Re: New Star Trek

On the one hand it makes me sad because it basically destroys any half-hopes we might have had for a Hannibal revival, but on the other...OMG Star Trek is in the right hands. Between this, Amazing Stories and American Gods, it's gonna be quite the year for Mr. Fuller.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

sellew wrote:

(Hasn't helped that I went back and saw ST:ID for the first time since the theater the other week and was really caught off-guard by how much I completely fucking hated every single god damn minute of the thing.)


If it's any consolation, I never watched Star Trek as a kid. I haven't seen a single episode of TOS, and DS9, Enterprise and TNG episodes were caught on TV during matiné hours, simply because it was on. I never watched any of the films, and in general, didn't care much for Star Trek in any way, shape or form.

That being said, I quite enjoyed the reboot. And I didn't have a problem with Into Darkness either.

So I guess, from a fairly neutral standpoint, the new films aren't bad, and that may or may not have been the idea behind them.

Tomahawk Ellingsen

www.extendededition.net

Re: New Star Trek

Tomahawk wrote:

If it's any consolation, I never watched Star Trek as a kid. I haven't seen a single episode of TOS, and DS9, Enterprise and TNG episodes were caught on TV during matiné hours, simply because it was on. I never watched any of the films, and in general, didn't care much for Star Trek in any way, shape or form.

That being said, I quite enjoyed the reboot. And I didn't have a problem with Into Darkness either.

So I guess, from a fairly neutral standpoint, the new films aren't bad, and that may or may not have been the idea behind them.

The Abramsverse movies are much easier to swallow if we forget that they're supposed to be a part of the pre-existing Star Trek franchise. They require a suspension of disbelief on par with the Marvel movies (and even if we give them that, there are some other fridge logic issues).

The ending of ST '09 exemplifies the difference between the old ST and the new one.

SPOILER Show
Things like promoting a cadet to captain simply didn't happen in pre-reboot Star Trek. Wesley Crusher, a teenager who saved the ship many times, was only promoted to "acting ensign" and still had to take the Academy entrance exam. Twice. Kirk's promotion at the end of the 2009 movie was clearly a nod to Joseph Campbell and the way things work in Star Wars. I know the franchise needed to be revitalized somehow and giving it a "Hero's Journey" feel was a pretty safe way to do it, but apparently that meant throwing away any sense of reality. An organization like Starfleet simply can't work this way. STID tries to fix that by demoting Kirk... and then promotes another inexperienced youngster (Chekov) to chief engineer.

Hopefully the new TV show will avoid this.

Last edited by MartyJ (2016-02-12 01:06:24)

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Bryan Fuller is a great choice. My interest for the new show has jumped up a notch, my main concern was they would just treat it like a spin off from the rebooted movies.

They still might but at least it's someone with a history with Trek.

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: New Star Trek

Marty J wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:

If it's any consolation, I never watched Star Trek as a kid. I haven't seen a single episode of TOS, and DS9, Enterprise and TNG episodes were caught on TV during matiné hours, simply because it was on. I never watched any of the films, and in general, didn't care much for Star Trek in any way, shape or form.

That being said, I quite enjoyed the reboot. And I didn't have a problem with Into Darkness either.

So I guess, from a fairly neutral standpoint, the new films aren't bad, and that may or may not have been the idea behind them.

The Abramsverse movies are much easier to swallow if we forget that they're supposed to be a part of the pre-existing Star Trek franchise. They require a suspension of disbelief on par with the Marvel movies (and even if we give them that, there are some other fridge logic issues).

The ending of ST '09 exemplifies the difference between the old ST and the new one.

SPOILER Show
Things like promoting a cadet to captain simply didn't happen in pre-reboot Star Trek. Wesley Crusher, a teenager who saved the ship many times, was only promoted to "acting ensign" and still had to take the Academy entrance exam. Twice. Kirk's promotion at the end of the 2009 movie was clearly a nod to Joseph Campbell and the way things work in Star Wars. I know the franchise needed to be revitalized somehow and giving it a "Hero's Journey" feel was a pretty safe way to do it, but apparently that meant throwing away any sense of reality. An organization like Starfleet simply can't work this way. STID tries to fix that by demoting Kirk... and then promotes another inexperienced youngster (Chekov) to chief engineer.

