TOS The one and only

Comment

Comment by Jen on August 26, 2009 at 7:50pm

This group has been cleaned up from all the hate mongers, so let's get active again!! :)

Comment by Captain Pike on July 8, 2009 at 2:23pm

Regardless of if you love or hate the new Trek film, to personally attack others for their opinion goes against everything Star Trek stands for. If you do this, then you really aren't a true Trek fan. Below are the words from Gene Roddenberry.

Comment by Phil Edgley on May 6, 2009 at 3:10am

Well it figured that the closer we got to the new Trek movie's release the debate was really going to heat up something fierce so it comes as no surprise to see my old friend Fizbin in the thick of things. Long time no see, friend. I just downloaded the new Star Trek movie soundtrack by Michael Giacchino from iTunes, and it's very good. But I rate it a distant third best behind Jerry Goldsmith's inspiring theme music for Star trek: The Motion Picture and James Horner's brilliant Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, still the best theme music ever for any Star Trek movie or TV episode. Well people, like it or not, the new Star Trek movie is here and we're going to have to learn to adapt to it and the changes it brought with it to the Star Trek canon. But why not just accept it as a challenge. Creatively it actually opens new story and character possibilities if you've thought about writing a Star Trek novel of your own. The new movie's time frame is before the events of The Cage so a lot can still happen. You will have to learn to live with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as the new faces of Kirk and Spock on the book's cover, however. Oh well. But there's no question there hasn't been this much wild speculation and excitement about a Star Trek feature film since Star Trek:TMP and Wrath of Khan. I mean this is no longer just a movie, this is now an event! BTW the idea of producing a Star Trek movie with production design identical to the original series produced in the 60s is ridiculous! And casting actors solely on their resemblance to the original cast members
might work for a flashback sequence of sorts but not an on-going TV series or a whole
movie. Also I believe there's a concensus that the production design of Star Trek:TMP is what Star trek would have looked like if Roddenberry had the budget back then. Ironically the sets for Star Trek:TMP were originally designed and built for Star Trek II in 1976 when Paramount was going to launch a fourth network with Star Trek II as its flagship show with the original cast although without Nimoy because he didn't want to play Spock anymore. So Roddenberry created a new Vulcan Science Officer named "Xon". When Star Wars became a hit Paramount decided to produce a $15 million dollar feature film instead of a new TV series or network. Goodbye Xon, welcome back Spock! (The movie ended up costing $44 million in 1979 dollars). Still Roddenberry saw fit to upgrade the sets for the proposed series rather than copy the those used in the original series. So I don't have a problem with changes to the look of the Enterprise. Why not make improvements if you got the budget. And for the first time in a Star trek movie they did! And it's all up there on the big screen from what I've seen in the previews. This is a big -time movie. Why not just enjoy it?

Comment by Mylochka on May 5, 2009 at 9:40pm

I'd rather have nothing at all than something new and kind of crappy now that closes doors on potentials for new and good Trek later.

I'd like to see Star Trek in the hands of a production company less obsessed with using it as an empty brand name to cater to the lowest common denominator elements of taste attributed media's sacred cow -- the 18-35 year old male audience.

My mind is not closed to new explorations of the Trek universe. For example, I think a Captain Robert April movie done in an updated version of "The Cage" and it's stylistic parent "Forbidden Planet" could be really really cool given an intelligent script and a clever, thoughtful production...

I just haven't seen anything of this film so far that leads me to believe it's going to be anything more than a really long, expensive Star Trek-Dew commercial.

Comment by Lt David "goatberries" Redshirt on May 5, 2009 at 9:16pm

You know your stuff Fizbin. I gotta hand it to you. You have some great points, I don't dispute that. I'm just excited there's something new and have an open mind enough to see it before I make a decision. I still think the ship and uniforms are cool. Give me the original anyday, but if it sucks?...honestly I'll forget it like I did insurrection, generations, nemesis and the enterprise series.

Comment by Fizbin on May 5, 2009 at 8:49pm

It also reminds me of some of the chewing gum commercials from the 80's showing people hang-gliding and other ariel past times that really duplicate the experience of chewing gum.

Comment by Mylochka on May 5, 2009 at 8:44pm

TrekkieGal -- Yep. Preach on, space grrl.

I don't foresee this movie infusing a lot of new blood into fandom either. Although they can be quite diverting for a few seconds, Mountain Dew commercials don't usually attract many ardent followers.

Comment by Fizbin on May 5, 2009 at 8:14pm

TrekkieGal, I couldn't have said it better. This makes two people I'd like to give a Vulcan hug to on this group today.

Comment by Fizbin on May 5, 2009 at 8:12pm

David,

>> I can't say I'm thrilled that everyone looks like they're from 90210, but can you find young actors that don't?

They could have found actors who actually looked like the TOS counterparts. They only seemed to try with a couple of them. And to avoid the "90210" look, maybe try giving them the 60's style as opposed to the 2000's? Or does that make too much sense?

>> If they were going to make another Star Trek movie what would you go with then?

Well, uhm. Pretty much a no-brainer there. Make the characters and ship match the look of "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Call me crazy.

>> It's easy to tear down what others make without coming up with something better.

But Paramount hired the writers and producers for this. They weren't Roddenberry-picked. They weren't Trekkie-picked. They were assigned this project and did what they were told because they were paid to. This isn't a Roddenberry vision. They didn't research Gene's notes on this. They thought it up. Just some generic writer who's getting paid to write their interpretation. And for that, people are blindly praising this film for reasons that scientists are still trying to figure out.

>> I was seriously SCARED when I heard about it!

I'm still scared. And nothing I've seen so far has made me unscared.

