Jack_Bauer
-
Content Count
2,815 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jack_Bauer
-
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
There is an approved list of names?
I believe the Swedish government has approval over the names parent choose for their children. A little odd but it does prevent parents saddling their children with some ridiculous name (see Moon Unit, Apple, Moxy Crimefighter, etc).
-
Star Trek XI is not going to be independent, it is going to be in line with established canon for the most part. There be some aesthetic changes just that it doesn't look too out of date.
-
I think FOX has improved in its television. Now, they have 24 and Prison Break along with their comedies. Malcolm in the Middle and That 70's Show had good ratings also. But, FOX has made the mistake of cancelling TV series if they don't immediately become hits, such as the quick cancellation of Firefly and Greg the Bunny, both shows that were cancelled too soon
Fox has greatly improved the quality of what it broadcasts and it as some of the best dramas on television in 24, Prison Break, and House. But it terms of comedy, if you take away the animated stuff (Simpsons, King of The Hill, Family Guy, and American Dad) they really don't have anything all that good. However, for every quality show they put out there they make some low-brow reality piece of crap.
In terms of comedy, they did have some good stuff in Malcolm, That 70's Show (but both probabily ran longer than they should have, especially That 70's Show imo) and as I said, they had the best comedy on television in Arrested Development but they just didn't do enough to promote it.
It is a prime example of another show that Fox has let do far too early and it almost came back to bite them again (i.e. Firefly got a movie, Futurama is coming back, and they brought back Family Guy) as Arrested Development would have gone to Showtime if Mitchell Hurwitz hadn't decided not to continue.
ABC is somewhat similar in that they have some really good dramas in Grey's Anatomy, Lost, Desperate Housewives, etc. But do not have any really good comedies aside from Ugly Betty (the classification is unclear).
The best comedies are definitely on NBC and CBS imo. NBC's Thursday night line-up is outstanding with My Name is Earl, The Office and Scrubs (30 Rock is mediocre, however) and although I don't watch them CBS's Two and a Half Men, The New Adventures of Old Christine, and How I Met Your Mother are all highly rated.
CBS has the best dramas overall (again, even though I don't watch any of them). Although, NBC has some pretty solid dramas right now.
-
doesn't ABC have Ugly Betty? That series will carry the network enough that they can take chances like this. Myself, I like the Geico cavemen commercials, so I'd watch.
True, I forgot about Ugly Betty but I'm not entirely sure where that fits. It was up for the Golden Globe for Comedy and the People's Choice Award for Best New Drama. But overall, ABC probably has the worst sitcoms of the big four networks (I'm counting Fox's animated shows as sitcoms, otherwise they're not much better).
-
The Damon rumours have existed almost since it was announced Abrams was involved. The Sinise rumours have been around along time with most people saying he was a prefect choice to play McCoy even before this movie was announced. So it did start as speculation.
HOWEVER, the IGN article is the first source to say that Damon, Brody and Sinise have been approached (or are in talks) to be in Trek XI. But as I said it is all rumour until the inevitable press conference where the new cast is unveiled.
-
While I don't mind the commercials, this decision speaks more to ABC's inability to find a winning comedy series.
A better idea would be try to convince Mitchell Hurwitz (who is adapting a British series "The Thick of It" for ABC) to bring back Arrested Development (easily one of the most brilliant but underappreciated comedy series in television history) on ABC.
-
The Sinise rumour has as much credibility as the Damon and Brody rumours because they all have come from the same source recently (IGN). It's not just some internet rumour that someone made up. As the article says until something is confirmed officially by Paramount everything is just a rumour. But the best rumours we have suggest that Sinise is a serious contender for the role.
-
Can't say I'm entirely thrilled with this news. It really has dampered my enthusiasm for Star Trek XI. However, it wouldn't seem to be a complete re-imagining but rather has a bit of tweaking. As long as its nothing like that crap reboot concept that J. Michael Straczynski came up with, I think I'll end up seeing it.
Edit: Okay, this is now showing up on TrekMovie, but that article has reduced my fears somewhat. Trekmovie believes that whole idea of the "re-imagining" is more in the look of the movie rather than in the content itself. This is based on the recent press release that suggests that the movie will not reinvent Star Trek history but will instead embrace and respect the Star Trek canon, which is what I really want. I understand going back to the days of Kirk to get Trek back on its feet but there is no need to abandon over 700 hours of canon in order to do so.
Okay, so now the only problem I have is with the title. Simply "Star Trek" doesn't seem right.
-
For the record it's spelled Sylar.
-
Yeah, Trekmovie picked this one up too and debunked some points and called Arnold's accuracy into question (which based on the predictions he's made in the past: the 10th movie featuring the Voyager crew and saying there would be no series beyond Voyager).
Here's the article:
http://trekmovie.com/2007/02/13/richard-ar...dge-on-trek-xi/
-
Finnegan, Gary Mitchell, Carol Marcus, etc.
Anyone of them could appear if the movie ends up being "Kirk Begins" as is rumoured.
-
I am also a big fan of TOS. There does seem to be a big push to update TOS. There is the remastering of the original episodes, and now the "reboot" of the film series.
Its not a reboot, Star Trek XI will be in line be what has come before. It will likely be a movie focused on the character of Kirk and how he became who he is. Rumours state will get to see his life in Iowa, some stuff at the academy, some stuff of him aboard the Republic or the Farragut, and probably eventually taking command of the Enterprise from Captain Pike.
Sort of in the vein of Batman Begins and Casino Royale but not a retelling that ignores all that came before it.
From what's been said, at least Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Pike and Captain Garrovick could be in the script and the only quasi-confirmed cast member is Greg Grunberg (Matt Parkman from Heroes) as he is a childhood friend of Abrams and has appeared in almost every Abrams work to date (he's in Felicity, Alias, was the pilot of Oceanic 815 in Lost, and had a role in Mission Impossible III). Of course, his role will be minor.
-
Levar Burton was widely known from "Roots". Wil Wheaton??? I don't think he was known at all.. :blink:
Wheaton was known from Stand By Me.
-
I haven't watched it but CBC is promoting it like crazy and I've heard goo things about it. It did manage to draw 2 million viewers for the premiere, which is fairly impressive when you consider Canada's population of 32 million or so.
Of course, I just double-checked something and the statement about having the highest ratings for CBC in the last decade is not accurate. Back in 2001, a Rick Mercer (Canada's equivalent of Jon Stewart, of coruse he's been around longer) comedy special drew 2.7 million viewers making it the highest rated comedy special (which may be where they're making the distinction) in the history of the CBC.
-
I am so psyched for the 24 premiere tonight! Its been a long 237 days since the end of Day 5 and the early reviews say Day 6 is awesome.
On a related note, I did go through and attempt to determine how many actors appeared on both Star Trek and 24 (mostly back when I did those two trivia weeks) and the answer is over 100 (I think 103 which will go up with Cromwell and Siddig). I have the list but I may lose it when my laptop was Windows reinstalled. Not sure what's gonna get backed up.
Just an hour and a half left...
-
I've heard this movie will end up being sort of a "Kirk Begins" elaborating on Kirk's backstory in a non-linear fashion (i.e. flashbacks). Trek XI Report also found something that could be the focus and would make a pretty good movie: How did Kirk go from blaming himself for the incident on the Farragut with the dikironium cloud creature (Obsession TOS) to the youngest captain in Starfleet history in the space of only 7 years?
-
Yes, but that is taken into account on wikipedia. To date he has added 9 items since the pilot in which he had 259 items, so he's up to 268 items of which 45 have been removed (should actually be 48 since he was absolved of 3). As of right now it is not possible to know how many items he added in the Cops episode until he adds something new because he'll give the number for the new item which will reflect how many were added in the Cops episode.
-
Even though this past week's episode was I believe the first where Earl doesn't do anything with his list, I think it was the funniest episode they've ever done...
Technically it is the second episode after Jump for Joy (the one where Joy's in jail and they have to get Catalina to be a stripper again in order to get the bail money from Richard Chubby (Burt Reynolds) but tv.com lists that one as part 2 of Very Bad Things in which Earl does make an attempt to cross an item off his list. So this could be considered the first episode in which no attempts are made.
In case anyone is interested, according to wikipedia, as of episode 2.09, Earl has:
Completed 45 items
Been absolved for 3 items
Unsuccessfully attempted 5 items
Has started 2 items that are ongoing
and there is 1 permanent item on the list
So there are 213 items left on the list.
-
Well, he has the look and he is a fairly good actor (doing a nice job on Heroes right now), but I've yet to see him display the sort of stoic Spock-nature.
-
For the record, the Galaxy class far outgunned the Intrepid class. The Galaxy class has twelve phaser arrays and can carry 250 photon torpedoes (and that comes from before the Dominion War), while the Intrepid class had five phaser arrays and could only carry 55 photon torpedoes (built when tensions with the Dominion were fairly high).
The Defiant was also built primarily to fight the Borg and is more of a battle ship than most other Starfleet ships because of fears of the Borg. After Wolf 359, Starfleet did upgrade the weapons on most of its ships as it introduced the First Contact -Dominion War designs (Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre, Norway, etc).
Starfleet ships have always been well-armed, but they're not built primarily for battle. Its basically what Starfleet is: a well-armed exploration organization, because they realize what they have special and there is a need to defend it. My view of Starfleet has always been that its an exploration organization but you do not want to mess with them because they are not pushovers. For what I think best sums up this debate, see my post in the following thread:
-
Open hostilities with the Dominion begin in "Call to Arms (DS9)". The final episode of the fifth season and the beginning of the seven part, War Against the Dominion Arc.
"Star Trek XI"
in JJ Abrams Star Trek '09', Into Darkness, and Beyond Movies
Posted
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.