Re: Check this out
Posted by Flynn on
Mon Dec 17th 2012 at 9:49am
Flynn
member
454 posts
695 snarkmarks
Registered:
Oct 1st 2004
Location: England
The new Star Trek's do look nice, but I can't help but think without a series to really build up a background for the whole "universe" of the new version, the films don't really work. I only got into Star Trek properly this year which I started by watching the original series, now I've watched all of them including the movies. Without the context of a series these new films just don't feel quite right.
Just Kidding
Just Kidding
Re: Check this out
Posted by Crono on
Mon Dec 17th 2012 at 10:05pm
Posted
2012-12-17 10:05pm
Crono
super admin
6628 posts
700 snarkmarks
Registered:
Dec 19th 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
They actually have the same context as the original shows since this is an altered timeline. Technically the Abrams Star Trek movie is Star Trek 11 and has the most recent TNG era happenings in the Star Trek universe.
Nothing else has changed. It's not really a 100% from scratch reboot in that way and it was actually a really clever way of doing it.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Check this out
Posted by Flynn on
Tue Dec 18th 2012 at 10:33am
Posted
2012-12-18 10:33am
Flynn
member
454 posts
695 snarkmarks
Registered:
Oct 1st 2004
Location: England
They say that but with different actors it is in no way believeable. Basically JJ Abrams latched onto a technicality that was not meant to be a major plot point.
Just Kidding
Just Kidding
Re: Check this out
Posted by Crono on
Wed Dec 19th 2012 at 11:48pm
Posted
2012-12-19 11:48pm
Crono
super admin
6628 posts
700 snarkmarks
Registered:
Dec 19th 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
What are you talking about?
It's all very neatly shown and does line up with the series' lore. These characters are roughly the same characters you already knew and what is different is in the film itself.
In any case, I wouldn't want a JJ Trek series ... if anything I'd like that Captain Worf series that's being tossed around.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Check this out
Posted by Orpheus on
Thu Dec 20th 2012 at 12:10pm
Posted
2012-12-20 12:10pm
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
2024 snarkmarks
Registered:
Aug 26th 2001
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
With the 1,000 versions of timeline episodes in the Trek universe it was about time someone did one that shows what happened afterward. I personally like the new Abrams version best and hope they continue for years to come.
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: Check this out
Posted by Juim on
Sun Feb 3rd 2013 at 12:57am
Posted
2013-02-03 12:57am
Juim
member
726 posts
386 snarkmarks
Registered:
Feb 14th 2003
Occupation: Motion Picture Grip
Location: Los Angeles
Hey everybody. Happy 2013.
Just wanted to chime in about the new Trek. It kinda sucks, simply from the perspective of a true Trekkie.
First of all, Star Trek took a 12 year hit of crap in the hands of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. They spent over 12 years churning out garbage. Pasting pizza on actors foreheads, and re-routing power from one source to another to resolve simplistic and sometimes moronic plot lines. So much so did they suck that Paramount, a completely parasitic corporate entity, determined that it no longer profited them to continue a guaranteed cash cow franchise. So along comes JJ Abrams and a whole new ST. What's his main tool of re-boot?. Time Travel.(PUKE!)
In this action packed but overly simplistic reboot, a cadet, fresh out of the academy assumes captaincy over an interstellar military fleets flagship in a matter of days. How?. Not actually sure.
Now he's (JJ) been given the reigns of Star Wars!.
What's in store for Episode VII?. It was all a dream sequence?.
I simply don't hold JJ Abrams in that high of regard as a film maker. He panders to the masses with a flashy Pseudo stylistic simplicity of film making style. Sure the man can orchestrate an action sequence, but is he really the right choice to carry on such revered franchises? Ticket sales will most likely prove me inaccurate, but I doubt wrong.