The new Star Trek movie - do you agree with it?

[VaastuShastra]

image hosted on flickr


Enterprise screwed up the Star Trek franchise in my opinion. It was total bogroll, by a fleet of idiots, and ruined the greatest TV sci-fi franchise.

So now it seems they are gonna do a reboot of the entire franchise, with new actors as Kirk, Spock, etc, and a redesigned Enterprise. Its gonna be done by Lost creator JJ Abrams. It will be:

....wiping out the history of the show, which many people love.

....but also erasing the stain of Star Trek: Enterprise.

....and maybe even going back to Roddenbury's vision?

The new Star Trek movie will feature such talent as Simon Pegg as Scotty, and John Cho, from Harold and Kumar, as Sulu. What do you think about this? Does a reset bugger up 300 fictional years of the fictional Star Trek setting? Or will that always remain untouched?

[nezzybaby]

Simon Pegg playing Scotty!?!?!? oh deary, deary me. I love the guy an unhealthy ammount, but to put him in star trek is a massive mistake. This can only go wrong.

[AndrewC]

I could post a very sarcastic post about how this is about as important as what I'm going to have for my lunch but I suppose enough people care about this Star Trek 'world' to warrant me just keeping my mouth shut.

[iTunes]

Pegg as Scotty worries me. Scotty although funny, was a very intense, almost unstable character, not a joker.

As for Enterprise, once it got going it was pretty good, maturing in the 3rd series and I really enjoyed it. The last episode which was directed by Jonathan Frakes was an insult and a truly miserable disaster... I have never cringed so much in front of the telly. Ever.

As for a reboot. I'm ok with it.

I just wish they could have made a Voyager movie instead.

[Accura4Matalan]

I'd watch it just because of Simon Pegg!

I certainly think this will bring the numbers back.

[VaastuShastra]

Originally Posted by iTunes

Pegg as Scotty worries me. Scotty although funny, was a very intense, almost unstable character, not a joker.

As for Enterprise, once it got going it was pretty good, maturing in the 3rd series and I really enjoyed it. The last episode which was directed by Jonathan Frakes was an insult and a truly miserable disaster... I have never cringed so much in front of the telly. Ever.

As for a reboot. I'm ok with it.

I just wish they could have made a Voyager movie instead.

Voyager was a decent show for the first few seasons, but by the end had turned crap....

For instance, from being an unstoppable foe that represented a 'technological singularity', they were blowing up Borg cubes like every episode.

It was pretty much as bad as Enterprise would be by the end.

ST:TOS, TNG and DS9 were the best, and some of the best TV ever made.

[iTunes]

Originally Posted by VaastuShastra

For instance, from being an unstoppable foe that represented a 'technological singularity', they were blowing up Borg cubes like every episode.

...well that's because as the series went on Voyager adopted more and more Borg technology into it's hull and shields. The ships astrometrics officer was after all part Borg.

In the two last episodes, if you remember, Janeway employed a protective hull that was resilient to Borg tractor beams and phaser fire, (which she bought off a Klingon) so went back in time to convince her earlier self that she needed to take on the Borg hive with a revised ship... otherwise almost all her crew would die and Tuvok would end up a vegetable.

I thought the last two episodes of Voyager were true classics. Also I think a couple of Voyagers won Emmy's, so it can't have been that bad. Anyway, I loved it.

[VaastuShastra]

Originally Posted by iTunes

...well that's because as the series went on Voyager adopted more and more Borg technology into it's hull and shields. The ships astrometrics officer was after all part Borg.

You missed the point.

1). The idea of a single ship without access to the entire Federation's research infrastructure and spacedocks coming up with that stuff lacked any believability within the fictional setting. It was a basic dramatic mistake.

2). Seven of Nine was an overpowered charecter, who by the end of the series, was solving virtually every episode with nanoprobes, making them the worst use of a plot device ever. She was a basic dramatic mistake.

3). One of the most dramatic enemies in TV history, who had once pulled in something like 20 million viewers on The Next Generation, was ruined. Another basic dramatic mistake, which like the others, were pointless.

[VaastuShastra]

I dont know whether I like the idea of them re-designing the iconic Enterprise.

Artist Gabe Koerner provides some idea about what they might go for:



Note that the image above is un-related to the movie.

[JD]

If it's done nicely, I am fine with it.

