http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/45415.html
I hate this retro stuff. Why can't they continue on with the post-Dominion era of SF?
Well, look how well it worked for Star Wars..........ohh......wait......
The remastered Trek is actually tasteful and cool, I think. But this franchise is like watching a trainwrek, then the wreck falls off a cliff, then maybe into a volcano..
I am really enjoying it whenever I see a remastered episode on TV, and I'll probably buy the set one day, but the movies.......ha.
I like some of the movies, but a prequel with young Kirk and Spock? No thank you.
The problem is that no one is willing to do anything new and fresh with Star Trek--at least not in the right way.
Several fan productions have done so. The audio Section 31 files, for example, have a plot the bests anything Star Trek has done for years.
But instead, this next movie may very well be another flop, and Paramount will insists once again that Star Trek is dead.
Agreed, cat.
If they wanted to do a new Trek movie, they should have done something combining cast members from previous Trek series, since a feature film introducing a new crew would be a bad idea. A movie featuring characters from TNG, DS9 and Voyager joining forces would rock - as long as there are no Borg in sight and Captain Janeway isn't the commanding officer, that is.
I know I won't be going to see this movie, or catching it on cable or dvd, if it happens. Its a seriously bad idea, just like the Enterprise tv series was.
Actually, they were talking for a while about doing a movie with a whole new crew and ship made just for the movie. I thought that would be an excellent idea. The characters and situation could then be made to fit the needs of the plot and of movies in general and would force the writers to hopefully do something original with the franchise.
But once again, they took a great fresh new idea and just discarded it. People in suits should not control the way art is made. Not unless they happen to be artists who ware really snazzy dressers, that is.
The "Shatnerverse" books, though they focus on Kirk, do a good job of combining all of the crews in the post-dominion era. It follows the lead of the various 24th Century series.
I have a friend how is a really big Trekkie, and he has a lot of good things to say about those books.
Although Shatner doesn't really write them. Ghost writers, you know, who has since gone on to write on their own.
With All the other revamps with Star Trek, in the words of Puff, "You know they had to do a remix!"
This looks good:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/more-star-trek-images-enterprise-crew-nero/ (http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/more-star-trek-images-enterprise-crew-nero/)
Sylar Spock is just too awesome. I'm excited about this.
John Cho as Sulu? Cool!
I'm sure there will be a LOT of negativity towards this flick in the many months until it's release. The only thing I have to say thus far is... WTF is Kirk doing wearing a solid black uniform? I'm down with changes that progress the story but I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around the fact that Kirk is wearing a Black uni.
-MJB
Quote from: MJB on October 17, 2008, 12:57:32 AM
I'm down with changes that progress the story but I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around the fact that Kirk is wearing a Black uni.
Supposedly, there is a "story reason" for the black shirt, so I guess we'll see. The most important question remains unanswered: Will Uhura be wearing a mini-skirt? :D
Well, in the orignal series, Kirk does wear all sort of different and often casual looking uniforms, so this hardly bothers me.
In one of the crew shots that have been released a woman is wearing a mini-skirt - I'm not certain its Uhura, because I don't know who the actress is playing Uhura. I'm personally of the opinion that women in a futuristic space agency/military having mini-skirts as part of their uniform is moronic, but your milage may vary.
I don't necessarily think this is going to be a good movie, but I understand why they've decided to do it (ie. remake the original crew): Star Trek fandom alone can't make a movie a hit. The Trek movies that did the best financially were the ones that crossed over the most to casual SF fans, or people who aren't Trek fans at all. Those people might have seen the odd episode of TNG, and probably none of DS9, Voyager or Enterprise; they don't know who the Dominion are, are any of the crap that festooned Voyager - but they all know Kirk, Spock & McCoy. Now, pissing Treck fandom off is a bad way to go as well, there's nothing like giving a movie a poisonous buzz before a trailer's even been released, so it's a tightrope they've got to walk.
A Star Trek movie with a totally new ship & crew would have no reasons to be made. Even Star Trek fans wouldn't know the characters, so you might as well ditch the setting and just make an original sci-fi movie.
QuoteA Star Trek movie with a totally new ship & crew would have no reasons to be made. Even Star Trek fans wouldn't know the characters, so you might as well ditch the setting and just make an original sci-fi movie.
Personally, I think that would be a great idea. I don't see any problem with continuing the universe with a new set of characters that can be suited to fit a movie format and take advantage of the big budget better. Personally, I would have preferred it.
I'm mildly interested in this. Kirk and Spock are awesome characters, so there is a slim chance this could be good.
I'm not in any way, a Trekkie, but I have enjoyed some of the series and films.
Maybe the Star Trek franchise is stagnant because they've been so obsessed with nearly every series and film having to be tied somehow to an "Enterprise"? It just seems like they're constantly trying to reinvent the original.
ST: Voyager was more in the vein of the original, yet it chose a different ship and crew to do the exploring (probably a better way to go). Star Trek: Deep Space 9 wasn't really a "Star Trek", was it? More of a "Star Base" kind of show.
Hopefully it will be well done...We'll see.
Dana
I'm actually really excited about this movie. I like JJ Abrams, I think Zachery Quinto is a great choice for Spock, and I think this could be a cool remake. Now I am too young to have watched the original Trek when it was on so I don't have huge feelings for the original crew compared to the later series so that's probably part of it.
Voyager and Enterprise tore Star Trek down with boring repetitive stories, I'm ready for something different.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on October 17, 2008, 10:09:11 AM
QuoteA Star Trek movie with a totally new ship & crew would have no reasons to be made. Even Star Trek fans wouldn't know the characters, so you might as well ditch the setting and just make an original sci-fi movie.
Personally, I think that would be a great idea. I don't see any problem with continuing the universe with a new set of characters that can be suited to fit a movie format and take advantage of the big budget better. Personally, I would have preferred it.
The problem is that it's got a tiny built-in audience, the thing that motivates studios to develop franchises, and adapt books, comics, tv shows, etc. Without much of a built-in audience, there's very little motivation for a studio to make it, and no reason at all to give it a big budget. The only reason a studio would take that kind of gamble would be if a creative type with a lot of buzz or influence wanted to push it through - like JJ Abrams has with this prequel/reboot - but most creative people with that sort of clout would rather play in the established sandbox - ie, using the well-known characters.
Just the Star Trek setting alone, without any well-known characters would draw in some people, but probably about as many as having the 'Star Trek' title in the name would immediately turn away - because there people, even fans of other types of sci-fi, who are immediately against all things Trek (don't ask me why, I think it's pathological). And Star Trek fandom is incredibly fractured. Ask a group of Star Trek fans what they think of the setting after Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise, and you'll get some wildly varied and rabid responses.
I personally hated Voyager with the fury of a thousand suns, and any Trek movie based on developments from that show would get zero interest from me. DS9 was great, but it was never a terribly popular show, and in a lot of ways lost some of the
feel of Star Trek - a movie based on developments from it would be totally unfamiliar to a lot of people who'd consider themselves moderate fans, let alone the general public. It would also receive zero interest from a component of the core fandom.
Well...maybe some of the people that are "against all things Trek" are so, simply because it isn't their cup o'? I don't think it has to be pathological...Just a question of preferences.
I myself, am more of a Space:1999, Outer Limits, Aliens fan.
The same fractured fandoms can be found in <insert name of sci-fi series or film franchise> fandoms too. Example: Some fans of Space:1999 will only watch Year One and some refuse to admit that Year Two even exists...Seriously (not me, but some do).
Dana
I consider myself a trekker/trekkie to a moderate degree. I'm really not too excited about this movie. Like others I really wish they would just created a new ship... new crew... based in the trek universe after the last movie... but with few ties to the other series an movies.
People don't have to be familiar with the characters all ready. At some point all the characters were new.
