New Star Trek Film

cyrusdvirus

Overheal wrote:

"Sir...we can't call it the Enterprise." - Carter

That was one of the things that Stargate did better than Star Trek & BSG, the whole poke a bit of fun at itself.

Even if Star Trek did give it a damn good shot in the movies, First Contact and any of the scenes with Zefram Cochrane springing to mind.

And as a long standing Star Trek fan, I'd actually prefer a reboot similar to the BSG method. Not necessarily as dark as BSG, but not all light and fairy either. Enterprise was no great shakes, purely because it violated what we already felt was canon, that episode where the Borg were defrosted was the prime example. The Borg escape on a slow ass ship that'll take hundreds and hundreds of years to get back to the delta quadrant. Time passes and NCC 1701 through to NCC 1701-C have no contact. Along comes Q, whips the 1701-D over to system J25 Guinan has a freak attack and says lets start moving NOW, Picard ignores her and goes off surveying. Shortly afterwards a Borg ship hoves into view. There's a bit of a battle, the enterprise is damaged, as is the cube. Picard eventually relents and asks Q to help them home which he does after a bit of toying around with the captain, and the episode ends rather ominously, with Guinan telling Picard words to the effect of "now they know where we are they will come after us"...but according to Enterprise, they already KNOW that humanity is a nice ripe target for assimilation.

Another prequel is just going to violate more already established canon.

Johnny Storm

gatecrash wrote:

.... Enterprise was no great shakes, ....

No?!?! :eek: Really???
FWIW I'm not a big fan of prequels, I hate the Space Cadet Academy 90210idea, and I'd prefer to go more futuristic rather than a reboot. But, since they forgot to check with me first, I'm just hoping for the best at this stage. I have my doubts if they'll be able to pull off a good reboot ALA BattleStar.

I think with Enterprise they were hoping to make a Star Trek that appealed to people who were not big into trek. IMHO that just can't work at this stage. I mean if you were not a trek fan could you be enticed by a series or movie whose main selling point was "this is a bit like that trek that you don't like, but not really". Who the @#$% would want to watch something like that?
So, IMHO, this movie needs to avoid trying to dilute or sanitize trek for a wider audience and concentrate on making it a really good trek movie.

bizmark

mcgarnicle wrote:

A new series should be what Star Trek is supposed to be, exploration. Not just of space but of issues too. The Next Generation is the stand out series for me, exploring new worlds but also morality and philosophy in ways no other show has ever even attempted.

Talk of making it darker, like the new BSG makes me sick to be honest. BSG is utter trash, it is crass simplistic fluff. I think the only people who want this are BSG fans but if that's what they like why not just stick to BSG, don't try pollute our beloved Star Trek with your low brow toilet programme please.

Agree with this 100% bsg is just another depressing emo fest show the likes of which plagues tv now adays star trek was always about optimism even when there was a war on the federation was fighting the good fight against clearly the bad guys ffs in bsg the emo gimps think "im some way we deserve it" normal anti human/western crap thats all over tv these days keep that ****e to yourselfs i want my optimistic pro human star trek the way it is ta.

/end rant

User45701

anto from heroes might be playing Sulu

mcgarnicle

Overheal wrote:

So McGarnicle you cant really go and dismiss BSG (cos if it didnt have such a lethargic season 3 you and I would both embrace it) but more importantly its a red flag on you to praise Star Treks boring, sterile environs. The best times were when **** hit the fan and dark stuff happened; I could name off a long list Im almost ashamed to say (my saving grace being Ive never owned any Star Trek merchandise...phew) the shortlist being the Borg, Cardassian and Maquis terrorism, Klingon foulplay, Romulan chemical warfare, blebleblahblah.

Actually I would not like it, my reasons for disliking BSG are deeper than the fact it had a slow third season.

Trek was at its worst when "**** hit the fan" as you put it, pandering to the lowest brow probably appealed to some suit in the board-room but I certainly didn't turn on TNG to see pretty explosions. The highlights of Trek, for me at least, were when Picard and crew were dealing with moral issues in a way I have never seen on tv. When Picard changes his reckless past only to see his future life evaporate (writing this episode was probably Ron D. Moore's finest achievement), when a cavalier judge tries to spread fear through the Federation or when Picard risks his life to prevent a race returning to the "dark ages" of religion. What TNG was to me was real Enlightenment thoughts and morality put on the screen in an entertaining format. BSG is nothing in comparison.

Overheal wrote:

And well they shouldnt. That doesnt mean they cant borrow from each other. I too enjoyed to a point the light and 'musing' way in which star trek boldly went, and at the same time would it kill them to display some action? DS9s last season aside, the whole thing just leaves you asking for more hands on approach, and less of the button pushing "if we re-modify the deflector dish again.."

Yes it would kill them, that is my point. Rodenberry never wanted it to be about action, it was about ideas. The lazy background stories that were wrapped up with technobable were utterly superfluous to what made it great and if that is what you are concentrating on you have totally missed the point.

Overheal wrote:

it would be bad parenting on the part of Star trek not to adopt at least one or two influences from its offspring - like Stargate and BSG and perhaps any other scifi you can shake a tricorder at.

