Star Trek - no spoilers please

Lateralus wrote:And he has the cojones to make a new Star Trek movie based on the adventures of a young Kirk and crew. Taking control over what I can only believe is some kind of ultimate Trekker nerd fantasy… being the one who tells the tale of the day Kirk first met Bones and Spock… the first time the warp drive is ever fired up on the Enterprise…( total geeking fuel)

I can’t put anything past Abrams and his crew.

Yeah, I'm going to start this thread with someone else's words. Lat just reminded me that there are probably enough fans her to open up a discussion of the new Trek movie... without the Trekker Trolls.

So, being an admitted Trekkie -- I won't get to arrogant as to say Trekker -- I'd like to discuss the upcoming movie, and my potential issues with it.

I've been watching Star Trek since 1978. I grew up when there was only the original 3 Seasons of the first 5-year mission. I watched "The Motion Picture", then as I grew up, 3 more movies, The Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, 6 more movies, even the Animated Series, and the horrible mistake called "Enterprise". Now I watch "the New Voyages" online -- pretty good writing if you can get past the recasting. Now the big issue with Star Trek fans, and one I started to bring over here in some of my opinions, is the concept of canon. With thousands of "unofficial" publications annually, the "community" has made determinations about what counts and what doesn't. After 42 years, it gets harder and harder.

The first 4 TV shows, and the 10 movies all count. The Animated series comes to some debate, but generally makes no contradictions (accept with Star Trek V - the existence of a half brother for Spock); and Enterprise is troublesome (the producers re-wrote a whole bunch of things so their show could be "first"). The debate is so hot among hard-core Trekkers that they need to have 2 wikis, Memory Alpha (for the purely canon) and Memory Beta (for everything ever released as Star Trek).

So now J.J. Abrams s making an 11th Star Trek movie. Awesome! If anyone knows hard-core continuity checking, it should be Abrams. And it's a prequel. Nothing is hotter (and more overused) in the movies than prequels. And he made Cloverfield!

OK, I'm starting to get worried.

I see the initial announcements at the Star Trek Con last year. Nimoy's in it. Shatner isn't. Zachary Quinto's in. Winona's in. Shatner's in! Shatner's back out. Anton Yelchin as Checkov and Bruce Greenwood as Chris Pike.

OK, Alarm!!! Red Alert! Continuity Crisis! And I haven't even read any plot. Casting alone has pointed out certain continuity errors.

From what I've heard, officially -- and I know Abrams loves disinformation -- this movie is about when Kirk and Spock meet in the Academy. That's a problem. Spock was flying around with Pike on the Enterprise, as Science Officer and 2nd Officer for 5 year before Kirk and Finney ever got into the Academy. Kirk and Spock were already on the Enterprise as we know it for at least 18 months before a very green, and very young Ensign Chekov signed on. And even if Chekov's time in the Academy was longer than that first season and a half, there's still Kirk's years working through the ranks on the Republic and the Faragut before he came to command the Enterprise.

Are you seeing my point yet.

By my estimation, Pike and Spock could have been in the Academy together... about 10 years before Kirk. And Kirk would have graduated 10 to 15 years before young Chekov. But this movie is populated with all the classic characters we know and love. Great! I love that! Kirk, Spock, and McCoy back together flying through the galaxy... awesome! And they should have done that; a prequel that occurred before the show. Scotty solves some sort of warp core anomaly with help from some complex equation by Mr. Spock; all the time Kirk is trying to bluff the Klingons (who don't yet have the characteristic skull ridges) and prevent annihilation. I'd go to that movie.

But then there's Chekov. He's not the only problem... but he's indicative of a huge one. This movie... in order to have an even close to accurate timeline... has to stretch out over... hmmm... Kirk, Spock, Pike, Academy, Chekov, Enterprise... 45 years???

Am I the only one who fears being massively disappointed by this upcoming film?

Confused face

I have never watched a full episode of star trek. (Pause for effect.... Keep pausing... Keep Pausing...)

Runs away quickly

Oh I love Star-trek, but im not a trekkie, I dont know all the histroy and stuff....which probably makes me the target audience for this film if there are that many inconsistencies!!

I see where your coming from though, star trek is an institution and anything that is produced under that banner, should respect the history and the fans that see it as integral.

CF,I love Star-Trek; not sure that I qualify as a true Trekkie, but I am definately a Trekker. I didn't like Enterprise either.

Continuity wise, you are right, and these days with all the prequels, Texas-Chainsaw the beginning, Dominion (exorcist), Hannibal etc one doesn't usually question the facts, but with Star-Trek, I agree they should have done the timeline properly, especially for such an ingrained legendary show.

I see the new Star-Wars animated film is a prequel prequel! so maybe there is some hope.

On a scientific note, Star-Trek was the first science-fiction story which actually had a science-fiction idea (warp-drive) directly influence the ideas of real physicists.

Quote from Physicist Miguel Alcubierre:
"The Star-Trek writers kept talking about warp-drive from the beginning; we already had a theory about how space can or cannot be distorted with the general theory of relativity, but it was the show which got me using concepts to see how a warp drive would really work, resulting in my proposed 'Alcubierre Drive'. This is probably the first time that a TV show directly helped to inspire a solution to one of Einstein's equations!"

How brilliant is that! I didn't think you would mind me putting in this link:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/

for anyone who might not have seen a trailer yet.

Favourite Quote: "So you're all......astronauts.....on....some kind of....Star-Trek!"

Ask me 15 years ago about anything Trek, and you would have beat my ass for being such a nerd.

I did give it up at Voyager. It had some great potential, but was just way too hokey. I mean, whats with all the half-human half-other alien characters? Sure, that Klingon might be smokin hot, but i'm not gonna be the first.
Saw a couple Enterprise episodes, was excited with Bakula's casting, but just didn't care enough to watch it after the second episode.

This new movie is a bit scary though. Its like you said SolarChap, the continuity just won't add up. I, and other Trekkers will notice it in the first 3 minutes, and be peeved for the rest of the movie.
But, i know I'll pay and see it.

I took it as a reboot, like the new Hulk movie. But you make some interesting points that should be adressed. Star Trek has loyal fanatic fans and I`m sure JJ took this into acount. That said he did make Cloverfield.

The new Hulk movie is a sequel to the Ang Lee Hulk.
Picks tight up with Banner in S.America trying to find a cure.

Its not too bad.

Funny thing is, this one has made less than the first did at opening weekend, and is expected to make less world wide than the first did.

CF I think i got my trekkers and trekkies mixed up, and I don't want you thinking I'm arrogant! So I am a trekkie not a trekker! LOL

Lats,

Sure, that Klingon might be smokin hot, but i'm not gonna be the first.

still laughing! I take it that would be Kloppy Seconds haha

solarchap wrote:CF,I love Star-Trek; not sure that I qualify as a true Trekkie, but I am definately a Trekker. I didn't like Enterprise either.

Funny, I think I use those terms in reverse. I consider myself a Trekkie, but see the "Trekkers" as the ones painfully scrutinizing every bit of minutia, without acknowledging it was just a TV show, and made in 66.

solarchap wrote:CF I think i got my trekkers and trekkies mixed up, and I don't want you thinking I'm arrogant! So I am a trekkie not a trekker! LOL

OK, just re-read that. No, Solar, I would never think you were arrogant. I just thought you used the terms in the opposite way.

solarchap wrote:

Lateralus wrote:Sure, that Klingon might be smokin hot, but i'm not gonna be the first.

still laughing! I take it that would be Kloppy Seconds haha

Yeah, a bit hacked with half-breeds. 70 years ago, Spock was the first non-human in Starfleet, now all of a sudden it's an inter-species love-in. And I don't want to think of a human male sleeping with a Klingon female... or vice versa. Nonetheless, I hope Abrams doesn't fall prey to the desire to use as many aliens as possible. They did it right in First Contact and Undiscovered Country... keep one key alien race per movie, not 12.

I'm just really worried. Cloverfield not withstanding, Abrams will be hard-pressed to make a 2008 prequel that stays true to canon. But if he doesn't, the Trekker blow-back will be fierce.

