Page 3 of 3

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 04 May 2009, 21:19
by Genghis Ares
Except they would never do a movie about DS9 unless it could standalone fairly well. They couldn't really do it about specific plot from the series too much or else they would alienate people who don't know the full story that well or not at all. They would most likely want to keep the story new and fresh, just centered around DS9 and its characters. I don't really see that happening though.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 04 May 2009, 22:37
by Cade Antilles
For the "it would've been awesome if" files: If they'd built up DS9 to a series finale cliff-hanger, then finished it off with a theatrical film, that would have been awesome! That way, they could've used a feature film budget for a Dominion War finale! Uh-uh-oooh! Nerdgasm!

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 05 May 2009, 05:11
by Hakaryu
Thats what I wish they had done with Voyager. I always thought Endgame was abit of a let down.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 05 May 2009, 05:52
by Telaril
Voyager lost me when they could not decide on or be consistent with a narrative for 7of9. Is she steadily getting more human? Was she getting more human 'til she hit a wall? Getting more human 'til she hit a wall and then backsliding? Getting more human while backsliding at occasional points? NONE of those patterns actually fit her behavior. She simply had a level of humanity and level of borg-ness convenient to whatever plot with absolutely no explanation of the variation between the different levels.

It was infuriating.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 06 May 2009, 11:31
by The R
The trailer for this new one kinda has me... well,concerned.

Kirk seems to come off less of a Bold & Charming character that the Kirk we know and comes off more of an arrogant 4-popped-collar-type douchebag. Im almost imagining in the scene where he first meets Uhura for him to talk about his new haircut and tells the bartender to get some "fukin jagerbombs!". I know I kid. Yeah he is younger, but it so far doesn't seem to fit.

Second thing is the action sequences, im hoping are not using stupid camerawork that goes all over the damn place so you can't appreciate the amazing visual FX. As much as I liked the new Battlestar, I could not STAND the "Lets give the handicam to the spastic 10year old who cant top fiddling with the zoom to film our wedding" style camerawork in all of the space battles.

Thats my only 2 concerns so far, and I hope the movie itself is far better than the impression the trailers ive seen. I know before in the past I actually refused to see Fight Club after seeing the first trailers and it wasnt till 2 years later I saw it and was like "holy shit, that was totally different, that was awesome".

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 06 May 2009, 12:03
by Metcarfre
96% on Rotten Tomatoes. I am very excited for this movie.

In reply to Raymond; I agree, in many of the preview scenes Kirk comes off as a class "A" douchebag. It's that one line from Bruce Greenwood that gives me shivers though; "Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives. I'd like to see you do better". My hope is that, initially, Kirk is as you say, but as the movie (and maybe movie series or TV series) goes on, there is - gasp - character development, and we see that d-baggery converted into the confident swagger of the Kirk we know and love.

I'm not a trekkie - but damn if this movie doesn't make you want to be.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 06 May 2009, 13:40
by Sable
metcarfre wrote:96% on Rotten Tomatoes. I am very excited for this movie.

In reply to Raymond; I agree, in many of the preview scenes Kirk comes off as a class "A" douchebag. It's that one line from Bruce Greenwood that gives me shivers though; "Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives. I'd like to see you do better". My hope is that, initially, Kirk is as you say, but as the movie (and maybe movie series or TV series) goes on, there is - gasp - character development, and we see that d-baggery converted into the confident swagger of the Kirk we know and love.

I'm not a trekkie - but damn if this movie doesn't make you want to be.



Image

Lifelong Trekkie representing here.

But that picture? Completely accurate.

Complaining that Kirk seems like a pompous ass is sort of missing the point that Kirk is kind of a pompous ass. He's a good ass, though.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 06 May 2009, 15:41
by Graham
Yeah, Kirk always was a little strong-headed, and this movie deals (presumably) with his transformation from bar-fight douchebag into a captain.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 06 May 2009, 15:53
by Master Gunner
A Captain who's still a bit of a douchebag and has being known to get into the odd bar-fight. But a captain nonetheless.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 06 May 2009, 22:20
by Metcarfre
What good's a captain who can't get into a bar fight?

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 01:55
by Citin
metcarfre wrote:What good's a captain who can't win a bar fight?


I think that's what you mean, and that's Kirk baby.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 07:42
by Metcarfre
I seem to recall Picard being stabbed in the heart during a bar fight (and thereby losing), so I guess we know where you come down on that particular issue.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 12:01
by Master Gunner
Ah, but he went down laughing, survived, oh, and he wasn't a Captain at that point, just a Lieutenant. If he had gone up against those Nausicans as a Captain, he would have clearly won. In fact, he probably could have won when he had that second chance, but he was just doing the whole "maintaining the timeline" thing.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 12:36
by Alja-Markir
I do love how Picard, an aging fellow with no real history of combat or signs of physical strength, can outfight Klingons whose entire culture centers around battle and training for it.

~Alja~

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 13:08
by Matt
Master Gunner wrote:Ah, but he went down laughing, survived, oh, and he wasn't a Captain at that point, just a Lieutenant. If he had gone up against those Nausicans as a Captain, he would have clearly won. In fact, he probably could have won when he had that second chance, but he was just doing the whole "maintaining the timeline" thing.


What you're missing though, is that it was only by losing that fight that he came to be the man that became a captain. It was that moment in history that dictated his leadership style, his understanding of risk and consequence. If not for the loss of that fight, he'd never have been a captain.

-m

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 13:27
by Hakaryu
T Minus about an hour and a half till epicness.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 13:30
by Master Gunner
Well that too. My point was that him losing the fight did not take away from his being a Captain (and, in fact, strengthened his Captain...ness), due to him not being a captain when it happened.

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 16:27
by Cade Antilles
Well, I'll be off to stand in line for a kickass seat in just a few minutes!

Re: Star Trek

Posted: 07 May 2009, 17:22
by AmazingPjotrMan
I enjoyed that movie very much.