Quote from: House Quake on October 17, 2008, 07:20:05 PM
I consider myself a trekker/trekkie to a moderate degree. I'm really not too excited about this movie. Like others I really wish they would just created a new ship... new crew... based in the trek universe after the last movie... but with few ties to the other series an movies.
People don't have to be familiar with the characters all ready. At some point all the characters were new.
True, but there's no draw to making it 'Star Trek' if all the characters are new - the creators are taking a lot of baggage on board (continuity, a critical fanbase, others) but not getting much for the trouble beyond the name of an ailing franchise above the title.
Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on October 17, 2008, 12:39:49 PM
Well...maybe some of the people that are "against all things Trek" are so, simply because it isn't their cup o'? I don't think it has to be pathological...Just a question of preferences.
I myself, am more of a Space:1999, Outer Limits, Aliens fan.
The same fractured fandoms can be found in <insert name of sci-fi series or film franchise> fandoms too. Example: Some fans of Space:1999 will only watch Year One and some refuse to admit that Year Two even exists...Seriously (not me, but some do).
Dana
I can understand people just not liking Star Trek if they've watched a few episodes, maybe from a couple of the series - but those aren't really people I meant when I said pathological. I've known people who won't even look at it if they hear Star Trek; they've made up their mind what that means without ever actually watching an episode or a movie, and have decided it's bad.
Other fanbases are fractured too, but most of those other fandoms aren't counting on the fanbase to stake a feature film on - which is what the studio would be doing if they made a Trek movie that had limited appeal beyond the fanbase.
Recently, I was dragged to an indie film called "Bottleshock". It was surprisingly good, and the lead actor was Christopher Pine, who plays Kirk. I think he'll be great in the role, and I agree that Quinto will be a terrific Spock.
I'm excited for this version of Trek.
Not really a star trek fan but I always love what they do with the movies and I'm liking the few pics they have revealed
HD bootleg trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WNPb8R-40)
Looks *bleeping* awesome!
Sylar as Spock is just prefect. Really looking forward to this.
Saw the trailer Friday at Quantum of Solace (which had like six or seven trailers, including a new one (to me) for The Spirit). Star Trek looks pretty cool in terms of actors, flair, and special effects. I am hoping the story measures up.
Quote from: YouTube commentStar Trek gets 21th centery nice :D
I'm excited.
Quote from: Midnite on November 15, 2008, 11:00:24 PM
Looks *bleeping* awesome!
Looks like a *bleeping* hyper-frenetic mess!
Official trailer is out.
Linky (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/)
Yeah, I'm intrigued, but that trailer definitely had ADD. Bones needs to prescribe some ritalin.
Try as I might, this film is doing nothing at all for me (maybe if they had shown more Simon Pegg or John Cho).
But then unlike most people, JJ Abrams has yet to do anything that holds my attention for more than 5 minutes...
whatever happened to the startrek fan film that had many of the original cast in it?
It was successfully released months ago.
http://www.startrekofgodsandmen.com/
can someone explain to me where this film fits in. i've followed nothing about it apart from a few rumours and now the trailer
i'll admit i don't know what to think, i was never a fan of the original series and grew up watching TNG so i prefer it. but i really get the feeling much like the crap that was enterprise this is just adding conflicts to the continuity. maybe i'm wrong again like i said i don't know the plot or the standing in the series
From what I heard (and Im not a big follower of the series) its sort of a reboot but not. Its basically being Smallville for Star Trek... only its sorta tied to the regular continuity cause Leonard Nimoy has a small role as old spock and some kind of Time travel thing.. I dont know.
Its gonna be a train wreck of sorts i think.
My understanding is that this movie explores the history of the crew of TAS and their first experiences with one another prior to serving on the Enterprise under Kirk (i.e TAS). So not a reboot at all, but rather a "prequel." I believe it focuses on the story of the "core three" (Kirk, Spock, McCoy) and a fair amount of time is spent and their childhood and academy days.
