By Joel Johnson at 2:04 pm Sun, Feb 1, 2009
Absolutely cannot wait for Star Trek to be pretty, exciting, and sexy again.
I’m really looking forward to it. Even if I find the new bridge a bit IKEA.
Also, to set the mood for the remaining posts:
,,,pretty, exciting, and sexy again.
But apparently not cerebral.
The whole point of the original series and the earlier Next Generation series was that things were reasonably (although not by any means completely) thought out. If you can find a copy of “The Making of Star Trek” you will see a reasonable amount of care in working out the Enterprise and Starfleet. One particularly interesting chapter regarded a test script for the opening scene of a hypothetical show. In it, the Enterprise is in a near Kobashi Maru situation and as the final rounds approach the ship Kirk pulls over Yeoman Rand and gives her a final passionate kiss. Roddenberry explains that this wouldn’t work, in that these were naval officers and that simply didn’t happen any more than it would on a US Navy destroyer facing similar conditions. Roddenberry knew how people act in crises he had a Distinguished Flying Cross and survived a crash in the Syrian desert in ’47.
This new movie throws all that consistency and thinking out the window with wooping smirking prettyboy action heroes.
Take for example the Enterprise being built out in the desert. Originally (And during Roddenberry’s lifetime) the Enterprise was built in space and was never intended to land or maneuver in the atmosphere. Building it in the desert would have been as rational as building a jetliner at the bottom of the sea. But now, it looks cool to do it in the desert!!!
Sexy? Does this mean there’ll be slashfic fanservice?
Needs more Simon Pegg.
,,,pretty, exciting, and sexy again.”
Just like you Joel!
except maybe for that ‘again’ part.
Yeah, that doesn’t make much sense…yet?
Yah. Looks like it might be fun, but ain’t Trek; it doesn’t respect the established history.
Admittedly, Hollywood has done that sort of thing before; half the films based on previous works are based on not much more than the title and a few sentences and character names. And Galactica was a case where taking the idea and completely reworking it from the ground up actually seems to have been the right choice.
But… Well, I boycotted Dark Knight, because as far as I’m concerned that re-invention may be interesting but just isn’t Batman, and I object to false labelling even when the source material did it first. (I can deal with antiheros and the like; I just think folks ought to be honest about giving the new character a new name.) It looks like I’ll be avoiding this calls-itself-Trek for the same reason. I’ll see ’em if and when I can do so far free, but the best way to register my objection is to vote with my wallet and decline to support them.
Your milage will vary.
I am always loath to make negative comments, but I have to:
Why does it look like every other movie trailer since 1998 or so?
Thumpity thumpity flash flash thumpity thumpity
Man, I hate that!
Can’t tell about the movie from a teaser trailer, though. And Technogeek did himself a disservice boycotting Dark Knight. It was an absolutely stellar movie.
Hey, I’m a lifelong Star Trek fan, but I’d be hard-pressed to point to any moment in Star Trek history when it’s ever been “pretty, exciting, and sexy.” (Maybe two out of three periodically.)
Would you rather they travel through time to look for a whale again?
I’m excited about seeing a new Star Trek film on the big screen, but there are two major problems I have with this film. One is J.J. Abrams who I know is a messiah to some, but whose work feels very hackish in a hipster way to me. The second (which I think stems from the first) is the way Kirk comes off in all of these promos/teasers as a pseudo 90201/Teen-Drama “rebel” who just doesn’t feel right for the role.
Also seeing Uhura jump on a bed to mount whoever that is seems like a scene out of a bad made-for-cable sci-fi series.
Sorry, but I’m starting to think this is going to be a Star Trek that completely ignores what made the original great.
Your agonizer, please Mr. Abrams.
Abrams is overrated, his work is derivative, cookie-cutter, and the payoffs are very small – usually disappointing(Cloverfield).
This looks like Speed Racer all over again to me – a “reboot” / “reimagining” by someone who clearly doesn’t understand the underlying appeal of the source material.
Roid-Rage Spock? Space ship constructed in a mud pit instead of a space-drydock?
It’ll probably stink, but I, for one, will pay good money to watch people basejump off a space elevator,
Monopole, maybe they did a mock-up test fit of the Enterprise in the desert then lifted the components up into space. That’s how we do the space station setup. It’s a lot better to find out something doesn’t work quite right where you can make a new one and try it out again fairly quickly.
(there’s my retrocon attempt.)
This film is going to go all James Cameron on us.
I enjoy many films as unitentional comedy, looks like this might be one of them.
‘Do it! Do it!’
Star Trek fans might enjoy this:
And I hope you do.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin