|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Star Drek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 11-21-2008 02:38 PM
quote: Joe Tommassello
Perhaps it would have been more correct to say "fans of the REAL Star Trek" - vs. one of the offshoots. Let's face it...after TNG it strayed so far it had as little in common with TOS as Laverne and Shirley had with Happy Days.
Why would you want to see the same thing over and over again? This line of thinking is why VOYAGER sucked. It was just TNG 2. I think that the primary function of a spinoff should be to expand the mythology in some way or another. DEEP SPACE NINE is an extraordinary achievement for many reasons. A really big one is that it didn't try to be like TOS or TNG. It was its own thing, but it was also very respectful of its origins. And in the end, it turned out to be way better than everything that had come before.
quote: Joe Tommassello
Mike, for example, seems to enjoy the apparent "reboot" (as he likes to say) aspects of what we have seen.
That might be overstating it a bit. What I enjoy about the reboot aspect is that it appears they've found a way to do it without trashing all that has come before. I find that to be a very interesting concept. It seems that they've been able to satisfy the general public and tell fresh stories without alienating fans of the original, all in a very Star Trek way.
quote: Joe Tommassello
That may indeed appeal more widely to the average moviegoer of the day...but (if I remember correctly) it was young dudes like he and Galen that were trashing Indiana Jones for not remaining more faithful to the original concept.
Just to set the record straight, I've been the guy talking about how awesome INDY 4 is while everyone else is trashing it.
quote: Joe Tommassello
Now - probably because they are "rebooting" with fresh faces - he is very excited about it.
That is absolutely true. But the fresh face I'm excited about is J.J. Abrams. You don't know how happy I am that Rick Berman has finally been de-throned.
quote: Joe Tommassello
I just don't think it will fly with fans who GREW UP with TOS.
I guess we'll find out on May 8th. But speaking as someone who grew up with all forms of Star Trek, including TOS, I suspect that the fans you are referring to have their judgment clouded by nostalgia.
quote: Joe Tommassello
Kind of like George Lucas?
Exactly! With Star Wars, he introduced an absolutely amazing mythology. But then when he handed it off to Irvin Kershner, we got one of the most perfect movies ever made. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Joe Tommassello
In fact some people would question Roddenberry's "vision" claiming he just stole the concept from "Forbidden Planet" and tweaked it a bit.
What I was referring to in terms of Roddenberry's vision was this utopian society in which there's no war, or sexism, or racism, or conflict of any kind, where people are more concerned with advancing the human race than petty things like money or power. I totally want to live in that world. But it doesn't make for good drama.
quote: Joe Tommassello
I am awaiting the blu-ray release of TOS.
Unfortunately, the Blu-ray release will most likely be the recently updated versions with new effects.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 11-21-2008 05:48 PM
quote: Joe Tommassello
I am fine with that. But don't call it what it isn't. "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" is the equivalent of "All In The Family: The Jeffersons: Maude"! Don't try to sell me a new show with an old name.
I think that having "Star Trek" in the title is just a way of indicating that the show is part of that continuity. Sure, they're trying to cash in on the name, but I don't think it's meant to imply that it'll be exactly the same as the other shows.
quote: Joe Tommassello
Well we don't really know yet if they are trashing the original...though if Kirk is banging Uhura I would say that's trashing the original...and the "reboot" concept implies it needed trashing in someone's opinion. I suppose we'll see.
You're right. We'll see. I've been trying to stay away from spoilers, and I hadn't heard anything about Kirk and Uhura hooking up. But if that's the case, I think that's very true to the original series. I'm not saying they had a relationship or anything like that. But I can totally see young Kirk eyeing Uhura for the first time and making a move. He did that just about every week. That's how he rolls. In fact, I guarantee you they would've done that in the original series had it not been 1966.
quote: Joe Tommassello
And from what I have heard and seen of his work he is precisely the reason I am skeptical. I never liked that "too hip for the room" attitude many young writers/directors exude - even as far back as Ally McBeal.
I can understand being skeptical because of Abrams. One of my best friends is a huge Star Trek fan, but he hates Abrams. Ever since it was announced that Abrams was taking over the franchise, his standard line is, "Star Trek is dead to me." Personally, I think he's crazy, and I've told him that many times. But I see what he's saying.
However, I wouldn't consider Abrams to be a hip young writer/director. He's been doing this for nearly 20 years. Sure, he's only directed one other movie, but he's also created four TV shows, and written scripts for everyone from Michael Bay to Mike Nichols.
