Star Trek Sequel Already Planned

It's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 17:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let it lie.

Re:It's dead, Jim by Lord+Ender · 2009-04-01 01:25 · Score: 1

No, it's not. Not until there is a replacement. Star Trek is the fictional universe where (at least among humanity) scarcity, hatred, and superstition are eliminated; and science is exalted. Even when the plot and acting are bad, Trek still takes you to this universe--the universe humanity must aspire to make for themselves.
In my opinion other sci-fi series does this convincingly.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:It's dead, Jim by UseTheSource · 2009-04-01 02:37 · Score: 1

A liberal, socialist utopia... I can't wait! :\

--
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
Re:It's dead, Jim by Sloppy · 2009-04-01 02:46 · Score: 1

Star Trek is the fictional universe where (at least among humanity) scarcity, hatred, and superstition are eliminated
and that's what makes it so boring.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:It's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 02:48 · Score: 0

Are you so fond of the Godwin's Law, that you decided to implement it in your signature?
Re:It's dead, Jim by GargamelSpaceman · 2009-04-01 02:56 · Score: 1

Scarcity is dead. Yeah right. That's harder to believe than faster than light travel. That's like a computer that will never need a ram upgrade. NO SUCH THING. And why the fuck would the Klingons and the Humans hate each other if Scarcity were dead? I don't think even Klingons fight just for shits and giggles.

--
...
Re:It's dead, Jim by Lord+Ender · 2009-04-01 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

When scarcity is eliminated, distinctions between economic systems are meaningless. You shouldn't use words like "socialism" unless you know what they mean.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:It's dead, Jim by Lord+Ender · 2009-04-01 03:32 · Score: 1

Antimatter energy generation (nearly free energy) + replicator technology (nearly free production) + transporter technology (nearly free transportation) + secular society (no holy wars) does mean the elemination of the issues people fight over today. You can never have enough RAM, but you can have enough that you don't really care to do battle for more.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:It's dead, Jim by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2009-04-01 03:42 · Score: 1

Well, they deliberately leave out the politics, or try to.
Of course, a wonderful world where machines spit out food and clothing and anything else, for next to nothing, including copies of themselves, is kind of the way some on the far left view the industrial might of the West. It just "happens", magically, independent of the people doing the work themselves, so it's find to therefore have massive government blah blah blah.
> "They've hired Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof to write the screenplay."
" 'The screenplays will be fully new stories,' said Kurtzman, a desire echoed by fans. Moreover, they've also hired all the actors for the next film, though, most ominously, not Sylar. However, he is scheduled to make a cameo at the end of the one after that and has been signed for the one after that ."

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:It's dead, Jim by GMFTatsujin · 2009-04-01 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've never actually understood the economy of Star Trek. Sometimes stuff they want magically appears out of thin air. Sometimes they talk about exchanging credits. Other times it's gold pressed latinum. And there is still demand for scarce items like antique baseball cards, fulfilled by taking a dip in the Great Material River.
Star Trek is -- in the words of Nomad -- "a mass of conflicting impulses." The focus has always been on the humanity of the characters anyway; we are meant to take for granted that everything just all works out on broader levels like economy. It's not a way of life. It's a fairy tale.
It's foolish to aspire to a fairy tale. At some point, the system needs definition. The future: some assembly required.
Re:It's dead, Jim by Lord+Ender · 2009-04-01 05:02 · Score: 1

Yeah, your raving about "the left," especially in a star trek thread, makes me think you aren't really capable of discussing politics or economics intelligently if you tried. You've been brainwashed into the "them" and "us" mentality, destroying your ability to examine views based on their merits.
Good day.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:It's dead, Jim by saskboy · 2009-04-01 06:28 · Score: 1

You think transporter accidents are boring? Try having your head coming out of your ass because Scotty was plastered when he beamed you up on April 1!

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Re:It's dead, Jim by CyberLord+Seven · 2009-04-01 06:32 · Score: 1

Ummmm, Humans and Klingons don't hate each other. They just don't agree on what it means to be alive. Y'see, Klingons don't fight for material wealth or other simple motivations. They fight for HONOR! Now, it's true that they acquire material wealth, and more than a few "wimmins" in the process, but that's not what they are really fighting for.
Honor and prestige are more greatly valued by the Klingons. The spoils of war, so to speak, are just ways of keeping track of who has kicked more ass.
While we are on the subject, Cardassians and Romulans fight because, well, they're just better than you and me and we should bow down and kiss their feet and feel immense pleasure in the privilege.
Don't ask me about the Organians (Orgasmians?). Those dumb fucks can do just about anything they please and the best they can come up with is a remake of an Outer Limits episode?
Oh, and while we're talkin' Trek, "Q" is really just an adult version of "Trelayn" or whatever that child's name was. I don't care what Roddenberry or anybody else says!

