StarDestroyer.Net BBS

From TrekMovie

So, here we go again. Best of luck to Abrams and crew.

I'm really curious how the 12th film is going to turn out (though somehow I doubt that the predictions by The Simpsons back in '92 will be spot-on. )

JME2 wrote:From TrekMovie

So, here we go again. Best of luck to Abrams and crew.

I'm really curious how the 12th film is going to turn out (though somehow I doubt that the predictions by The Simpsons back in '92 will be spot-on. )

Fuuuuck, took 'em long enough O.o . I'm used to sequels being crapped out in 1-2 years, not four.
(Throws strop).

Chimaera wrote:

JME2 wrote:From TrekMovie

So, here we go again. Best of luck to Abrams and crew.

I'm really curious how the 12th film is going to turn out (though somehow I doubt that the predictions by The Simpsons back in '92 will be spot-on. )

Fuuuuck, took 'em long enough O.o . I'm used to sequels being crapped out in 1-2 years, not four.
(Throws strop).

Paramount originally wanted the release for May of 2012. The production got delayed for next May die to multiple factors (Abrams' other projects and uncertainty about returning, Orci and Kurtzman's difficulty in breaking the story).

Personally, I'm glad there's such a large gap of time. It'll build up anticipation to see Star Trek again -- something that wasn't possible a decade ago due to the over-saturation of the market.

JME2 wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

JME2 wrote:From TrekMovie

So, here we go again. Best of luck to Abrams and crew.

I'm really curious how the 12th film is going to turn out (though somehow I doubt that the predictions by The Simpsons back in '92 will be spot-on. )

Fuuuuck, took 'em long enough O.o . I'm used to sequels being crapped out in 1-2 years, not four.
(Throws strop).

Paramount originally wanted the release for May of 2012. The production got delayed for next May die to multiple factors (Abrams' other projects and uncertainty about returning, Orci and Kurtzman's difficulty in breaking the story).

Personally, I'm glad there's such a large gap of time. It'll build up anticipation to see Star Trek again -- something that wasn't possible a decade ago due to the over-saturation of the market.

I suppose it's happened with Trek films before. Insurrection and Nemesis were seperated by a four-year gap. Mind you, that was in the period of time when the franchise was coughing up blood, so it's not exactly comparable.

JME2 wrote:From TrekMovie

So, here we go again. Best of luck to Abrams and crew.

I'm really curious how the 12th film is going to turn out (though somehow I doubt that the predictions by The Simpsons back in '92 will be spot-on. )

There is a small part of my brain that thinks it would be funny for the new film to reference that "prediction."

JME2 wrote:Personally, I'm glad there's such a large gap of time. It'll build up anticipation to see Star Trek again -- something that wasn't possible a decade ago due to the over-saturation of the market.

These guys aren't getting any younger. This isn't a TV show, so if you want a series of films with the same dudes, they can't wait four years each time between installments. I imagine they're already thinking about a third film.

neoolong wrote:

JME2 wrote:Personally, I'm glad there's such a large gap of time. It'll build up anticipation to see Star Trek again -- something that wasn't possible a decade ago due to the over-saturation of the market.

These guys aren't getting any younger. This isn't a TV show, so if you want a series of films with the same dudes, they can't wait four years each time between installments. I imagine they're already thinking about a third film.

Fair point.

neoolong wrote:

JME2 wrote:Personally, I'm glad there's such a large gap of time. It'll build up anticipation to see Star Trek again -- something that wasn't possible a decade ago due to the over-saturation of the market.

These guys aren't getting any younger. This isn't a TV show, so if you want a series of films with the same dudes, they can't wait four years each time between installments. I imagine they're already thinking about a third film.

No man, it's cool. We get three or four movies out of the cast, and then they get replaced when we reboot the series and tell the origin story again. Then we do another three or four movies and do it again!

Ugh don't scare me uraniun

I'm still hoping for a tv series out of this reboot, even if it's a different crew/ship/concept. I think Trek works best as a one-hour weekly tv show rather than as a two-hour film you wait three-four years for.

Stofsk wrote:Ugh don't scare me uraniun

I'm still hoping for a tv series out of this reboot, even if it's a different crew/ship/concept.

I've been expecting Paramount to go the SG-1 route once they've decided the TOS-A films have run their course.

I think Trek works best as a one-hour weekly tv show rather than as a two-hour film you wait three-four years for.

Absolutely.

The problem, again, is over saturation. Despite its early flaws and the challenge of equaling a cult hit, TNG had the benefit of there not having been Trek on television for 18 years. Despite the movies, people were hungry for more adventures.

By the time ENT petered out, Paramount shot themselves in the foot by flooding the market with back-to-back episodes during the '90's -- and this is without getting into Berman's idiotic stewardship.

There has to be a long enough delay. Trek coming back to television needs to have meaning and significance, to build an new audience that wants to see it back on the small-screen.

Anyway, that's just my thought.

I wonder if they're going to add in a subplot or have the movie include a short sequence with Kirk interacting with another captain who'll get spun off into a TV series.

Probably not though.

Stofsk wrote:Ugh don't scare me uraniun

I'm still hoping for a tv series out of this reboot, even if it's a different crew/ship/concept. I think Trek works best as a one-hour weekly tv show rather than as a two-hour film you wait three-four years for.

Personally i would love a series based on Kirks dad and his adventures aboard the Kelvin(God i love that ship) - would also be rather fun to see a ST series centered around somebody who isn't the captain.

I don;t know about that. The best of TNG and DS9 was when the commander/captain had to make hard decisions. Miles O'brian was one of my favorite characters, but a series that focused on him would be lacking.

What I think the series need is a Captain and a first officer who are antagonistic. Still have them act professorially, but have radically different view points.

spaceviking wrote:I don;t know about that. The best of TNG and DS9 was when the commander/captain had to make hard decisions. Miles O'brian was one of my favorite characters, but a series that focused on him would be lacking.

What I think the series need is a Captain and a first officer who are antagonistic. Still have them act professorially, but have radically different view points.

I'm not so sure that'd work either. While antagonism helps, making them opposed to everything is a recipe for trouble. Perhaps if the two came from radically different backgrounds... say the Captain was more of a diplomat and the first officer more of a militarist. They'd both see the goals, but the Captain would want the XO to handle things politely, while also being taught that not every solution can be solved with words.

Actually the military versus diplomat was exactly what I was thinking.

I could get behind that, if they did it right. Too often, Trek seems to fall back on the idea that you can't have a legitimate disagreement unless at least one party is an asshole.

Grumman wrote:I could get behind that, if they did it right. Too often, Trek seems to fall back on the idea that you can't have a legitimate disagreement unless at least one party is an asshole.

That's usually because they think the only way to support sympathy for the right party is to make you hate the side you're against. If they balanced it, made it where both were right, it would make it interesting to see.

The funny thing about that is in TOS they had disagreements all the time. Kirk could snap, Bones and Spock would bicker, sometimes Scotty would get a bit riled up and so on. But the important thing was that the Enterprise was a happy ship and the crew were all friends and everything, so even if they argued they'd say they were sorrreee afterwards.

TNG kept this but deflated it, it was less argumentative even if they had disagreements. DS9 brought back the arguments to a small degree. I think it was Voyager where they basically said 'yeah Janeway is always right and anyone who disagrees is an asshole'.

I don't mind how TOS and TNG did it. If they emulate that, it would be great.

neoolong wrote: These guys aren't getting any younger.

Hey if they can make Jeff Bridges look sorta kinda younger in that Tron film, we can keep the new Kirk pine fresh for decades.

Stofsk wrote:I think it was Voyager where they basically said 'yeah Janeway is always right and anyone who disagrees is an asshole'.

Which always drives me crazy given conflict between the Starfleet and Maquis crews was supposed to be one of the foundations of the series. And now that we know they never intended to follow-up on that premise...well, there's nothing that can be done about it.

I don't mind how TOS and TNG did it. If they emulate that, it would be great.

Likewise.