Star Trek cast

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:49 am

The new star trek cast is up, the film, set as one of the first adventures for captain kirs crew, features a new cast (thankfully) instead of the old crew reprising thier old roles.

Zachary Quinto, of Heroes fame is supposedly taking up Dr Spocks role, wicked!

more here:

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/827/827455p1.html

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:02 am

I have high hopes

Nemesis was a pretty poor note to bow out on imo.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:45 am

I've no idea if this will work or not. While Sylar chap seems perfect, and Pegg wuill be fun, can anyone convincingly do a young Kirk/Shat? We shall see.

Star Trek needs a shot in the arm tho - perhaps this will do it.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:58 am

Abrams!
Kurtzman & Orci!
Pegg!

... erm... it's Mission Impossible III, isn't it?

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:11 am

spiderfrommars wrote:I've no idea if this will work or not. While Sylar chap seems perfect, and Pegg wuill be fun, can anyone convincingly do a young Kirk/Shat? We shall see.

Star Trek needs a shot in the arm tho - perhaps this will do it.

To be frank, having been watching the original Trek series, any interpretation of Kirk that gives him some depth of character and some form of spectrum of emotion other than smug and self-righteous can only be a good thing! He mellows a lot in the movies tho.

I was trying to work out what's wrong with Enterprise the other day. On the face of it, it's not bad. It's got all the right bits but it's just so 'meh'. I think Trek has become very cookie-cutter recently, like Paramount have invented a big machine where you just feed actors in at one end and a new Star Trek series emerges at the other.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:25 am

yeah, i agree - i'm not a massive Trek fan anyway but each new franchise essentialy seems to be same stories with different ship and different people - there's no real ambition to any of it.

Enterprise was certainly not a quantum leap in story telling.

ha ha!

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:37 am

I think even 'different people' might be overgenerous... the same character types seem to crop up rather a lot...

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:52 am

I think the orginal series was great, for its time, in that it did take ppl on a journey to new places.

STNG was great in the sense it brought the concept forward, introduced great SFX for a TV series, and also covered alot of controversial subjects at the time, much like the original.

Everything past that is a spin on the STNG formula, and was hard to penertrate as they had huge rolling plots that the fans liked but your casual viewer couldnt get into.

Not sure where u go from there, much of ST universe had all of thier stories tied up by the end of Voyager. Yes they went back with enterprise but most of that just borked the timeline and upset people.

ST used to boldy go to new worlds, with interesting moral story lines but i think they covered it all to be honest.

Dead franchise?

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:55 am

Could be. After god knows how many hundreds of eps I think they might just have spun out all their possibilities. It's very hard to do anything without either repeating what you've done or treading on existing canon material.

Could always nuke the lot and start again, ala Crisis on Infinite Earths? It's about the only option left if their prequels idea fails again.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:10 pm

Did anyone see the rereleases of the original series with new effects added?

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:19 pm

Problem is, rebooting the franchise would probably just speed up it's death.

A new continuity made today with too much creative freedom would split the fanbase or upset a giant percentage, scaring people away from touching the franchise. Too little freedom would lead to a carbon copy of the old series, failing to draw in an audience. The only chance at saving Star Trek would be to find the middle ground, which would be hard to do.

I think Star Trek's boned.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:32 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:Did anyone see the rereleases of the original series with new effects added?

No, did they do loads of new CGI ? that would be cool.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:02 pm

That's what I heard. I wanna see 'em.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:22 pm

Hot Shot's bang on the money. A big budget reboot film would kill the entire thing dead.

I mean just look at what happened to Transformers.

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
spiderfrommars wrote:Did anyone see the rereleases of the original series with new effects added?
No, did they do loads of new CGI ? that would be cool.

Worked for Red Dwarf, after all.

rusty_herring · Post by **rusty_herring** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:41 pm

Hot Shot's bang on the money. A big budget reboot film would kill the entire thing dead.

I mean just look at what happened to Transformers.

Are we dead!? *panics*

A new look to the original characters I think would be really cool. Since it's impossible to get the original actors to return (several are dead, the rest are too old to be the 'new' crew they once were) then I think the majority of fans will have no problem seeing some new faces taking up their beloved characters.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:45 pm

I wouldn't like to predict the reaction of Trekkies to anything. Most of them are insane.

rusty_herring · Post by **rusty_herring** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:07 pm

I wouldn't like to predict the reaction of Trekkies to anything. Most of them are insane.

touché. Do you think they're even crazier than Transfans?

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:09 pm

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:29 pm

Brendocon wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
spiderfrommars wrote:Did anyone see the rereleases of the original series with new effects added?
No, did they do loads of new CGI ? that would be cool.
Worked for Red Dwarf, after all.

From what i've seen *cough*torrent*cough* of Star Trek : Remastered (as i believe they're calling it), it's a hell of a lot less intrusive than how they butchered Red Dwarf. I've only seen a handful of episodes, but it seems that, apart from sharpening up the actual picture, they've added CGI replacing the old model shots etc.

Comparison Clicky

Now, if they do this with TNG... i'll be excited!

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:38 pm

plus youtubeage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EDTrLjs ... ed&search=

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:13 am

I have to disagree with the point that everything past ST:TNG was a spin off of that formula. DS9 was actually a spin off of the Babylon 5 formula. Or at least the last several seasons of it was.

One of the big problems for Star Treak, IMO, is the Federation. No one likes Utopianesque socieites where all of civilization's problems have been fixed long ago and everything is fine now. If we're making a 1960s sci-fi show where Klingons are allegories for Russians? Sure, THEN its fine. If we're in the Clinton 90s, where we survived the Cold War, elected a Democrat, had stocks shoot through the roof, and invented the Internet, SURE we can fantasize about our perfect futures, where nation states are obsolete and limitless food is materialized.

But now, the Federation as a plot device just doesn't resonate with people. I submit to you recent popular sci fi from Firefly to BSG, where humanity has done everything but solve all its problems, and the world is much too complicated to be boiled down to Prime Directives.

As a civilization, starting near the beginning of the 20th Century, we've gone from, "Wow, won't the future be awesome?" to "Wait, what if the future WASN'T awesome?" to, "I seriously doubt our ability to be awesome in the future," to, "If you think things are going to be BETTER in the future, you must be crazy." You can be AI, I, Robot, Minority Report, Children of Men, V for Vendetta, etc. etc. etc. Dystopia is in, and that's just not something the Federation does.

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:20 am

Brendocon wrote:Hot Shot's bang on the money. A big budget reboot film would kill the entire thing dead.

I mean just look at what happened to Transformers.

Transformers has always had alternate continuities. Star Trek has always had one. That's the vital difference.

TFs have around 10+ continuities, so a reboot is nothing new. But with Trek, a reboot would be a shock. It would cause a bigger uproar for that reason alone, not to mention the Trek fanbase is a lot larger than the TF fanbase and a lot older. Their voices are better heard and more respected than ours.

Also I ment reboot Tv show, not movie.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:04 am

Hot Shot wrote:
Brendocon wrote:Hot Shot's bang on the money. A big budget reboot film would kill the entire thing dead.

I mean just look at what happened to Transformers.
Transformers has always had alternate continuities. Star Trek has always had one. That's the vital difference.

TFs have around 10+ continuities, so a reboot is nothing new. But with Trek, a reboot would be a shock. It would cause a bigger uproar for that reason alone, not to mention the Trek fanbase is a lot larger than the TF fanbase and a lot older. Their voices are better heard and more respected than ours.

Also I ment reboot Tv show, not movie.

No, a reboot won't work. But really, this isn't a reboot: This is just more Trek in ST: Enterprise style: In order to be "edgy", let's go back in time. But you know what? Young Federation (Enterprise) doesn't work. Young Enterprise (The New Movie) doesn't work.

I'm telling you: Set it after all the TNG/DS9/Voyager, just like TNG was set after Star Trek. Just destory the sense of safety, progress, and pomposity that pervades those shows.

Transformers have constant reboots because, like it or not, they ARE toys, at their heart. So they reboot just like the Power Rangers get new suits, or Leonardo and Michaelangelo have wacky weapon action, or whatever. You can reboot ST as easy as you could reboot SW, which is to say, not at all.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:07 am

I always thought it was stupid that there is such rampant time travel in Star Trek yet the future isn't changed--in fact, that's the way it was supposed to be all along! Of course the crew of the Enterprise helped launch Cochran's ship!

I always thought it would be cool to do a show about a Star Trekky ship chasing illegit time travelers. The problem would be, because they're always "fixing" the past, their cast and memories are always changing. And there's no way to trust which future or past is correct, on that basis, is there? How would one judge? That would be a lot more interesting.

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:13 am

I never quite understood why it was always such a shock when the Enterprise (although mysteriously hardly any other ship, unless they had a series) travelled through time. They do it every other week!

How about a future movie set after some ridiculous war/catastrophe, the Federation is now a close-knit group of rag-bag remainders [bits of Earth, Klingons, Vulcans, Romulans] all working together trying to survive?

In the last episode/movie Sam Beckett could leap in and fix everything

Assisted by a certain cigar-chomping, womanising hologram!

FTR I quite liked DS9 once it got going (although that took forever) but despised Voyager, mainly due to its contrived 'Oh look we can get home oh... wait... no we can't' stories [and for thrashing the Borg on almost a daily basis].

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:18 am

Karl Lynch wrote:How about a future movie set after some ridiculous war/catastrophe, the Federation is now a close-knit group of rag-bag remainders [bits of Earth, Klingons, Vulcans, Romulans] all working together trying to survive?

Which isn't far from how it was left IIRC... after DS9's Dominion War, the Federation was almost broken, Starfleet was in tatters... The Romulans and Klingon's hadn't fared much better themselves. All it would have taken was for, say a couple of Borg cubes to have arrived (and barring Voyager's uber-tech them seemed to develope) the Borg would have decimated most of the Federation!...

Still, they'd never do it...

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:24 am

No, I don't thnk they will either. ST seems to have a lot of issue with moving into new areas- they have their format and won't change it.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:39 pm

I like the idea of a messed up ST future time line, where earth, and everyone else try to make a new fedratioin whilst over coming different human dilemas. like BSG, in ST, with modern problems thrown in, like, Muslims.

Post by **Best First** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:33 pm

or offensive generalisations?

Watch it.

Think Shanti has a point.

Although the thing that always bugged me most about ST was that, DS9 aside, which lets face was a B5 rip off anyway, is that there is pretty much sod all continuity from episode to episode. Character development doesn't happen on any grand scale (even if it happens in episode, it just seems to wash away as soon as the credits role).

i know there are a few exceptions to this but, by and large - its a bit dull and the characters and events are not really worth investing that much in - they start as archetypes and remain that way. Some of them quite charming archetypes - but not much changes.

A totally f*cked Federation/Civil war would be cool though.

(rewatched some B5 the other day, great in some ways but my god some of the dialouge - "I taught him, and now... i have to kill him" - and acting. haha! Still...)

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:42 pm

Reminds me. Still need to get round to watching season 5 of B5.

Hrm.