New Star Trek movie

[Steamforger]

I saw the trailer today waiting for the Watchmen to start. Gave me goosebumps.

At the local nursery/small grocery/beer warehouse (I sooo wish I was making that up) I saw some Romulan Ale. No real info on the pack or bottles other than I'm pretty sure it's brewed in Guatemala. And yes, it appears to be blue. Picked up a sixer of Hopslam. Bell's brewery will probably be the number one thing I miss about this place after this next year.

[Rod]

Okay, been on the web looking at some clips and info about the new movie. Here's what I've found (not saying this is exact, just what's inferred from viewings):

1. Kirk and Uhuru meet at Star Fleet Academy and he beds her. Didn't happen in the Star Trek world. They first met when she was assigned to the Enterprise.

2. Kirk and Bones meet on a Star Fleet shuttle, Bones is a hypochondriac and talking about all the ways space could kill you Bones, like Uhuru, met Kirk when he first boarded the Enterprise. The only thing about space travel that bothered him was the transporter.

3. It looks like Kirk gets assigned to the Enterprise right out of Star Fleet Academy and takes command of it during it's maiden cruise. Kirk was on board two other ships, at least, before gaining command of the Enterprise.

J.J. Abrams has already said he was never a fan of Star Trek so his treatment is going to be skewed. Star Trek 11 (yep, the odd number curse strikes), has Kirk catting around onscreen, lots of CGI battles, many mistakes in the mythos, and a lack of concern for anyone who cares.

This one may be a no go at the theater as I don't want to waste my money on a stinker.

Links to some of the cuts:
Here,
here,
and here

[Scott Free]

+1

If they're not going to be faithful to the original series, then why are they re-making it? Why don't they just make a new movie series about Starfleet, like Voyager was a completely new TV series based upon Starfleet and the Federation? If they're going to change the characters from what they were to what they're not, what's the point?

What this demonstrates is the utter lack of creativity in the arts and the overt destruction of cultural values by the Hollywood elites. Original thought translated into an original screenplay? How quaint. And what a novel -- if completely outmoded -- idea.

But why on Earth (no pun intended) would Hollywood want to -- you know -- be creative? Where's the money in that? Star Trek is an established money-making movie name, so why not capitalize on it? Let's do to Hollywood what we've done to the American car industry: only play for the economic "short term" -- i.e., show me the money -- and to hell with a quality product. Why nurture the series with care and originality? To hell with that! Cash in now and make the bucks! Hollywood knows (or at least has convinced themselves) that all they need to do is to make the movie crammed full of "gee whiz" CGI effects and the Trekkie-bots will flock to the theater. It worked with Star Wars, you know.

The plot? Screw the plot! It doesn't matter. Characterization? Screw it; it doesn't matter? Moral lessons and heroics? Heroism is dead, don't you know? Hollywood killed it in the '70s. As far as "morality" goes -- all you have to know is Hollywood's version of morality. All the better for Hollywood to subtly (and not-so-subtly) turn the minds of America away from traditional American values: heroism, honesty, integrity and courage. No, no, no. Hollywood figures that the future audience (re: younger folks) don't respond to those values. Rather, the film should emphasize: unjustified angst, mindless and "extreme" thrill-seeking, suspicion of "authority", rebellion for the sake of rebellion, an unbelievable number of "second chances", and above all, ATTITUDE, baby! What a perfect characterization of the positive qualities that you should seek out in a starship captain! God knows that you can't have a modern American "hero" without these contemporary qualities. Just ask Vin Diesel.

And you wonder why the youngsters are the way that they are?

I've already complained that it appears that Kirk gets command of Enterprise waaaaay too early in his Starfleet career in this movie and it is prime example of not just pi**ing on the mythos but a complete disregard of common sense. Fact, like it or not: no one -- no man or woman -- going to get permanent command of a U.S. battleship or an aircraft carrier in the 21st Century. Why would anyone think that this wouldn't be the case in the ST Universe? Star Trek was founded on the notions of the characters being believable and the elements of the story being scientifically plausible. Pardon me, but where's either in this case?

I'd wager that they're planning on more installments of the movie. Here's an original idea: why not introduce the characters and follow them as they progress in their careers, intertwining them as they go along -- then, in a couple of movies worth of character development, put them onboard Enterprise? But, hey, we are talking about an industry that took something as magnificently heroic as what the U.S. soldiers did at the Normandy landings then sh*t all over it in Saving Private Ryan. How can one turn such an incredible feat accomplished by a bunch of genuine American heroes into a moral septic tank?

It's easy when Hollywood's involved.

[Dub_James]

Don't worry, there's still Transformers

[Kommander]

What was your problem with Saving Private Ryan? Looked OK to me.

[308Mike]

Merged.

[mekender]

1. Kirk and Uhuru meet at Star Fleet Academy and he beds her. Didn't happen in the Star Trek world. They first met when she was assigned to the Enterprise.

I cant find any mention in the canon of where they actually met.

2. Kirk and Bones meet on a Star Fleet shuttle, Bones is a hypochondriac and talking about all the ways space could kill you Bones, like Uhuru, met Kirk when he first boarded the Enterprise. The only thing about space travel that bothered him was the transporter.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Leonard_McCoy

McCoy's friendship with Kirk dated back well before Kirk took command of the Enterprise, and he often served as a sounding board and voice of conscience for the young captain.

He also distrusted other highly technological devices, especially the transporter.

3. It looks like Kirk gets assigned to the Enterprise right out of Star Fleet Academy and takes command of it during it's maiden cruise. Kirk was on board two other ships, at least, before gaining command of the Enterprise.

so far, there really hasnt been much released about how the progression works in this new movie, most of the film is under tight wraps... the rumors i have heard say that there is time travel involved... if that is the case, then we could be dealing with alternate time lines or realities... which is pretty common in the star trek universe...

knowing what i do about the behind the scenes talks that people like Ronald Moore and the others that were so adamant about keeping faithful to canon throughout all the series and movies... there is no way that Abrams had the leeway to completely break canon...

Orci has revealed that the film takes place within an alternate timeline. He stated that any canon changes made in this timeline will not affect the former timeline, arguing that the scientific theory of quantum mechanics permits the existence of parallel timelines and parallel universes. He also believes that this theory allows for the continuance of a timeline even after a change is affected and an alternate timeline is created. In addition, he argues that, although the timeline has changed, the true nature of the characters does not change and that Kirk and company are the same people they are in the original timeline.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orc ... l-science/

meh, either way... I will be seeing this one in the theater