All the stories I've heard about Abrams suggest that he's very respectful of other people's opinions when it comes to this movie. For example, there's that guy who makes those high-end fan films which are super-faithful to the original series. He had been bashing this movie since Day One. Then one day, he was on the Paramount lot, and Abrams saw him and recognized him. Abrams complimented the guy on his work, and invited him to come to the set. Then he let this guy sit in on a few takes, and asked the guy what he thought about the scene.
In my opinion, someone who's willing to accept advice from an amateur who has publicly criticized his work is not too hip for the room.
quote: Joe Tommassello
I would say those are the fans most qualified to decide how true it remains to the original...the fans who watched it grow from it's infancy. They are not clouded by nostalgia...their thinking is unpolluted by the liberties taken in more recent bastardizations trying to ride the coattails of the original concept.
I see what you're saying, and I think there's an argument to be made there. But I still disagree with it. I hope that this thing is very true to the original series. But at the same time, that line of thinking is dangerous. At some point, you can become so focused on what something was that you start losing sight of what it can be.
Seeing this trailer and debating the intricacies of the continuity is the most fun I've had with Star Trek in years. I really really hope that this thing fits perfectly into the timeline. But at the end of the day, reality sets in, and I have to admit that it's more important for this movie to be good than for it to be faithful.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-21-2008 07:02 PM
It's probably pointless to jump into the frey, but Ken Lacker asked, "Even if we never heard it spoken on screen, if Mr. Rodenberry himself said it, why shouldn't we take it as canon? Why shouldn't scripts be written to jive with what he's said?"
The real answer is that Star Trek fans have spent thousands or millions of man hours debating and discussing (in many cases with rigorous academic rigor) what a reasonable standard is for canonicity, on the basis of what makes sense ("Is this source reasonable? Is it terribly inconsistent with itself?"), as well as its stature, etc., etc. They've come to many different conclusions (of course), but I think it's pretty well-accepted that using just anything that Rodenbery has said is not very wise.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-21-2008 08:16 PM
I think both Roddenberry and Lucas fall into the same sort of constant revsionist evolution. That is, their ideas at first were much more global in nature and they changed throughout time. I remember an interview with Lucas before he made EMPIRE and his answers to questions were clear indications that he was making it up as he went. He may have known where it wanted to go, but had no idea about the path...later interviews, he made it sound like his "vision" all along...BULLSHIT...history doesn't back him up.
The same with Roddenberry, to a much lesser degree. Due to serial nature of TOS, Roddenberry did need to set up ground rules for writers to live by to ensure that one episode doesn't stangle another, and so forth. Also, rules needed to be made to ensure characters didn't abruptly change from episode to episode. However, if you again look at his interviews throughout time...his "vision" was more shaped by how the series was embraced more than how he wanted to push it.
I give the Star Trek caretakes high marks for keeping the various branches of the Star Trek tree connected yet not necessarily completely intertwined. Much the same as a tree or even siblings in a family. There is a resemblance...some more so than others and yet each has their ups and downs. One branch could be a failure, wither and die and not bring the tree down. Yet if a branch does well, the whole tree grows.
Whereas the Star Trek universe is rather old and SO MANY STORIES have been written (officially and broadcasted/presented), there is a lot of continuity issues that can be tough to reconcile. I seem to recall an interview with Harve Bennitt when he came into the fold with the feature films of stating that he WASN'T going to be held stictly to what happened in the past...others would have to reconcile, if they chose, how he told the story with the past. Of course, his story, "Wrath of Kahn," dealt directly with a story from the past!
I've watched/enjoyed, TOS and TNG. I've seen MOST (all but a couple) ENTERPRISE. There are some definite pluses to Enterprise...in fact mostly plusses. There are some things that definitely bothered me in terms of its time-frame with respect to TOS. The uniforms, with the pips as rank instead of the arm braid is just plain wrong. The pips were a TNG thing, and that is fine as I don't care how you do it but you have a distinct time line between Enterprise, TOS, TOS Movies, TNG...etc. Things SHOULD evolve along those lines. No, you shouldn't be constrained to the 1966 SCI-FI on a shoe-string budget look, but you should try to reconcile the evolution properly of the equipment, shapes, uniforms, experiences...yadda, yadda, yadda. Enterprise, failed on that a bit too much though in other ways it did exceptionally well.
With this new film, we have something that should fit between Enterprise and TOS. Again, one need not be hampered by the limited budget (or technology of 1966) of TOS but it should look as if in 1966, they had the budget of 2008 and keep the evolution proper of the characters and equipment as well as the universe.
It is so hard to predict the future and come up with a reasonable look of the future from present day. It is even harder to look back from a future that has yet to be!
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 12
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Topic Closed
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
).
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic