Doctor Who Discussion Forum for Who North America customers
 
HomeFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog inThe Who North America Online Store
Share | 
 

 No....just no.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: No....just no.   Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:27 pm

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/hugh-laurie-signs-juicy-robocop-role-182822776.html

A classic I like a lot will now be the victim of remaking......I only can imagine what they will do to poor Robo himself.....I can see the sleek, original design replaced with either something industrial looking or 'steam punk'.......~shudders internally~ Mad

This is a sad day. Crying or Very sad
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Cruel Angel
RANK: Time Lord Chancellor


Number of posts : 5856
Age : 44
Registration date : 2009-07-27

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:28 pm

They've been casting this remake for a while now.

Nope, not gonna see it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:01 pm

Cruel Angel wrote:
They've been casting this remake for a while now.

Nope, not gonna see it.

Unless you have Mr. Verhoven himself direct it, it will be yet another failure that remakes are.
I'd rather see a Robocop film where it's 20-25 years later and what not. but that's only if Mr. Verhoven does it, or in the very least the guy who did Robocop 2, while not as good as the original, it was not too bad.

As I said before, I shudder as to how Robocop himself will be redesigned, which we know is going to happen. Look what they did to the Enterprise 3 years ago.....imagine what Robocop is going to be like, I smell Power Rangers or Darth Vader in the air, and it smells just like this remake is going to be, crap.

heck, I can envision something akin to a Cybusman, which itself is just as bad.....and he's going to be acting like Judge Dread, I bet.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Calixar
RANK: Time Lord Commoner


Number of posts : 1216
Age : 48
Registration date : 2007-02-03

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:39 am

Somebody's already going to be acting that way....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343727/
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.mikaljohnson.com
bret_owen99
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2106
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-04-04

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:35 am

Reboot usually equals Bad in my opinion. There have only been a few exceptions to the rule for me. Overall, the original, lower budget movies were and still are better than the newer Star filled, Big Budget blunders that Hollywood puts out.

I think the one I'm really surprised they haven't tried doing is a Rocky Horror Remake, and I even cringe at the thought.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:22 am

bret_owen99 wrote:
Reboot usually equals Bad in my opinion. There have only been a few exceptions to the rule for me. Overall, the original, lower budget movies were and still are better than the newer Star filled, Big Budget blunders that Hollywood puts out.

I think the one I'm really surprised they haven't tried doing is a Rocky Horror Remake, and I even cringe at the thought.

Yes, some bad reboots:

Star Trek
War of the Worlds
Dukes of Hazzard
Addams Family
and those are the first, cringe inducing ones that I can think of, though there's plenty more diarrhea inducing remakes I have not mentioned, and I feel Robocop's going to be the next.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Evil Monkey Pope
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 1815
Registration date : 2007-07-16

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:14 am

I'd be interested if it actually was a steampunk Robocop set in the 1870s.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://mattthecatania.wordpress.com/
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:09 am

Evil Monkey Pope wrote:
I'd be interested if it actually was a steampunk Robocop set in the 1870s.

Don't give them any ideas. Razz



I think the only worse news than the reboot would be this:

"A line of action figures will be made of the new Robocop movie, Playmates will be the ones making them" That would be barftastic. Suspect
Back to top Go down
View user profile
bret_owen99
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2106
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-04-04

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:17 pm

The Castellan wrote:
bret_owen99 wrote:
Reboot usually equals Bad in my opinion. There have only been a few exceptions to the rule for me. Overall, the original, lower budget movies were and still are better than the newer Star filled, Big Budget blunders that Hollywood puts out.

I think the one I'm really surprised they haven't tried doing is a Rocky Horror Remake, and I even cringe at the thought.

Yes, some bad reboots:

Star Trek
War of the Worlds
Dukes of Hazzard
Addams Family
and those are the first, cringe inducing ones that I can think of, though there's plenty more diarrhea inducing remakes I have not mentioned, and I feel Robocop's going to be the next.