[VaastuShastra]

Here is a video by the guy who did the design above BTW:

http://thomaszaun.de/bilder/news/trekreel002.mov

[The Sage]

Lol, Simon Pegg! I might have to watch this just because of him, even though Star Trek has never ever caught my interest.

And OMG, is that Anton Yelchin?? I swear Taken wasn't that long ago...

[JackSwan]

here's the thing...star trek's chronology was largely ruined in 'enterprise'. making this new movie won't do much to finish its destruction.

the frontier-like mentality of the original series was completely lost in 'voyager', despite it providing the perfect vehicle for some interesting stories.

the very marginal use of techno-babble that existed in TOS, TNG and DS9 instead became the main focus in 'voyager' - thus ruining it. the other day i caught an early episode of TNG in which the enterprise's engines were apparently modified in order to achieve greater velocities...the lack of techno-babble, even in an episode that one might expect to be drowning in it, was completely peripheral. had it been a 'voyager' episode, i would have been reaching for the vicodin. i tried watching a random 'voyager' episode a few weeks ago and 10 minutes in i just turned it off...the dialogue was incomprehensible.

i think before i turn this into an essay i'll just conclude by saying that the damage has already been done. apparently this film has a proper hollywood budget, a seasoned director and some exciting acting talent...it may be great. i rather think it won't be.

[Megalothian]

Zoe Saldana has got the part of Uhuru (I think that's how you spell it?)


Karl Urban in talks to play 'Bones' Mccoy.

[iTunes]

Originally Posted by VaastuShastra

You missed the point.

1). The idea of a single ship without access to the entire Federation's research infrastructure and spacedocks coming up with that stuff lacked any believability within the fictional setting. It was a basic dramatic mistake.

2). Seven of Nine was an overpowered charecter, who by the end of the series, was solving virtually every episode with nanoprobes, making them the worst use of a plot device ever. She was a basic dramatic mistake.

3). One of the most dramatic enemies in TV history, who had once pulled in something like 20 million viewers on The Next Generation, was ruined. Another basic dramatic mistake, which like the others, were pointless.

erm... well we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Newcastle Guy]

Paul Mcgillion should have been Scotty. He was perfect for the role.

I still look forward to seeing it though, and seeing where they go with it. It could bring the franchise back, or it could kill it completely.

[VaastuShastra]

Urban as Bones is a good choice

Originally Posted by JackSwan

here's the thing...star trek's chronology was largely ruined in 'enterprise'. making this new movie won't do much to finish its destruction.

the frontier-like mentality of the original series was completely lost in 'voyager', despite it providing the perfect vehicle for some interesting stories.

the very marginal use of techno-babble that existed in TOS, TNG and DS9 instead became the main focus in 'voyager' - thus ruining it. the other day i caught an early episode of TNG in which the enterprise's engines were apparently modified in order to achieve greater velocities...the lack of techno-babble, even in an episode that one might expect to be drowning in it, was completely peripheral. had it been a 'voyager' episode, i would have been reaching for the vicodin. i tried watching a random 'voyager' episode a few weeks ago and 10 minutes in i just turned it off...the dialogue was incomprehensible.

i think before i turn this into an essay i'll just conclude by saying that the damage has already been done. apparently this film has a proper hollywood budget, a seasoned director and some exciting acting talent...it may be great. i rather think it won't be.

Yeh its getting a proper $150mn budget I hear.

Techno babble itself isnt bad - this is science fiction afterall.

Its just that Voyager by the end lacked drama.

And thats due to bad writing and directing.

[iTunes]

What I would really like, is for Star Trek to try and be as good and realistic and gritty as Battlestar Gallactica. All three series are some of the best telly I've ever seen...

[VaastuShastra]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Guy

Paul Mcgillion should have been Scotty. He was perfect for the role.

I still look forward to seeing it though, and seeing where they go with it. It could bring the franchise back, or it could kill it completely.

Yeh the guy was an awesome candidate, you can just imagine it after seeing him on Stargate Atlantis.

But the sad truth is Pegg will bring in more audience than McGillion would have from the Stargate fanbase.

[VaastuShastra]

Originally Posted by iTunes

What I would really like, is for Star Trek to try and be as good and realistic and gritty as Battlestar Gallactica. All three series are some of the best telly I've ever seen...

Battlestar Galactica is overrated in my opinion.

For gritty, Babylon 5, DS9 and Space: Above and Beyond, did it first.

And for political and social commentary, DS9 and TNG were more effective.

I still watch it, but when critics go on about it being great, I cringe.