It looks far more like a reboot than a prequel to me. Just the trailer alone seems to contradict the original series in so many ways it isn't even funny.
I'm fairly certain it's a reboot, but a reboot with an in-story explanation - ie. time travel.
QuoteI'm fairly certain it's a reboot, but a reboot with an in-story explanation - ie. time travel.
So an alternate timeline created by old Spock? Actually does have some potential. We'll see then. I still think showing Enterprise being built on the ground is ridiculous, as any large ship is much easier to build in orbit (and it's obviously not designed to ever be on the ground anyway.)
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on November 18, 2008, 09:11:49 PM
It looks far more like a reboot than a prequel to me. Just the trailer alone seems to contradict the original series in so many ways it isn't even funny.
It most certainly looks like a reboot.
And if so... IMO that would be a definite plus and give me a reason to be excited to see it. One of the reasons I never got into Enterprise was because it was a prequel. It inevitably couldn't keep away from contradicting events from Star Trek TOS and later shows... but mostly TOS.
The preview looks good. I hope the movie mixes in a lot of energy as well as character development.
the only prblem I have... is that I have to wait six months to see it :(
As I was saying, my understanding is that it is a reboot . . .
I hope it's a reboot. Star Trek suffered too much pain during the Enterprise run. Are the "intergalactic cheerleader" outfits in this movie? If it turns out that it's not a reboot then they need to explain that and Pike's reasons for not being used to women on the Bridge.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on November 18, 2008, 09:55:29 PM
QuoteI'm fairly certain it's a reboot, but a reboot with an in-story explanation - ie. time travel.
So an alternate timeline created by old Spock? Actually does have some potential. We'll see then. I still think showing Enterprise being built on the ground is ridiculous, as any large ship is much easier to build in orbit (and it's obviously not designed to ever be on the ground anyway.)
Exactly! Given the plethora of time travel stories within even Trek canon...I have no problem with an alt time line...therefore alt story. You mess with the time stream and you are bound to get changes!! Iow, it's not like this hasn't been done before! And to try to adhere strictly to conventions of TOS is a little silly given changes in special fx, budget allowances (iow, the original series was done on a shoe string budget), cultural more's etc.
WOW!!! I finally just watched it and...imho...it looks phenomenal!!!! I just wish that we didn't have to wait till May to see it! Then again, it's worth it to get a great movie. love how Abrams et.al. are remaining true to Trek TOS and yet incorporates new stuff. s. The Enterprise looks awesome!! Retro yet incorporating new stuff! Love how the "USS Kelvin" (great name btw) has just one nacelle that is straight vertical from the main body of the ship. It reminds me alot of the destroyer class Federation ships that were in the old Star Fleet Battles game that I used to play in high school. Lol! And the uniforms! Outstanding! Well, thanks for the headsup!
Btw, what does TAS stand for? TAS=The Animated Series???
I looked around and it seems there's definitely some use of time travel. Shatner wanted in on the movie, but because his character was dead they kept him out apparently.
I'm thinking that it's an incontiniuty reboot.
Quote from: Dr.Volt on November 19, 2008, 06:46:25 AM
Btw, what does TAS stand for? TAS=The Animated Series???
I think he meant TOS... The Original Series. Though there was a TAS as well... which in some regards had a more interesting crew.
from the wiki:
QuoteOrci said creating a reboot would be disrespectful to those who maintained a strong continuity in the franchise in the past.[59] One example of a concept which seemingly contradicts Star Trek canon but came from the precedent set in the novels was having the Enterprise built on Earth, rather than space. Orci said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film))
The problem with that, of course, is that NG established that the Federation uses orbital shipyards. The shape of the Enterprise, and other Federation ships, would make it difficult, if not impossible, to assemble on the ground. Orci obviously does not understand much about engineering.
Or physics - the gravitational stresses on the ship while resting on a planet would actually be completely different than those of deck oriented artificial gravity.
I mean, if there were such a thing as artificial gravity . . .