Please tell me you aren't referring to the Addams Family movie that had the late, great, Raul Julia and introduced the world to both Christina Ricci and Mercedes McNab?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:27 am

bret_owen99 wrote:
The Castellan wrote:
bret_owen99 wrote:
Reboot usually equals Bad in my opinion. There have only been a few exceptions to the rule for me. Overall, the original, lower budget movies were and still are better than the newer Star filled, Big Budget blunders that Hollywood puts out.

I think the one I'm really surprised they haven't tried doing is a Rocky Horror Remake, and I even cringe at the thought.

Yes, some bad reboots:

Star Trek
War of the Worlds
Dukes of Hazzard
Addams Family
and those are the first, cringe inducing ones that I can think of, though there's plenty more diarrhea inducing remakes I have not mentioned, and I feel Robocop's going to be the next.

Please tell me you aren't referring to the Addams Family movie that had the late, great, Raul Julia and introduced the world to both Christina Ricci and Mercedes McNab?

That's the one, takes more than a few big name actors to be a good film.

It was waaaaaaaay too dark for the Addams Family, which, in essence, is a comedy. Changing the relations of the main characters: Gomez and Fester being brothers, the worst example. Also making Pugsly into an idiot, and taking the mystery out of Thing were also some never forgive action, there. Plus it was pretty much made into "The Uncle Fester Show!", both films.
To me, there's only one good Addams family, the black and white series from the early 1960's, nothing better than that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Calixar
RANK: Time Lord Commoner


Number of posts : 1216
Age : 48
Registration date : 2007-02-03

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:52 am

The change of Fester being Gomez' older brother first happened in the animated series, not the movie.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.mikaljohnson.com
bret_owen99
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2106
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-04-04

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:34 pm

We'll have to agree to disagree. I have a big book of Charles Adams work, and although it is funny, it is also incredibly dark even by today's standards. At the time I didn't really like the sequel, but I've come to appreciate it over the years.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:23 pm

I prefer the funny, 60's series best.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mattmanw54301
RANK: Time Lord Commoner


Number of posts : 1207
Age : 35
Registration date : 2007-09-09

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:24 am

I really enjoyed the Star Trek reboot.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:03 am

mattmanw54301 wrote:
I really enjoyed the Star Trek reboot.

To me, it was just Star Trek in title only, all I saw was another cheesy action popcorn flick with no substance. Give me "Devil in the Dark" "Where No One Has Gone Before" "The Motion Picture" "Time Squared" "Where Silence Has Lease" "Home Soil" "The Inner Light" "Masks" and the like any day. And if gratuitous action battles, stuff exploding, poorly made interior sets (why they used a poorly disguised brewery (looked bad in the original V as well) instead of the first artwork of engineering is beyond me), total retconing, and no shortage of lens flares, this is one Trek fan who's pretty much going to give up totally on modern, mainstream science fiction, since they are all just high budget action flicks now, it seems. I sure miss guys like Wise and Kubrick.


Though I also guess it's asking for too much for these studios to make something ~sarcastic gasp~ original for a change, rather than recycling stuff and giving mutations so inferior compared to the originals.

But alas, Robocop's going to be yet another victim of Hollywood laziness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
squishy
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2144
Registration date : 2008-07-16

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:35 pm

Not sure if there is anything sacred about Robocop. Cheap 80's action B-movie with no depth. How could a new movie mess up what is itself a bit of a mess? If somebody comes up with a good idea and does a proper Robocop movie then more power to them! afro
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CGren123
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2363
Age : 27
Registration date : 2009-12-23

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:20 pm

The Castellan wrote:
Star Trek

WHOA! The Star Trek reboot is bloody brilliant! The acting is spot on, the storyline is well written and exciting. The only thing I would change is the sheer amount of lense flair, but that's about it. JJ Abrams did a fantastic job!




Back to top Go down
View user profile
The 2nd Doctor Roberts
RANK: Time Lord Commoner


Number of posts : 1163
Registration date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:08 pm

I find the best thing I can say about the Abrams movie is that its existence does not offend me.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:31 pm

squishy wrote:
Not sure if there is anything sacred about Robocop. Cheap 80's action B-movie with no depth. How could a new movie mess up what is itself a bit of a mess? If somebody comes up with a good idea and does a proper Robocop movie then more power to them! afro
Considering it's done a great job mocking the corporate and consumerism of America, and not just in the 1980's, and that it's earned at last 3 stars, plus created probably some of the more believable characters than most films at the time, I think they all did good, especially considering the limited budget and technology they had to work with.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:47 pm

CGren123 wrote:
The Castellan wrote:
Star Trek

WHOA! The Star Trek reboot is bloody brilliant! The acting is spot on, the storyline is well written and exciting. The only thing I would change is the sheer amount of lense flair, but that's about it. JJ Abrams did a fantastic job!





I did not see anything Trek about, apart from name and the ugly, mutated enterprise.
I never recalled Kirk being some cocky, bad ass rebel without a clue (JJ Kirk is nothing but a caricature of silly fanboys who always picture Kirk with a phaser on one hand, a woman in the other, while stuff is exploding left and right, with the Enterprise flying overhead, guns blazing.) , nor did I recall Spock being a whiny emo (honestly, I can see him in the next story wearing all black and cutting himself while crying or something), Sulu was useless, and his cheesy one liner of fencing was neither funny, nor much of a nod to the classic. Along with a very forgettable villain, and a Starfleet that feels a lot more militant, and with no sense "Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before" that Trek needs to have again, I've seen absolutely nothing good about this one. This is something one would see in a Star Wars films or something. And given the fact that none of Abrams work in the past has impressed me, absolutely none, has me feel Abrams is overrated and that someone else needs to do Trek. And if Trek needs to survive, today, by just being another set of summer popcorn action films and abandon the whole notion of exploring the unknown, and just deal with more cookie cutter villains of the week, then pull the plug. Just watch, if they do a third, it's gonna feel more like Aliens.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CGren123
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2363
Age : 27
Registration date : 2009-12-23

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:17 pm

The Castellan wrote:
CGren123 wrote:
The Castellan wrote:
Star Trek

WHOA! The Star Trek reboot is bloody brilliant! The acting is spot on, the storyline is well written and exciting. The only thing I would change is the sheer amount of lense flair, but that's about it. JJ Abrams did a fantastic job!


I did not see anything Trek about, apart from name and the ugly, mutated enterprise.
I never recalled Kirk being some cocky, bad ass rebel without a clue (JJ Kirk is nothing but a caricature of silly fanboys who always picture Kirk with a phaser on one hand, a woman in the other, while stuff is exploding left and right, with the Enterprise flying overhead, guns blazing.) , nor did I recall Spock being a whiny emo (honestly, I can see him in the next story wearing all black and cutting himself while crying or something), Sulu was useless, and his cheesy one liner of fencing was neither funny, nor much of a nod to the classic. Along with a very forgettable villain, and a Starfleet that feels a lot more militant, and with no sense "Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before" that Trek needs to have again, I've seen absolutely nothing good about this one. This is something one would see in a Star Wars films or something. And given the fact that none of Abrams work in the past has impressed me, absolutely none, has me feel Abrams is overrated and that someone else needs to do Trek. And if Trek needs to survive, today, by just being another set of summer popcorn action films and abandon the whole notion of exploring the unknown, and just deal with more cookie cutter villains of the week, then pull the plug. Just watch, if they do a third, it's gonna feel more like Aliens.

The Enterprise was a piece of beauty! Yes it was different from the Enterprise we all know and love, but its called reimagining. Of course not everything was going to be exactly like the original Trek, since that was the whole point of the Movie, to bring Star Trek to a whole new group of fans. That was the whole point of the "very forgettable villain" or as the rest of us remember him, NERO, going back in Time to avenge what he preceived as the intentional destruction of his Home World.

And let's be honest here, Abrams Kirk is EXACTLY what Kirk was like. He was cocky and arrogant in The Original Series, he did have a phaser in one hand and a weapon in the other a lot of the time. It was only in the movies that he really mellowed out, because it was a time when the audience was more readily accepting of such things. As for accusing Spock of being a whiny Emo - erm he watched his mother plummet to her death and was helpless to stop it for the starter and then lost his home for the main. Of course he's going to have an emotional response to that, considering he hasn't achieved Kohlinar and purged his emotions!