Oh, and solar, that bit about Warp drive was great. Let's not forget, Roddenberry effectively invented the cell phone, 25 years before it was invented.

it's an inter-species love-in

that sounds well raunchy! I hope 7 of 9 invites me!

but seriously now,

They did it right in First Contact and Undiscovered Country... keep one key alien race per movie, not 12.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I am hoping that J.J knows better than to mess with the Treksters (thought that a more neutral term LOL!) and I am willing to forgive him for Cloverfield if he gives us what we want in Star Trek.

every time I watch Insurrection I end up singing "A British tar is a soaring soul, as free as a mountain bird.." for about 2 or 3 days.

Roddenbury was the man, let's hope J.J remembers that!

More on the new Trek later but for now the difference between "trekker" and Trekkie"

Trekkie: A fan of the classic 1960's series and usually over the age of 40. Originally a derogatory term used to describe an old-school fan obsessed with Trek but now worn as a badge of honor among original fans

Trekker: A younger fan of the series usually first introduced to Trek by The Next Generation. The term was originally used to distinguish between the younger, hipper (if that term can ever be applied to a Star Trek fan) trek fan and the older, supposedly nerdier, original series fan.

And yes, I am a hard-core original Trekkie!

Well, CF, as for the Chekov dilemma, it could be argued that "The Wrath of Khan" had the same issue. Khan was introduced and sent to Ceti Alpha in the first season, Chekov came on board during season two, but then Chekov is the one who finds Khan in the movie - and they remember each other.

The "possible" explanation - from Memory Alpha:

"The character of Chekov was first seen in the second season of TOS, and thus was not involved in "Space Seed" at all. Since Khan recognized him in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Chekov must have been on the Enterprise at the time - permanently assigned or on temporary duty - but not yet a bridge officer. The long-standing joke, as told by Walter Koenig, was that Chekov left Khan waiting too long to use the bathroom, and Khan vowed never to forget his face."

So, perhaps he was in that bathroom for years before he ever got to the bridge?

SomeArztOnYou wrote:Well, CF, as for the Chekov dilemma, it could be argued that "The Wrath of Khan" had the same issue. Khan was introduced and sent to Ceti Alpha in the first season, Chekov came on board during season two, but then Chekov is the one who finds Khan in the movie - and they remember each other.

Oddly, I just pointed out that discrepancy to Molly last night. Alas, there's no perfectly canon movie.

SomeArztOnYou wrote:The "possible" explanation - from Memory Alpha:

Ah yes... Memory Alpha... valiant preservers of canon. They'll make up anything to justify Enterprise. But generally, they are the best site around.

SomeArztOnYou wrote:"The character of Chekov was first seen in the second season of TOS, and thus was not involved in "Space Seed" at all. Since Khan recognized him in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Chekov must have been on the Enterprise at the time - permanently assigned or on temporary duty - but not yet a bridge officer. The long-standing joke, as told by Walter Koenig, was that Chekov left Khan waiting too long to use the bathroom, and Khan vowed never to forget his face."

So, perhaps he was in that bathroom for years before he ever got to the bridge?

I'll buy he was a junior officer... maybe a Chief in the Phaser Room or similar. The bathroom joke... well, actually, this is the first time I ever heard that one.

MyStarbuckHatesLost wrote:More on the new Trek later but for now the difference between "trekker" and Trekkie"

Trekkie: A fan of the classic 1960's series and usually over the age of 40. Originally a derogatory term used to describe an old-school fan obsessed with Trek but now worn as a badge of honor among original fans

Trekker: A younger fan of the series usually first introduced to Trek by The Next Generation. The term was originally used to distinguish between the younger, hipper (if that term can ever be applied to a Star Trek fan) trek fan and the older, supposedly nerdier, original series fan.

And yes, I am a hard-core original Trekkie!

That's a good definition. I like it. It goes against what Bjo Trimble put in his 1978 book, but it definitely fits for 2008. I'm definitely a Trekkie by that definition... even though I don't quite have the age.

What's with the Cloverfield problem? It was a terrific film. It took a well-worn genre and turned it into something fresh and unique. Also, JJ didn't direct - a guy called Matt Reeves did.

And the new Star Trek film? Well, having never been bothered about Star Trek before I'm excited about it; hopefully it'll be a good film with universal appeal to non-Trekkie/Trekkers like me, so lots will turn up to watch it and enjoy it.

AngeloComet wrote:What's with the Cloverfield problem? It was a terrific film. It took a well-worn genre and turned it into something fresh and unique. Also, JJ didn't direct - a guy called Matt Reeves did.