>> since I've seen the previews, I'm optimistic and like a lot of what I HAVE seen.

So what about the previews makes you like them??? The blandly boring evil Romulan who makes Vin Diesel look like a good actor? Yeah. Wow. A Star Trek character with a facial tatoo. How original, Chakotey. The Enterprise being built in Iowa? The deep canyons of Iowa that simply don't exist? The small-breasted Uhura? The large eye-browed Kirk who looks NOTHING like young Shatner? The over-dose of CGI? How young Kirk can drive a stick shift when he didn't know how to in "A Piece of the Action"? Why Sarek has a British accent? And they must not be too proud of this new Enterprise because they never show it in any of the previews.

>> If it's supposedly another universe I don't care. Plain and simple.

I thought you were a TOS fan. Why would you want your favorite characters taken out of the universe you love and thrown into a different universe to stay?

>> I don't want to go see a movie with Robert April in command. Just don't. No one else does either.

So you're speaking for all Star Trek fans now? After hearing about Robert April for all these years, it'd be kinda nice for this Star Trek fan to actually see what Robert April looks like in his prime (other than his appearance in TAS). But no, I wouldn't really want to see an entire Robert April movie or series. Maybe a cameo though.

>> The fine line is making a movie that sells well, and keeps from pissing off too many fans.

This new film will, and has done, both.

>> If you get turned off that easy don't see it.

EASY? No. It wasn't easy. I've hung on to every kernel of news they've leaked on this film. And I've hated every single element leaked. The first was the new Enterprise, which looks like a football player with over-sized shoulder pads and a saucer section that has the pen striping of the Enterprise-A which makes no god-damned sense whatsoever.

>> Paramount won't care. They didn't care the fans didn't want TOS cancelled after the 3rd season either.

No, but they did learn their lesson in syndication. They also learned their lesson about Prick Berman, which is why he's not around anymore.

>> It was about Adventure in space to me. Sometimes cheesy, but always good.

And that's the problem with today's science fiction. They are afraid to be cheezy and campy at times. It all has to be bland. and take itself too seriously. Ron Moore's Galactica is a good example.

>> I like the new phaser SOME because it looks like a classic "ray gun"

It looks like Barbarella's dildo. Why does it have to be silver??? Talk about stereotypical sci-fi.

>> My opinion of "enterprise" was from the first day till the last complete crap

On this, I completely agree with you.

>> except for the mentioned "In a mirror darkly" episode

Emm. I didn't care for part one. I also didn't understand why the Tholian webs were spun instantly when they took hours to weave it in "The Tholian Web". I also hated that the Gorn looked NOTHING like the "Arena" Gorn. It looked like a lizard with no TOS-Gorn characteristics. However, I did like the little Tholian guy.

>> I like a lot of action, and if you're going to do a new trek it's a good thing, but it maybe too much.

Star Trek films are not action films. A good Trek film has a well balance of action, drama, & humor. But mostly, it will make you think.

>> By the way, am I the ONLY one who thought Transformers was horrible?

No. I mentioned in my previous post that I didn't care for it either. But I'm not a comic book or super hero fan.

>> Why would they make another?

Because it was the highest grossing film of 2007. Why, I have no idea.

>> Did kids really like that? It didn't even look anything like the original robots!

Kinda like the new Trek actors look nothing like their TOS alter-egos?

Comment by Lt David "goatberries" Redshirt on May 5, 2009 at 7:19pm

When I said "In a mirror Darkly" I meant the Defiant, the sets, uniforms, ect. To me Enterprise was crap.
I can see where you're coming from Fizbin, but like it or not, it's all about money. It was in the 60s and is now.
I'm about as true a trek fan as possible, and to say you aren't because you have an open mind to the new movie is ignorant.
I can't say I'm thrilled that everyone looks like they're from 90210, but can you find young actors that don't? If they were going to make another Star Trek movie what would you go with then? It's easy to tear down what others make without coming up with something better.
Let me make this clear: I DIDN'T WANT TO LIKE THE NEW STAR TREK. I was seriously SCARED when I heard about it! I've been a fan for over 20 years!
With that said, as far as the new movie goes now since I've seen the previews, I'm optimistic and like alot of what I HAVE seen. If it sucks, I'll be the first to admit I'm WRONG. As far as the canon? If it's supposedly another universe I don't care. Plain and simple. I don't want to go see a movie with Robert April in command. Just don't. No one else does either. Like it or not that's not the Star Trek that was liked. It was James Kirk and Spock. The fine line is making a movie that sells well, and keeps from pissing off too many fans. If you get turned off that easy don't see it. Paramount won't care. They didn't care the fans didn't want TOS cancelled after the 3rd season either.
In my opinion Star Trek was a great "spaceman" show from the 60s that I followed feverishly. I wanted to be Captain Kirk or Spock. It was about Adventure in space to me. Sometimes cheesy, but always good.
Also, besides the bridge, the new landing party gear isn't a 10th as cool as the original phasers, tricorders, and communicators! I like the new phaser SOME because it looks like a classic "ray gun", but the flip around barrel is dumb.
This shows A MILLION more promise than anything paramount has done with Star Trek in A LONG TIME. My opinion of "enterprise" was from the first day till the last complete crap (except for the mentioned "In a mirror darkly" episode)
I think it's funny that you compare it to a Mountain Dew commercial. You ARE right in that respect. I like alot of action, and if you're going to do a new trek it's a good thing, but it maybe too much. I'll know when I see it. Until then I'm open minded.
By the way, am I the ONLY one who thought Transformers was horrible? Why would they make another? Did kids really like that? It didn't even look anything like the original robots!

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last