Thread: New Star Trek movie.

7 of 9, bras, green women, nipple outlines ... what more do you guys want?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

7 of 9, bras, green women, nipple outlines ... what more do you guys want?

Free beer n scotch

You know, growing up with Star Trek reruns before they cut them, being in high school and yearning for the next James Blish book to come out, eagerly eating up the New Voyages, Price of the Phoenix, Vulcan!, and other such books, one develops a certain mentality, outlook of what the Kirk universe is like.

For example, the difference between ST:TOS and ST:TNG is like the difference between pre Kissinger and Kissinger onward State department. Kirk, out on thr frontier, it's like the old west up to but not including Kissinger. Anything happens and he's out there, he's got to make the decisions, he's out of contact with the government ............just like the ambassador in the country.

But ST:TNG, anything happens ..........and they warp out an Admiral to take charge, just like now, like with Kissinger, when they send out the SECSTATE to take charge.

Or how it shaped the way I romantically thought of situations, of my life. Of being so busy, so out of touch, I was like a starship, in warp drive, can't be reached, I'd pop out of warp drive, lauch a few photo torpedos, then pop back into warp drive and head for the next assignment (something like "Spock Must Die").

The fiction of then was shaped by the world of then.

But how will this fiction be shaped, be presented? Will it be like ST:TOS and conform to the times it was brought into existance? Or will it take the present and try to conform to that?

I much expect the latter and hence, this movie is not on my list to see. I don't want my memories rewritten.......especially by a movie which, just by looking at the cast, says it is rewriting Star Trek history? Chekov? Romulians?

One that shows in the trailers something different than what I knew before. It's not like weakly arrogant person developed into the Kirk of the past but rather, that Kirk was always there....at least to LCDR Mitchell who is nowhere to be seen in the current production.

It's fine for a new generation of an audience who didn't live in the time before, to present to them an approach that they are more likely to understand in their viewpoint.

But it's not for me.
___________________________________
("Hey, man, I remember you back at the Academy; a stack of books with legs! The only thing I ever heard from an upperclassman was, "Watch out for Lt. Kirk! In his class, you either think, or sink!"--LCDR Mitchell, (w,stte), ST:TOS "Where no man has gone before")

col yu,

Pine exudes arrogance. Shatner always portrayed confidence. There is a big difference if you're trying to convince military men to follow your orders.

i noticed that too, but i forgave it-- how many 2LTs have you known that were also arrogant (at least before their NCOs put them in their place)? i can only imagine how much worse it's gotta be when said arrogant cadet gets bumped to Captain on his first mission

confidence comes with time and experience. arrogance needs neither.

Originally Posted by SnowLeopard

The fiction of then was shaped by the world of then.

But how will this fiction be shaped, be presented? Will it be like ST:TOS and conform to the times it was brought into existance? Or will it take the present and try to conform to that?

Well, without having seen the movie, but reading all these posts, it seems like your rule of shaping holds true. No one in the marketable movie audience age wants to grow into anything - they expect it all right away. Heck, in some cases, with the tech boom of the 90s, their expectations were set by their experiences or those of their colleagues.

So, growth, experience, sacrifice, who needs it? We'll always be 20 and 20 is a fine age to be forever.

I fear my initial opinion from months ago will be born out.

-dale

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

8 pages on this? Really? And in the science section?

Blasphemy!!!

Star Trek is real, dammit!

May you get a pair of cement overshoes after losing all your dough in a Fizzbin game!

Originally Posted by dalem

Well, without having seen the movie, but reading all these posts, it seems like your rule of shaping holds true. No one in the marketable movie audience age wants to grow into anything - they expect it all right away. Heck, in some cases, with the tech boom of the 90s, their expectations were set by their experiences or those of their colleagues.

So, growth, experience, sacrifice, who needs it? We'll always be 20 and 20 is a fine age to be forever.

I fear my initial opinion from months ago will be born out.

-dale

Well, I took a risk, I read those pages, risking a spoiler....but it's not a risk, not a spoiler, if one is left with even a firmer conclusion to not see the movie.

The story sounds like the DS 9 one of "The Valiant", of the idiots in Red Squardron at SFA. The type of people that I hate, the kind who, though my reputation for breaking the legs of an upperclassman was an accident, I would intentionally do such an act to.

Why do stories like this occur in Trek? I think for at least two reasons. First of all, in Trek, we show a great world to play in. Therefore, a lot of the stories that come up show exactly that, let's play. Secondly, and this may because of the era, people don't want to be entertained by a military organization, they don't want to associate with it. So the organization is shown as a civilian one. Hence, we get stories like, for instance, where Picard does things that should get him relieved from command, but no, he is around the next week, the next month, the next season. Sure, it sells products, but in the end, one is gritting their teeth.......and who wants to be Picard?

I want to be Shelby..............and look how long she lasted. (and just for your info, in TOS, Dr. Helen Noel [that was a limitation in TOS for women, unless you were Uhura or Chapel, you had as much chance for success as a security man])

Why do people do this to the show? Change it from the original that they didn't like to their own taste? Essentially, power. So they lose the old audience, so what? They will get enough bucks with the new people.

I might watch this when it comes on tv, but not now. I fear that it will be like Enterprise, like MI-2.........and I turned those both off less than 30 minutes into either. This retelling of the old story in one's own way has shown me that it is a waste of time.....and I am not going to give it a chance to waste my money as well.

That is one thing about TNG, DS9, and Voyager; since they weren't retelling history, there wasn't a way for them to trash it.
__________________________________________
("There are some upperclassmen I would follow thru fire; there are others I feel like pushing into it."--underclassman quote, (wtte), 70's USNA catalog)

I liked DS9, espeically when they went the arc route with 1st the Klingon War and then the Dominion War but there was so many humanity stories to be told, especially when Sisko tried to justify his attempt to bring forth the truth how the Rommulans got tricked into the war ... only to erase that history.

All told, I thought Sisko was the new Kirk, trying to balance his humanity with the butchery he was ordered to perform.

Aside from this, I really, really don't like the new Kirk. I mean, after 30 seconds, the bra and panties are still on a green girl with the reputation that would put Cleopatra to shame.

Originally Posted by YellowFever

Blasphemy!!!

Star Trek is real, dammit!

May you get a pair of cement overshoes after losing all your dough in a Fizzbin game!

Star Trek hardly even qualifies as science fiction, although it comes closer than most Hollywood SF.

Originally Posted by Big K

i think Lt.Uhura was the best part of the movie...

I concur!!

And OOE, I have completely forgotten what we were debating. I like the new movie, and I think that you secretly like it to, but are playing devils advocate to make for some good discussion

As for batman, I remember watching the original television series with my father, when the joker had a mustache under his makeup!!

This attachment can be posted on the "worst beer" as well.

Looking over the first 6 +1 ST movies, they seem to exist in different approaches.

ST I was okay. Lots of technical, took a long time to get into the story, but it was propelled by what the television era wanted ........ more.

ST II and ST III were great, with the former being better. Why? Probably four things. First, we had battles. Second, we had good actors playing the villians. One can go a long way with a good villian even if the rest of the movie is painful ...... such as with Generations. Third, the balance between hard charging and the human part of the story was right. Again, the former had it better. Fourth, we had a great director or at least a decent director.

ST IV was good though I can understand if my non marine biology friends found it painful. Again, a right balance BUT ...... the campiness was beginning to work in.

Which brings us to ST V. I would almost regard V as an unmitigated disaster. Shatner's acting may be something but he should keep far away from directing as possible. I say almost for there are two good but small factors. First of all, the man on horseback in the beginning. Wonderful photography. Secondly, the opening scene with David Warner. As I said, a good actor is something of a villian is a winner. The problem, of course, is that he had a very small part in the movie and when the regulars of the ST cast get involved, it's "let's all work together and feel good about it". That movie was terrible.

ST VI was almost as terrible but it had redeeming features, here and there. Nice secret tactics, a good villian, and underhand deals to show that anyone was expendable.

It also revealed something else that started showing up in III for some and in IV for others. Character development or the lack there of. Take a look at the crew of the Enterprise as the movies progressed.

Kirk: In I, Shatner is playing Kirk to the style of TOS. Same thing in II. But in III, he starts to slip, for now he's not quite playing Kirk but someone else, maybe even Hooker. In IV and more and more in the rest of the movies, he's playing Shatner.

Spock: Pretty consistent thru the movies....though who can tell what goes thru a Vulcan's mind.

McCoy: In I-III, Kelley is playing McCoy. In IV, he's possibly doing the same for while we are seeing an unfamilar face in the plastics factory, we've rarely seen him playing intensly with Doohan. In V and VI, he might be playing McCoy in that someone who should have retired years ago is compelled to still be in service, so he might be rebelling by drinking more. It's painful to watch.....but potentially realistic.

Scotty: In I and II, Doohan is playing Scotty, but starting in III, it's slipping. Personally, as Doohan increased in size, I think he just gave up putting any effort in the part because he knew he had a cash cow and didn't have to work anymore. Character development stopped after II......unless one wants to consider that past that, Scotty went ROAD.

Uhura: Well, how can one have any character development when after the series, movie after movie, one is playing the same part, in the same chair on the bridge, a part that is minor in the story. If a Lieutenant could sit in that chair in TOS, then a Lieutenant can sit there in the movies, and she should be somewhere else.........but it's not there, it's never there. Granted, episodes like "Bread and Circuses" showed the intelligence aspect of communications, but it is never developed past that. The ST III book shows what an EWO she is .......... but that's not in the movie. When she is allowed to expand her character, it is either minor such as in ST IV when she decodes the signal of the probe or embarassing such as the captive audience in ST V.

Sulu: this is the best example of character development in the franchise. Takei plays the young Sulu in the TOS who then progresses up to Captain in his own right. He's not playing Lt. Sulu through out, he's playing H. Sulu who learns from his experiences.

And then there is Chekov. In I, Koening is playing Ensign Chekov. In II, he is playing LCDR Chekov; I could believe him as an XO. But then in III onward, he is once again playing Ensign Chekov.

The Original Series was practically 40 years ago. The Franchise needs to let it be for what it was and move away from there instead of trying to rehash it, over and over again.
___________________________________________
("You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!"--Shatner, (wtte), "SNL")