quote: Mike SchindlerWell if that's the case then they need to mention the fact that Captain Kirk was not the original Captain of the ship he commands. The original commander was Captain Pike.
With STAR TREK, we have possibly the best of both worlds (no pun intended). It's a reboot inside of the continuity which we've all known and (mostly) loved for the past 42 years. One of the writers, Roberto Orci, has said on numerous occasions that he is obsessed with continuity, and has a very thorough knowledge of Star Trek's canon. Because of this, my mind is at ease, no matter what I see in the trailer that conflicts with what I know about Star Trek.
quote: Mike SchindlerTHANK YOU! I love Enterprise, and I hate when people complain about this. I mean, really. The show was made in 2003. It's not going to look like it was made in 1966, no matter how long before the 1966 show it takes place. Same goes for this movie.
And most of what does conflict is merely cosmetic. And let's face facts. As much as we'd all love to see the original bridge of the Enterprise, with all of it's buttons and dials and primary colors, it would take viewers so far out of the movie that it would be a disservice to the story.
quote: Mike SchindlerThen why is he portraying Kirk as the first commander of the Enterprise? That simply is not correct. Period. (Unless I am seriously misunderstanding what I see in the trailer and everything I have heard about the movie for the past two years.)
One of the writers, Roberto Orci, has said on numerous occasions that he is obsessed with continuity, and has a very thorough knowledge of Star Trek's canon.
quote: Mike SchindlerWe would not be Star Trek fans without our nerdy hangups.
And once we get past all of our nerdy hangups...
quote: Mike SchindlerScotty's uniform was red in The Original Series. So where's the hangup? Was he in a different department before he was in engineering? (I'm not a huge TOS nerd, so that may very well be the case and I never knew it.)
like why Bones is on the ship, or why Scotty's uniform is red instead of yellow...
quote: Darryl SpicerSorry, you lose. The correct answer is Captain Robert April.
Well if that's the case then they need to mention the fact that Captain Kirk was not the original Captain of the ship he commands. The original commander was Captain Pike.
quote: Ken LacknerAs mentioned above, Pike is in the movie.
Then why is he portraying Kirk as the first commander of the Enterprise? That simply is not correct. Period. (Unless I am seriously misunderstanding what I see in the trailer and everything I have heard about the movie for the past two years.)
quote: Ken LacknerGene Roddenberry disagrees. Though I'm not sure why.
Sorry, you lose. The correct answer is Captain Robert April.
quote: Ken LacknerThe character's only appearance is in the Star Trek: The Animated Series episode "The Counter-Clock Incident", in which he is voiced by James Doohan and portrayed as the first captain of the USS Enterprise. However, the decision by Paramount Pictures, studio owners of the franchise, and series creator Gene Roddenberry to not consider the animated series to be part of the official Star Trek canon has led to debate as to whether April and his place as first captain, is actually a part of Star Trek continuity.
Sorry, you lose. The correct answer is Captain Robert April.
quote: Ken LacknerThey had one of the original design ships in an episode of Enterprise along with the Tholians creating their webs. In a Mirror Darkly I believe was the title of that episode. It was two parts and was in the final season.
THANK YOU! I love Enterprise, and I hate when people complain about this. I mean, really. The show was made in 2003. It's not going to look like it was made in 1966, no matter how long before the 1966 show it takes place. Same goes for this movie.
quote: Ken LacknerHe was also the head of security on the ship. You always new that if an unfamilure character had a red shirt on he was doomed to die. I will point out that Scotty died in the original series. The episode was the Changeling, where an alien probe was brought abord the ship and Scotty touched the probes screens and it zapped him. Later the probe revived him back from the dead. So Scotty was not imune to the red shirt doomed issue.
Scotty's uniform was red in The Original Series. So where's the hangup? Was he in a different department before he was in engineering? (I'm not a huge TOS nerd, so that may very well be the case and I never knew it.)
quote: Mike SchindlerYeah. So are pink Blackberrys.
Reboots are all the rage these days.
quote: Ken LacknerAre they? And even if they are, the thing we have to keep in mind is that there is time travel in this movie. Abrams has said that while this movie is canon, characters from the original series could die, and it'll still work. That suggests to me that events in this movie will start a new timeline, kind of like in BACK TO THE FUTURE.
