quote:The synopsis reads, in part: “When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction.
***break***
It’s too early to know for sure, but audiences will no doubt get even more clarity when nine minutes of the film is screened before Imax 3-D screenings of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” when that film opens on Dec. 14.
So a Trek movie done on Earth? Not very Trekkie if you ask me.
Guess I'll reserve judgement til I see The Hobbit with the wife and hopefully see the trailer. Just that synopsis kinda leaves something to be desired.
quote:The synopsis reads, in part: “When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
I dunno, Star Trek IV was one of the better movies. And that was 90% on earth. This movie might be introducing Khan.
My favorite classic trek film was 6, nice action. 4 was decent though.
As for introducing Khan, meh. I think a more original story would be better. I want gigantic space fights and exploding ships and aliens, not mush down on Earth stuff. I'll hope for more though, time will tell.
Khan did not meet Kirk until the Enterprise ran into the Botany Bay. I know they like to change previous stories in the Star Trek universe by using the time travel excuse, but they really shouldn't screw up the basics like that.
Plus, just like nobody but Shatner can really be Kirk, nobody but Montalban can really be Khan.
I agree with what ekster said. They jumped the shark in the new Star Trek by placing it in an alternate time line. So while they have to respect the canon laid out by the Star Trek "gods", they can play it a lot freer as well. They have more wiggle room. I also wanted to see the eugenics war, where people like Khan were created. I thought seeing some of the "backstory" brought to life would be interesting, and a change of pace.
I agree with what ekster said. They jumped the shark in the new Star Trek by placing it in an alternate time line. So while they have to respect the canon laid out by the Star Trek "gods", they can play it a lot freer as well. They have more wiggle room. I also wanted to see the eugenics war, where people like Khan were created. I thought seeing some of the "backstory" brought to life would be interesting, and a change of pace.
I know, it gives them free reign to blow up canon and do whatever they want. But if they didn't want to stick to canon, why not just create new characters a couple of hundred years in the future? Why rehash old characters and not rehash their iconic stories? This is why the series 'Enterprise' failed so badly. They went back to the foundation of the Federation, then used time travel as an excuse to completely blow canon out of the water. If you don't want to stick to Star Trek canon, why make a Star Trek movie at all?
I thought the last season, and part of the season before that, were the best of Enterprise [the TV series].
I hated the fact the had time jumping in it, I felt that would have been better handled by Janeway and her Voyager crew or Janeway as a member of section 31 [interesting book series that spanned the entire Star Trek series]. But having time travel that early, I dunno. The even in the STOS, they had time travel in the series. Granted that travel didn't impact our time line at all.
It's about the money, and it's about rebooting and making it fresh and new. Look at how successful Bond and Dr Who have been over the last 50 years. Then title character's face is always changing, as does his mannerisms. But people ae willing to accept it, at least with Bond. Dr Who has a neat trick to explain the changes, with Bond you just take it par for the course.
One of the Problems with Star Trek, is that reality has caught up to it. Cell phones, tablets, touch screens, blue tooth. So that stuff just lacks the interest that it used to have.
They could try one shots. Take a couple of fan favorite books and turn them into a movie. Maybe even a web movie to keep costs down. Avoid using the canon characters. There are plenty of Star trek books without them.
I think Enterprise tried to much to be an ongoing drama rather than one shot episdes like the series before it.
Even though DS9 had an ongoing story or plot, One could sit down and watch an episode and still enjoy it. but for two or three seasons of Enterprise if you missed a few you where lost.
the "Temporal Cold War" imo ruined the series. While it had some cool moments it also took away from the initial idea of a show revolving around the first true deep space exploration ship of Starfleet.
I've noticed with many series the underlying theme is overplayed by the producers/writers. While the fans mainly like to sit down and enjoy each episode, as a separate piece of entertainment, the writers/producers often become obsessed with the theme they are weaving. They then keep returning to the theme, for far to many episodes, making the series become very predicatble and slow moving. In a good scifi series one gets steady and developing characters, but their "adventures" should be as diverse as possible. So each week one tunes in for the unexpected scenarios. Enterprise could easily have run for more years, IMHO, if the producers had just "wised up" and removed their overplayed and stale theme.
Shows such as Babylon 5, Andromeda and SG1 managed this so much better. Again IMHO.
It is easier to gain viewers too when a show can be watched at any point.
for example I never got into lost so never watched it from the start. one night when channel surfing I put it on and had no idea WTF was happening. Yet with Star Trek TNG I could watch any point in all 7 season and get a full enjoyable and understandable TV episode of good scifi.
The original Star Trek was great for three reasons. It had a great theme (Hiratio Hornblower in space), a great set of sci-fi writers on staff (many of whom went on to become novelists), and a great set of characters. The sequels really haven't measured up to the original because they've been lacking in those departments. Next generation brought some decent characters in but they never seemed to have a consistent theme to build around. Much of the time they just rehashed themes from TOS. The others never got the quality of characters quite right.
What Star Trek needs is to fast forward into the future and essentially start over. New ship designs, new federation members, new aliens (both menacing and friendly), a new spirit of exploration and adventure, and (most importantly) a solid cast of characters that play off each other well and could be entertaining in any venue. By having a show about exploring the universe, you essentially have a show that can be about anything you want to write. Each episode can happen in a different area of space where just about anything can be taking place. Instead of worrying about trying to shoehorn in some stuff in the established canon, go off in a new direction (which would really be like the original direction) and forge your own stories.
It is easier to gain viewers too when a show can be watched at any point. ...
I agree with it being easier, but I've also found that a series that doesn't have some overall "big picture" story arc doesn't hold my attention for more than a few episodes. If every episode of a series is a stand-alone story, with no connection to the rest of the season, I don't feel the need to keep watching unless the writing makes each episode very entertaining. Not many shows have that. I pretty much need a continuing storyline.
I've also found that a series that doesn't have some overall "big picture" story arc doesn't hold my attention for more than a few episodes.
I totally agree with this. That's why shows like Haven and Grimm were hard for me to get through the first half season or so -- they were too much "weirdness of the week" and "monster of the week" at the beginning. As the overall story arc developed, they got MUCH more interesting to me.
BSG was probably one of the the best SciFi shows on TV and I doubt very much you could just drop in on a random episode and truly appreciate how good it was or even enjoy it.
It is easier to gain viewers too when a show can be watched at any point.
for example I never got into lost so never watched it from the start. one night when channel surfing I put it on and had no idea WTF was happening. Yet with Star Trek TNG I could watch any point in all 7 season and get a full enjoyable and understandable TV episode of good scifi.
It goes both ways. Yes it is easier to start watching a show if each episode is 'stand alone' but having a story arc or shows that build upon each other allows people to see the development and tune in to see what happens next.
That is why I loved B5. Even though it had a story arc, there were many episodes (esp S1 and S2) that were essentially stand alone but might contain a small glimpse of the main story---tantilizing clues to the future. The stories built on each other. Made me want to make sure I watched it the following week. ST:TNG didn't compel me to watch every week. (I would still watch but if I missed one then no big deal).
well today I think its easier to do arcing stories due to VOD and DVRs. TNG was made in an era where the only way to keep up was setting your VCR and remembering to do so.
Now its just tell your cable box to record all new episodes.
Did you watch the first new Star Trek? There's nothing to screw up or follow as they made a clear explanation about it.
Khan left earth before the events of the first movie... that part of the timeline would not change... now what will change, is who will find him and awaken him (if anyone)
By the looks of the trailer, I say it is Gary Mitchell ... the blonde with the Bob haircut is like the blonde in the TOS episode which Gary Mitchell was in
»
·