Starfleet being militant? You seem to forget that it IS the defensive wing of the Untied Federation. Part of its very mandate is to be combat the threats that are out there, such as the Klingons, the Romulans and the Gorn, to name a few. The UFP has made enemies. It needs to be able to defend itself from attack.

The fact that none of JJ Abrams work has impressed you does not surprise me in the least. However, I disagree with you. I was thoroughly impressed with his take on Star Trek. I enjoy Fringe and was a fan of Alcatraz. Granted, I didn't watch LOST, but that was more to do with my unwillingness at the time to get into such a deep mythos.

The fact is that to draw in new fans, which a Franchise does need to do, he had to do an action style movie, and it worked.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
bret_owen99
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2106
Age : 40
Registration date : 2008-04-04

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:33 pm

I have to agree w the Castellan on this one. If you were a Trekker (not Trekkie), this film was a total piece of garbage. The character's were just cartoon versions of themselves, Kirk and Spock being the worst. Scotty, don't even get me started.

The whole "Time Travel" thing was such a crock (you go back in time, destroy the people who destroyed your world, before they did, you wouldn't exist to do such damage). Old Spock was just a ploy to get old fans in, a Mining Ship can take out all of Starfleet? I'm sorry, the movie was the Expendables, in Space.

As far as Robocop not being a classic, that too is an understatement. It spawned two sequels, a television series, a cartoon series, and made for TV Mini Series. The story doesn't need "updated" or "retold". I already saw Hollywood do that with A Nightmare on Elm Street, and they couldn't have ruined it more if they tried to.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Castellan
RANK: Celestial Intervention Agent


Number of posts : 3254
Registration date : 2010-06-11

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:10 pm

CGren123 wrote:
The Castellan wrote:
CGren123 wrote:
The Castellan wrote:
Star Trek

WHOA! The Star Trek reboot is bloody brilliant! The acting is spot on, the storyline is well written and exciting. The only thing I would change is the sheer amount of lense flair, but that's about it. JJ Abrams did a fantastic job!


I did not see anything Trek about, apart from name and the ugly, mutated enterprise.
I never recalled Kirk being some cocky, bad ass rebel without a clue (JJ Kirk is nothing but a caricature of silly fanboys who always picture Kirk with a phaser on one hand, a woman in the other, while stuff is exploding left and right, with the Enterprise flying overhead, guns blazing.) , nor did I recall Spock being a whiny emo (honestly, I can see him in the next story wearing all black and cutting himself while crying or something), Sulu was useless, and his cheesy one liner of fencing was neither funny, nor much of a nod to the classic. Along with a very forgettable villain, and a Starfleet that feels a lot more militant, and with no sense "Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before" that Trek needs to have again, I've seen absolutely nothing good about this one. This is something one would see in a Star Wars films or something. And given the fact that none of Abrams work in the past has impressed me, absolutely none, has me feel Abrams is overrated and that someone else needs to do Trek. And if Trek needs to survive, today, by just being another set of summer popcorn action films and abandon the whole notion of exploring the unknown, and just deal with more cookie cutter villains of the week, then pull the plug. Just watch, if they do a third, it's gonna feel more like Aliens.

The Enterprise was a piece of beauty! Yes it was different from the Enterprise we all know and love, but its called reimagining. Of course not everything was going to be exactly like the original Trek, since that was the whole point of the Movie, to bring Star Trek to a whole new group of fans. That was the whole point of the "very forgettable villain" or as the rest of us remember him, NERO, going back in Time to avenge what he preceived as the intentional destruction of his Home World.

And let's be honest here, Abrams Kirk is EXACTLY what Kirk was like. He was cocky and arrogant in The Original Series, he did have a phaser in one hand and a weapon in the other a lot of the time. It was only in the movies that he really mellowed out, because it was a time when the audience was more readily accepting of such things. As for accusing Spock of being a whiny Emo - erm he watched his mother plummet to her death and was helpless to stop it for the starter and then lost his home for the main. Of course he's going to have an emotional response to that, considering he hasn't achieved Kohlinar and purged his emotions!

