Author Topic: Sci Fi dilema (Read 2119 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #30 on:** December 02, 2007, 07:38:17 PM »

I'm also looking forward to ST XI. JJ Abrams is directing.

Saxman · « **Reply #31 on:** December 02, 2007, 08:54:37 PM »

Aw CRAP it's too late. It's spreading! We need a containment team STAT!

I don't care WHO'S directing. Gene Roddenberry HIMSELF could come back from the grave and with everything that he's handed Star Trek XI is STILL going to SUCK. By Abrams' own acknowledgment it's trashing any preexisting continuity (if there's even any LEFT after Voyager and Enterprise had their run at it) and some of the casting choices I just don't get (Karl Urban is NOT Dr. McCoy. That is LUDICROUS!!).

Star Trek did NOT need a reboot. It needed to be taken AWAY from the braindead Paramount execs who have completely run the franchise into the ground.

Chairboy · « **Reply #32 on:** December 02, 2007, 09:04:52 PM »

Here's what I don't get... the size of your freakout. If the movie sucks, it's not going to delete the stuff about Star Trek that you enjoyed, right? It's not going to come into your house and demagnetize your carefully hoarded cache of Beta max tapes filled with episodes of the original series you painstakingly taped off UHF back in the early 80s, is it?

If the movie is good, then great. Super duper and all that.

If it's bad, then . As terrible as Star Trek IX and X were, I still enjoy KHAAAAAAAAN!!!! and the other good ones.

Saxman · « **Reply #33 on:** December 02, 2007, 09:48:17 PM »

My problem is the dumb kids who this may be their first or even only exposure to the franchise and for whom this defines what it is, as opposed to the REAL history (IMO this is how the Star Wars prequels caused the MOST damage. Now every time you see a lightsaber they have to do the frelling twirly sword dance instead of the kendo-style duels of the Original). All it does is lead to confused and blank looks when you sit the squeakers down with the original, and all the sudden big buff Eomer--er, I mean Dr. McCoy--was REALLY originally a scrawney, sarcastic, cantankerous older man. And when a company like Paramount decides to just toss the established history of a franchise that people have grown up with and loved into the garbage all for the benefit of the newcomers it's like a giant slap in the face to the older fans. I don't WANT Star Trek as envisioned for the ADD Pokemon Generation. I want the Star Trek people have loved for half a century.

This is precisely why I HATE remakes. This is why I picked up the dual-version of Star Wars Original Trilogy with the Un-frelled Original Han Shoots First edition on Disk 2. It's this attitude that "Yeah, ok the original was great, but we can really do it BETTER." Well if it needed to be made better it very frelling well wouldn't have been so great that you'd need to revisit it 40-odd years later, now would it? It's like saying the guys who DID make it originally didn't do it right.

This is just another attempt by Paramount to wring the last few cents out of a franchise that really should have been left alone after First Contact and DS9, and frankly a disgusting trend I wish Hollywood would grow the frell out of.

Chairboy · « **Reply #34 on:** December 02, 2007, 09:55:59 PM »

So, what you're saying, then, is "Won't SOMEBODY please think of the children?!"

Saxman · « **Reply #35 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:02:47 PM »

To HELL with the kids. It's their fault it's being screwed up in the first place. And then once they reboot the continuity they're going to KEEP using that version, and it's going to just keep snowballing until the entire original franchise has been entirely retconned out of existence.

Arlo · « **Reply #36 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:13:40 PM »

A "Star Trek catfight" on the AHBB. I'd say "Now I've seen everything" but that's usually a harbinger of worse. Heh.

Chairboy · « **Reply #37 on:** December 02, 2007, 10:14:01 PM »

So, you want to prevent this because of the children, but the children are at fault for what they're doing, but you want it anyways...

How terribly confusing. I know there's a point in there somewhere, but I'm just not up to the task of decyphering it.

Saxman · « **Reply #38 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:11:01 PM »

I should think it's self-explanatory:

Hollywood is catering to younger audiences. So they're rebooting franchises like Star Trek and BSG and tossing the old continuity out and making everything louder and shinier because there's SOME misguided notion that the same things that made these shows so popular in the FIRST PLACE don't hold true anymore, which is a sack of bullchit.

It's like Warner Bros. trying to reimagine Looney Toons, and not understanding why Baby LT and their "Extreme" version haven't caught on. They can't seem to realize that Wile E. Coyote falling off a cliff and having a giant rock fall on his head will ALWAYS be funny and they don't NEED to reinvent the wheel to appeal to a younger audience.

The new versions have virtually NOTHING to do with the original except in name, leaving a skewed perspective on what the franchise REALLY was. More than that. It's a disservice to the fans that MADE the franchise a cultural phenomenon because they're tossing out everything that the series was LOVED for in the first place (hence why I don't watch the new BSG. The hope, courage, and honor of humanity banding together was replaced, in the miniseries, by a bunch of cynical and general nastiness with everyone at each other's throats. Not ONE thing was likable about it). There will also not BE a continuation of the original, and everything will revolve around the remake because the kids won't have a frelling clue what's going on, so everything in the original will then be retconned out, because I guess that's just easier than creating a new story that falls within the established history.

IMO it's also an insult to the original creators and is a "nice" way of saying "You got it wrong all along."

Chairboy · « **Reply #39 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:22:48 PM »

Ah, so you're assuming it's a series reboot?

Saxman · « **Reply #40 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:33:50 PM »

Assume nothing. They've already stated it IS.

Chairboy · « **Reply #41 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:39:42 PM »

Linky?

Saxman · « **Reply #42 on:** December 03, 2007, 12:59:37 AM »

I don't have a specific link, but it's been in about every casting/production update I've read and quoted from Paramount, Abrams, the cast, production staff members, and industry insiders. The one I'm thinking about specifically was an interview a month or so ago with either Abrams himself, or one of the writers, that they specifically stated they're not following the original continuity.

Going into full-on geek mode:

The concept of "When Kirk met Spock" AND setting the whole thing in Starfleet Academy by ITSELF kills continuity (Spock was on the Enterprise with Pike already). Also some of the main characters--ALL of which have been cast--would either not have been there or would be too young. Even if they DON'T take that approach, there's other problems.

A LOT about their casting decisions I don't see working. Using Captain Pike GREATLY limits the time setting and makes casting Checkov a problem because he'd be WAY too young at that time if they followed continuity (besides, he was basically right out of Starfleet Academy when he first appeared in TOS).

Honestly, if they wanted to do a prequel they should have stuck with either the original Romulan War concept. Actually, I thought it would be more interesting had they done something focusing on Bob April's command of the Enterprise since he's been alluded to in the media but never shown.

But until Paramount does a Sulu on the Excelsior movie like the fans have been screaming for for YEARS I've lost all faith in their ability to do ANYTHING worthwhile with the franchise again.

Chairboy · « **Reply #43 on:** December 03, 2007, 01:03:23 AM »

Let's circle back on this after the film comes out (assuming you go see it and don't go on protest), or when more info comes out. I'm not writing it off yet, I'd like more data.

SD67 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 03, 2007, 01:14:45 AM »

oh man.
I was laughing so hard though this thread but as a Star trek fan myself I've been cringing at the time line violations in Enterprise. To see it get pillaged like this is truly saddening.
I'd have to say I'm with Saxman on this one. It's truly saddening to see something that has so much sheer effort and research and development as the Star Trek franchise get so utterly eviscerated is beyond tragic.
It would have been so easy to get it right. The story was already "written", all they had to do was present it.