil
First One
 
Recoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,991
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli View Post
But:
* I'm so over this whole prequel/reset thing in general - also if I loved two of the most notable ones we've had in recent years, Casino Royale and Batman Begins. It just feels like an overused gimmick.
Conceptually, I agree. That being said, I DID really, REALLY enjoy Casino Royale and Batman Begins as really, REALLY solid reboots. Mind you, Im not going to get into debates on how they do and don't respet the prior works of those series. I dont care. I dont consider Casino Royale "canon" on the James Bond universe per say. James Bond to me was a Cold War spy, and in Casio Royale they are re-inventing him in the modern day world. I just really enjoyed that movie on its own merits. Same goes for Batman Begins. I was never a hardcore comic fan. I thought the first Batman movie was decent, but I LOVE Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for what they were. There are MANY remake/reboots that I dont like, but those two I did enjoy. So while Im tired of the concept, I do think there are a few that get it done well. I am not sure if Start Trek will be one of those for me. But....I AM tired of the reboot concept --- even if some do work well. I also dont think ANY of these reboots should be considered as replacing the original story/art. Take the new ones for what they are and leave it at that. Thats what Im doing for Star Trek, and that what I did for the TNG movies.
__________________
The Operative: "Do you know what your sin is?"
Malcom Reynolds: "Aw hell, I'm a fan of all seven... but right now, I'm gonna have to go with Wrath."
Recoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th 09, 16:48   #10
B5_Obsessed
First One
 
B5_Obsessed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,938
Re: Star Trek (SPOILERS)

I for one always wanted to see a return to the TOS era. Star Trek was always limited by budget and the constraints of 1960s television, but the characters were powerful and iconic. In addition, Trek was cut short and disappeared for 10 years before returning as a motion picture series. Perhaps if Phase II had made it to television and run for several years, us old Trekkies would have had our fill of Shatner and and crew, albeit without Spock. Once Paramout committed to a film series, we saw a radical refit of the entire universe with our beloved characters wearing white-bootied uniforms and staring out the window at excruciatingly long special effects sequences. By the time Wrath of Khan came around and brought back the action, it still didn't matter, Kirk was 50, wearing spectacles and lamenting his lost youth. He would never drop kick again.

So after decades of sanitized Trek, hardcore fans wanted a return to action, sex, color, and thought provoking drama. This film delivers most of it except for the thought provocation. It was a lot of fun, but it is not the way I would have done it. However, it leaves us with a young crew in their prime ready for their next adventure. But hurry, the clock is ticking. A few movies later and these guys will start looking old too.
B5_Obsessed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2018 B5TV.COM