"Sir...we can't call it the Enterprise." - Carter

Stargate is not the offspring of Star Trek, it is the offspring of awfull film makers Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin. Neither of whom could be described as talented by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that Stargate actually rose above its origins (a rubbish early 90s movie) is great but it was never more than an enjoyable romp, I doubt the writers ever wanted it to be seen as more. Its lack of pretension and sometimes whitty characters made it enjoyable.

BSG has absolutely nothing to offer. I guess the physics in the space scenes are more realistic than those in Star Trek but that's really all I can think of.

Oh just to clarify, I am aware that Voyager and Enterprise were mostly garbage, but at least they were my kind of garbage. BSG is someone else's kind of garbage.

User45701

mcgarnicle wrote:

Stargate is not the offspring of Star Trek, it is the offspring of awfull film makers Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin. Neither of whom could be described as talented by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that Stargate actually rose above its origins (a rubbish early 90s movie) is great but it was never more than an enjoyable romp, I doubt the writers ever wanted it to be seen as more. Its lack of pretension and sometimes whitty characters made it enjoyable.

I Always found SG1 to be a great mix of story, good charactors, comedy, Some 2 parters where amazing, i do love the way SG1 preserved the classic "Ming the merciless" villian without being childish. I would consider it to be a very good sci-fi show

mcgarnicle wrote:

BSG has absolutely nothing to offer. I guess the physics in the space scenes are more realistic than those in Star Trek but that's really all I can think of.
.

No, BSG more to offer than you could imagine but then again to each his own, i get pissed off when i hear people say star trek was **** escept for the dominion war, ye some episodes where ment to apeal to low brow or whatever it was you said...

BSG is different because there is so much charactor depth and detailed story ect allot of people moaned because there was not enough action in season 3. Bollox Season 3 was amazing and raised the bar even more.

mcgarnicle wrote:

Oh just to clarify, I am aware that Voyager and Enterprise were mostly garbage, but at least they were my kind of garbage. BSG is someone else's kind of garbage.

Enterprise and voyager where decent enough and both had some great episodes

BSG is not garbadge

kevmy

Ron Moore has been on record as saying that the first season of BSG was closer to his idea of what Voyager should have been then the actual finished product of Voyager.

Also I think there are plenty of moral dilemmas in BSG as well between religion and science. The whole Baltar trial was nothing but a moral drama.

I agree that BSG has more action but then it's a different type of program it's not meant to be an extension of TNG or Star Trek at all

mcgarnicle

To move away from my BSG bashing my point is basically that, as a Star Trek fan, I would rather not see the producers of future Trek movies or tv shows jumping on the BSG bandwagon.

The aspects of BSG that people love are not compatible with what many Trek fans, myself included, feel Star Trek is about. In other words it's great that all you BSG fans have a rootin tootin show that you love... but be happy with what you've got and leave us folk here, still mourning the loss of our beloved franchise, to pray that it returns in its former glory... rather than as BSG in a Starfleet uniform.

5uspect

mcgarnicle wrote:

To move away from my BSG bashing my point is basically that, as a Star Trek fan, I would rather not see the producers of future Trek movies or tv shows jumping on the BSG bandwagon.

The aspects of BSG that people love are not compatible with what many Trek fans, myself included, feel Star Trek is about. In other words it's great that all you BSG fans have a rootin tootin show that you love... but be happy with what you've got and leave us folk here, still mourning the loss of our beloved franchise, to pray that it returns in its former glory... rather than as BSG in a Starfleet uniform.

Agreed.:)

I do enjoy BSG immensely and I will do my best to defend it.:o
I was also a fan of TNG but grew weary of Trek with Voyager and the self righteous morality.

Enterprise was, at first a breath of fresh air, but it didn't go in the direction I would have hoped. I really liked how it had an age of exploration feel about it with unproven technology. (I think I mentioned before how I find the tech blanket in the later treks to be a big problem for me). I loved the intro credits with the evolution of space flight and this is something I would like to see revisited in some form in the new movie.

Being in space should be a big deal. It should make life difficult, or at least different to how you would expect it on a planet. BSG does this pretty well with its vipers. (the way Starbuck swings her Viper around in 33!) or when they had to cross through the radiation belt. They felt very fragile, compared to the "shields up" mentality in trek. Even the asteroid belt bit in 2010 had this realism too.

In trek it seems like ships and shuttles float along on an invisible ocean, it all feels very 2D. I like the visual style of BSG where is introduces a bit of chaos and dodgy camera angles to give an idea of directional ambiguity in deep space.

So for the new movie I would like to see a bit of reinvention regarding the role of technology. It doesn't need the darkness of BSG but some morally grey decisions make things interesting character wise.

mcgarnicle

5uspect wrote:

Agreed.:)
So for the new movie I would like to see a bit of reinvention regarding the role of technology. It doesn't need the darkness of BSG but some morally grey decisions make things interesting character wise.

I hear this a lot but I really don't get it. I mean Star Trek does get involved in moral quandries, should Picard leave the Mintakins to think of him as God, should Sisko pose as Emmisary even though he views the Prophets as mere aliens, should Janeway allow Tores to steal technology that will get them home, should Archer steal a ship's warp core so that he can complete his mission of saving the human race.

I have already accepted that Enterprise and Voyager are, to many, bad shows so please don't point out that the episodes I'm referring to are bad. My point is there are moral issues in Trek.

When it comes to the main characters having to deal with demons though, this I have no problems brushing aside. People say it is realistic that Saul is an alchoholic, that Adama sees his dead wife, that Apollo and Starbuck have relationship issues etc etc etc... but think about it, in a future Federation where the human population is hundreds of billions is it not possible that when choosing the bridge-crew for its flagship... when chosing the best and the brightest of humanity, that Starfleet could manage to find six people who are not freaky basket cases??

5uspect

mcgarnicle wrote:

I hear this a lot but I really don't get it. I mean Star Trek does get involved in moral quandries, should Picard leave the Mintakins to think of him as God, should Sisko pose as Emmisary even though he views the Prophets as mere aliens, should Janeway allow Tores to steal technology that will get them home, should Archer steal a ship's warp core so that he can complete his mission of saving the human race.

I agree to an extent. But there is a difference between those moral issues and the ones that you see in BSG. Trek usually affords its characters the chance to think about the consequences and generally come out on the other side having learned a valuable lesson. While this is not always the case its the general trend. This is helped along by its loose command structure.

BSG on the other hand often forces outcomes on characters (Apollo destroying the Olympic carrier, not rigging the election and letting Baltar take control) through it's strict military structure and laws. You then see the consequences that has on the person. The suicide bombings, executions of Cylon collaborators, Tigh's murder of his wife etc.

Maybe this is what you see as the soap opera type low brow stuff?

I have already accepted that Enterprise and Voyager are, to many, bad shows so please don't point out that the episodes I'm referring to are bad. My point is there are moral issues in Trek.

Don't get me wrong, they're definitely not bad, just not great shows. I will watch them if they're on, I just won't buy the box set.

When it comes to the main characters having to deal with demons though, this I have no problems brushing aside. People say it is realistic that Saul is an alchoholic, that Adama sees his dead wife, that Apollo and Starbuck have relationship issues etc etc etc... but think about it, in a future Federation where the human population is hundreds of billions is it not possible that when choosing the bridge-crew for its flagship... when chosing the best and the brightest of humanity, that Starfleet could manage to find six people who are not freaky basket cases??

Sure but no one is perfect. Everyone makes bad decisions. Everyone has selfish desires and pettiness at times. Some of the brightest people are pure a$$holes. Baltar is a good example. He is a genius (or is perceived to be) yet he is selfish, easily lead by 6 and possibly completely mad.

Being on the crew of such an important ship should be stressful. It should break some people and make others thrive. Troy in TNG was a good way to show how in that universe star fleet took care of its crew and was concerned about their emotional state. But that should also fuel paranoia in some.

I dunno, I guess you want utopia and I want dystopia!

EDIT: Also think about the kind of person who would want to join star fleet. You will get certain personality types. Its not a draft where they pick who they want, they pick who they want from those who apply. Might be an interesting line for young Kirk to see his very early years...

User45701

mcgarnicle wrote:

When it comes to the main characters having to deal with demons though, this I have no problems brushing aside. People say it is realistic that Saul is an alchoholic, that Adama sees his dead wife, that Apollo and Starbuck have relationship issues etc etc etc... but think about it, in a future Federation where the human population is hundreds of billions is it not possible that when choosing the bridge-crew for its flagship... when chosing the best and the brightest of humanity, that Starfleet could manage to find six people who are not freaky basket cases??

Thats the whole point of BSG!

They often talk of how perfect life was on some of the colonies, how they talk of caprica like earth, perfect and all."

Galatica was the rust bucket of the fleet the oldest or one of the oldest of all the battlestars with a crew that was due for retirment they threw all the misfits on a old ship out of view and as it turns out the survival of humanity now rest with these very real charactors.

Back to trek, the new movie i dont have high hopes, i think its great who is playing Spock because he looks the part, but to me the whole thing is just sad.

Star trek is about the future and doing prequils while it might be our future is not the future trek fans want, they want to know whats happening now

What happened with the Remens?

who is in charge of the cardassian union?

Do you think the klingons and the romulans just gave the cards back there conquered worlds?

What happened with the breen? did they just retreat back to there space for another 4 or 5 hundred years?

Has sisko returned yet?

Did bajor join the federation?

Did the borg queen survive?

What is the current state of the dominion

Dare i say it, Is B4 Data yet?

Has the ferengi allaince under Rom petationed for membership in the UFP yet?

Hows Rikers new command going?

Any new starship designs?

I Wonder what happened to the VodWare

Did 8472 abondon there plans to spy on starfleet or are there opertives there right now?

Where did 7 end up stationed?

What happened to Gareck?

If changelings dont age how long does the federation intend to hold the female shapeshifter in prison for?

5uspect

I'd say those are questions for a new series rather than a new movie!