Starfleet being militant? You seem to forget that it IS the defensive wing of the Untied Federation. Part of its very mandate is to be combat the threats that are out there, such as the Klingons, the Romulans and the Gorn, to name a few. The UFP has made enemies. It needs to be able to defend itself from attack.

The fact that none of JJ Abrams work has impressed you does not surprise me in the least. However, I disagree with you. I was thoroughly impressed with his take on Star Trek. I enjoy Fringe and was a fan of Alcatraz. Granted, I didn't watch LOST, but that was more to do with my unwillingness at the time to get into such a deep mythos.

The fact is that to draw in new fans, which a Franchise does need to do, he had to do an action style movie, and it worked.



Thanks, Bret! Nice to see I am not alone, here.

CGren, I can tell you're more of a casual fan, and not really seeing what Roddenberry was trying to tell us.

First the Enterprise in JJ's film was horrendous, inside and out. Outside, she was like a typical Hollywood Diva, ridiculously top heavy and they give her tail fins and the engines looked like hot rod rocket engines. Surprised I did not see someone put fuzzy dice or giant sub woofers on her. Inside....the bridge was so white and bright, you need sunglasses, really dark ones to see what's going on. And why all the fancy, shiny futuristic stuff, and yet engineering was a poorly disguised brewery? I mean I seen the art work for engineering that was proposed, which was not used, and it would have looked a lot better. With all the cinder block walls, concrete floors and giant pipes, looked nothing like something from Trek, I mean Archer's NX-01 looked more advanced than this. The engineering sets from TMP and TNG were much more elegant, and so forth.

Nero was nothing but a spoiled little ?&@*!!! who was a Khan wannabe, even using the same brain slugs. And like Bret said, a mining ship that manages to massacre an entire fleet of ships, gimme a break. Combined with the silly red matter, that mining ship was just a Death Star that mated with a squid.

Kirk was not like that at all in the original series. He was called things from "grim" to "stack of books on legs", and his class when he taught at Starfleet was described as "In Jim Kirk's class, you either think or sink". Plus he was often trying to follow the rules much as he could and often had to chastise everyone else he ran into. Only in the films did he start getting more rebellious, mainly due to Starfleet politics like with the whole Genesis issue, or the fact that Starfleet gave him and his crew a crappy ship after the whale incident, despite saving everyone's asses. Plus I am sure Kirk was a LOT more professional and classy with the whole Kobyashi test than JJ Kirk did, who seemed to only do it to "be cool" and acted like a jerk the entire time. JJ Kirk was an arrogant, cocky Han Solo wannabe, who instead of getting kicked out of Starfleet, they gave him a ship to command at an even younger age than the real Kirk, how more cartoony can one get? And Spock....good lord. He was not emotional when his dad was dying, he was not emotional when he thought he killed Jim, and his emotional burst when seeing he was alive and well was a lot more classy and calmer than this one was. Also, Spock getting close to murderous rage with Kirk on the bridge would tend to be rather sloppy and dangerous and since when did Starfleet have a policy to blast people out in pods onto hostile worlds? And did they run out of planks to walk on? And original Spock did not achieve Kolinar, nor did he purge his emotions, he just balanced them. And Scotty.....he's the Jar Jar Binks of Trek, now, and what the heck was the purpose of that little......goblin sidekick of his? Last thing Trek needs are Chwbaccas or Ewoks. And having old Spock was just a bait and switch at most. JJ said it would be an alternate time lime dividing from the point Nero showed up....no, it's a reboot, period. Just more bait and switch to get skeptical, long time fans who were anti-reboot, the entire thing looked like a whole new universe, so shame on you, naughty JJ, I think you been staring at one too many lens flares.

And Starfleet was responsible for the scientific, exploratory, diplomatic and defense of the Federation, it was not like our Army or Navy. JJ Trek's Starfleet felt more like a pure, military entity than anything else. We'll probably see them in black uniforms and carry large, storm trooper weaponry in the next film at this rate.

To attract new fans, use what the franchise focuses on, not what some overrated director thinks. If one has to totally change it to get new fans, than it's not the same thing. Many of us, including younger folks, actually do like cerebral, intelligent stories, not just pointless battles, explosions everywhere, and silicone double-D's flopping around every 30 seconds. Star Trek's supposed to be about getting better, a future to look forward to, the future depicted in JJ Trek is NOT a future I'd want to be in.


Yep, when Hollywood decides to remake anything, bring an extra bag of popcorn so you can THROW it at the screen.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CGren123
RANK: Time Lord Council Guard


Number of posts : 2363
Age : 27
Registration date : 2009-12-23

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm

bret_owen99 wrote:
I have to agree w the Castellan on this one. If you were a Trekker (not Trekkie), this film was a total piece of garbage. The character's were just cartoon versions of themselves, Kirk and Spock being the worst. Scotty, don't even get me started.

The whole "Time Travel" thing was such a crock (you go back in time, destroy the people who destroyed your world, before they did, you wouldn't exist to do such damage). Old Spock was just a ploy to get old fans in, a Mining Ship can take out all of Starfleet? I'm sorry, the movie was the Expendables, in Space.

Time Travel in Star Trek has always been fluid! More times than not, it just results in an Alternate Timeline! Take "The City on the Edge of Forever" - McCoy, hyped up on cordrazine, goes back in Time, stops Edith Keeler from dying and the entire Timeline changes around him, but McCoy still existed! "Fury" - an angry older Kes kills B'Elanna and goes back in Time to get her younger self and take her back to Ocampa. She's killed by the Janeway of that time period, but it creates a new alternate Timeline where Janeway, Tuvok and Kes are aware of this Future Kes and create a method to stop it.

"Future's End" - Captain Braxton comes back in Time and destroys Voyager because of an accident involving his VERY own ship which crashed into 1960s' Earth. Voyager was pulled back in Time and stopped Henry Starling from going into the future and CAUSING the accident, but did Time snap back into place? No because there was still a Captain Braxton who had spent 30 years on Earth and Voyager was in orbit about 20th Century Earth still!

On the flip side of the coin, again with a Voyager episode, Year of heck. Annorex wipes colonies and species from existence, creating Alternate Timeline after Alternate Timeline until Voyager rams his Temporal Weapon Ship and Time snaps back into place.

So it is ENTIRELY within the realms of possibility for a whole new reality to form based on the early destruction of the USS Kelvin! As for the Mining ship being able to do so much damage, it IS from the Future, and from a race of being who are paranoid enough to arm them so accordingly. Admittedly, the entire of Starfleet is a little bit of a stretch, but it is still somewhat possible.

And don't jump to conclusion. I am most definitely a Trekker as opposed to a Trekkie. I own EVERY single episode on DVD, including the Animated Series. I've read more Star Trek books than I can count. I collect the Playmate AND Diamond Select Toys line of figures and props. I own several costumes! I've even written several Star Trek Fanfics.

The Castellan wrote:
Thanks, Bret! Nice to see I am not alone, here.

CGren, I can tell you're more of a casual fan, and not really seeing what Roddenberry was trying to tell us.

First the Enterprise in JJ's film was horrendous, inside and out. Outside, she was like a typical Hollywood Diva, ridiculously top heavy and they give her tail fins and the engines looked like hot rod rocket engines. Surprised I did not see someone put fuzzy dice or giant sub woofers on her. Inside....the bridge was so white and bright, you need sunglasses, really dark ones to see what's going on. And why all the fancy, shiny futuristic stuff, and yet engineering was a poorly disguised brewery? I mean I seen the art work for engineering that was proposed, which was not used, and it would have looked a lot better. With all the cinder block walls, concrete floors and giant pipes, looked nothing like something from Trek, I mean Archer's NX-01 looked more advanced than this. The engineering sets from TMP and TNG were much more elegant, and so forth.

Nero was nothing but a spoiled little ?&@*!!! who was a Khan wannabe, even using the same brain slugs. And like Bret said, a mining ship that manages to massacre an entire fleet of ships, gimme a break. Combined with the silly red matter, that mining ship was just a Death Star that mated with a squid.

Kirk was not like that at all in the original series. He was called things from "grim" to "stack of books on legs", and his class when he taught at Starfleet was described as "In Jim Kirk's class, you either think or sink". Plus he was often trying to follow the rules much as he could and often had to chastise everyone else he ran into. Only in the films did he start getting more rebellious, mainly due to Starfleet politics like with the whole Genesis issue, or the fact that Starfleet gave him and his crew a crappy ship after the whale incident, despite saving everyone's asses. Plus I am sure Kirk was a LOT more professional and classy with the whole Kobyashi test than JJ Kirk did, who seemed to only do it to "be cool" and acted like a jerk the entire time. JJ Kirk was an arrogant, cocky Han Solo wannabe, who instead of getting kicked out of Starfleet, they gave him a ship to command at an even younger age than the real Kirk, how more cartoony can one get? And Spock....good lord. He was not emotional when his dad was dying, he was not emotional when he thought he killed Jim, and his emotional burst when seeing he was alive and well was a lot more classy and calmer than this one was. Also, Spock getting close to murderous rage with Kirk on the bridge would tend to be rather sloppy and dangerous and since when did Starfleet have a policy to blast people out in pods onto hostile worlds? And did they run out of planks to walk on? And original Spock did not achieve Kolinar, nor did he purge his emotions, he just balanced them. And Scotty.....he's the Jar Jar Binks of Trek, now, and what the heck was the purpose of that little......goblin sidekick of his? Last thing Trek needs are Chwbaccas or Ewoks. And having old Spock was just a bait and switch at most. JJ said it would be an alternate time lime dividing from the point Nero showed up....no, it's a reboot, period. Just more bait and switch to get skeptical, long time fans who were anti-reboot, the entire thing looked like a whole new universe, so shame on you, naughty JJ, I think you been staring at one too many lens flares.

And Starfleet was responsible for the scientific, exploratory, diplomatic and defense of the Federation, it was not like our Army or Navy. JJ Trek's Starfleet felt more like a pure, military entity than anything else. We'll probably see them in black uniforms and carry large, storm trooper weaponry in the next film at this rate.

To attract new fans, use what the franchise focuses on, not what some overrated director thinks. If one has to totally change it to get new fans, than it's not the same thing. Many of us, including younger folks, actually do like cerebral, intelligent stories, not just pointless battles, explosions everywhere, and silicone double-D's flopping around every 30 seconds. Star Trek's supposed to be about getting better, a future to look forward to, the future depicted in JJ Trek is NOT a future I'd want to be in.


Yep, when Hollywood decides to remake anything, bring an extra bag of popcorn so you can THROW it at the screen.

As I've already stated in this post, I am NOT just a casual fan of Star Trek, Castellan. I practically breath Star Trek. I am fully aware that Gene Roddenberry wasn't just making another sci fi show with cardboard walls and dodgy aliens. He was talking about a better future for us all, where we talk out our differences instead of jumping straight to War. THAT is the primary ideal Star Trek sets forth.

As for the Enterprise, I think we're going have to agree to disagree on that subject. I do agree with you about the Engineering Section and hope that it is changed for the sequel. HOWEVER, I stand by what I have already said about the rest of the ship. Like everything else in the film, it was a reimagining of the Star Trek franchise. I've already mentioned my distaste for the lense flair, but the rest of the bridge was a work of art! I felt it kept true to the original bridge while still being different enough to be called reimagined. It's like the Galactica in the original series compared to Ronald D Moore's remake (which I'm betting you didn't like.)

Nero was far from a Khan wannabe! While he wasn't the strongest villain of the films (that honour belongs to 'God' from The Final Frontier), he was still a true and present threat. He was avenging the destruction of his home world by destroying those he felt had allowed it to happen. Also, a TRUE Trek Fan would know that Khan used Ceti Alpha Eels, whereas Nero used Centaurian slugs. The writers of the films confirmed it was a DELIBERATE homage (you know - something that fans would like, like I did).

