I think what they are trying to do is honor the canon instead of just blatantly trying to following it. It is not like they are going off and making a totally new universe who is only associated with the other by sharing names.
I seriously hope they update the interiors of the Enterprise. I know people are nostalgic for the pastel-colored 1960s sets, but NOTHING about them looks like it belongs in the 23rd century. I also read somewhere that they want to make the sets (especially the bridge) bigger so it [I]feels[/I] like the crew is on a huge starship.
As for the story, as long as they don't forget that the Enterprise isn't just a ship, but rather a ship full of unique people and characters, then I think they will be alright. One of my biggest complaints about Voyager was the lack of character development. We knew almost nothing about most of them aside from the most superficial details: Tom likes 50s TV, Harry plays the clarinet and falls in love with the wrong women, Chakotay is spiritual, etc. Their parts were interchangeable and it seemed like they were put there simply to move the plot along.
And above all, make Star Trek FUN again, will ya. ;)
The interiors *are* going to be modern. The entire damned thing is going to be modernized. :p\
Entil'zha: Spoiler: That's strongly confirmed, as are many of the larger plot aspects. Spock does come from the future (not in a Delorean, though :() in which some form of the star trek franchise happens, but this does not necessarily mean that it is the same universe as the one we know. Selective canon allows the writers to pick elements from the larger franchise canon that would benefit the plot and add them in. Also, I really don't think William Shatner being in it would actually serve anyone other than geeks. The man has been really cranky about not appearing. The rest of the cast is [B]abso-fuckin'-lutely fantastic[/B], so I don't think he would fit in all that well, either. ;)
Possible spoiler: Spoiler: So Spock of TNG-era seems to be going back (either sending a message or as his person) in time to stop a Romulan plot of some sort to overthrow/prevent the Federation from existing, and it seems as if kirk's character may just be an expansion upon the idea of "...so a guy bangs a bunch of chicks and gets promoted."
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I want to see Star Trek, not Shatner.
[QUOTE=Space Ghost;169182]Their parts were interchangeable and it seemed like they were put there simply to move the plot along.[/QUOTE]
While I appreciate what Bill Shatner and the rest of the original cast have brought to the plate, Star Trek hasn't really been about those characters anymore for quite some time now. While I wouldn't have minded a little cameo, the success of the franchise shouldn't rely on the original cast any longer. It's time to move on and stop playing it safe. BSG showed us that the public is ready for some balls to the walls. :D (This strategy doesn't protect us from average writing though.)
It's time to kick a$$ and chew bubblegum. I want to see real Klingons, not the lounge type... DS9 was but a taste of it.
Actually that is why my wife liked TNG so much, it was so episodic. Each hour was a basic a little mystery story with a antagonist who creates some sort of problem that has to be resolved by the crew by the hour's end.
I think she didn't like DS9 becuase it tended to be a bit more character driven, but those charaters were not nearly complex or multi-faceted as those in B5 (which she did like).
[QUOTE=Entil'Zha;169180]Prelude to Foundation was pretty good as far as Prequels go.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't stand those extra Foundation books Asimov wrote after Second Foundation. Foundation and Earth was the worst of them all. I prefer to think those books never happened as far as the Foundation story goes. And I didn't read whatever was written after Prelude to Foundation because I was so disgusted after reading those things (though Prelude was better than two before it, not that it's hard to be better than Foundation and Earth). Actually, I haven't read anything by Asimov since getting turned off by those books (which was about four years ago).
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
I liked the Foundation books, they just require perseverance I think :)
[QUOTE=DarthCaligula;169212]I couldn't stand those extra Foundation books Asimov wrote after Second Foundation. Foundation and Earth was the worst of them all. I prefer to think those books never happened as far as the Foundation story goes. [/QUOTE]
They weren't as good as the first three for sure...I also notice that authors, as they write through a series of books have to really fight the urgh to put in more sexual material. The worst was the Clan of the Cave bear series. The books are good, but by the last one, every other chapter was spank material.
The funny thing is that the extra foundation books are the only ones Ive read, Ive never come round to reading the ones actually about the foundation. But I thought they were good..
I remember the Foundation books to be more about the story. Sort of, Dam the plot holes full steam ahead!
I a conversation with my husband he said: Hated ST,TOS Other then the Borg hated TNG. DS9 was mostly good and Voyager was great. Enterprise got to be nearly as good as Voyager by his account.
He hates B5!?!?
All the people I hang around with hate B5. it is like living in one of the plains of hell.
Seems like quite a few here will agree with me in that prequels don't really work... but [U]plot reboots do [/U] (ex. Batman, BSG, Bond...)
So I am looking forward to this film hoping that it is a refresh of the Star Trek universe. It makes sense that plot writers and SFX artists today should not be bound by cannon written 40 years ago.
BSG should be a great indicator that as fun as the original was, a modern rewrite using the same universe as a template is better than keeping with old (and out of date) original cannon.
[QUOTE=Freejack;169202]Actually that is why my wife liked TNG so much, it was so episodic. Each hour was a basic a little mystery story with a antagonist who creates some sort of problem that has to be resolved by the crew by the hour's end.[/QUOTE]
I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but the way Voyager was written made the show boring. The stories were pointless and usually ended with some stupid action sequence: The camera shakes, sparks fly, and there is severe damage to the ship which is magically repaired by next week. I know it's the 24th century and they can fix almost anything, but when it happens EVERY episode, it takes away much of the suspense. Moreover, the antagonists were stereotypical and were seemingly out to get Voyager for no real reason other than to give them something to do that week. The show was, put simply, contrived; an hour long story created by the plot gods to tell a Trek tale and unfortunately not handled with any of the skill of TNG.
Sorry for the rant, but I was severely disappointed in Voyager. :)
Comments
I think what they are trying to do is honor the canon instead of just blatantly trying to following it. It is not like they are going off and making a totally new universe who is only associated with the other by sharing names.
Worf
Funny, that was the only book I have read that made my statement go from "never" to "almost never" ;)
As for the story, as long as they don't forget that the Enterprise isn't just a ship, but rather a ship full of unique people and characters, then I think they will be alright. One of my biggest complaints about Voyager was the lack of character development. We knew almost nothing about most of them aside from the most superficial details: Tom likes 50s TV, Harry plays the clarinet and falls in love with the wrong women, Chakotay is spiritual, etc. Their parts were interchangeable and it seemed like they were put there simply to move the plot along.
And above all, make Star Trek FUN again, will ya. ;)
Entil'zha: Spoiler: That's strongly confirmed, as are many of the larger plot aspects. Spock does come from the future (not in a Delorean, though :() in which some form of the star trek franchise happens, but this does not necessarily mean that it is the same universe as the one we know. Selective canon allows the writers to pick elements from the larger franchise canon that would benefit the plot and add them in. Also, I really don't think William Shatner being in it would actually serve anyone other than geeks. The man has been really cranky about not appearing. The rest of the cast is [B]abso-fuckin'-lutely fantastic[/B], so I don't think he would fit in all that well, either. ;)
Possible spoiler: Spoiler: So Spock of TNG-era seems to be going back (either sending a message or as his person) in time to stop a Romulan plot of some sort to overthrow/prevent the Federation from existing, and it seems as if kirk's character may just be an expansion upon the idea of "...so a guy bangs a bunch of chicks and gets promoted."
[QUOTE=Space Ghost;169182]Their parts were interchangeable and it seemed like they were put there simply to move the plot along.[/QUOTE]
What plot?
It's time to kick a$$ and chew bubblegum. I want to see real Klingons, not the lounge type... DS9 was but a taste of it.
Oh, it was there... in individually wrapped, hour-long segments that had little to no greater significance. ;)
I think she didn't like DS9 becuase it tended to be a bit more character driven, but those charaters were not nearly complex or multi-faceted as those in B5 (which she did like).
Jake
I couldn't stand those extra Foundation books Asimov wrote after Second Foundation. Foundation and Earth was the worst of them all. I prefer to think those books never happened as far as the Foundation story goes. And I didn't read whatever was written after Prelude to Foundation because I was so disgusted after reading those things (though Prelude was better than two before it, not that it's hard to be better than Foundation and Earth). Actually, I haven't read anything by Asimov since getting turned off by those books (which was about four years ago).
They weren't as good as the first three for sure...I also notice that authors, as they write through a series of books have to really fight the urgh to put in more sexual material. The worst was the Clan of the Cave bear series. The books are good, but by the last one, every other chapter was spank material.
Jake
I a conversation with my husband he said: Hated ST,TOS Other then the Borg hated TNG. DS9 was mostly good and Voyager was great. Enterprise got to be nearly as good as Voyager by his account.
He hates B5!?!?
All the people I hang around with hate B5. it is like living in one of the plains of hell.
So I am looking forward to this film hoping that it is a refresh of the Star Trek universe. It makes sense that plot writers and SFX artists today should not be bound by cannon written 40 years ago.
BSG should be a great indicator that as fun as the original was, a modern rewrite using the same universe as a template is better than keeping with old (and out of date) original cannon.
I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but the way Voyager was written made the show boring. The stories were pointless and usually ended with some stupid action sequence: The camera shakes, sparks fly, and there is severe damage to the ship which is magically repaired by next week. I know it's the 24th century and they can fix almost anything, but when it happens EVERY episode, it takes away much of the suspense. Moreover, the antagonists were stereotypical and were seemingly out to get Voyager for no real reason other than to give them something to do that week. The show was, put simply, contrived; an hour long story created by the plot gods to tell a Trek tale and unfortunately not handled with any of the skill of TNG.
Sorry for the rant, but I was severely disappointed in Voyager. :)