|
Post by aramis on Feb 12, 2011 1:17:46 GMT -5
Yes, another is planned. All the principles had to sign on for a 3 movie set for the original, so it's just a matter of convincing JJ to get off his arse and write it.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 12, 2011 7:37:04 GMT -5
One thing I did like that I didn't think I would was the actor why played Spock. I knew him from the TV series Heroes, and that character is so different from Spock that I didn't think it would work for me. Actually, the new Spock was one of the things I disliked the most. I liked the actor in Heroes, but I just didn’t think he fit the Spock role well. And I can’t get over the bad haircut. It looks like he’s wearing a bad wig the whole time. On the other hand I hated having the actors they chose for Scotty and Sulu. I felt like it was a Saturday Night Live casting call or something, like a spoof of Star Trek. Sulu was okay for me, but not great. I really got “into” the new Scotty character, however. I didn’t think I’d like him because he didn’t look like Scotty but I found that his sense of humor and the way they spun the character was appealing to me. I think it would have bothered me more if they had used a lot of makeup to try to make the actors look exactly like the originals. That would have been very cartoonish. But the biggest part that ruined it for me was the way they handled Kirk. This isn't the Kirk we know from TOS, this is just somebody who needs a solid bitchslapping. You see, to make this whole "bad attitude" thing work the character has to actually be right about something. He acts brash but is actually right even when authority won't give him the chance to show it. It wasn't like that at all in the movie. Kirk was just a jerk. I guess the thing is that this wasn’t “our” Kirk but instead was who Kirk might have become under different circumstances. Clearly, this Kirk was bitter about the loss of his father, which our Kirk never had to deal with. I may be biased because I’m a teacher, but this Kirk-Pike relationship reminded me a lot of my student-teacher relationships where you get some kids who have great talent but just don’t care about anything, then when you get them motivated they can shape up in a hurry to do great things. I had an excellent example of this in my classroom just two years ago, with a kid who had talent but and crappy grades who had never been interested in school until he hit my physics class but went on to take my advanced physics class and is now a physics major at university. Spock's action of stranding him on a planet isn't consistent with Starfleet....ok, we have a prisoner. Let's see, we could put him in the brig or leave him to die on a barren world. Hey! I know what we'll do! Please. Yeah, that was kind of lame. Then of course there is old Spock. In any other movie or TV episode, messing with the timeline is a Bad Thing. Entire episodes are devoted to righting it at nearly any cost. Instead, we have a major timeline alteration, and entire planet being destroyed killing most Vulcans, and everyone shrugs their shoulders and says awww well, have a good time making a new future! Keep in mind that this wasn’t an alternate timeline for these people. Only for Spock. To these characters, this is the “correct” timeline and it has been this way since the split 25 years ago. I suppose the old Spock should be trying to escape back into his own timeline instead, but there is nothing for him to “correct” in this one. I see no way for the movie to work unless something had happened to kill time travel so no one could ever fix it. That would be a way to build in a reason no one bothered. Or maybe some even occurred to create this alternate universe--then there is nothing to fix since it is simply an alternate existence. This is all correct, as I understand the backstory. This was never intended to be a true re-do but an alternate timeline that makes use of the same basic characters and situations. It’s like those two “Incredible Hulk” movies done in the last few years -- the 2003 Jennifer Connally and 2008 Edward Norton one -- they aren’t really intended to be internally consistent between the two movies since they are both “origins” type stories and nobody seems to trash them because the actors aren’t Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno. Or the old/new Battlestar Galactica series which are loosely tied together but not really. Some folks love both, some only love one or the other. I guess I would have been happier if they had renamed the series since they are so different, and perhaps that’s what makes so many people dislike the new Star Trek. As for the movie making Trek more popular...is it? I haven't really kept up since the movie turned me off so much. Are they planning a another movie? I don’t know if Trek has become really mainstream or not, but I know it’s popular around my household again. My kids have discovered it and find it to be a lot of fun. I think the people who hate it the most are the old-timers who keep comparing them instead of letting each stand on its own. Is the new movie the same as TOS? No! Is it better? No! Is it cool? I like it. Just my two credits.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 12, 2011 7:41:17 GMT -5
Yes, another is planned. All the principles had to sign on for a 3 movie set for the original, so it's just a matter of convincing JJ to get off his arse and write it. I wish he'd get this thing going faster. I find that having so many years in between movies is a real bother. 1. The actors tend to change, so we need to build up reasons why so many years pass in the storyline. 2. The chemistry on the set tends to change, so the later movies often don't "feel" right. I noticed this with Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. With 3 years in between movies, the sets and costumes looked different, actors had changed weight, Mark Hammil had been in a car crash, and somehow it was supposed to be shortly after the first movie. ESB was a movie with a very different tone than SW, but I wonder what it might have felt like had they filmed the two back-to-back instead.