Well, I'll give you my opinion... There isn't an original thought left in Hollywood. Everything is a remake, a comic book adaptation, or a prequel. So Abrams decided to make Godzilla... again... which the Japanese only did what, 25 times!? Not to mention an American remake ten years ago. The only thing Abrams did that even passes for interesting is he had is shot like the Blair Witch... or really Matt Reeves did.

AngeloComet wrote:And the new Star Trek film? Well, having never been bothered about Star Trek before I'm excited about it; hopefully it'll be a good film with universal appeal to non-Trekkie/Trekkers like me, so lots will turn up to watch it and enjoy it.

Well, "success" is going to be determined more by people like you than people like me. But I hope Abrams remembers that the real test in a Star Trek film is not offending the people like me... the Trekkers/Trekkies/Treksters. His credibility is going to be determined on whether he can avoid making another Star Trek V.

Caged_Faraday wrote:His credibility is going to be determined on whether he can avoid making another Star Trek V.

...or Insurrection...

SomeArztOnYou wrote:

Caged_Faraday wrote:His credibility is going to be determined on whether he can avoid making another Star Trek V.

...or Insurrection...

Agreed.

Thank you, Birthday Fairy.

I did not like Cloverfield, it wasn't a terrible film but it just did not deliver for me, the payoff i.e. that inferior Godzilla/Jurassic Park thing was a huge let down. It did not scare me or raise my pulse much, I can honestly say the Jeepers-Creepers monster was more sinister, and that wasn't all that either.

Matt Reeves did direct it, but I find it hard to imagine that he didn't take lots of direction from the established J.J. In terms of originality, big monster terrorises city, it's hardly new, so I wanted something jaw-dropping about it, but I felt I never got any jaw-dropping moments.

It did have a different approach camera wise, but nothing brilliant; the first time you watch it you can live with the shaky thing going on because your mind is still in suspense, waiting to see what is going to happen, but now I have seen it, I imagine if I ever watch it again, I'll be fast-forwarding through most of it!

CF you are right, ther eare too many re-makes and unoriginal films being churned out, I am dubious about the remake of The day the Earth stood still with Keanu Reeves, but I did like a Scanner Darkly and thought that was different.

My main problem with Coverfield was the begining and end and much of the middle. But seriously a nuke in Central Park that destroys everything and everyone but leaves the camera perfectly in tact, come on I expected more. I did however like the idea of the film as well as the young up incoming cast. Star Trek hopfully will be much much better.

I loved the beginning, middle and end but overall I hated it.

And Vinnie, I like chasing you around the site from forum to forum.

solarchap wrote:CF you are right, there are too many re-makes and unoriginal films being churned out, I am dubious about the remake of The day the Earth stood still with Keanu Reeves, but I did like a Scanner Darkly and thought that was different.

I thought A Scanner Darkly was fantastic. Just brilliantly done.

VincentTheDog:

But seriously a nuke in Central Park that destroys everything and everyone but leaves the camera perfectly in tact, come on I expected more.

There's no evidence it was a nuke. In fact, given the multiple blasts it almost certainly wasn't. It was called the 'hammer down protocol', and that was the only indication about what kind of method was being used.

Solarchap:

I wanted something jaw-dropping about it, but I felt I never got any jaw-dropping moments.

Really? Are you sure?

How about the Statue of Liberty's head bouncing to a standstill in a street? The first 'oh my God' moment at the parasites dropping off the creature? The night-vision switch (if there ever was a shit-your-pants moment, that was it)? The race to the helicopter, and the take off (maybe you were too busy yawning to notice how absolutely spectacular that entire sequence was)? Not to mention Hud's final stand-off against the creature?

My point is, I go to the cinema a lot. And there's a lot of crap films I sit through. And Cloverfield delivered something spectacular that was head and shoulders above most of that. And people are gonna get mealy-mouthed and grumble about it?

I actually liked Cloverfield.

I could have done with less of the whiney 20-somethings and their pretentious posing but it was a pretty cool take on the classic giant-monster flick.

Plus, the opening credits had a Dharma Initiative logo in it!



And the supposed nuke could have been a fuel-air bomb. Packs a near-nuclear punch for a conventional bomb.