StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2008-09-02 04:36am**

I just saw this on Rotten Tomatoes:

Rotten Tomatoes wrote:This week, the writers of the new Star Trek reboot revealed on TV the movie's premise, which is so cool that it is worthy of this week's top story, even though I generally focus on movies that are fresher, farther from release, than one that's already wrapped filming. The gist of the story is that it follows Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy, back in time from the franchise's "current" setting, as Romulans attempt to go back in time to kill the young Captain James T. Kirk before he goes on to do all those things that messed up the Romulans' many plans. So, J.J. Abrams has indeed come up with a clever way to bridge the "old" franchise to his new revamp, and since there is time travelling involved, there's even the possibility that things can be changed, meaning everything we thought we knew could be completely different going forward. If the movie is AWESOME, this is great news. If not, it could be perceived as the nail in the Star Trek coffin. I, however, am optimistic, and think this could be the sign that the reboot is more clever and better structured than we're used to as of late.

Wow, so they decide to go through the trouble of rebooting the franchise...just to introduce the most tired of tired plot devices from Star Trek: the Time Travel story.

I think we can pretty much write this movie off at this point.

Posted: **2008-09-02 04:37am**

And here's the source article with a few more details:

Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman feel like the most omnipresent writers in the industry. Part of it is how many geektastic projects they're on, but part of it is also their willingness to talk, talk, talk. How long before they're directing?

The latest place that the duo yap is a Fox Movie Channel show, Life After Film School. They're on the show to flog the Fox show Fringe, but the preview clip is all about... Paramount's Star Trek! Fox knows how to get the eyeballs, I guess.

They discuss the Star Trek canon, but first they go out of their way to say that this film, while it features the earliest days of the Enterprise crew from the original series, is not a prequel. And you know what? They're sort of right. In fact, Star Trek blows through all the paradigms that we have for film franchises. Here's why:

The movie begins in the Star Trek present - some time in the The Next Generation timeline. Romulans head back in time, either to kill Kirk or his father (or both, just to be safe. This is known as "The Terminator Gambit") and Spock follows them into the past, back when the Enterprise crew were young. These events change the history of the Trek universe, either creating a parallel timeline that the films will now follow or simply overwriting everything else that we know as Trek history.

So this is a sequel, a prequel and a reboot all in one package. That makes this film the geekiest movie in history, I believe - prior to this, only comic books felt the need to make reboots and retcons story points in such a major way. JJ Abrams' Star Trek is the movie equivalent of DC Comics' Crisis on Infinite Earths - a story that acknowledges the old continuity while creating a new one. This is the sort of obsessive compulsive stuff that is like catnip to us nerds.

Posted: **2008-09-02 04:52am**

The Kernel wrote:I just saw this on Rotten Tomatoes:

Rotten Tomatoes wrote:This week, the writers of the new Star Trek reboot revealed on TV the movie's premise, which is so cool that it is worthy of this week's top story, even though I generally focus on movies that are fresher, farther from release, than one that's already wrapped filming. The gist of the story is that it follows Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy, back in time from the franchise's "current" setting, as Romulans attempt to go back in time to kill the young Captain James T. Kirk before he goes on to do all those things that messed up the Romulans' many plans. So, J.J. Abrams has indeed come up with a clever way to bridge the "old" franchise to his new revamp, and since there is time travelling involved, there's even the possibility that things can be changed, meaning everything we thought we knew could be completely different going forward. If the movie is AWESOME, this is great news. If not, it could be perceived as the nail in the Star Trek coffin. I, however, am optimistic, and think this could be the sign that the reboot is more clever and better structured than we're used to as of late.
Wow, so they decide to go through the trouble of rebooting the franchise...just to introduce the most tired of tired plot devices from Star Trek: the Time Travel story.

I think we can pretty much write this movie off as being good at this point.

Wow, so they use a plot point that you don't like and it automatically becomes shit? What about little things like acting quality, pacing, drama, coherent story, etc, that we usually judge movies on? I'm personally going to go the sane route of waiting until it's actually been seen by people (or myself) before passing judgment on it.