|
|
|
Post by gorillaspawn on Feb 12, 2011 13:43:46 GMT -5
Actually, the new Spock was one of the things I disliked the most. I liked the actor in Heroes, but I just didn’t think he fit the Spock role well. And I can’t get over the bad haircut. It looks like he’s wearing a bad wig the whole time. Just goes to show, different strokes. I think it would have bothered me more if they had used a lot of makeup to try to make the actors look exactly like the originals. That would have been very cartoonish. I wouldn't want or expect the characters to look much like the originals. I dislike it when they try to do that. I guess the thing is that this wasn’t “our” Kirk but instead was who Kirk might have become under different circumstances. I got that, and I'm OK with that premise---I just didn't like the excecution. There was nothing to redeem him to justify his promotion. Keep in mind that this wasn’t an alternate timeline for these people. Only for Spock. To these characters, this is the “correct” timeline... True, but that's the way it always is. But, even though I pretty much disagree with you, I can agree to disagree. It's great to be able to enjoy the movie with your kids. I know I have had trouble liking very many movies at all for a number of years now. So if you enjoy it that's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 12, 2011 21:25:23 GMT -5
Y'know, gorillaspawn, you sound exactly like a friend of mine. He disliked the movie for pretty much the same basic reasons that you do, and that's okay. We all like some things and dislike others. Maybe if/when sequels come out we'll tend to drift the same way, either you learning to love them or me learning to dislike them.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 14, 2011 13:18:04 GMT -5
I’ll tell you what it is with Kirk, for me. Star Trek, like many old TV shows, is so comfortable to come back to again and again because it creates a comfortable “TV home” (the Enterprise) complete with an always-right and very adult “TV dad” figure (Kirk). You can see right from the very first regular episode (“The Corbomite Maneuver”) that Kirk is a very disciplinarian, authoritative, and calm character. I know most people like to think of him as a womanizer and a bit of a rascal, but the main vibe I get from the show is: “The adults are in charge; they know what to do best and they will always do the right thing.” That’s why the movie was so jarring to me, it goes 180º from that portrayal. Kirk was behaving more like Charlie Evans.
|
|
|
Post by conflictedvulcan on Mar 7, 2011 1:43:12 GMT -5
I've got to agree in general that, if the franchise was to continue, a change was made. It was made in what is becoming classic JJ Abrahms fashion-- fast and loose, but generally well done, and broadly appealing. They gave a nod to departing from canon. Like the digression into an alternate timeline implies, the TOS reality is still there, moving on its own way, but there's this alternative that's stripped of previous canon, with a contemporary paint job to bring new blood into the place. If you're familiar with the Marvel Comics alternate-canon "Ultimates" line, think of this as Ultimate Star Trek.
Just for clarity's sake, that isn't to say that this is the ultimate incarnation of Star Trek, but rather is in the tradition of Marvel's line of reinventions of classic characters, frequently younger and more broadly appealing.
|
|
|
Post by conflictedvulcan on Mar 7, 2011 15:49:22 GMT -5
Likewise, the problems folks are having with the new cast sounds like any issues I've heard about things from the Dick York/Sergent swap in Bewitched to the introduction of a new Doctor in Doctor Who (and actor changes are built-in to that franchise). This is just even more concentrated because these actors had been portraying these characters for 40 years. Still, I think they pulled it off well. The characterizations, while indeed different, captured the fundamental parts of these now classic characters.
I have no problem with re-interpretations, and Kirk, Spock, and the gang are absolutely fair game exactly because these characters are such intrinsic parts of American pop culture. These characters and this franchise are substantially bigger than the actors and writers who initially gave them life.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 7, 2011 17:22:29 GMT -5
I didn’t care for Dick Sargent, either! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by michaeltaylor on Jun 28, 2016 14:00:12 GMT -5
It's Old School Trek... in the same way that Hero Trek is... New tools to tell classic type tales. What is "Hero Trek"?
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Jul 10, 2016 19:02:57 GMT -5
It's Old School Trek... in the same way that Hero Trek is... New tools to tell classic type tales. What is "Hero Trek"? There's a fan conversion of Hero System for doing Trek. It's been around a LONG time.
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Jul 10, 2016 19:34:26 GMT -5
My youngest has seen all of TOS in the restored versions... which only change the VFX. Best "update" of legacy footage I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by michaeltaylor on Jul 21, 2016 16:24:07 GMT -5
There's a fan conversion of Hero System for doing Trek. It's been around a LONG time. Any idea where I could get a copy? Thgnks!
|
|
|
Post by michaeltaylor on Jul 21, 2016 16:30:09 GMT -5
I know that the Star Trek reboot isn't technically on-topic, but I don't know of any better place to discuss it so here goes.... Why wouldn't this be on-topic? It's the most Old School Star Trek since...well, since Andromeda...
|
|