It really isn't against the spirit of TOS. Action-adventure was key to the show, besides insightful sci-fi plots that made you think. Kirk was fighting aliens with his shirt off every other ep. How is this any different besides putting that into a 21st production context?
God dammit, I'll be melodramatic when I want to!!!
No, I know, you're actually right (mostly). The Die Hard-like explosions still don't work for me, though. 21st century production context is okay, turning a space opera into an action movie is not. (If they want to make an action movie, god dammit, they can make the Enterprise movie I've been waiting for since it went off the air.)
And yeah, you have a good point about Kirk of course. A major part of the reason that worked was William Shatter and his personality though. I'm not sure I'm ready to buy that from anyone else.
William Shakespeare wrote:
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
Posts: 3332
Posted:
Apr 28 2009 01:42 pm
Keep in mind, the trailers are a way for the studio to convince the general public to see the movie too. They want this to be financially successful by getting movie-goers besides hardcore trekkers. Most people like pointless, Michael Bay-splosions.
SoldierHawk
Moderator
Title: Warrior-Poet
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6107
Posted:
Apr 28 2009 01:44 pm
^ Agreed, which is why I'm still holding out hope this could be pretty good. I've been burned both ways judging a movie by its trailer, so I'm hoping this turns out better than I think.
William Shakespeare wrote:
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24882
Posted:
Apr 28 2009 01:51 pm
I am going to predict this movie will suffer from something I call Cloverfield Syndrome, also known as the Abrams Effect.
It will debut to to highly positive reviews and much success at the box office. Moviegoers will recommend it to all their friends and give it a 9/10 rating on IMDB. About a month later, these same people who thought they loved the movie are going to slowly realize that it lacked artistic vision, the plot was lackluster, and they have no desire to see it again.
J.J. Abrams is, in some respects, a marketing genius. In other respects, he's a monumental asshole who's not much better than Michael Bay. Look at his hit TV show, LOST. If you want to get the full story, you need listen to LOST podcasts, read the LOST books, play the LOST Alternate Reality Game, watch LOST mobisodes, and do about a million other things.
HOWEVER... unless you're an idiot, you can get all or most of the important details from watching the show. Thus, Abrams' marketing obsession enhances the show rather than hurting it. With a movie though, Abrams is forced to tell a story in a much smaller space. He cannot do this, and it is doubtful that he even tries; he is more interested in building multimedia franchises. There is a great Cloverfield story out there somewhere. But you'll have to piece it together yourself from outside media, cuz it sure as hell ain't on the fucking screen.
It is doubtful that Abrams has learned any significant lessons from Cloverfield. If anything, its success has encouraged him. So my hopes are not high for Star Trek. But on the other hand, I find I often enjoy movies more when I don't have high hopes. When you go in expecting to be disappointed, you're often pleasantly surprised that it's not quite as bad as you thought it would be. Well, unless the movie in question is Van Helsing.
Oh, don't let Tebor see this... he'll probably want to fight me.
Well, we'll see. That's certainly a possibility, but the trailers have encouraged me and assuaged my fears that I had when I first heard about this. In two weeks I might be eating crow, but I'm trying to think positive - especially after the disaster of Nemesis, and me saying after that experience that I was done with new Trek.
Optimist With Doubts
Title: Titlating
Joined: Dec 17 2007
Posts: 5042
Posted:
Apr 28 2009 02:14 pm
I disagree on cloverfield I think there was a story. It wasn't the story about a monster that we were promised but it was a story about the relationships we form and how you might not realize how important they are until it's too late, at least that's what i took from it.
And as for star trek, I am eagerly aticipating it, and even if it is horrible it will only make the better Trek movies and shows seem that much better in comparison.
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
Posts: 3332
Posted:
Apr 29 2009 04:13 pm
Interesting (Very Minor Spoilerish) review by a writer of Trek comics:
One quote I personally found intriguing: "Karl Urban practically steals the movie with his performance as Dr. McCoy, right down to DeForest Kelley's cockeyed eyebrows." - I thought Urban was a great casting choice.
Also, he briefly covers the implications of the time travel in the movie.
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24882
Posted:
Apr 30 2009 09:56 am
A new trailer debuted last night during LOST. In it, Kirk gets chased by the Cloverfield monster on Capcom's Lost Planet.
Kirk got chased by monsters all the time in the show, which led to the "Rock Monster" joke in Galaxy Quest. The abominable snowman that's in the previews is pretty consistent with the way the show was.
SoldierHawk
Moderator
Title: Warrior-Poet
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6107
Posted:
Apr 30 2009 11:34 am
Cattivo wrote:
Interesting (Very Minor Spoilerish) review by a writer of Trek comics:
One quote I personally found intriguing: "Karl Urban practically steals the movie with his performance as Dr. McCoy, right down to DeForest Kelley's cockeyed eyebrows." - I thought Urban was a great casting choice.
Also, he briefly covers the implications of the time travel in the movie.
Oh that makes me happy. McCoy was always my favorite character, and I adore DeForest Kelley. Good to hear that his character is being done some sort of justice. (It won't be the same of course, but that's not their fault.)
William Shakespeare wrote:
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.
Andrew Man
Title: Is a Funklord
Joined: Jan 30 2007
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 5603
Posted:
Apr 30 2009 11:47 am
Syd Lexia wrote:
A new trailer debuted last night during LOST. In it, Kirk gets chased by the Cloverfield monster on Capcom's Lost Planet.
Haha, I thought it was alright. That monster reminded me of a cross between those one enemies from Oddworld (the ones without guns) crossed between that one insect looking monster from Star Wars episode II that Anakin has to deal with in the Colosseum.
My favorite line was "Fans were angry that the Klingons' dialogue was subtitled because it allows the Klingons to be understood by people who haven't studied the imaginary language for years."
The shot of that messageboard is even modled after trekbbs.com, which I lurk at occasionally.
username
Title: owner of a lonely heart
Joined: Jul 06 2007
Location: phoenix, az usa
Posts: 16127
Posted:
Nov 03 2009 04:01 pm
BUMP, because i dont feel like starting a new thread until more info is available:
Quote:
Will J.J Abrams resurrect Khan and his wrath for Star Trek II?
Ooooh I do hope so. LOVED Abrams' new Star Trek which was out earlier this year. And like so many fan sites are saying, if he can do such a good job at casting a new Kirk, Spock and the whole crew, surely he can work his magic with a new Khan too?
Is he a villain you'd like to see reappear in Star Trek II (version II)?
the link doesnt work for me @ work, so i cant get the actual abrams quote.
at any rate, i was texting my buddy, and we both agreed that ricardo montalban is irreplaceable. the only person we could think of thats close would be antonio banderas because of the accent. unfortunately, banderas doesnt have the charisma (imo) of montalban.
Klimbatize wrote:
I'll eat a turkey sandwich while blowing my load
FNJ
2010 SLF Tag Champ
Joined: Jun 07 2006
Posts: 12294
Posted:
Nov 03 2009 04:57 pm
Optimist With Doubts wrote:
I disagree on cloverfield I think there was a story. It wasn't the story about a monster that we were promised but it was a story about the relationships we form and how you might not realize how important they are until it's too late, at least that's what i took from it.
And as for star trek, I am eagerly aticipating it, and even if it is horrible it will only make the better Trek movies and shows seem that much better in comparison.
cloverfeild embraces the age old addage of "bros before hos". thats what teh entire story is about.
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24882
Posted:
Nov 03 2009 08:26 pm
Khan should be played be either Christopher Walken or Adam Brody.