Then why is he portraying Kirk as the first commander of the Enterprise? That simply is not correct. Period.
quote: Ken LacknerTrue.
We would not be Star Trek fans without our nerdy hangups.
quote: Ken LacknerYou're forgetting that in WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, there were no red uniforms. Everyone wore yellow or blue. Scotty wore yellow. So did Spock, but I think he wore blue in THE CAGE. Sulu's was blue, but that's because he was some sort of scientist at first. Anyway, you get the idea...
Scotty's uniform was red in The Original Series. So where's the hangup?
quote: Chris SlycordI think this has something to do with Gene Roddenberry being a loser. The DS9 guys found ways to make the animated series fit into continuity, so I say it counts.
Gene Roddenberry disagrees. Though I'm not sure why.
Hint: Roddenberry and Paramount choose to ignore the animated series as not being so-called official canon.
quote: Joe TommasselloThat's true of the first 20 movies, but I think that most people, including the creators, are in agreement that CASINO ROYALE is a reboot. And while the series may not have needed it, I for one am happy that it got it. Otherwise, we may have never known what we were missing.
BTW, the James Bond series never got or needed a "reboot". They simply change the actor when the current one gets too old or expensive or hard to deal with.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: Chris SlycordIt appears Mike and I were composing our posts at the same time. I chose to leave mine as-is rather than edit it.
As mentioned above, Pike is in the movie.
quote: Bobby HendersonI won't disagree with that a bit. But it shouldn't contradict any previous Star Trek, either.
Simply put, this new Star Trek movie needs to be able to stand on its own and work for anyone who has never seen a previous Star Trek TV series or movie for it to be any good.
quote: Mark StrubeNow that I will disagree with. Strongly. I loved all of the TNG movies, except Generations, and I didn't hate that one as much as most people did. Nemesis was great. But that's just my opinion, of course.
I personally think the trailer kind of kicks ass. Finally Star Trek looks properly "updated" to our time. The movies were getting quite stale.
quote: Mike SchindlerIt certainly seems like it. If not, I'll be impressed.
Are they?
quote: Mike SchindlerGood point. I did forget about that. There were no bright red uniforms, but I thought there was a kind of not-quite-gold-almost-slightly-orangish version?
You're forgetting that in WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, there were no red uniforms. Everyone wore yellow or blue. Scotty wore yellow. So did Spock, but I think he wore blue in THE CAGE.
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
trademark.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Darryl SpicerHey,
They had one of the original design ships in an episode of Enterprise along with the Tholians creating their webs. In a Mirror Darkly I believe was the title of that episode. It was two parts and was in the final season.
quote: Mike SchindlerThis seems to be what they did with the fourth movie (THE VOYAGE HOME) by incorporating the time-travel element so the story could be contemporary and adding the ecology/saving the whales theme. In fact, to date the fourth movie is the only TREK flick to top the magical $100 million threshold domestically.
I think the only way to make a financially successful Star Trek movie these days is to do something that appeals to a larger audience.
quote: Julie LuceroProbably better than all the previous ones even though it looks like it will suck ass for REAL Star Trek fans.
How do you think the new movie will do?
quote: Joe TommasselloAnd of course all real Star Trek fans are alike, right? Come on!
Probably better than all the previous ones even though it looks like it will suck ass for REAL Star Trek fans.
quote: Chris SlycordPerhaps 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.
Oh and lots of people are under 30 and real star trek fans. Guess what? People can be introduced to stuff from their parents.
quote: Mike SchindlerKind of like George Lucas?
The thing about Roddenberry is that his vision vastly outweighed his talent.
quote: Joe TommasselloWhy 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.
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.
quote: Joe TommasselloThat 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.
Mike, for example, seems to enjoy the apparent "reboot" (as he likes to say) aspects of what we have seen.
quote: Joe TommasselloJust to set the record straight, I've been the guy talking about how awesome INDY 4 is while everyone else is trashing it.
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.
quote: Joe TommasselloThat 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.
Now - probably because they are "rebooting" with fresh faces - he is very excited about it.
quote: Joe TommasselloI 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.
I just don't think it will fly with fans who GREW UP with TOS.
quote: Joe TommasselloExactly! 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.
