Star Trek

Postby **FreakyFilmFan4ever** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:05 pm

Touché.

Chuckman · Postby **Chuckman** » Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:59 pm

Dataprime wrote:Bryan Singer’s pitched Star Trek: Federation TV show – set in the year 3000 as
Starfleet has begun to collapse -

This sounds good on paper but trekkies would shit housecats over it and the executives would dumb it down into yet more Space Minivan Diplomat Adventures.

Guy Nacks · Postby **Guy Nacks** » Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:35 am

Michael Dorn still wants to make Star Trek: Captain Worf a reality.

Now, aside from that title, which I would have to hope is a placeholder (because really, it's just a dumb sounding title), one wonders just why he wants this to still be a thing. Dorn has appeared in more Trek episodes than any other actor by far, he was one of the main characters of two different series, and he must have a ton of money from all of that. That, and trying to resuscitate pre-Abrams Trek seems to be nearly a futile effort at this point. So, my main question (other than ego, which I don't really get from Dorn at all, seeing how subdues the guy seems IRL) is what's the point?

Trek will return to television at some point in the future, that much is a given. Though, I feel that it would have to embrace the shorter season length that other premium shows like Game of Thrones, Hannibal, Breaking Bad, etc.. It would actually be a cool idea to do a new Trek series in an anthology format a la True Detective or American Horror Story. The universe of that franchise is so massive that you could structure it conceivably any way you wanted to.

Dataprime · Postby **Dataprime** » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:47 pm

Please Be Good!

tweet-body
— twitter-user (@username) date

CBS Television Studios announced today it will launch a totally new Star Trek television series in January 2017. The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast on the CBS Television Network. The premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Network’s digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.

The next chapter of the Star Trek franchise will also be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms around the world by CBS Studios International.

The new program will be the first original series developed specifically for U.S. audiences for CBS
All Access, a cross-platform streaming service that brings viewers thousands of episodes from CBS’s current and past seasons on demand, plus the ability to stream their local CBS Television station
live for $5.99 per month. CBS All Access already offers every episode of all previous Star Trek television series.

The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.

Alex Kurtzman will serve as executive producer for the new Star Trek TV series.
Kurtzman co-wrote and produced the blockbuster films Star Trek (2009) with Roberto Orci,
and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) with Orci and Damon Lindelof. Both films were produced
and directed by J.J. Abrams.

The new series will be produced by CBS Television Studios in association with Kurtzman’s
Secret Hideout. Kurtzman and Heather Kadin will serve as executive producers. Kurtzman is also
an executive producer for the hit CBS television series Scorpion and Limitless, along with Kadin
and Orci, and for Hawaii Five-0 with Orci.

Star Trek, which will celebrate its 50th anniversary in 2016, is one of the most successful entertainment franchises of all time.
The original Star Trek spawned a dozen feature films and
five successful television series. The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature
film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by
Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.

Angel · Postby **Angel** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:56 am

I will defend Voyager and Enterprise to my dying breath. TOS and TAS were worse. I'm serious. They mostly operated on the principle of "which law of physics can we ignore this week?" whereas VOY and ENT derived most of their weight from character-driven drama. There are plenty of exceptions to both rules, of course. I will also defend Nemesis. Most of the haters just complain about it being a copy of Wrath, without discussing things like dialog or set design or anything relevant. I counter that it is a significantly improved redo of Wrath.

Also, I have the animated series on DVD, but haven't gotten around to watching it yet.

Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force and Star Trek Armada II are two of my favorite computer games ever.

EDIT: While I'm here, I might as well mention that I had a badass idea for a series... Star Trek: Equinox, about the crap that the Equinox went through in the Delta Quadrant prior to its fateful encounter with Voyager. The ship would basically get the everloving crap kicked out of it on a weekly basis, named characters would die regularly, and the crew's commitment to Starfleet principles would slowly disintegrate as they became increasingly desperate. Why? Because I'm a sick bastard who wants to piss on Gene Roddenberry's grave :lol:

Of course, I also loved the proposal for a "Federation in decay" series, though I think 3000 is way too far in the future. The 25th or 26th century would be more appropriate.

As for why Michael Dorn is continuing to push for a "Captain Worf" series, the reason is obvious: Worf is freaking awesome, the Defiant is awesome, and everyone would watch a series about Worf being the captain of the Defiant.

YouTube · Postby **Reichu** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:12 am

I've been marathoning the final seasons of DS9 with my boyfriend, since I somehow managed to never finish the series (final one and a half seasons) way back when. I'm thoroughly spoiled on the overall plot developments (y'know, things like "The Sisko = Space Jesus"), but the episodes are obviously still worth the watch. Quite a blast from the past... Poor DS9 looks so damned old compared to what all of the kiddies are watching nowadays. Garak is still the best, with Odo a close second.

Dataprime wrote:Please Be Good!

I'm not going to hold my breath.

Postby **cyharding** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:24 pm

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw

looks interesting.