Well, artificial gravity used creatively could hypothetically eliminate the stress and strain a planet would put on the ship. If you applied some anti-gravity force along the whole ship, it wouldn't be so heavy as to fall apart.
Agree with Cat, though. It's not aerodynamic enough to take off. The saucer part is, we've seen that, but those engines. Plus, it's OBSCENELY dangerous to be handling tons and tons of antimatter on a planetary surface. Constructing warp engines on Earth is a Very Bad Idea.
The Evolution of the USS Enterprise (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/11/12/the-evolution-of-the-uss-enterprise/)
the impression i'm getting from the story, or probably just wishful thinking on my part, is that star trek's technology, due to time travel incidents, has generated the more futuristic reality we live in. we have cel phones that are more advanced than the original series because they actually influenced us and created us as the alternate timeline.
All my previous opinions about the film became null and void once I learned Winona Ryder was playing Spock's mom and Tyler Perry has a cameo. This is going to be a train wreck of epic proportions.
As for building it on the ground or in space, it's just plain easier to build something like that out of gravity. Far from objects made this way being flimsy and delicate, it's actually far easier to make heavy, solid objects in space.
Again, that guy isn't too bright when it comes to basic engineering and physics.
It'll still make way more sense than Return of the Jedi.
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's two debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.
QuoteAfter being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.
Except most people I know don't take that particular expression that literally. My guess would be that Han doesn't either.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on November 21, 2008, 11:10:15 PM
QuoteAfter being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.
Except most people I know don't take that particular expression that literally. My guess would be that Han doesn't either.
Also
Shadows is totally canon.
Quote from: BWPS on November 21, 2008, 11:06:51 PM
It'll still make way more sense than Return of the Jedi.
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.
:blink: Dude, you have
way too much free time in your life.
Quote from: Uncle Yuan on November 22, 2008, 03:48:28 AM
Quote from: BWPS on November 21, 2008, 11:06:51 PM
It'll still make way more sense than Return of the Jedi.
After being rescued from Jabba's palace, Han says, "Thanks Kid, I owe you one." BUT in Empire, after saving Luke from the yeti, Han clearly states "That's two you owe me, Junior." So the owing of two seems to have disappeared and there's no mention of them, even in the almost-canonical Shadows of the Empire during which Han was frozen in carbonite, so there wouldn't have been any way for him to repay those two! The only reason I can think of is that saving Han from Jabba was somehow worth three, repaying Luke's one debt to Han and paying him an extra one. But although the rescue was elaborate and awesome, to say it was worth three whole ones is being far more than generous, especially when R2 did most of the work.
:blink: Dude, you have way too much free time in your life.
Being such a slave to Star Wars hardly counts as free time. She is a harsh mistress...
Quote from: House Quake on November 19, 2008, 12:28:42 PM
Quote from: Dr.Volt on November 19, 2008, 06:46:25 AM
Btw, what does TAS stand for? TAS=The Animated Series???
I think he meant TOS... The Original Series. Though there was a TAS as well... which in some regards had a more interesting crew.
Oh that makes sense.
I definitely agree! TAS DEFINITELY doesn't get the respect it deserves. Yeah it had some additional characters that were more interesting! Lt. M'Ress and the 3 armed-3 legged guy navigator were great. And the stories were actually really well written, often done by people like DC Fontana and Larry Niven (who wrote my favorite episode...The Slaver Weapon that had the Kzinti in it!).
Internet Trailer (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/startreknews.php?id=50853)
A few different scenes? The ending scene maybe a bit too spoilerish... click at your own risk!
Ok, I could have sworn Spock died in TNG. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. Spock was last seen on Romulus, working on reunification with a group of friendly Romulans.
I wanted to add a note concerning Star Trek continuity and why this movie smells of retool/reboot vs. an account of the crews early days.
In TOS episode 'Balance of Terror', this was the first time the Enterprise crew, under Kirk, had ever faced a Romulan ship as well it was the first time humans had ever seen what Romulans looked like. In previous encounters between humans and the Romulans... there was no visual contact... only sub space radio. A significant amount of time had passed since the 'Nuetral Zone' was established and there hadn't been any sightings of Romulans since. Thus even if they some how work it so that no one actually sees the Romulan(s)... I can't see getting around Kirk and crew not knowing who they are up against.
This piece of Star Trek fact has been well protected during all the Trek series even and most notably the sucky 'Enterprise'.
In other words... since the villains in this movie are Romulans... and this is supposed to be pre-TOS years... this single plot device totally re-writes much of known Trek continuity and lore as it relates to Kirk, the Enterprise Crew, the Federation and the Romulans.
Also on a minor note... for Chekov to be part of a 'young' crew with Kirk as Captain... if they stuck to continuity... he'ld be younger than Wesley Crusher was on TNG. His youith was a significant plot device for his character.
Quote from: House Quake on November 26, 2008, 01:31:07 AM
I wanted to add a note concerning Star Trek continuity and why this movie smells of retool/reboot vs. an account of the crews early days.
In TOS episode 'Balance of Terror', this was the first time the Enterprise crew, under Kirk, had ever faced a Romulan ship as well it was the first time humans had ever seen what Romulans looked like. In previous encounters between humans and the Romulans... there was no visual contact... only sub space radio. A significant amount of time had passed since the 'Nuetral Zone' was established and there hadn't been any sightings of Romulans since. Thus even if they some how work it so that no one actually sees the Romulan(s)... I can't see getting around Kirk and crew not knowing who they are up against.
This piece of Star Trek fact has been well protected during all the Trek series even and most notably the sucky 'Enterprise'.
In other words... since the villains in this movie are Romulans... and this is supposed to be pre-TOS years... this single plot device totally re-writes much of known Trek continuity and lore as it relates to Kirk, the Enterprise Crew, the Federation and the Romulans.
Also on a minor note... for Chekov to be part of a 'young' crew with Kirk as Captain... if they stuck to continuity... he'ld be younger than Wesley Crusher was on TNG. His youith was a significant plot device for his character.
Well said. And it appears that there are actually several other discontinuities in the film. Another striking one is we see Kirk as a boy driving a car with a stick shift when in TOS episode, A Piece of the Action, Kirk couldn't drive a car with a stick shift (thanks to Mark Altman...from the link below for pointing this discontinuity out). And as to the Romulans I'm pretty sure it's canon that they didn't even have warp drives at the time of TOS. And yet what you wanna' bet that they'll have warp drives in the up coming movie?
But I guess the question for me really is do these discontinuties disturb the heart of Trek. Are they disrespectful? Do they hold up the plot and lend depth to it? I suppose we won't know fully until the movie comes out. But I for one am going to be there opening day.
Oh btw, there is a very good review by a guy who has seen 30 minutes of the movie. As always, beware of spoilers! Here it is:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/24/mark-altmans-take-on-the-jj-abrams-star-trek-preview/ (http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/24/mark-altmans-take-on-the-jj-abrams-star-trek-preview/)
Hasn't Abrams claimed this film is a reboot? If so, None of the original TOS continuity applies.
Dana
Wow, this thread is still going? Cool!
Yeah, some continuity they just shouldn't mess with.
Quote from: thanoson on November 25, 2008, 08:36:04 PM
Ok, I could have sworn Spock died in TNG. Am I wrong?
Spock's
father died in TNG, at the beginning of the story with Spock on Romulus...How the heck am I remembering this?
Dana :wacko:
Quote from: udasu on December 05, 2008, 05:50:15 AM
Wow, this thread is still going? Cool!
Yeah, some continuity they just shouldn't mess with.
...And they're not messing with it...If it's a reboot (judging from the vast differences in the original Enterprise and this one, it's bridge/interior, Starfleet uniforms, etc....You might as well just view it as a reboot...It'll save you all a lot of aggravation).
Dana
agh! Mind frelled! :wacko: