Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gummy

"Star Trek XI"

57 posts in this topic

This thread is dedicated to Star Trek XI before its anticipated Christmas Day, 2008 Release.

Please post comments, thoughts, rumors and alike here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping they do a good job with this. Over the years, many TV shows have been brought to the big screen . Some were successful (Adams Family, Mission:Impossible). Most were not ( Car 54 Where Are You, Get Smart, Bewitched). If they stay true to the series and don't change anything around too drastically, we shouldn't even notice the new actors playing the same roles. A good example is the NewVoyages crew. When you watch one of their good episodes like "In Harms Way", you get into the story quickly and after awhile you don't even notice that other actors are playing the roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just happy that this film will have a great director and some household names in front of the camera. The TV series always used small actors and gave them good scripts and all the films used those people to play thier roles. Now let's see what happens when bigger stars have a crack at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just happy that this film will have a great director and some household names in front of the camera. The TV series always used small actors and gave them good scripts and all the films used those people to play thier roles. Now let's see what happens when bigger stars have a crack at this.

We really don't know yet who will actually be starring in the movie. No announcement has been made yet.

The Damon, Brody, and Sinise thing is just a very hot rumor that's been making the rounds for the last few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm still not optimistic - I've said this before Lost is IMO tedious and boring so that is not an encouraging resume for having Abrams at the helm.

 

Although, if they surprise us with casting it could help. Most movie reimagings of tv series have not been good (The Fugitive being a possible exception)

Edited by TheUnicornHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm still not optimistic - I've said this before Lost is IMO tedious and boring so that is not an encouraging resume for having Abrams at the helm.

 

Although, if they surprise us with casting it could help. Most movie reimagings of tv series have not been good (The Fugitive being a possible exception)

 

A. While I disagree about Lost, Abrams has not had a significant creative influence (i.e. writing) on Lost since about the sixth episode (aside from directing I think like one episode).

 

B. Okay, I am going to say this one last time, not just for TUH.

 

STAR TREK XI IS NOT A REIMAGINING, A REMAKE, OR A REBOOT!

 

It has been clearly established that Star Trek XI is going to be in line with canon. There may be a few tweaks here and there but that's to be expected. The term reimagining was only brought up with regards to the look of the movie and that came from an interview with the writers and wasn't even a direct quote.

 

If you want the latest information on Star Trek XI, go to www.trekmovie.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we are all (for the most part anyways) in agreement that, regardless of its content, we'll be in line to see it on its Opening Day.

I know that I will be. :dude:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be right behind you.... :dude:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jack, let me say for the record. I am not deaf - nor am I dissuaded by semantic wrangling.

 

The facts are: Star Trek was a tv series that premiered over 40 years ago; the creator has been dead for over ten years. The stars are old and look it.

 

So any movie will be a reimaging, remake or whatever you choose to call it because it is not the original.

The truth is the world is not the same as it was 40 years ago - whoever makes this movie will be influenced by the ideals or lack thereof, the attitudes, the mores and the cultural influences of the early 21st century. It will not be the same because we no longer live in the love-in, drop-out, flower powered, acid propelled decade of the 60's.

 

IMO, It won't be the same because we're more cynical, self absorbed, technologically obsessed and more concerned with gratification than with principles than the previous generation. As for "canon" - what is that - there may be facts like names of ships, dates of events,anmes and origins of characters that need to be "right" but people on this board can't even agree what the essence of "trek" is - so how will the creative team?

 

I have lost confidence in current day Hollywood to understand drama in general and Trek in particular. Movies are also different from a tv series - they have to (1) introduce complex characters that resonate with the audience in the context of an (2) action oriented yet (3)thought provoking script. Most movies accomplish at best two of the three - quite a few barely manage one.

 

This creative team may make an action packed movie (I suspect they'll succeed at this) - they may even find a riveting story line (though I'm less optimistic on this) - they may even give the characters the same name as the characters in the series but I truly doubt they will be the same characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jack, let me say for the record. I am not deaf - nor am I dissuaded by semantic wrangling.

 

The facts are: Star Trek was a tv series that premiered over 40 years ago; the creator has been dead for over ten years. The stars are old and look it.

 

So any movie will be a reimaging, remake or whatever you choose to call it because it is not the original.