Kind of like George Lucas?
quote: Joe TommasselloWhat 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.
In fact some people would question Roddenberry's "vision" claiming he just stole the concept from "Forbidden Planet" and tweaked it a bit.
quote: Joe TommasselloUnfortunately, the Blu-ray release will most likely be the recently updated versions with new effects.
I am awaiting the blu-ray release of TOS.
quote: Joe TommasselloWhat I wrote had nothing to do with offshoots. Again "People can be introduced to stuff from their parents." And since you seem to not get it: parents can introduce their kids to things they grew up with, including the original series of Star Trek.
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.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
).quote: Mike SchindlerI 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 could change my name to "Frank Sinatra" but it doesn't mean I can sing!
I think that the primary function of a spinoff should be to expand the mythology in some way or another.
quote: Mike SchindlerWell 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.
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.
quote: Mike SchindlerAnd 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.
But the fresh face I'm excited about is J.J. Abrams.
quote: Mike SchindlerI 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 suspect that the fans you are referring to have their judgment clouded by nostalgia.
quote: Joe TommasselloI 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.
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.
quote: Joe TommasselloYou'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.
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.
quote: Joe TommasselloI 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.
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.
quote: Joe TommasselloI 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.
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.
quote: Mike SchindlerI thought I saw that in the trailer.
I hadn't heard anything about Kirk and Uhura hooking up.
quote: Mike SchindlerHe was busy with Janice Rand...and just about every intergalactic slut he could get his hands on!
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: Mike SchindlerI appreciate that but you have to understand that having been watching ST for over 40 years it is exactly what I want it to be. The movies to this time (inconsistent though they may have been) were true to that spirit. I don't know your age but try to imagine 30 years from now Disney decides to remake POTC and puts some young kid in the part of Jack Sparrow. Whether you love or hate those films you will never feel it is the same. Like Yul Brynner in "The King and I" or Rex Harrison in "My Fair Lady". Or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". Certain things achieved greatness in their time because they are OF their time. We have people living in space...and a woman lost a set of tools there this week...how much more common can that get? Man hadn't walked on the moon yet when I watched Star Trek. It was magic...overacting, bad special effects and all. It wasn't all flash and wow...it was thought provoking...because of it's time. Not that you aren't able to appreciate it today...it's just a different kind of appreciation.
At some point, you can become so focused on what something was that you start losing sight of what it can be.
quote: Mike SchindlerWhy is that a problem? Because the masses didn't eat up Voyager as much as DS9? I for one have probably only seen a total of 5 DS9 episodes since I don't care much for the series. There was too much slapstick and drama. It felt like If I had missed an episode, I couldn't catch up. The more somber tone of Voyager was what made it better (in my opinion, of course). Personally, a STAR TREK series based on a space station that only moves in the very first episode is a dumb idea. It completely deviates from the theme of exploration.
he would have loved VOYAGER and hated DEEP SPACE NINE. That's a problem.
quote: Tristan LaneOkay. Take my posting of the
Bobby, If you're bored by the thread, don't read it. It's only funny when Heenan posts the sleeping emoticon.
icon 100% serious if you like.quote: Michael GonzalezI missed that post at first, but yeah! What he said!
Star Trek DS9 - 6x19 - In The Pale Moonlight Is the best episode ever of ANY of the series....
quote: Tristan LaneIt's not even funny then.
It's only funny when Heenan posts the sleeping emoticon.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: Tristan LaneSeriously. Let the nerds argue. It's not hurting anyone. Posting any icon telling everyone you're bored doesn't do anyone any good. As for what the thread was originally about vs. what it's become, well, so it's drifted. Like that never happens.
If you're bored by the thread, don't read it.
quote: Mike SchindlerProbably true...but shouldn't Roddenberry be given credit for having that vision and for hiring the right people to bring that vision to the screen?
The thing about Roddenberry is that his vision vastly outweighed his talent.
quote: Julie LuceroI second that!!
The best episodes of the original series, in my opinion, were written by D.C. Fontana, Harlan Ellison and David Gerrold. And the only really good TREK movies were the ones written and/or directed by Nicholas Meyer
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
quote: Bobby HendersonI've just been brushing over this from time to time and came across your post Bobby. Did you ever think that this is how everyone feels when you go off on Shotguns vs. Handguns and there ability to kill someone, or when you go off on any number of your long winded rants? Probaby not. Why don't you let fanboys have there debate and just skip this thread. End semi rant
Okay. Take my posting of the icon 100% serious if you like.
This thread was originally about the new Star Trek trailer. Not a bunch of tired bullshit about what constitutes a real Star Trek fan and proper storyline, etc., etc., etc. As serious as so many people take this particular topic there's probably some guy writing his doctoral dissertation on a proper Star Trek storyline. Trouble is the other 99.9% of the public doesn't care.
quote: Mike SchindlerThis is what is technically known in screenwriting terms as...a cop out!!!! Why didn't they call it "Back to the Future" then? The equivalent of the infamous George Lucas "from a certain point of view".
the story essentially starts with someone from the post-TNG era traveling back in time to before the original series, and doing something which has a major impact on certain key aspects of Star Trek continuity. This will explain many of the differences between the original series and the new movie.
quote: Scott D. NeffI also enjoy Voyager.
I'm about the only person out there that liked Voyager.
in here somewhere... but I respect the Star Trek geeks, it's not my thing, but I'm geeky about shows myself like Magnum PI and Seinfeld and such... to each their own I say.
quote: Scott D. NeffI liked it too except for Kate Mulgrew. I think her acting was just a little bit over the top when she would walk around strutting her stuff. I had a female boss once who damn near worshiped her style.
I'm about the only person out there that liked Voyager.
It's satisfying to the person in charge, perhaps, but not a hit with many others... not to mention that it just doesn't feel like "Star Trek" anymore. Every time I hear about this upcoming Star Trek movie, it seems like an endless list of wishes from people who want to "leave their mark" on the franchise. I'm not hopeful.
quote: Frank AngelYou must mean like every show on Sci-Fi channel today!
the Star Trek TV series when I did get to see it looked like some amateur high school film class project
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Joe ElliottShe may be older than my mom by a year, but that doesn't change that she's an attractive woman.
My son who hates the original series, and who's favorite series is Voyager, though Kate Mulgrew was the hottest girl on TV for over a year. He was only 17, and I tried to explain to him that she was a bit over his age range, but you know teenagers. He's 19 now, and is over his crush on her though.
quote: Mike SchindlerI've seen this phrase a lot and I'm sure I say it myself but it makes no sense at all. You have no choice but to wait! The only alternative is suicide. If you don't kill yourself, obviously you CAN wait. A better alternative would be "I hate waiting for this movie," which admittedly doesn't have much of a ring to it.
I cannot wait for this movie
quote:I don't know what it is with some guys. Some go bat-shit crazy over women with scratchy voices. I've met girls who were otherwise butt ugly, but because they had some deep scratchy voice men fell over themselves trying to get in their pants.
What ruined Kate Mulgrew for me was her voice. She sounded like she smoked 100 packs a day!
quote: Mike BlakesleyYou apparently haven't seen the episode of South Park where Cartman freezes himself because he can't wait for the Nintendo Wii to come out. I'm just saying, there are options other than suicide, guys!
I've seen this phrase a lot and I'm sure I say it myself but it makes no sense at all. You have no choice but to wait! The only alternative is suicide. If you don't kill yourself, obviously you CAN wait. A better alternative would be "I hate waiting for this movie," which admittedly doesn't have much of a ring to it.
quote: Frank AngelI've heard this criticism a lot, but it never made much sense to me. Sure, it's the funniest series in the franchise, but it's also the darkest. Take the character of Quark's nephew, Nog, for example. The Ferengi were mostly used for comic relief, and his character was no exception. There are episodes like LITTLE GREEN MEN, where he's running around Roswell in the 1940's all slapsticky with the other Ferengi. But then there are also episodes like IT'S ONLY A PAPER MOON, where he gets his leg blown off in combat and retreats into the holosuite because he can't deal with the real world anymore. That's some pretty heavy stuff.
I was not a fan of DS9 at all - it seemed more like a comedy skit -- they never seemed to be serious, and the costumes were laughable more than believeable.
quote: Joe ElliottSo, in other words, he's finally gotten to Jeri Ryan episodes?
