Vic 17 Posted January 15, 2009 While promoting Fringe, Trek XI director talks spaceships, fans, and yet more Shatner. View the full article Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekspawn 0 Posted January 16, 2009 There are some things I like from Abrams and some things that he has put out that I do not like. I actually liked Mission Impossible 3, I thought it was the best one in the series, to be honest. Never really watched Lost, but hear that is very good. I did not like Cloverfield. The marketing was genius, but the movie was like being in a bubble while other people roll you around a chaotic scene. I have only watched Fringe a few times, and think its ok. I thought it was overated at first. The main thing out of all of the above mentioned is that he has only directed one movie, MI3. So we will see with Star Trek, I have my hopes and will be in line early to check it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gummy 0 Posted January 16, 2009 Personally, I have to believe that it will be a good film. We've gone without new Trek for so long, we need something to look forward to. While I wasn't happy with the decision to move the film back six months, I am hoping that it was because they wanted to put the best possible film on the screen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YOUST 1 Posted January 26, 2009 Personally I have mixed feelings about JJ Abram. I never watched Alias, but am still hooked on the strange and everlasting questions of LOST. I liked MI3, but hated Cloverfield. I tried watching Fringe, but those woman screaming like there's no tomorrow couldn't make me stay to watch it. With Star Trek XI I'm a bit shaky. I saw the trailer a few times, liked it and then hmmmm.....maybe I can't get over the original crew....just love them too much for some new faces to take over....I will give them a chance, but wrong actions or words can throw the characters you remember right off.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vgrbabe 1 Posted January 26, 2009 I dont' get it first they say it's not a reboot, then they say it is then they say it's not meant for fans, and now they say they hope fans will be happy with it MAKE UP YOUR FRAKKING MIND ALREADY! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jack_Bauer 1 Posted January 26, 2009 I dont' get it first they say it's not a reboot, then they say it is then they say it's not meant for fans, and now they say they hope fans will be happy with it MAKE UP YOUR FRAKKING MIND ALREADY! In terms of being a reboot, it sort of is and it sort of isn't. They're not rebuilding the universe from the ground up like Batman Begins or Casino Royale, but they're not adhering to all of the canon set forth by the previous series (and the method they've chosen to do so allows them that freedom). Click for Spoiler: Based on everything I've heard, this movie will result in the creation of an alternate timeline. Nero travels back from the late 24th century (at least sometime after 2384, based on Countdown #1) and destroys the U.S.S. Kelvin, this ship on which Kirk's father serves. The theory of time travel they've decided on for this movie is the quantum theory (or something like that), which simply states that in order to avoid paradoxes, when you travel back in time, you are never in the past of your original timeline. Your very presence in the past means you are in a different timeline and events need not necessarily take place as you remember them. To use Back to the Future as an example as soon as Marty prevents his parents meeting they are no longer his parents. He would still exist (and the photo wouldn't fade) because his parents met in his original timeline and he is not in the past of his original timeline. It would also be impossible for him to travel back to his original timeline, per my understanding. He could only travel to the future of the new timeline (and even then it may not necessarily be the same future because he's there again). Confused yet? So applying that logic to Star Trek, Nero leaves his native timeline and travels into the past of the second timeline (the timeline in which the movie takes place). It is already different from his timeline because of his presence in the past. However, not much would change over time unless he interacts with something, which he does by destroying the Kelvin. This one event allows for a complete reinvention of the look of the universe. The destruction of a Starfleet vessel by Romulans at this point in history could alter numerous facets of the Star Trek universe (including where the Enterprise is built, how it looks, when it launches, the technology onboard, who serves aboard it, anything really). But despite all of this, the original Star Trek timeline would still exist and continue on beyond Nero's travels and would not be erased by anything he does in the past because he has jumped timelines. However, also note that anything proceeding the destruction of the Kelvin would be unchanged. I doubt such an explanation will be given in the movie but this is what the producers (specifically Orci) have stated to be the case, more or less, with some extrapolation by yours truly. Personally, I like this explanation, it allows Star Trek to refresh itself and bring in new fans, while still creating something that old fans can enjoy. It's not really a traditional reboot but its not a straight prequel either because anything could happen that didn't necessarily happen before. If its anything its more of an in-universe reboot as opposed to an external reboot (nuBSG, Batman Begins, Casino Royale). As for whether or not it's for fans or not. I think that it's something that existing fans will enjoy and it has been made for the fans, but it wasn't made only for fans of Star Trek. We are a target market, but not the only target market. Star Trek needs new fans, the same way businesses need new customers. The challenge is to not alienate the existing loyal customer base and that's the line Abrams and his team have to walk. I think they've done a pretty good job with this explanation but only time will really tell for sure. However, should this movie fail, Star Trek is dead for the foreseeable future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YOUST 1 Posted January 26, 2009 I read somewhere JJ got all teary eyed when he saw Zachary Quinto's Spock on what of his preview screenings. So this will be interesting if the movie can get fans teary-eyed based on performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted January 26, 2009 Do you really expect the film's marketers will encourage the die-hard fans to stay home? Of course they are going to say it is for the fans. They will also say it is for the non-fans. Marketers aren't stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