The truth is the world is not the same as it was 40 years ago - whoever makes this movie will be influenced by the ideals or lack thereof, the attitudes, the mores and the cultural influences of the early 21st century. It will not be the same because we no longer live in the love-in, drop-out, flower powered, acid propelled decade of the 60's.

 

IMO, It won't be the same because we're more cynical, self absorbed, technologically obsessed and more concerned with gratification than with principles than the previous generation. As for "canon" - what is that - there may be facts like names of ships, dates of events,anmes and origins of characters that need to be "right" but people on this board can't even agree what the essence of "trek" is - so how will the creative team?

 

I have lost confidence in current day Hollywood to understand drama in general and Trek in particular. Movies are also different from a tv series - they have to (1) introduce complex characters that resonate with the audience in the context of an (2) action oriented yet (3)thought provoking script. Most movies accomplish at best two of the three - quite a few barely manage one.

 

This creative team may make an action packed movie (I suspect they'll succeed at this) - they may even find a riveting story line (though I'm less optimistic on this) - they may even give the characters the same name as the characters in the series but I truly doubt they will be the same characters.

 

Just because the original creator is not alive does not mean that it will be a reimagining. By that definition, TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT were reimaginings of TOS because they were not all created by the different creative teams.

 

Canon is everything that has appeared on screen in Star Trek, excluding the animated series. A reimagining/reboot/remake would jettison all the facts from the 704 episodes of live-action Star Trek, similar to what was done with the new Battlestar Galactica. That is not the case in this instance.

 

The current creative team has stated that they will adhere to the facts that have been in previous Star Trek series and they will not re-tell a story. It will be a new story that is in line with canon. No different from anyone of the other movies, except they will have to recast, which is not a reimagining. Star Trek has had to recast several characters over the years (the most notable being Saavik) and it has never effected the story.

 

As long as they stick to the canon, I'll be happy because I think this creative team will be able to tell a good story and make a hell of a movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it's a re imaging, reboot, or whatever, I don't care. It's TREK, it will be NEW TREK, and it will be in theaters. That's pretty much all I need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it great that we actually have something about Trek to argue over? It just shows that the interest is still there and Trek is not dead by any means. I agree with Gummy. No matter what is said about the upcoming movie will not keep me from seeing it. I've seen every Trek movie ever made within the first week of its release and I'm not stopping now. With the exception of Insurrection (which I really hated), I've seen all of the Trek movies multiple times in the theaters. I only watched Insurrection once.....but I did buy the dvd when it came out and watched it again at home.

Edited by Kor37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just because the original creator is not alive does not mean that it will be a reimagining. By that definition, TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT were reimaginings of TOS because they were not all created by the different creative teams.

 

 

Jack, I don't think you understood my post - so not much I can say - except all of the above really were re-imaginings in a sense - ENT more than the others and ENT is primarily the reason I have lost faith in Hollywood where Trek is concerned.

 

We could write volumes as to whether what Trek has morphed into is still Trek - which is irrelevant because my point was only that we don't all agree. :dude:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just because the original creator is not alive does not mean that it will be a reimagining. By that definition, TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT were reimaginings of TOS because they were not all created by the different creative teams.

 

 

Jack, I don't think you understood my post - so not much I can say - except all of the above really were re-imaginings in a sense - ENT more than the others and ENT is primarily the reason I have lost faith in Hollywood where Trek is concerned.

 

We could write volumes as to whether what Trek has morphed into is still Trek - which is irrelevant because my point was only that we don't all agree. :dude:

First, the various Star Trek spinoffs are not reimaginings, reboots, or remakes. Period. Reimaginings, reboots, and remakes ignore what came before and redefine some of the existing elements (i.e. making Starbuck female in the new Battlestar Galactica) and then tell either a new story or re-tell an existing stories. All the Star Trek series take place in the same universe and all are mindful of what has already been done. And based on what has been said to date about Star Trek XI, it will not be a remake, a reimagining, or a reboot in the accepted definition of those terms (which is what I have been trying to convey).

 

I understood the point of your earlier post, maybe Hollywood doesn't get Star Trek anymore (I personally have had no problem with what's been done up until this point). But it seems you're not even willing to see if they do because based on the few details that have come out on Star Trek XI, you've already made up your mind.

 

You say that Enterprise is the reason you lost faith in Hollywood's ability to do Trek but none of the people involved in Star Trek XI had anything to do with Enterprise, so you can't hold that against them. No members of the creative team have been involved with Star Trek before but all have created successful movies and television series. There is no reason to assume that Star Trek XI will be like anything any of them have done before and there is no reason to assume that because of this success they will be successful with Star Trek. However, there is also no reason to assume they won't be successful with Star Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, I really can't understand why you're getting so involved about this.

 

We can argue semantics forever if we choose but I can call it a reimagining or remake if I want - it is a remake. Changing Starbuck to a female was IMO a minor change from the original compared to all the other changes that made BSG a reimagining - the tone - the darkness - the sleazy doctor having sex in his head with a machine :dude: .

 

As for what I've "made up my mind" regarding XI - I believe all I have said is I am not optimistic and I don't expect much and I don't. I could be surprised but it would be a surprise. Even if I had not read one single article regarding XI I wouldn't be optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I formally invite both of you to actually show up at the chat tonight and have it out!..I'm bringing the beer and popcorn!.... :dude:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, I really can't understand why you're getting so involved about this.

 

We can argue semantics forever if we choose but I can call it a reimagining or remake if I want - it is a remake. Changing Starbuck to a female was IMO a minor change from the original compared to all the other changes that made BSG a reimagining - the tone - the darkness - the sleazy doctor having sex in his head with a machine :dude: .

 

As for what I've "made up my mind" regarding XI - I believe all I have said is I am not optimistic and I don't expect much and I don't. I could be surprised but it would be a surprise. Even if I had not read one single article regarding XI I wouldn't be optimistic.

I'm so involved in this because I'm tired of this kind of misinformation being spread about Star Trek XI. Calling it a remake, reimagining, or reboot is incorrect and I was just trying once and for all to set the record straight. It is not a matter of semantics, Star Trek XI will not be a reboot, remake or reimagining in the accepted definition of those terms.

 

A reboot is defined as disregarding all previous continuity and starting anew, an example of this would be like Casino Royale. All of the other movies were ignored but nothing about James Bond or any of the major elements of the Bond universe were changed, AFAIK. A reimagining would be similar but elements would be changed, this is what the new Battlestar Galactica is. It ignores the original series and makes changes to the characters and plot. A remake is just taking a previous story and telling it again, but they often end up becoming reboots or reimaginings because things are altered. Not of these definitions accurately describe what Star Trek XI will be. There may be a few tweaks in the look of the movie and obviously there has to be a new cast, so it may fit reimagining slightly, but the canon will be respected.

 

Frankly, I don't care if you're not optimistic. All I'm saying is I don't think there's really enough information at this point to say it will be a bad movie. There's also not enough to say it will be a good movie, but I choose to be optimistic.

 

And Kor, I won't be showing up at the chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with Jack about being tired of misinformation. I say, let's wait and see what comes out from the studio before we make any judgments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

accepted definition of terms? B)

 

I really didn't think anyone cared about terms like reboot, reimagining etc.

 

It's a remake - if it doesn't have the original cast - it's a remake. :dude:

 

Edited to add ***

However, I truly hope those of you who are looking forward to it are not disappointed - I really do.

Edited by TheUnicornHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

accepted definition of terms? B)

 

I really didn't think anyone cared about terms like reboot, reimagining etc.

 

It's a remake - if it doesn't have the original cast - it's a remake. :dude:

Yes, people do actually care about those terms.

 

And for the last time it is not a remake. Maybe if you actually read my post you'd get that. Recasting is only necessary because none of the cast members still look the part or are still alive. The plot of this movie will be one that could have been made by the original cast if they still looked the part. Similar to Star Trek: New Voyages, only with presumably better writing and better acting (but based on what I've seen of New Voyages, should be a given). And of course, a bigger budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a "remake". It will either be a "reimagining" which would be loosely based on previously established canon, but would not be either a total break (a "reboot") or a total adherent to old canon, OR simply an new incarnation that fits into previously established canon in an era which has not been previously visited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, I am truly sorry you are so involved that someone calling it a remake disturbs you.

 

I did read your post, you're saying that because the basic story is the same - it is not a remake.

 

I simply disagree with you - Webster defines "remake" as something made anew. It is being made anew.

 

I consider it a remake, I will continue to call it a remake; when Brannagh did Henry V in 1989 - it was a remake - even if nearly every line in the movie was the same as previous versions it was a remake.

 

I truly expect this version to be influenced by the culture and mores of the early 21st century - that is where the people making it live - the original reflected the culture of the 60's. For example, I wonder will XI still have the sexist uniforms or will it be updated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After this - I swear to goodness I want to see it less than ever.