My son who hates the original series, and who's favorite series is Voyager, though Kate Mulgrew was the hottest girl on TV for over a year. He was only 17, and I tried to explain to him that she was a bit over his age range, but you know teenagers. He's 19 now, and is over his crush on her though.
quote:Except, of course, for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA! Is anyone else anxiously awaiting Friday Night's big finale?
You must mean like every show on Sci-Fi channel today!
quote: Joe TommasselloPersonally, I thought that one of the reasons why CLOVERFIELD worked so well is because of the way they were able to develop the characters so concisely. But CLOVERFIELD is not a very good indicator of what to expect from STAR TREK. It was produced by the same guy, but it had a different writer and director. The best film to compare STAR TREK to as far as the talent is concerned is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Pretty much everyone who worked on that movie also worked on STAR TREK. M:I:III was easily the best film of 2006, and that's why I have so much confidence in these guys taking over TREK.
Is there a chance the characters can have some substance? I refer you to the first reel of "Cloverfield" for an example. Enough said?
quote: Joe TommasselloThe problem with the character development in Jackson's movie is not that it left nothing to the imagination. The problem was that the character development was unnecessary and got in the way of the important stuff, which was monsters fighting.
Is there anyone here who can seriously say they think the 2005 version of King Kong is better than the original? Jackson "expanded" the characters and gave them more "depth", we learned about their backgrounds, their ambitions, etc...as HE envisioned it. What happened to imagination? What happened to respecting the intelligence of your audience and letting them envision their own backstory that would have brought the characters to this place where we meet them?
quote: Mike SchindlerMan, 2006 must have been one shitty year!
M:I:III was easily the best film of 2006
quote: Mike SchindlerYeah - heavy stuff. Just like...
But then there are also episodes like IT'S ONLY A PAPER MOON, where he gets his leg blown off in combat and retreats into the holosuite because he can't deal with the real world anymore. That's some pretty heavy stuff.
quote: Galen Murphy-FahlgrenNog? Is his first name Egg? And Ferengi? I am not judging as I didn't watch the show...but this sounds a lot like "Willow" and "ewok" to me!
the episode of South Park where Cartman freezes himself because he can't wait for the Nintendo Wii to come out.
quote:Guess that clears that up. On the other hand I agree that M:I:III was good and certainly don't disagree about King Kong. We'll see soon whether the new film is ST (Star Trek) or STINO (Star Trek In Name Only). Oh, and I get to decide because I was alive in the 60s. Being an old bastard has to have some advantages.
Remember how much you hated those pretentious little pricks for the first fifteen minutes of "Cloverfield"? I hated those fuckers so much I hoped the monster would just stomp the whole load of them Bambi-meets-Godzilla style immediately...even if it meant the movie only lasted one reel!
quote: Greg AndersonBut its not Paramount that Joe's pissed at, he's pissed at Abrams, Chris Pine, and everyone involved and how they are not the ORIGINAL actors, original creator, original anything. That is what bugs me, you haven't seen it unless you were in Austin or Australia last week. So give it a chance and see what pans out!
In Joe's defense, I don't think it's a passion about hating this movie. It's a passion about the many, indisputable times that Paramount has disappointed long-time Star Trek fans in the past few years.
quote: Kurt ZupinNow you're gettin' the idea Kurt! They are not original ANYTHING!!!
they are not the ORIGINAL actors, original creator, original anything.
quote: Kurt ZupinThat would be geeks in uniforms, with pointed ears or with antennae sticking out of their heads. They would like a turd if it said Star Trek on it...which is what this film just may be!
read some of the reviews from people who are just as big of Trek fans if not bigger then you.
quote: Joe TommasselloReally? Because I can't conceive of a STAR TREK movie worth watching that isn't relevant and vital for now. That was the whole point of the show back in 1966.
I can't conceive of anything that could possibly go into this film that is relevant and vital for now...unless it proposes a way to pay off the national debt.
quote: Jean-Marc ToussaintDamn...you were doing so well, too.
It's doing much better job at connecting the dots than Star Wars III did (don't take me wrong, I like SWIII)
quote: John WilsonThis always cracks me up, "Oh no, Your opinion on a movie that I don't like or most people don't like means what you have to say about this is wrong." I know John was joking and not being an ass.
Damn...you were doing so well, too.