Oh come off it! Kirk was every bit the cocky, arrogant character he was! He regularly gambled with the safety of the Enterprise, threatening to use the 'Corbomite Defence' TWICE! You cannot say one way or another how Prime Kirk reacted to the Kobayashi Maru test since his test was NEVER shown on screen. Having said that, I have no problem imagining William Shatner doing exactly the same thing! There are countless examples of him using that same cockyness, arrogance and in some cases, BLIND LUCK to defeat his opponents, and yes, there are just as many where he outsmarted them. I am well aware of that, since I have seen EVERY episode of Star Trek multiple times! As for your assertations that the Enterprise-A was a crappy ship, you are incorrect. It was simply incomplete when it was given to Kirk, hence why it was STILL IN THE DRYDOCK!

Starfleet Command had to do punish Kirk in some way after the Genesis Incident! Considering that he stole a Starship, went to an illegal sector of space in said stolen ship, destroyed that ship, imprisoned loyal members of Starfleet, condoned the sabotage of another starship, destroyed the same stolen ship and stole the ship of an alien race with whom peace was being negotiated all on a HUNCH (because McCoy could've just been crazy after all) If he had returned to Earth and there had been NO Whale Incident, every last one of them would've ended up stripped of their ranks and in a Federation Penal Colony (except Spock)!

As for Spock, I've already pointed out the reasons he reacted the way he did. If you choose to ignore those facts, that's not my problem. As for throwing people into escape pods, Spock was the captain. He had the option to remove Kirk from his ship or to place him into the brig if he had so choosen. He simply choose the more extreme action DUE to his emotional distress. It was clearly pointed out in the film!

As for Abrams Starfleet feeling more like a military, what are you basing that on? The lack of scientists onaboard? Perhaps the fact that the Enterprise was rushed into commission (a fact Captain Pike pointed out himself) to help defend Vulcan and then spent the rest of the film trying to defeat this great and terrible threat had something to do with it? Considering the fact they were engaging a hostile, I am not surprised that there was more of a military feel at the time. Look at Voyager and Deep Space Nine. During the countless times they were engaged in combat, you could argue that there was nothing scientific about them. Captain Janeway was an able scientist, yet she was leading the charge with clear military training and tactics. The same with all the other captains.

Believe it or not, I am in agreement with you about cerebral, intelligent stories. However, as Star Trek has shown, those are not the sole stories they produce. Look at Wrath of Khan, the best of the Star Trek films. One could argue that it was nothing but 'pointless battles and explosions everywhere'. When you think about it, The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek aren't all that different. One Man on an insane quest to avenge something, and Kirk and Co having to stop it.

As for your personal views on the future, that is your business. I have no particular preference either way.

I'll admit, when ANY film company decides to remake something, it can be a bit hit & miss, but I would rather wait and see for myself and form my own opinions rather than just assuming.

After all, you know what they say about people who assume? Wink

However, I refuse to argue anymore with you, since this is all a matter of opinion, and one's opnion can never be wrong. They can change over time, but you should always let them make that decision, rather than state your own as fact and expect everyone else to fall in line. There will always be haters and lovers of any particular thing. As for JJ Abrams doing Star Trek, I liked it and I look forward to seeing the Sequel.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
mattmanw54301
RANK: Time Lord Commoner


Number of posts : 1207
Age : 35
Registration date : 2007-09-09

PostSubject: Re: No....just no.   Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:29 pm

I also say that as a fan of Trek for over 20 years, the new Trek was really good. Just because someone has a different view, doesn't make them a 'casual' fan, or that they just don't 'get it'. I would submit that the changes you are talking about, rather than starting with JJ, started over 20 years ago when Gene died. DS9, with the Dominion War, took on a 'military' story over pure exploration, and turned out to be the best Trek show of them all.

JJ's Trek compares well IMO to Wrath of Khan and First Contact, both of which were about stopping villains, rather than 'boldly going'. And Kirk WOULD be different than in the original series, as his natural cockiness was not put in check by having a strong father figure. The characters are supposed to be different.

Lens flares aside, I thought the spirit of Trek as a whole was represented well. Not just the spirit of TOS, but of the whole franchise. The fact is, there has been ALOT of great Trek based around militaristic storylines, rather than pure exploration. The Trek universe is very big, and there is room for alot of different storylines.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
No....just no.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Who North America Forum :: Life, the Universe and Everything :: Sci Fi Discussion-
Jump to: