Jack_Bauer

Not buying it. Unless Trekmovie.com or Startrek.com has it, it is mostly just speculation.

Plus, there are a few inaccuracies in the article:

-Star Trek Academy is not the focus (although numerous articles have repeated this mistake)

-Fans are hardly revolting over Chris Pine

-Much more of the cast is known beyond Bana, Quinto, and Pegg (no mention of Saldana, Yelchin, Urban, and Cho) Only one of whom was cast after Pine (Urban)

-The release date is Christmas Day 2008, not November

And finally one of my pet peeves it is SHAUN of the Dead.

Ironically, the Kobayashi Maru thing is supposed to be true.

Simon Pegg is one of my favourite actors so I am absolutely blown away by this casting.

This video pretty much some up my reaction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeqZpbuZlqI

Although Pegg is primarily known for comedies (the absolutely brilliant films Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) he does display a fairly impressive acting range in those movies (especially in SOTD).

I haven't seen Cho do anything dramatic but I've heard he has been in good in the dramas he has done.

I also like the idea of a rogue Bionic Woman, that being the woman who played the cylon on BG.

Katee Sackhoff played Starbuck, not a Cylon.

The only thing I want to see more of in the next movie is more actual dialog between the Decepticons, particularly Megatron and Starscream. They hated each other in the original series, yet all we get is two lines between them in the movie.

Well, there is the potential that Starscream was one of the jets that fired on Megatron. However, that hasn't been confirmed.

Gummy,

Jane Wyman was Amanda, wife of Sarek, mother of Spock

Jane Wyatt played Amanda. She died almost a year ago.

This thread is about a completely different woman.

The Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series in 1992 and 1993.

It really doesn't make sense to introduce a new Doctor in 2010. The whole point of 3 specials in 2009 is to accomodate David Tennant appearing with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Why not just introduce the new Doctor at the end of the 2008 series and carry on as usual instead of essentially suspending the series for a year to accomodate David Tennant and then replacing him?

Spock in Star Wars?

Shows you how credible the rumours were.

I really do not see Tom Cruise since he had the falling out with Paramount.

I'm not sure but there may have been a regime change since Cruise's falling out. I do know that J.J. Abrams and Cruise became friends during the production of Mission Impossible 3.

However, the rumours were officially disproven by trekmovie.com, but this is the second time they've cropped up (of course, last time it was that Cruise would be playing Spock in an upcoming Star Wars movie).

 

I am afraid I am at the point in my life where I don't care about seeing movies where all the stars are barely past puberty (as it seems this cast is going to be)

 

I don't think they're skewing that young with anyone aside from Chekov (allegedly they are looking at an 18-year-old named Anton Yelchin), who was already fairly young to begin with. The youngest age on the leaked casting sheet (which may or may not be accurate) is 23 for Kirk (at the low end of the age scale provided) but whoever they cast may need to be able to play Kirk over a range of ages. The remainder of the cast is targeted to ages 25 to 32, which makes sense considering that the only confirmed cast member (aside from Leonard Nimoy) Zachary Quinto (as younger Spock) is 30 years old.

As for Russell Crowe, it probably won't happen but it is intriguing. I haven't seen much of his stuff but I have no objections to him being in the movie. But I really hope the rumours about Tom Cruise go away very quickly. But even if they don't, I'll still see it.

Well, I'll be the first to do it:

 

756*

 

And when it inevitably passes to A-Rod, it moves from one dink to a lesser dink. IMO.

 

2500 posts! And without the use of post enhancing drugs!

Even if you drank coffee while on the board, you've used a performance enhancing drug.

Caffeine.

 

So, here you go. 2500*

I don't drink coffee. Besides, it's not as if caffeine is a banned substance. I'm clean, unlike Bonds.

Do you have proof that Bonds did a performance enhancing drug? Has he failed a Urine Test yet?

Because if he had, he would have been suspended. I know that he hasn't been suspended. I read the Sports Page from front to back and I am sure that I wouldn't have missed that.

Do I have proof? No, I do not. But when his personal trainer (who was believed to be a steroids dealer by the Giants, but was allowed on the premises to make Bonds happy) is sitting in jail because he won't testify to a grand jury that is investigating whether or not Bonds committed perjury when he said he never took steroids and when a player has the best hitting years of his career between the ages of 36 and 40, add to that the fact that Bonds played a grand total of 14 games the year the new MLB steroid policy was introduced. Yeah, so maybe all I have is circumstantial evidence but its enough to make me think that he took steroids and more over Barry Bonds is an arrogant prick, so that makes me dislike him even more.

I do take some solace in the fact that he will not hold this record for as long as Hank Aaron did in all likelihood, but like I said I don't much care for A-Rod either. However, as far as I'm concerned, A-Rod is the lesser of two evils.

Well, I'll be the first to do it:

 

756*

 

And when it inevitably passes to A-Rod, it moves from one dink to a lesser dink. IMO.

 

2500 posts! And without the use of post enhancing drugs!

Even if you drank coffee while on the board, you've used a performance enhancing drug.

Caffeine.

 

So, here you go. 2500*

I don't drink coffee. Besides, it's not as if caffeine is a banned substance. I'm clean, unlike Bonds.

Well, I'll be the first to do it:

756*

And when it inevitably passes to A-Rod, it moves from one dink to a lesser dink. IMO.

2500 posts! And without the use of post enhancing drugs!

A 29-year old Captain? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. That is too soon to hold that rank.

 

I agree. i know Kirk was the youngest Captain in Starfleet, but I always thought he was closer to 32 or 33 when he got it.

He was 32 when the five year mission began. The movie is set before that and does not necessarily say that Kirk will be captain.

This talk of "reimagining" Trek/Spock has me a little worried, the bashers now have something to pick at. :) *shudders at the thought of what's probably going on @ ST.Com*

I think the reimagine more or less refers to Quinto's portrayal of Spock, in that he simply won't be imitating Nimoy's performance.

I think it has been well established that 'Star Trek' will not be an overall reimagining or a reboot. The only possible reimagining will likely be regards to the look of the sets and what not, since what looked futuristic in the 1960s, now simply looks like the 1960s.

Here's a thought:

If Enterprise had gone seven years, it would have probably ended its run a few weeks ago. Dang.

Enterprise started in 2001, so it would have just ended its sixth season if it was still running.

And I seriously doubt there are any serious discussions about bringing DS9 back.

This is very welcome news to me. Star Trek has too much history to just ignore it all. And I think it would just be lazy writing to start over since the Trek novelists work within the existing continuity all the time and tell very good stories. It seems that's what Trek XI will be like. But while still working within the existing continuity, they will have a stand-alone story that a non-fan can understand and appreciate which is extremely important to both the success of Trek XI and the longevity of the franchise.

so, what did you guys think about the season finale this week? Pretty interesting, especially hearing that there is someone worse than Sylar, the little girl saying that he is worse than the boogeyman (which is what she calls Sylar). It definitely left me wanting more after that ending of the episode, I'd be interesting if Hiro turned out to be the man who battled the dragon like in the story his dad told him

 

 

It was a great finale! I'm sorry that Nathan and Peter died.....or did they? I had to question the solution to the problem of Peter blowing up. Since flying was his first ability, why didn't Peter just fly up himself and blow up? Why did he need Nathan? Just curious.

 

With so many major characters dead, I wonder whats next and who will carry the show?

Peter currently cannot use more than one acquired ability at once. Apparently, the future version of Peter from Five Years Gone could do so but this is likely due to five year's worth of practice. So, he couldn't fly with Ted Sprague's ability out of control.

Peter is likely not dead because he has Claire's ability to regenerate and he did survive the explosion in Five Years Gone as well. Nathan is harder to call. I believe Adrian Pasdar is contracted to return but with Season 2 being titled "Generations", I believe he could in fact be playing Peter and Nathan's father (whose appearance was heavily based on Adrian Pasdar's in the Graphic Novels).

But really the only regulars who's fate is in doubt are Peter, Nathan, Matt Parkman, and D.L. Hawkins. They still have a lot of characters to carry the show and there are plans to introduce new characters next season.

As for the finale, I thought it was good but overall not great.

Jenolen

the entire storyline of season three of Enterprise was symbolism for 9/11. Just like New York was attacked for no reason, Earth is attacked by the Xindi at the end of season two and the death of Trip's sister symbolizes the loss of family members people were feeling in reality. Bragas has said that the Suliban are based on the Taliban

The Suliban=Taliban thing was conceived of prior to 9/11. But the symbolism is still there. The only problem with Enterprise's symbolism when compared to the other Star Trek series is that it isn't especially subtle.

Pretty sure this wasn't done in the 80s, what with the 2007 copyright by Sprint and the URL for the myspace page. And the fact that Keating doesn't actually look any younger in the video, plus there is no record of Fierce Blue Ascot or Ian Westbury. Based on what I can find, this is an ad for Sprint.

So thats it for the Penguins?

Not even close. You have to win 4 of 7 games to win an NHL playoff series and you have to win four such series to win the Stanley Cup. The playoffs start now but will go well into June.

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.

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.

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.

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.