www.ditl.org

I've decided that I'm going to try as hard as I can to approach this movie without expectations or pre-judgements. Whether it's intended as a reboot or not, that's how I am going to go into it - this is a whole new Star Trek, and I am giving it a fresh slate as much as I possibly can.

I remember when the new Battlestar Galactica came out, how much the original series fans bitched and whined about a female Starbuck, and no continuation of the original story, and humanoid Cylons, and all that. Well I thought they were a bunch of morons who were overlooking the fact that the new show absolutely kicked the old one in the nuts in terms of story, acting, special effects, themes, all of it. Here was this amazing show, one of the very best pieces of science fiction that has EVER been made, and they were missing it because they were so hooked into what had gone before.

Well I'm going to treat this as New-Trek, and if I possibly can, I'm going to take it strictly on its own merits.

Exactly. While our human foibles make it impossible to regard this film entirely in a vacuum, we should at least make the attempt to not pre-judge it.

Look, no matter what else I say here, I will be GOING to be in the theater, if not opening night, then at least that weekend, and will likely see it twice. Then I'll come back here, and wrack my brain with ways to try and fit it into the continuity..........as always

GrahamKennedy wrote:I remember when the new Battlestar Galactica came out, how much the original series fans bitched and whined about a female Starbuck, and no continuation of the original story, and humanoid Cylons, and all that. Well I thought they were a bunch of morons who were overlooking the fact that the new show absolutely kicked the old one in the nuts in terms of story, acting, special effects, themes, all of it. Here was this amazing show, one of the very best pieces of science fiction that has EVER been made, and they were missing it because they were so hooked into what had gone before.

I've got a couple of issues with that. One, the old BSG had a better looking ship, better music, and was more fun than nBSG. And camerawork that wasn't trying to make you dizzy.

More importantly, it was a remake of the old series, with no pretense that these were the same characters. Star Trek XI is - it's got Nimoy in it, playing Spock. Despite this, and despite the existence of excellent updated CGI models of the E-nil, from DS9, IAMD and TOS-R, they're still creating something that bears no resemblance to the original.

I'm gonna wait for the reviews of it here. If they're good I'll pay to go see it. If they're not I'll download it cause those dickheads arent getting my money for whoring out the Trek name and making a crap movie.

I saw the last two 'Trek movies in the theater; I imagine I'll see this one as well. Maybe on IMAX.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:I remember when the new Battlestar Galactica came out, how much the original series fans bitched and whined about a female Starbuck, and no continuation of the original story, and humanoid Cylons, and all that. Well I thought they were a bunch of morons who were overlooking the fact that the new show absolutely kicked the old one in the nuts in terms of story, acting, special effects, themes, all of it. Here was this amazing show, one of the very best pieces of science fiction that has EVER been made, and they were missing it because they were so hooked into what had gone before.

I've got a couple of issues with that. One, the old BSG had a better looking ship, better music, and was more fun than nBSG. And camerawork that wasn't trying to make you dizzy.

Well it's subjective, but I think the new Galactica looks better. The music is hard to compare because it's a very different style. And while old BSG was indeed more fun, I thought that the fun was misplaced. Given the premise of the series, misery should be the norm.

More importantly, it was a remake of the old series, with no pretense that these were the same characters. Star Trek XI is - it's got Nimoy in it, playing Spock. Despite this, and despite the existence of excellent updated CGI models of the E-nil, from DS9, IAMD and TOS-R, they're still creating something that bears no resemblance to the original.

I'm still unclear on whether XI is a officially a reboot, reimagining, or actually meant to be part of the existing continuity. But whatever is intended, I am treating it as a reboot. And having some of the same characters doesn't change that. Think Casino Royale - that was clearly a reboot of the Bond franchise, yet they kept the elements, characters and actors they wanted from the older movies.

Unless virtualy every reciew says it's crap, I'll probably go and see it in the movies anyway.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:I remember when the new Battlestar Galactica came out, how much the original series fans bitched and whined about a female Starbuck, and no continuation of the original story, and humanoid Cylons, and all that. Well I thought they were a bunch of morons who were overlooking the fact that the new show absolutely kicked the old one in the nuts in terms of story, acting, special effects, themes, all of it. Here was this amazing show, one of the very best pieces of science fiction that has EVER been made, and they were missing it because they were so hooked into what had gone before.

I've got a couple of issues with that. One, the old BSG had a better looking ship, better music, and was more fun than nBSG. And camerawork that wasn't trying to make you dizzy.

More importantly, it was a remake of the old series, with no pretense that these were the same characters. Star Trek XI is - it's got Nimoy in it, playing Spock. Despite this, and despite the existence of excellent updated CGI models of the E-nil, from DS9, IAMD and TOS-R, they're still creating something that bears no resemblance to the original.

That is a CRUCIAL point for me. I think they're trying to have it both ways - bringing in new fans who don't understand the characters and basically don't get it. Yet, they want to satisfy old fans by establishing it as (if not in the same specific universe) specifically tied to the old one despite the huge discontinuities in the uniforms, appearance of the ship, etc. Plus, it sounds like Uhura will be the token sex object as well.
The more I hear about this, the worse it sounds.

Teaos wrote:I'm gonna wait for the reviews of it here. If they're good I'll pay to go see it. If they're not I'll download it cause those dickheads arent getting my money for whoring out the Trek name and making a crap movie.

Good point. I've struggled with that - I'm beginning to feel uncomfortable with the idea of financially supporting this project.

Rochey wrote:Unless virtualy every reciew says it's crap, I'll probably go and see it in the movies anyway.

Or the reviews

Dear god, it's spreading! What have I done?

...On the movie: Kirk had better damn well use his "double hammerfist" attack at some point, or I'll really be disappointed.

Is the trailer leaked yet?

I wonder if the double hammerfist is a move the teach at the acadamy.......................................

Mark wrote:I wonder if the double hammerfist is a move the teach at the acadamy.......................................

I think so. I recall seeing Sisko use it a few times. Maybe it's under "Advanced Tactical Training" along with How Having A Ripped Shirt Distracts Your Enemy, and How To Knock An Opponent Into A Coma With One Punch.