YouTube · Postby **Reichu** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:37 am

Well, that was a laughably terrible trailer. At most it has me curious who the folks with the interesting makeup are. My sister will invariably buy the BD no matter how bad the film turns out to be, and I can wait until then.

For something completely different: I watched the first two Star Trek films with my bf fairly recently, expecting to see what was so terrible about Motion Picture and so wonderful about Wrath of Khan. We both ended up liking Motion Picture more, for all its flaws. We did prepare for WoK by watching Space Seed beforehand, and still it was oh so underwhelming. I've tried to figure out what I'm missing here, and apparently I "just don't get it". Go fig, right? In my humble opinion, WoK showed sparkles of potential here and there but ultimately squandered it on its boring villain and his underdeveloped agenda. Much as I hated Into Darkness, I feel like Cumber-Khan's expressed passion for his people's well-being made him more interesting than Ur-Khan, who for no obvious reason has this all-enveloping vendetta against that one starship captain at the expense of more sensible total revenge against the parties responsible for getting him ousted from power in the first place. Not to say the whole Captain Ahab thing couldn't have worked, but it needed more help from the script than it had.

Motion Picture was a bit too much of a 2001 wannabee and definitely needed some trimming of the really long and ponderous SFX shots, but on the whole it was a solid Star Trek adventure. My boyfriend observed that it felt like an episode with theatrical budget and running time, and given the script's origin as the pilot of the unproduced Phase II, his feeling was correct. I do wish some of the more interesting sci-fi ideas were privy to more show and less tell. For all the extensive displays of wacky scenery, a lot of concepts were reduced to mere chatter between the principals, especially toward the end when things came together a little too fast and neat. Ilia's fate was unfortunate, as well, getting unceremoniously killed before we got to know her very well and her image thereupon used to motivate the remaining male characters. Bleh.

Anyway: Go ahead, tell me how wrong I am.

Bagheera · Postby **Bagheera** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:25 am

cyharding wrote:I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw

I am trying to recall when I've ever been more unsold on a movie in my life and I'm coming up empty. That looks terrible.

Rosenakahara · Postby **Rosenakahara** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:43 am

It looks like a really bad guardians of the galaxy clone.

Postby **FreakyFilmFan4ever** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:01 am

That was mesmerizingly bad. Not even "Beasties Boys and Star Trek" can't put into words how weird and off-putting that whole trailer was.

Postby **cyharding** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:28 pm

Reichu wrote:Anyway: Go ahead, tell me how wrong I am.

I'm not going to say you're wrong. There are many fans who like TMP more than WoK. I watched TMP back in the summer, and I would say that it is an imperfect work. I liked the concept and the visuals are top notch, even for today. I believe the problem is that the concept is a bit too cerebal for a movie and that explains some of the slow pacing in the film (the rest is all Gene). The story would have been better served as a Star Trek novel than a Star Trek movie. Personally, it could have used another editing pass and if I had editing software and knew how to use it, I would cut about 20 minutes off it, and it would flow much better. As for WoK, I believe that what makes it so great among fans is that while it is a rather simple story (man tries to get revenge on Kirk & crew for a perceived past wrong), there are a lot more layers underneath it making it the most literary of the trek movies. Yes, there is the whole "Kahn is Ahab" aspect, but there are other references as well, such as to Milton's Satan, which was referenced at the end of "Space Seed." Kahn is so wrapped up in his pride as a superior being that he doesn't see the past mistakes that he made that led him to where he was, nor would he listen to his subordinate when it was clear the Enterprise was leading him into a trap. As for Kirk, there are themes of age and death and renewal (his "I feel young" line at the end of the movie as one example) are present. This film does a very good character study of the key players that the other films don't do (VI comes close, but not as well). I think that is why many fans rate WoK higher than TMP.

As for the trailer, I have to ask all of you why is it uninteresting? Compared to the trailers for the other two JJ trek films (I'll admit, I haven't seen them), this seems to have more potential to be good than the others. And Rose, what's with the comparison to Guardians of the Galaxy (I haven't seen that film either)? I might not be the Star Trek movie I like to see, but it could be a fun ride.

Postby **Sachi** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:41 pm

Sabatoge worked so well for the first film, that it won't seem tired at all when we use the same exact song again, right? RIGHT? Even if it's canon that Kirk likes and listens to that song, they could have at least picked a different Beastie Boys song.

You know what would have been a much more entertaining trailer? The same exact thing, except with the song changed to Girls. Would have made sense for Kirk's character too. Has that image been planted in your brains yet?

I will say, however, that I vaguely expect this movie to be better than Into Darkness. Why? Not sure, but the absence of a pasty white Khan might have something to do with it, as well as the prospect of more Simon Pegg than in the prior film.

YouTube · Postby **Reichu** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:02 pm

Sachi wrote:a pasty white Khan

The botched ethnotype was really the least of Into Darkness' many problems, IMHO.

cyharding wrote:As for WoK, I believe that what makes it so great among fans is that while it is a rather simple story (man tries to get revenge on Kirk & crew for a perceived past wrong), there are a lot more layers underneath it making it the most literary of the trek movies. (snip)

I did keep an eye open for many of the layers you mention and noticed many. I suppose, for me, they just didn't congeal in an effective manner. WoK ended up feeling a bit scattershot, like two or more movies crammed into one, with the result that its most promising aspects were malnourished. I read in some places that being a TOS junkie is required to really appreciate WoK, and for everyone else it's just a competent sci-fi action movie. Could be.

Thanks for the even-keeled response; I appreciate it. :3

As for the trailer, I have to ask all of you why is it uninteresting?

For me, the choice of song made it hard to take most of what commenced remotely seriously. The audio should complement the visuals, not distract from them.

Postby **NemZ** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:22 pm

Reichu wrote:We both ended up liking Motion Picture more, for all its flaws.

TMP was a 2001-wannabe with terrible pacing and an almost total lack of action. Snoozeville. It's basically the Nomad episode redone with a larger budget spent almost entirely on mat paintings and bland uniforms. Most of the plot revolves around non-villain characters who were introduced here and then never seen again so who really cares what happens to them? The only thing even remotely interesting about it is as a footnote that this was possibly the first contact with the Borg, but even that is stretching it.

WoK had much better action but was also character driven, and revolving around the main cast rather than disposable noobs. It further developed an old plot rather than just rehashing it. There's really no comparison. Even the uniforms were better, ultimately responsible for the red/yellow swap in later series.

I think you missed the part where Kahn holds Kirk personally responsible for his wife's death and the suffering of his people, believing they were knowingly abandoned to the environmental catastrophe that befell them and expected to die. He was ousted from power centuries prior to Space Seed and those parties responsible don't exist anymore for any revenge to be taken against, having been subsumed into the federation of which Kirk is basically the personification thereof for Kahn.

The botched ethnotype was really the least of Into Darkness' many problems, IMHO.

Magic blood that cures death! Transporters that render starships meaningless!

Postby **Sachi** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:46 pm

Reichu wrote:The botched ethnotype was really the least of Into Darkness' many problems, IMHO.

And I agree. However, this new Star Trek can and likely will be rife with the same sort of flaws that Into Darkness had. White Khan was the cherry on top, and while I'm sure Beyond will have its own elephant in the room, it at least won't be white Khan, hence my vague expectations.

Postby **FreakyFilmFan4ever** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:53 pm

cyharding wrote:As for the trailer, I have to ask all of you why is it uninteresting? Compared to the trailers for the other two JJ trek films (I'll admit, I haven't seen them), this seems to have more potential to be good than the others.

The mood is really off for a trailer that advertises Star Trek. I don't know if the movie will be good or not (I haven't seen it yet) but when I think of Star Trek, the tone of a race car movie doesn't quite come to mind. It's like putting Pink Floyd up against a trailer for Citizen Kane. It makes me wonder if the trailer is aware of the pre-determined material that it's advertising.

As for the JJ trailers, they were perfectly bland trailers, not suggesting anything here nor there within terms of mood or tone of the film.

A.T. Fish · Postby **A.T. Fish** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:50 pm

I like the trailer, specifically because of the soundtrack. At least it's not trying to be anything other than what it is, a blockbuster.

YouTube · Postby **Reichu** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:02 pm

NemZ wrote:I think you missed the part where Kahn [sp] holds Kirk personally responsible for his wife's death and the suffering of his people, believing they were knowingly abandoned to the environmental catastrophe that befell them and expected to die.

In fact, I did catch all of that, and while the bf and I were watching the film I tried to play devil's advocate and point such details out to him to assuage the complaints he was making (which I felt, too, to a lesser extent). In the end, we both felt underwhelmed by the film, so I can only assume that the bare-bones lip service made to these critical characterization points didn't quite get the job done.

I was exposed to WoK when I was much younger, as well, and it failed to impress me then, either, beyond the pure squick of the Cetan slugs.

A.T. Fish wrote:I like the trailer, specifically because of the soundtrack. At least it's not trying to be anything other than what it is, a blockbuster.

Implying that a blockbuster has to be Grade A disposable dreck. Are you being a Hollywood apologist, Fish?

Ray · Postby **Ray** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:35 pm

Beyond looks like a big budget version of one of the bad episodes of the original series.

Having said that, I am excited to see it. But it's not Star Trek. It looks like Star Trek if it was directed by Michael Bay. Good Dumb Fun 90's Bay, not Mind Numbing Idiocy 2000's Bay.

Stranding the crew on an alien world, taking away the enterprise? That kindve goes against the Star Trek formula.

I need to get around to watching some of the Fast & Furious movies.

Personally, Id really like to see big budget versions of the Gorn Episode, or that so cheesy it's enjoyable one where the crew finds Native Americans on an Alien Planet.

Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Re: Star Trek

Who is online