Posted: **2008-09-02 05:48am**

One, this is hardly a scoop, as it's been known for months that there'd be Romulans, a timeship, and Leonard Nimoy. Two, while the plot idea is tired and I wish they hadn't used it, it doesn't mean that the movie itself will suck.

Posted: **2008-09-02 07:13am**

However, the idea of describing it as 'exciting' is only possible for someone who has never actually watched the show.

Posted: **2008-09-02 10:14am**

DesertFly wrote:Wow, so they use a plot point that you don't like and it automatically becomes shit?

Why is that such an unreasonable thing to say? Do people not routinely criticize films for plot holes or bad storylines?

What about little things like acting quality, pacing, drama, coherent story, etc, that we usually judge movies on?

Acting and pacing cannot save a bad story. And I have no idea why you think that basing the entire story on a shopworn cliche does not say bad things about its ability to tell a "coherent story".

I'm personally going to go the sane route of waiting until it's actually been seen by people (or myself) before passing judgment on it.

Final judgment, yes. That doesn't mean people can't make educated guesses.

Posted: **2008-09-02 10:32am**

Meh. Star Trek 4 didn't suck. First Contact didn't altogether suck. Insurrection and Nemesis were time-travel-free, and they sucked.

The problem with Trek is not time travel, it's shitty, insulting, idiotic writing. I'm willing to give Orci and Kurtzman a chance.

(Didn't we know this info awhile back, too?)

Posted: **2008-09-02 10:53am**

Darth Wong wrote: Why is that such an unreasonable thing to say? Do people not routinely criticize films for plot holes or bad storylines?

Wow thats a relief, I got ganbanged on the Vin Diesel thread for saying i didn't like Chronicles of Riddick because of the plot holes. I was advised to read a science book. being able to heckle plot points adds a new dimension to some movies/series especially star trek, whereas otherwise I would have just changed the channel. Some of us love to hate :-p

I'm personally going to go the sane route of waiting until it's actually been seen by people (or myself) before passing judgment on it.

hmmm this is how I wasted nine dollars going to see mission to Mars at imax. I am taking the middle ground and reading reviews to determine if I go to Imax, Chunky's the crappy theater or wait for on demand.

By the way wasn't star trek already rebooted because of Voyagers Time-escapades? Star Trek m,ight want to set the "Changing time creat3es alternate universes" stage up the way Stargate did, or they risk alienating all the purists who will say WTF?? PICARD NEVER EXISTED???

However, the idea of describing it as 'exciting' is only possible for someone who has never actually watched the show.

I thought ST II was pretty exciting, then again I suspect I'm the only one who liked ST5.

Come to think of it if they change the timeline maybe they can re-edit some of the movies so taht their original plots can be seen? I was pretty mad when I found out ST3 was supposed to start with kruge as a pirate stealing an experimental romulan bird of prey, and i ehard William shatner wanted to do a lot more with ST 5 but he blew the budget on his stupid "Storming Nimbus" scene.

And they could edit generations to remove everything between when Kirk died and when picard found him in the nexus :-p

Posted: **2008-09-02 11:09am**

Anguirus wrote:Meh. Star Trek 4 didn't suck. First Contact didn't altogether suck. Insurrection and Nemesis were time-travel-free, and they sucked.

The problem with Trek is not time travel, it's shitty, insulting, idiotic writing. I'm willing to give Orci and Kurtzman a chance.

(Didn't we know this info awhile back, too?)

Star Trek 4 had a completely retarded story, but it was saved by the fact that it was not really meant to be taken seriously. It was a silly comedy, and the audience happily received it as one because everyone liked the characters.

First Contact was probably the least shitty of all the TNG movies. That being said, I've seen better vampire movies, and that's all it was. They even used the twin-fang bite on the neck, for fuck's sake.

Insurrection suffered from the insurmountable flaw that of all the TNG movies, it was the most loyal to the spirit and nature of the TNG TV series. Until people saw it in movie form, I don't think they realized how bad it was.

Nemesis was a horror-show, to be sure. But what made it a horror-show? Villains doing things that made no sense even from their own perspective, cliches, and contrived plot points. Now again, we have Romulans who want to go back 200 years into the past and make major changes to the timeline: in other words, villains doing things that make no sense even from their own perspective. The fact is that the changes to the timeline could be so dramatic that the people hatching this plan would have no assurance whatsoever that they would still be born. Of course, one could argue that this is actually about parallel timelines and that the originators of the plan do not expect to rewrite their own timeline, but that only begs the question of why they would want to bother.

Now admittedly, we have only one confirmed piece of what made Nemesis so shitty, but that in itself is definitely not encouraging.

Posted: **2008-09-02 11:12am**

Themightytom wrote:I thought ST II was pretty exciting, then again I suspect I'm the only one who liked ST5.

No your not.

Personally I'm seeing this when it comes out. The latest Trek Movies weren't all that but I still find myself enjoying them a lot.

Posted: **2008-09-02 12:41pm**

Well if Spock is still around, and Romulans have anywhere near as long a lifespan as Vulcans, a lot of the Romulans would have already been alive during the period being changed, so they would at least know they would be born, their lives would just be changed, presumably for the better.

kirk wouldn't ahve messed up their flag ship bird of prey, he wouldn't ahve been involved at organia and prevented the Federation from going to war with the klingons, the federation and the klingons would duke it out and the Romulans would overrun the survivors.

And then get pwned by the borg, assuming somebody doesn't leave a sticky note somewhere that says "Don't fuck with the cubes!!!!"

Posted: **2008-09-02 01:15pm**

First Contact was probably the least shitty of all the TNG movies. That being said, I've seen better vampire movies, and that's all it was. They even used the twin-fang bite on the neck, for fuck's sake.

Tell me about it. The worst part is that the story would have worked with the BoBW-style Borg, and none of this bullshit Queen lusting after Picard and Data business + zombie crewmen. (I convinced myself before the movie came out that this was going to be about LORE'S sect of Borg from "Descent," just because it made so little sense to me that the old-style Borg would be led by Alice Krige.)

Granted, the Borg had a stupid plan, but you can argue it was a backup plan after Picard bitch-slapped them. It also would have helped if they'd used the original opening with huge Starfleet forces blasting multiple Cubes...not for the sheer wankish glory so much as selling the Feds as an actual threat to the Borg.

There were elements of FC that worked, hence my disclaimer.

Insurrection suffered from the insurmountable flaw that of all the TNG movies, it was the most loyal to the spirit and nature of the TNG TV series. Until people saw it in movie form, I don't think they realized how bad it was.

That's an excellent point. I literally grew up with NextGen (was seven when it went off the air) so I thought it rocked until I wound up giving it a little more thought. I still like some episodes, but others are terrible. That was how I viewed Insurrection...hit or miss, with the hits only really being when the crew was fucking around with each other and not worrying about the plotline.

Now admittedly, we have only one confirmed piece of what made Nemesis so shitty, but that in itself is definitely not encouraging.

Fair enough. I won't be there opening day or anything but I expect I'll see it if it's not panned. Kurtzman and Orci did a pretty credible job on Transformers, another geeky franhise that no one takes that seriously.

Posted: **2008-09-02 02:54pm**

On the plus side, no replicators!

…there’s all the gadgets you could want. No replicators, [...] If they have tricorders, what do they look like? Phasers, how do you go from stun to kill, and does anything happen? What does the whole fleet look like?

Posted: **2008-09-03 01:59am**

So the Romulans are going back in time to eliminate a threat to their imperialist ambitions, specifically, ONE Starfleet officer. Sounds like the imbred spawn of 'Star Trek: First Contact' and 'Star Trek Nemesis' fucking each other. (I've yet to see the "good" time travel stories, like 'City On the Edge of Forever', 'Trials and Tribble-lations', or 'Through a Mirror, Darkly') That is NOT a good sign.

Posted: **2008-09-03 02:03am**

"City on the Edge of Forever" wasn't bad, but it's also overrated. Yes, it won an award in its time, but you have to remember its contemporary competition. I'm not saying it sucked or anything, but it's hardly the dramatic masterwork that a lot of Trekkies think it is.

"Trials and Tribble-lations" works because it's humourous fan-service and makes no attempt whatsoever to be anything greater than that.

The best part of "Through a Mirror, Darkly" is the modified opening credits. It goes downhill after that.

Posted: **2008-09-03 09:21am**

Darth Wong wrote:"Trials and Tribble-lations" works because it's humourous fan-service and makes no attempt whatsoever to be anything greater than that.

A fan-service episode that intertwined with the events of a fan-favorite humor episode from the original series. That was not a formula that could lose easily. And when you consider that they did that for the Trek 30th Anniversary while Voyager did "Flashback"....

The best part of "Through a Mirror, Darkly" is the modified opening credits. It goes downhill after that.

A Trek-like musical theme rendered in the style of Holst's "Mars - The Bringer of War" with lots of footage of war and explosions, including spaceships shooting at things? That's as much nerd eyecandy as a well-oiled and half-naked Jolene Blalock. No wonder it was rightly the highlight of the two-parter, though I imagine Blalock and Linda Park in open midriff catsuit uniforms was appealing in its own way.

Posted: **2008-09-03 02:35pm**

Steve wrote:
A Trek-like musical theme rendered in the style of Holst's "Mars - The Bringer of War" with lots of footage of war and explosions, including spaceships shooting at things? That's as much nerd eyecandy as a well-oiled and half-naked Jolene Blalock. No wonder it was rightly the highlight of the two-parter, though I imagine Blalock and Linda Park in open midriff catsuit uniforms was appealing in its own way.

I don't know I personally enjoyed seeing the USS Defiant kick some ass.

Posted: **2008-09-03 05:19pm**

Kamakazie Sith wrote: I don't know I personally enjoyed seeing the USS Defiant kick some ass.

I was very impressed that they made 70's era tech look so advanced and futuristic compared to the MORE ADVANCED CONCEPTS that were implemented in Enterprise. if they can actually apply the same concept in the upcoming movie, to make krik's era futuristic but stylistically consistent, they will earn some of my respect.

Outstanding production can sometimes ompensate for a weak plot but its rare. master and commander comes to mind. It wasn't a bad plot, just plodding. With star trek and JJ Abrahms I anticipate fast and possible jarring action and exposition. Even if they excel in the production this movie has sunk a lot into "Rebooting the franchise" which can't be done with a weak plot. A drastic deviation from waht is established done in a ham handed way could result in a renegade edition tath fans don't accept (Looking at YOU Highlander 2...)

Posted: **2008-09-03 05:54pm**

I'm all for giving it a chance, I just wonder if the actors are also willing to follow up with either a TV show or a regular series of movies to add some stuffing to this 'reboot' post-facto.

Posted: **2008-09-03 05:59pm**

Probably not a TV series, but it wouldn't surprise me if the key players were pre-contracted for Star Trek XII in case this one turns out to be a major hit.

Posted: **2008-09-03 06:09pm**

The best part of "Through a Mirror, Darkly" is the modified opening credits.

There was an episode past that?

I've only seen the opening credits since, looking at the airdate and time, I was most likely carrying a MK19 out of the field at the time.

Posted: **2008-09-03 08:54pm**

Kamakazie Sith wrote:I don't know I personally enjoyed seeing the USS Defiant kick some ass.

The clip of Defiant destroying Columbia is in my Youtube favorites.

Posted: **2008-09-03 10:21pm**

Time travel, eh? Well, all I have to say about that is

Posted: **2008-09-05 12:32am**

Superman wrote:Time travel, eh? Well, all I have to say about that is

Are you implying that Time Travel (TM) is somehow overused in the Star Trek franchise? That it is a tired, unimaginative and lazy plot device? That it has been leaned on so much that it has long reached the point of absurdity?

Posted: **2008-09-05 04:52am**

FSTargetDrone wrote:Are you implying that Time Travel (TM) is somehow overused in the Star Trek franchise? That it is a tired, unimaginative and lazy plot device? That it has been leaned on so much that it has long reached the point of absurdity?

Now what could possibly give you that idea?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Suckage confirmed (Star Trek XI spoilers)

Suckage confirmed (Star Trek XI spoilers)

Re: Suckage confirmed (Star Trek XI spoilers)

Re: Suckage confirmed (Star Trek XI spoilers)

Re: Suckage confirmed (Star Trek XI spoilers)

Re: Suckage confirmed (Star Trek XI spoilers)