Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.

Topic Review

[*] posted on 21-11-2008 at 10:50
I'll have to wait until my box is happy again. Currently I'm logged on using an Ultimate Boot CD as my windoze was getting flaky. I may be in for a system reload. Aaaaaarrrrrgggghhh!

[*] posted on 20-11-2008 at 16:30
Hmmm - not convinced, but will keep an open mind! LOL

[*] posted on 20-11-2008 at 16:17
Okay, I'm starting to feel a little better.

New Trailer!

[*] posted on 20-11-2008 at 10:26
You'll get no disagreement there scholar, I've read those analyses, too.

[*] posted on 19-11-2008 at 17:01
Star Trek originally was unable to attract enough viewers in a network time slot to survive. A show with low viewership is often shuffled to a timeslot when few people are watching, anyway. When Star Trek was put on Fridays, when many young people attend football or basketball games or social events, it spelled doom.

Then, when Star Trek rerun episodes were syndicated (permission to broadcast them was sold to individual statons, where they could choose the time), it became a hit--each station put them on at a time that was best in their schedule for attracting an audience. (I used to come home from school and watch an episode every day, Monday through Friday.)

"Enterprise" was a network show, and could not attract enough viewers in its timeslot--the same problem that the original Star Trek had. If it had been syndicated, I believe it would have been able to hold its own. It had a problem with its writing, insofar as it got involved in long story arcs about the trans-temporal war (similar to the war problem with Deep Space Nine--some of the creative people involved with the Star Trek franchise must think that space war is exciting and will boost ratings), but the writing and characters did improve over time.

Another Star Trek show set at the time of the first Star Trek or shortly after, but featuring a different crew and ship, and following Roddenberry's formula: rich characters and dialogue, optimism and humor--could again be a hit. And, like the third season of Star Trek, it could be written so as to be doable cheaply. Throwing in lots of high-budget special effects is a problem when they serve to sensationalize the story, distracting from the necessity of good writing.

[*] posted on 19-11-2008 at 12:42
Enterprise, being the last of the "Trek" series, but pre-dating TOS was killed off owing to flagging interest. It was, at least, an attempt to create a new generation of Trek crew to know and love. By attempting to re-create TOS in this movie is a disservice to the Original cast and fans, and the current cast and potential fans. About the only thing going for it at the moment is the discussions over the re-make, let alone the plot!

[*] posted on 19-11-2008 at 08:48
Oh dear! If he is truly "not a fan of Star Trek" then he should not be allowed anywhere near a remake. OK. so the originals may not have had the most perfect plots/scenery/special effects, when they began - but they evolved. The audience 'grew' with the characters. The concept was new, exciting, and very different from any other series at that time and, love it or hate it, it became compulsive, as record viewing figure will testify. I am certain that if one were to surf world TV channels then Star Trek would be found, alive and well, still saving planets.

Maybe we have reached saturation point with spin offs such as Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Next Generation etc., but surely that is the same point at which to say 'Goodbye', and move on to something else.

[*] posted on 19-11-2008 at 04:51
The article has me worried, as well. If the writers were committed fans, true to the original, Abrams may not have harmed it. But I agree with several of those who posted reactions, keys to the good episodes were the characters and a positive, optimistic view of the future.

[*] posted on 19-11-2008 at 03:49
The new Star Trek is the latest in what Hollywood calls a "Reboot."

The plot details are being kept very much under wraps. But J.J. Abrahms (Of "Lost" and "Alias" fame) has said he is taking the basic premise of the series and reimagining it.

He has even gone so far as to say he doesn't care if "Trekkers" like it. He is making a movie for the Sci Fi movie goer who may know nothing about the history of the franchise.

This story was in the NY Times just Monday. Judge for yourself.

So, yeah, I'm very, very nervous about this one.


[*] posted on 12-11-2008 at 10:23
Originally posted by Nimuae

I wish 'they' would leave great classic films alone!

Omen to that!

[*] posted on 12-11-2008 at 09:32
Speaking of remakes - I have only just caught up with what they did with 'Omen'! What was the point of remaking that? The original was brilliant, the casting was great, and the air of menace about it was really shiver making. The new version, while it uses almost the same script/dialogue, is pale and pathetic by comparison. It is badly acted and about as menacing as a wet lettuce.

I wish 'they' would leave great classic films alone!

[*] posted on 10-11-2008 at 11:36
Shatner may well have found fault with his own performances, what artist hasn't? He will still be James Tiberius Kirk to all fans and any "Imitation" will find it very difficult to fill Shatner's, or Nimoy's et al's shoes. I've read many "trek" novels that fulfill the ideals of Star Trek without having to use the known, and loved, characters. It would still have been as good it if had been "Star Trek - New Worlds" starring xxxx as Captain YYY YYYY of the Star Ship Whatever!

[*] posted on 10-11-2008 at 11:23
Originally posted by the bear
Originally posted by Nimuae
It is always a big mistake to remake a classic. They tried it with Planet of the Apes - and the new version was rubbish!

I would agree, remakes always seem to fall short of the original,
Actually, the new Star Trek movie will not be a remake. It will be a new, original episode with the same characters, as I understand it.

I can think of at least one example where the newly cast version was much superior to the original. "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" was not an outstanding movie, but it was one of the greatest TV series in its genre, ever--great in character development, great in humor, great in general entertainment value.
I would of thought with a theme like Star trek ideas for new stories and adventures are endless, these stories should carry new characters without any problems.

Regards the Bear
I agree, an excellent alternative would have been to follow the adventures of another Federation star ship of the same era as Kirk's Enterprise.

I wonder if there will be yet another Star Trek TV series at some point. The writing of some episodes of "Enterprise" got better as the series progressed, although the sameness of episode after episode focusing on inter-system war gave it less of the variety feel of the original Star Trek. It may not have had broad enough appeal for a broadcast network show, but I would think a more narrow audience (like, the Sci-Fi Channel) with syndication rebroadcast on other channels (like the Stargate franchise shows) would work.
the bear

[*] posted on 10-11-2008 at 08:46
Originally posted by Nimuae
It is always a big mistake to remake a classic. They tried it with Planet of the Apes - and the new version was rubbish!

I would agree, remakes always seem to fall short of the original, I would of thought with a theme like Star trek ideas for new stories and adventures are endless, these stories should carry new characters without any problems.

Regards the Bear

[*] posted on 9-11-2008 at 18:17
Fans of the original Star Trek series have been enjoying further adventures of that crew, mostly from novels, for many years. I love the characters. The conditions of the early series (the weapons, the speeds, the recurring Kingons and Romulans) feel like a boot that has been broken in. If the situations and dialogue are well-written, and the acting well-done, it won't trouble me that the actors are not identical. I even think it possible that another actor could play a better Kirk; Shatner, himself, has said that, looking back, he finds fault with his performance.

[*] posted on 9-11-2008 at 10:42
It is always a big mistake to remake a classic. They tried it with Planet of the Apes - and the new version was rubbish!

[*] posted on 20-10-2008 at 13:28
The guy playing Spock is the villain from "Heroes."

So I'm nervous from the get-go!

I remember when Star Trek was on in first run. So I will be biased out of the gate. The new cast will have to be stellar to sell me on their performances.

And the new costumes?



[*] posted on 20-10-2008 at 13:21
Nimoy's reaction when he learned that Quinto had taken over his role sums it up best: ''You're screwed.''

They should not try and emulate "The Origianl". There are plenty of Trek spin offs to create a new story without having to create a whole new cast of established characters. Trekkers will compare, and will not be happy if the new Kirk, Spock, Scottie, Bones, Uhura, et al. don't look, act, or sound like the originals. The piccie of "Spock" is downright frightful!

[*] posted on 20-10-2008 at 00:06
Here is an article. about the 2009 movie.

11 photos from the movie--see the new cast of characters.

To me, the long and the short of it will be the writing. Is it good science fiction? Are the characters well-written?

If it wouldn't make a good novel, it won't be a good movie, either. Special effects and good acting can't make up for a poor plot or poor characterization.