Hopefully the new TV show will avoid this.

See, I have the opposite reaction to knowing all the back history of TOS made me enjoy the Abrams films more. I like seeing all the possibilities, even if there were some odd moments and choices in the films. I think STID squandered some opportunities but I think it was enjoyable as well.

That said, I think that Mr. Fuller could bring a lot to the show, regardless of what timeline is picked for the setting.

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

A teaser is here (unfortunately, it doesn't show anything):

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Timelines are one thing, but the new Trek is just not Trek. Calling it Trek is purely marketing. Change the names of the characters and ship and shit like that. Is it still good? I guess. The first one is an OK flick so long as you don't call it "Star Trek". Most of the issues I have with those movies is due to me hating that they're called Trek, because they are the exact opposite of everything that Trek was originally supposed to be. They are offensive to the concept of Star Trek.

If the series is actually Star Trek, then I'll watch it. If it's based on the new Trek shit, then it will suck balls. However, you could easily make it a parody of the movies by simply having all of the characters behave the way they do in the new Trek shit, but have scenarios more like the old Trek shit. It would be fucking hilarious to watch a trained starfleet crew absolutely lose their shit and start running around and trying to blow shit up and punch people any time something showed up on the view-screen. Every incident with a hostile ship results in half the bridge crew beaming over the the ship so they can start melee combat while a couple stay on the USS Whateverthefuck and fire all the phazors and photon / quantum / ion / proton / neutron / neutrino / Boson / gigaflux / gamma torpedoes (which one sounds most stupid? That's the one they'll be...) at the other ship.

And every other shot is either someone running or something blowing up or someone yelling at someone or someone doing some last-ditch thing to prevent the ship from exploding for no good reason. It could be a fucking fantastic comedy in the same way that Airplane was a great comedy. Take something that's trying to be serious and tweak it just a little teeny bit and it becomes fucking hysterical.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

A second trailer for Star Trek Beyond was released:

Looks like just another space action movie. Oh well... I'll go see it anyway.

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

The funny thing is. On the Trek board I frequent the second trailer is being praised as the one  that makes them want to go see the film and feel like its more "Star Trek" (whatever that means).

*sighs*

I don't know what to think about this trailer, other than, "It's a trailer."

Also, I hope they don't waist Elba under that make up.

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Really rather enjoyed Star Trek Beyond. Overall I prefer '09 but this was a well put together adventure film. Shame they didn't spend a bit more time with Idris Elba to set up his motivations

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: New Star Trek

http://deadline.com/2016/07/star-trek-t … 201791545/

So the new series has a name, a ship (looks like an old Ralph Mcquarrie design) and it's only bloody confirmed to be in the prime time line!

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: New Star Trek

The new ship looks a bit Klingon, actually.

Witness me!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

[childishmocking]

And in the UK it's going to be on Netflix, a service that I already pay for!  BWAHHAHAHAAHAA!!!!!!  IN YOUR FACE, AMERICA!!!! IN YOUR FACE!!!!

[/childishmocking]

Seriously though.  Europeans-don't-get-fucked-over-in-media-distribution shock.  (I'm still pissed off about the hassle I have with all my Region A locked Criterion blu rays.)

For the next hour, everything in this post is strictly based on the available facts.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Sometime before the premiere of Star Trek Beyond I made my peace with the Abramsverse. I decided to try to enjoy those movies for what they are. And the latest one proved to be enjoyable indeed. Here's a bunch of thoughts:

SPOILER Show
The plot (and story) is rather straightforward, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself. My biggest complaint is that it's another story focused on a villain who hates the Federation and wants to attack it with a superweapon (we've seen too much of that already). And the villain's motivation feels pretty weak, maybe just as weak as it was in the previous two installments.

Ridiculous promotions given to youngsters have become a standard trope of the Abramsverse. This time they're trying to promote a 33-year-old Kirk to Vice Admiral. Ugh.

The new uniforms look much more attractive than the disappointing grey dress uniforms we got in STID. The U.S.S. Franklin is a fairly credible 22nd century starship design, but its weird registry number (NX-326) doesn't sit well with me. The Yorktown starbase looks pretty cool too; it's basically a spherical version of Elysium. I didn't notice any of J.J.'s lens flares, which counts as another "look & feel" improvement. Since it was a 2D screening, I can't comment on the 3D effects.

Finally, after 50 years, we got a human gay character; however, Sulu's gayness is a bit problematic, since ST-TOS gave us a few hints that he's straight. It's the 23rd century (and he's supposed to be from San Francisco), so we could just assume he's bi. Overall, I think the issue was handled pretty nicely.

Movies 2 and 12 have Khan. Movies 3 and 13 show the destruction of the Enterprise. It's like poetry - they rhyme tongue

To sum it up: it's another Abramsverse movie. Don't expect something like Gravity, Interstellar or The Martian (we should've gotten a hard sci-fi movie in the TNG era; Picard's crew was perfectly suited for that, but that opportunity was wasted). If you don't mind another space adventure with a villain, go see it.

Last edited by MartyJ (2016-07-28 16:11:52)

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

I totally missed the

  Show
Sulu is gay

thing, if that's real.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Teague wrote:

I totally missed the

  Show
Sulu is gay

thing, if that's real.

It's real.

SPOILER Show
He's shown with his boyfriend/husband and their daughter

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/08/bryan- … y-details/

So yesterday Bryan Fuller spoke at CBS All Access panel for the television critics Association and it's the first time that he is given us pretty much any information In short of that fact that the series will be set in the prime timeline and the recent footage of the year ship one of the first thing he said was that the lead character is not going to be the Captain and is a human female with the rank of Lt Commander. This  which will give it a West Wing kind of vibe anywhere in the early seasons you didn't see much from the president's point of view.

Most of the speculation since we found out it's in the prime timeline has been when exactly it will be set, With the ships registry number people rightly guessed it sets before the original series and he has now said it's going to be 10 years before Kirk's series which is actually pretty close to when the new movies are taking place in that, Only four years and ahead of this.

There're a couple of things he's ruled out completely when not going to see the Kobayashi Maru or the battle of Axanar nor the Earth-Romulan War. It's definitely set closer to Kirks time then to Archers
He is also said that we going to see a very diverse crew and we're definitely getting gay characters as well as the more ethnicities than we've seen in previous shows

A couple of other things he hinted at was the character of Amanda Grayson might make an appearance as Spock's mother he's also suggested we might see something of section 31 the black ops division first seen in Star Trek deep space nine but later in enterprise and into darkness

Last edited by Faldor (2016-08-12 01:28:32)

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: New Star Trek

yeah, I used to be in a trek band http://tindeck.com/listen/bawu

Hurroo

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Yay! It's the 50th anniversary!
http://www.qcait.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/spock-1.jpg

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Discovery has been put back until May 2017 which is frustrating but on the flipside, maybe if Voyager had come out in May 1995 we'd still be talking about it?

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: New Star Trek

Faldor wrote:

maybe if Voyager had come out in May 1995 we'd still be talking about it?

That depends on whether it would still have Neelix and the Kazon  tongue

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

A photo from the set of Star Trek: Discovery leaked:
http://www.treknews.net/2017/02/11/first-look-star-trek-discovery-klingons

If those are really supposed to be Klingons, then I'm starting to worry. That look would be a radical departure from everything that was established before. Even the guy from STID looked much more Klingon than these weirdos. We're they inspired by Sarris from Galaxy Quest?

I miss the days of Mike Westmore's make-up designs.

Last edited by MartyJ (2017-02-13 21:12:58)

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Meh, they've got the right silhouette.

There's a newspaper article doing the rounds interviewing fans who are skeptical about the new series. It's about TNG

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: New Star Trek

Faldor wrote:

There's a newspaper article doing the rounds interviewing fans who are skeptical about the new series. It's about TNG

And they were partially right, 'cause the first two seasons of TNG turned out to be pretty bad tongue

I'll give Discovery a chance, but I've been getting less optimistic about it lately.

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New Star Trek

Bryan Fuller leaving is a concern but I'm just happy to have new Star Trek again.

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog