www.ditl.org

I wonder, was he crying because it's great, or because it really sucks that bad?

I have a horrible feeling it'll turn out to be the latter unfortunately. Nonetheless, I'm sticking to my pledge not to assume the worst of this film until I've seen it.

Yeah, sorry, Tuvok in the Titan novels was assigned to Romulus to try and find the Unificationists.

When I see it, I will be watching from to stand points: as a movie goer, and as a Trek fan.

Rochey wrote:Well, Kim went seven years performing numerous vital tasks to the survival of VOY and its crew (even dying!) and was still stuck as an ensign.

This would seem fine except for one thing. Tom Paris was demoted for disobeying orders in "Thirty Days" to the rank of ensign. Yet WITHIN A YEAR he regained his Lt. j.g. rank. This seems kind of unfair. Although the episode was morally ambiguous, he did knowingly disobey orders. Other than this, I would have gotten the impression that they just didn't promote people on Voyager, which would have made sense. Either way, I definitely think Kim should be at least a Lieutenant if not a Lieutenant Commander.

Rochey wrote:

Abrams: Pegg wept over 'Trek' footage
Wednesday, October 15 2008, 10:57 BST

By Simon Reynolds, Entertainment Reporter


Rex Features
J.J. Abrams has revealed that Simon Pegg cried when he saw footage from the upcoming Star Trek movie.

Speaking to MTV, director Abrams said Pegg, who plays Scotty in the science fiction movie, wept after watching a clip on his iPhone.

"I showed Simon Pegg [footage] when we were at Comic-Con. I showed him this little trailer thing and it was my favorite thing ever.

"He literally started weeping. It was ridiculous. He was sitting there, I mean he must have been plastered. Because he was looking at my iPhone [crying]."

Abrams also confirmed that Star Trek will be "a two-hour movie", saying: "I'm sick of these two hours and forty-five minute movies. Seriously, it's like I don't have enough time to stay two hours and forty-five minutes. I'm exhausted just saying that twice. I can't stand it."

Edgar Wright, who directed Pegg in Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz, hinted on his MySpace blog that he had seen a finished version of Abrams's movie and preferred it to the Star Wars prequels.

"Yesterday I saw a film that does not get released until next summer," he wrote. "I can't say much more than that, except that it delivers all the goods sorely lacking from a certain trio of prequels. Exciting stuff."

Well, at least if it sucks it won't be too long.

This is even more discouraging. I figured that this movie would have to be at least 2 and a half hours to do justice to what they have chosen to do with this project. This is the same problem we had with Nemesis and Insurrection; to make a Star Trek film, except for the Motion Picture (the only time that "It's a Star Trek movie!" would work as a selling point), you have to give people a good reason to watch it. Now, up to 53% of the American population have idenitified themselves as Star Trek fans to some extent or another. They would remember something interesting, like Khan or the Klingons or Captain Picard's experience with the Borg. I don't see why the next film is attempting to get at the 47% who are totally unfamiliar with Star Trek.
They are NOT going to be converted enough even to see a new film by an uninteresting premise in what certainly looks like an ordinary, bland sci-fi movie.
What are they thinking?
But maybe I'm wrong, maybe this will be a huge success. If the movie sucks, however, than the bigger a success there is than the bigger a disgrace to Star Trek this movie is.

Chris Propost wrote:Now, up to 53% of the American population have idenitified themselves as Star Trek fans to some extent or another. They would remember something interesting, like Khan or the Klingons or Captain Picard's experience with the Borg. I don't see why the next film is attempting to get at the 47% who are totally unfamiliar with Star Trek.

I'm curious where did you get the figure '53% are ST Fans'? I think its more likely that 53% have a passing knowledge of some Trek things rather than calling themselves 'fans', I mean are we talking about people who liked a few episodes of a series or people that have seen most of the episodes and movies, people who have just seen the movies?

Besides that, if 53% of America goes to see this thing that's 159,859,213 (based on a Total Population of 301,621,157 as estimated by the US Census Bureau in 2007) in America alone, assuming all of these 'fans' go see it.

To put that in perspective a bit, the #1 Grossing Movie (US Only) ever was Titanic which costed $200 Million to produce and Grossed $600,788,188 in Theater viewings (again US Theaters Only) alone. With 159,859,213 'fans' and a $140 Million Budget this the Company would only have to receive $3.38 to equal that value and that figure includes recouping its costs of $140 Mil. So trying to get the other 47%, if that is the true number which again I suspect those figures are not really complete, would really be just gravy at this point were that the true situation.

KuvahMagh wrote:

Chris Propost wrote:Now, up to 53% of the American population have idenitified themselves as Star Trek fans to some extent or another. They would remember something interesting, like Khan or the Klingons or Captain Picard's experience with the Borg. I don't see why the next film is attempting to get at the 47% who are totally unfamiliar with Star Trek.

I'm curious where did you get the figure '53% are ST Fans'? I think its more likely that 53% have a passing knowledge of some Trek things rather than calling themselves 'fans', I mean are we talking about people who liked a few episodes of a series or people that have seen most of the episodes and movies, people who have just seen the movies?

Besides that, if 53% of America goes to see this thing that's 159,859,213 (based on a Total Population of 301,621,157 as estimated by the US Census Bureau in 2007) in America alone, assuming all of these 'fans' go see it.

To put that in perspective a bit, the #1 Grossing Movie (US Only) ever was Titanic which costed $200 Million to produce and Grossed $600,788,188 in Theater viewings (again US Theaters Only) alone. With 159,859,213 'fans' and a $140 Million Budget this the Company would only have to receive $3.38 to equal that value and that figure includes recouping its costs of $140 Mil. So trying to get the other 47%, if that is the true number which again I suspect those figures are not really complete, would really be just gravy at this point were that the true situation.

Maybe you're right. I could be totally full of it.
I should definitely work on going in without jaded attitude. It's just that the whole idea that this film is not a reboot OR a prequel is sort of concerning to me. I mean, which is it? It has to be one or the other. I can't help but wonder if J.J. Abrams is pulling the whole on the fence thing to A) Be pretentious or B) In order to avoid taking the risk of, on one hand, fitting the film in with the letter and spirit of the canon or, on the other hand, entirely starting a new canon in a new fictional universe based on TOS. We'll see. I just can't help but be... initially discouraged.

Maybe you're right. I could be totally full of it.
I should definitely work on going in without jaded attitude. It's just that the whole idea that this film is not a reboot OR a prequel is sort of concerning to me. I mean, which is it? It has to be one or the other. I can't help but wonder if J.J. Abrams is pulling the whole on the fence thing to A) Be pretentious or B) In order to avoid taking the risk of, on one hand, fitting the film in with the letter and spirit of the canon or, on the other hand, entirely starting a new canon in a new fictional universe based on TOS. We'll see. I just can't help but be... initially discouraged.

Thats not what I was trying to say at all. I was just wondering where those numbers you mentioned came from and pointing out that I do not trust those figures.

I don't trust this new movie either, I think it would have been better to have left this era of Trek alone, there is no reason to revisit it except to milk it for more money.

Chris Propst wrote:I figured that this movie would have to be at least 2 and a half hours to do justice to what they have chosen to do with this project.

Why is that, exactly? Conciseness is one of the vanishing skills in modern literature. Taking 2:45 to tell a story that could be told in 2:00 isn't an enhancement, it's poor writing and direction.

Think of all the crap in some recently released movies that REALLY didn't need to be there. You can keep a movie at exactly 2 hours and have it rock, (ie the original Star Wars triligy)

But long movies always rock, just look at Titanic...

I agree with Mikey. Saying "well, it's not X minutes long, therefore it will suck" is foolish. The Wrath of Khan was only about two hours long, and that's widely agreed to be the best Trek movie out there. While NEM and INS were all nice and long, and sucked massively.

I have to agree. I'd rather have a 2 hour concise and clean film, than a brilliantly advanced, but awfully slow 2 and a half hour film.

I agree. There are movies that work better longer, and there are those that are better shorter.

KuvahMagh wrote:

Maybe you're right. I could be totally full of it.
I should definitely work on going in without jaded attitude. It's just that the whole idea that this film is not a reboot OR a prequel is sort of concerning to me. I mean, which is it? It has to be one or the other. I can't help but wonder if J.J. Abrams is pulling the whole on the fence thing to A) Be pretentious or B) In order to avoid taking the risk of, on one hand, fitting the film in with the letter and spirit of the canon or, on the other hand, entirely starting a new canon in a new fictional universe based on TOS. We'll see. I just can't help but be... initially discouraged.

Thats not what I was trying to say at all. I was just wondering where those numbers you mentioned came from and pointing out that I do not trust those figures.

I don't trust this new movie either, I think it would have been better to have left this era of Trek alone, there is no reason to revisit it except to milk it for more money.

I guess that's my biggest problem with it too. I was probably runnin my mouth about the 2 1/2 hours thing. Still, I just see so little room for anything in a single film reboot of the classic series. I guess the alternate timeline theory makes a lot of sense as an explanation for it, but even then it just raises the question, "What's the point?"
I've sort of come to the conclusion that with the end of DS9, Trek had reached so a high point that there was nowhere to go but down.
If they really want to do the series justice, just let it be over. That said, I will be at the very least interested to see what direction they take the new film.