Just cracks me up when people say that.
quote: Jean-Marc ToussaintI didn't realize there were dots to be connected. I suppose in a couple of weeks I'll find out how clueless I have been for the past 40 or so years. Actually I am looking forward to the movie. I am taking a day off from work after the first weekend to drag my dad and uncle to see it in IMAX.
It's doing much better job at connecting the dots than Star Wars III did
quote: Kurt ZupinWell we have a friend here who thinks "Return of the Jedi" is the best film in the Star Wars series. My mom says Gone With The Wind is "the worst movie ever made". Now there's a couple of people whose opinion I might question.
This always cracks me up, "Oh no, Your opinion on a movie that I don't like or most people don't like means what you have to say about this is wrong."
quote: Joe TommasselloThere are lots of people who would agree. When we played GWTW here a few years ago (that awful Scope print), we had a few people who said it 'wasn't as good as they remembered.'
My mom says Gone With The Wind is "the worst movie ever made".
quote: Joe TommasselloThe thing is that opinions don't have to be arguable. She made her opinion. You disagreed with it. Big deal.
As for it being "the worst film ever made" that is simply a ridiculous statement. If you didn't like it that's fine but it's not even arguable that it the worst - or anything close to the worst - film ever made.
quote: Chris SlycordThat's why God created DVD!
Having said that, I've only seen a couple episodes of that series, as Sci-Fi Channel doesn't come over my antenna.
quote: Mike SchindlerThat's could be a two-edge sword of sorts.
I like it because it acknowledges that everything we've seen since 1966 is still relevant and has not been simply thrown out the window.
quote: Robert HarrisonDo we need any more evidence that the distributors are running the theatres? "Back in the day" we booked the pictures when WE wanted to play them (after the break) and the distributors had no control over what time we played them. And we'd play films on a 4-3 run (Wednesday through Saturday for one film and Sunday through Tuesday for another).
Looks like Paramount is going to let theaters begin showing this one as early as 7 p.m. on Thursday, the 7th. Goody. Those damn midnight preview shows are a pain in the buttocks.
quote: Robert E. AllenHaha! Back when the studios OWNED the theaters!
And we'd play films on a 4-3 run
quote:Yep. I used to work for Fox West Coast Adam. But I was really thinking of the 60s when I owned my theatres.
Haha! Back when the studios OWNED the theaters!
quote: Robert E. AllenRobert: You can still do that. We just played "Monsters vs. Aliens" for 6 days, then were closed for our regular Thursday night, then played it 3 more days at one show per day.
"Back in the day" we booked the pictures when WE wanted to play them (after the break) and the distributors had no control over what time we played them. And we'd play films on a 4-3 run (Wednesday through Saturday for one film and Sunday through Tuesday for another).
quote: Mike BlakesleySure... that's called "tradition".
Robert: You can still do that. We just played "Monsters vs. Aliens" for 6 days, then were closed for our regular Thursday night, then played it 3 more days at one show per day.
quote: Kurt Zupinin our case it's proving quite a hassle. our main auditorium has a long-standing rental for 7pm thurs with 250 tickets sold already. so star trek is opening upstairs on a 180-seat screen, then moving down for the 10pm show.
Anyone who would complain about them allowing you to show this movie earlier then the release is dumb.
quote: Carl MartinAs Chris already pointed out, this is not a hassle. Your still going to play it at 7, just not in your larger house. Seems people just want to complain about any little thing that they can about his movie. Even when the word of mouth already is great, and Trekies and non Trekies are giddy over seeing it.
in our case it's proving quite a hassle. our main auditorium has a long-standing rental for 7pm thurs with 250 tickets sold already. so star trek is opening upstairs on a 180-seat screen, then moving down for the 10pm show.
quote: Kurt ZupinMaybe not the non-Trekies. Early reports are very few markets even came close to selling out these 7:00 shows.
Even when the word of mouth already is great, and Trekies and non Trekies are giddy over seeing it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Camera shake, lens flare, bad editing.![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
quote: Joe TommasselloI noticed it a little in the later parts of the movie, it's just that there was so much more going on that it wasn't as bad.
Obviously I agree with Joe R. but I did want to agree also with Julio - particularly about the shakey cam work. It was really bad at first. Fortunately either they stopped after a while or I just got used to it.