 

I hope you guys enjoy the movie. :dude:

 

Now, if Johnny Depp were playing Spock - now that would be worth seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, I am truly sorry you are so involved that someone calling it a remake disturbs you.

 

I did read your post, you're saying that because the basic story is the same - it is not a remake.

 

I simply disagree with you - Webster defines "remake" as something made anew. It is being made anew.

 

I consider it a remake, I will continue to call it a remake; when Brannagh did Henry V in 1989 - it was a remake - even if nearly every line in the movie was the same as previous versions it was a remake.

 

I truly expect this version to be influenced by the culture and mores of the early 21st century - that is where the people making it live - the original reflected the culture of the 60's. For example, I wonder will XI still have the sexist uniforms or will it be updated?

First, I am hardly disturbed by your being unable to understand what I am saying. I am annoyed.

 

I am saying that if the basic story (i.e. plot) is the same, it IS a remake. The movie you described would be a remake. If every line in the movie is the same as a previous version, that is a remake. A remake is the same story retold. If J.J. Abrams just takes the script of Star Trek II and reshoots it, that is a remake. Star Trek XI will not be a retelling of a previous story, it will be a new story with the same characters. Not a remake.

 

The definition you provided of remake is as a verb as in "to remake" something. In the sense of that definition, you could say that this creative staff is remaking Star Trek with their original script for Star Trek XI. That would be more inline with the definition of reimagining.

 

I'm speaking in the sense of a noun as in "a remake". As in the 1998 version of Psycho is a remake of the original version.

 

What Lady Britannia described as the two options is what Star Trek XI will be and neither of them constitute a remake.

 

As in how much influence the 21st century has on the script, that remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Mr Abrams is a genial, but very strange type. I see his last series, LOST, on TV, and I fear that he could transform the essence of Star Trek in another different one- for example, I hate how the director ruined the last Star Trek movie, Nemesis, which could be more better if the scenes were not too long and if Data could escape in a safe mode from the enemy ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Mr Abrams is a genial, but very strange type. I see his last series, LOST, on TV, and I fear that he could transform the essence of Star Trek in another different one- for example, I hate how the director ruined the last Star Trek movie, Nemesis, which could be more better if the scenes were not too long and if Data could escape in a safe mode from the enemy ship.

I wouldn't worry about Star Trek XI being like Lost. Abrams hasn't had anything to do with writing Star Trek XI (of course, he hasn't written much of Lost) and is the producer and the director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're all missing the point...

 

Star trek is a culmination of one man's dream, much like Data, a dream of a unified community of people with similar minds and goals, to create the peace, not force the peace.

 

Star trek is much like our own US constitution, it was designed to change, to adapt and serve a new purpose for each succeeding generation that was honored enough to be able to enjoy a new episode bi-weekly in prime time like I was when i was younger.

 

Star trek, as well as all Scifi, are a reflection of our time, telling present-day stories and conflicted ideals in a new way, a way that will give the dreamers and shapers among us a new way of looking at the problems we face every day.

 

In TOS it was hippies and klingons, and the enemy of the day was conformity and communism. Look at the themes of the day, it's all there...

 

In TNG it was Borg and later in season 4+, the various races along the Federation borders with Cardassia, Bajor, and Romulan space. The Enterprise had to play diplomat and policeman for hundreds of worlds in these sectors between DS4 and DS9, does that remind you of anything that the US was doing in the late 80s and early 90s?

 

In DS9 there was Cardassia and the Dominion, with Bajor playing a major stabilizing role in the show. At the same time as DS9 was going on we were fighting in desert storm and shield, going to war over oil and money, and in general it was the beginning of a very dark time for the USA and it's allies, the same kind of dark atmosphere that spread into DS9's scrypting. I'm not complaining, as it was my favorite of the series, but it did show that the Federation isn't perfect and there's a lot to show for an organization that condemns the usage of agencies like the obsidian order and tal shiar while employing men like Luther Sloan in the beginning.

 

I could go on but I don't need to...Science Fiction is a reflection of the times we live in, and that may be why Enterprise failed and Nemesis kind of blew goats, because it didn't embody a struggle we're facing today, but just tried to tell a story for the sake of creating more cannon and making a quick buck...unfortunately they were stories that few if any of us could relate to.

 

Just my $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0