The New StarTrek movie from a Cloverfield perspective

[WilldCrd]

No I dont mean a lil shaky camera being the only one used.

What I am talking about is that while watching Cloverfield I noticed some inconsistencies. One major one in particular. When the people were evacuating New York City while crossing the GW bridge <think it was the GW> there was a HUGE tentacle come out of the water and squish everybody plus bring the bridge down.
Later when we see the lil beastie it doesn't have ANY tentacle! So were there 2 monsters? Momma and baby maybe? Did the monster morph into a land creature?

So my worry is that Abrahms will have some major inconsistencies in Star Trek.
<not with tentacle's tho>
I'm a HUGE trek fan, especially of TOS. He already changed the Enterprise <good> and the bridge <not so good imnsho> I wonder what else he is gonna jack with and mess up.
I'm still looking forward to this movie but, if he mucks it up to much I hope they run him out on a rail.....but, knowing hollywierd types they will applaud him for racking in the cash, let him make a sequel and completely rewrite trek lore and pat him on the back for it 

[Saxman]

He already changed the Enterprise <good>

Where is this GOOD?! That's one of the WORST things he's done.

[WilldCrd]

This is one of those things that will be debated for YEARS.
Understand, I am a die hard Trekker. Especially TOS. I have a original Enterprise model in permanent geo-sync orbit over my desk <in formation with a checkered tailed P-51  >
One of my childhood hero's is Capt. Kirk.
I have alot of other trek memorabilia as well.
Anyways, when I say "good" its because I think the new Enterprise looks "cool"
I wish it was a more like the "original" tho. I know they don't use models anymore and instead use CGI. So they could have used a Cleaned up CGI version of the original and I would be a happy camper.
Just becouse I like the lok of the new Enterprise doesn't mean I prefer it or that I approve of it's use.
There are ALOT of fundamental differences compared to the origianal.
for instance:
The photon torpedo launcher being in the neck like in the refit version. The original had the launchers under the saucer section. <mainly due to SFX restraints at the time>
The warp nacelles...they look to much like a refit version not like the "original"
The main deflector dish  ect. ect

She still looks cool but, I think it would have been better to have used the original. This one looks more like a interim from the original to the refit Enterprise from STTMP. Kinda like a first refit and the movie version was a 2nd refit.

What can I say I still think the Enterprise looks cool and I like it in that regard.

I'm still hoping that Abrahms doesn't totally jack up history and make the same kind of mistakes he made with Cloverfield.

[Die Hard]

The important parts of Star Trek are the characters and the story. The whole point of remaking a movie is to update it to current standards of special effects and science(-fiction). Making a new movie with 1960's effects and styling would be pointless. That would be like remaking the Battle of Britain with CGI, but using 3d models of Spanish Buchons instead of 109E and Spit IXs instead of I. Pointless.

[WilldCrd]

The important parts of Star Trek are the characters and the story. The whole point of remaking a movie is to update it to current standards of special effects and science(-fiction). Making a new movie with 1960's effects and styling would be pointless. That would be like remaking the Battle of Britain with CGI, but using 3d models of Spanish Buchons instead of 109E and Spit IXs instead of I. Pointless.

QFT

[Saxman]

The important parts of Star Trek are the characters and the story. The whole point of remaking a movie is to update it to current standards of special effects and science(-fiction). Making a new movie with 1960's effects and styling would be pointless. That would be like remaking the Battle of Britain with CGI, but using 3d models of Spanish Buchons instead of 109E and Spit IXs instead of I. Pointless.

Bull. They did a GREAT job with the CGI model of the classic 1701 in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribulations" and the remastered TOS. They didn't need to CHANGE the design to make it look right on film by "modern standards," all that was missing was surface detailing, which they took care of and it looks perfectly fine. And don't even get me STARTED on the POINTLESSNESS of a remake in the first place.

Star Trek has been on a permanent downward slope since Roddenberry died, and this is just the latest precipice the franchise is going to drop off. Abrams HIMSELF said he was never a fan of TOS, so WTF is HE doing even making this movie? If you don't care about the property leave it to someone who DOES because it's going to be plain from the moment the credits role you never really gave a damn about it.

[moot]

Reading this thread.. What a great way to spoil the movie for yourself.

[Die Hard]

Saxman, the copies of the original films and TV series aren't going to be destroyed. Just don't watch this new movie if you feel so strongly about it.

[Chalenge]

Did you ever sit and watch a modern movie with your grandmother? Anyone that has understands that the era she came from had a different pace to entertainment and its the same kind of difference that forces a change in the way Trek is made today. TOS was great for its time and I still love it myself but there is no way that todays generation would accept it I mean they laugh just looking at TOS and updating the special effects and leaving the model original would probably look really odd. The bridge even though it was cool in the day was really plain and did not look futuristic at all.

Sorry but I disagree with you and I think the changes will probably make for great sci-fi.

[Fulmar]

Just be thankful Michael Bay didn't take on this project.

[warhed]

I prefer Michael Bay's love stories over JJ's love stories!

[WilldCrd]

Well hopefully JJ wont stray to far from TOS history. We wont know until we actually see the movie.
I still like the look of the new Enterprise. And I agree that to get a new generation into Star Trek they have to re-imagine the look of some things and have them more "current"
Its the story and history that really concerns me. That is what made Star Trek what it is, NOT how the ships looked. We can only hope JJ doesnt completely ruin it.

i have read that the whole NERO timetravel thing is gonna have an effect on the timeline as far as the history goes. This is just some stuff I have read so I dont know how acurate it is. Hopefully with that in mind it will tie some things together.

[Anodizer]

Bull. They did a GREAT job with the CGI model of the classic 1701 in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribulations" and the remastered TOS. They didn't need to CHANGE the design to make it look right on film by "modern standards," all that was missing was surface detailing, which they took care of and it looks perfectly fine. And don't even get me STARTED on the POINTLESSNESS of a remake in the first place.

Star Trek has been on a permanent downward slope since Roddenberry died, and this is just the latest precipice the franchise is going to drop off. Abrams HIMSELF said he was never a fan of TOS, so WTF is HE doing even making this movie? If you don't care about the property leave it to someone who DOES because it's going to be plain from the moment the credits role you never really gave a damn about it.

Trek was not on anykind of downward spiral until Rick Berman and Brannon Braga took over the franchise completely.     THEY are the ones who drove it into the ground..
The stuff Ron Moore did for Trek was pretty good for the most part..  And, how can you say the franchise declined after Roddenberry's death?  You didn't find any high
points in TNG or DS9?  I'm not much of a fan of Voyager except for a few episodes, and the first two seasons or Enterprise were atrocious..  The 3rd and 4th were entertaining
only because Manny Coto took the helm for those seasons and he's a damn good writer..

No one said JJ never cared about the "property"..  He was not a fan, but didn't mean he hated it and he is surely a fan now as he's been quoted saying as much..
And frankly, if you gave to someone who "cared" for it in a Trekkie sort of way, it would be a movie for fans by fans appealing only to a core group of
people (such as myself) due to intricacies, nuances, and history only a real Trekker/Trekkie would know..
I think what J.J. is doing is great..  I'm a fan of his work to some extent..  I could care less if he wasn't a fan, because he surely is now.. 
Trust me, with Robert Orci and Damon Lindelof at the helm (both are bigger Trekkers/Trekkies/TrekFans than you), Trek is in good hands...  Those are the guys who wrote the script..
Not J.J. Abrams..  Do you know anything about these guys??  I would much rather have these guys do this movie than Braga or Berman (who drove Trek into the ground)..

Sorry to say, but you are shortsighted when it comes to this movie..  Do you know anything about it?  Any details?  Have you been following it since it was announced?
Do you have any clue how this ties in to the rest of Star Trek?  I can school you in all those things if you wish....  Don't be such a hater..  You sound like some of those
FanBois I read about on other forums..  Be open minded, take it all in, and then make your call instead of automatically dismissing this movie out of hand..

[Sikboy]

If there's one lesson to be learned from the BSG Re-Boot, its that no matter what you do, you can't please all of the fans. Movies that appeal solely to the hard-core trekkers won't bring in the new fans that the franchise needs to keep going. But if they don't toss those same fans a few bones, then the nerd-backlash can be fatal.

I remember watching "Galaxy Quest" in the theater. There was a poor fella in front of me who was just aghast at the send up of the genre. I remember him complaining about how the IP holders of Star Trek will probably sue them (though I think Paramount put out Galaxy Quest, I didn't mention it at the time). Anyhow, the point being, that dude will probably hate whatever comes out

I haven't been this excited about a new Star Trek movie since 1985, and what a letdown that was lol.

-Sik

[WilldCrd]

i've been reading alot of reviews from fans that saw the opening in Perth. I only found one who didnt like it and his/her review was laced with bias and the same kind of close mindedness as sax's.
Mostly people are viewing this as a alternate reality/universe kinda thing since they use time travel and jack with the timeline <the badguys>. I think it shows real effort to appease the hardcore fans and attempts to tie things together which as a hardcore fan I truley appreciate.  I'm totally stoked to see this thursday at a Imax theater here <already got tickets  >.
The previews look AWESOME and we get to see the first launch of the Enterprise...cant wait! My wife cant wait either guess I have been driving her nuts lol