--
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Re:It's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 06:45 · Score: 0

The future: some assembly required.
Nice Babalyon 5 quote there. It also shows why B5 has generally a more plausible setting than Star Trek; they both have humaniod aliens but in B5 the humans portray the range of what humanity is, not just the parts consistant with a gifted idealist's vision of what humanity should be.
Re:It's dead, Jim by cbhacking · 2009-04-01 07:01 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about credits, but latinum (which, being a liquid, is typically stored in gold bars for exchange) can not be replicated, and as such is in fact a scarce medium.
The Ferengi, obsessed with acquiring wealth (which can only mean scarce things) are obsessed with it. Since trade with them (or other capitalist societies) is sometimes necessary, the Federation (as a whole, and often individuals within it as well) maintains treasuries of latinum.
At a guess, credits are the internal currency of the Federation, used as compensation for services rendered (i.e. StarFleet officer salaries), or as barter for unusual goods or services (presumably including exchange for latinum). This is all just a guess though; I'm not sure where my latinum trivia knowledge comes from, but I'm fairly sure it's correct.
As a side note, prior to the general temporal neighborhood of TNG, replicators weren't available yet. From Star Trek 4 we know that they weren't using money in the 23rd century, but that's actually a little strange - without replicators, there would have been scarcity of ommodity goods, not just services or unusual goods, so some medium of exchange would be expected even more than in the 24th century.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Re:It's dead, Jim by Teancum · 2009-04-01 07:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

I, too, have never understood economics of the Federation and how money has been "eliminated".
It should be noted that the gold-pressed latinum bars were something that came from the Ferengi, who not only involved themselves in commercial relationships but even immortalized the ideas into a sort of religion. Deep Space 9 was a conduit of ideas and goods between the Ferengi and the Federation, so it shouldn't be too surprising that money continued to be use in that context when dealing with space-faring races that hadn't rejected the concept of money.
Even with Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, it still doesn't explain how the Federation deals with the allocation of scarce resources. Even assuming that the typical Federation citizen has access to nearly infinite quantities of energy (nuclear energy research makes some breath taking advances in the next couple of centuries) and basic resources for living such as food, clothing, and shelter come from automated robotic factories to take care of basic needs, there still be be some things which will be in short supply or you can only obtain a limited number of in a short period of time.
Not every federation citizen can order up a Galaxy-class starship to explore the furthest reaches of the universe at will. No matter what you can tell me about economics of the future, there reaches something that can be bartered and exchanged... and with that you have money. It may not be quite as critical as it is today for even mere existence, but it will be something that will have to happen on some level even assuming a completely egalitarian future for mankind.
Re:It's dead, Jim by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2009-04-01 07:12 · Score: 1

Who do you think you are, the signature Mussolini?

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:It's dead, Jim by UseTheSource · 2009-04-01 07:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm automatically Godwinning myself and can be dismissed out of hand as such, yadda, yadda. I've heard it before.

Godwin's Law (which is actually an inside joke masquerading as a logical fallacy) does not apply where there are actual, legitimate comparisons to be made.

I'm not saying this to be inflammatory, but Obama is a fascist. Look up the definition if you don't believe me. In simple terms, it's socialism with a capitalist veneer. In other words, the government doesn't directly control industry, but they have such a degree of influence and power over industry that the effect is the same. Mussolini and Hitler would have been proud.

--
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
Re:It's dead, Jim by Arterion · 2009-04-01 08:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

All the basic necessities of life can be replicated. The parts to build a replicator can be replicated. There is still a component of human labor, which in a world where anything you want can be conjured from thin air, human (or alien) labor is the only value.
However, for things like large space vessels, certain components can't be replicated. Fuel can't be replicated. The law of conservation of energy still applies. So there still has to be mining operations, shipping fleets, etc. All of this is basically just an effort of human labor.
As for the average Federation Joe, there are still important things you might want money for. Property, for example. I would assume there is still scarcity of highly desirable property in Earth and other planets. A lot of human-provided services COULD be rendered by holograms, but there is the constant theme that holograms somehow fall just a little short of flesh and blood when it comes to certain things that are "artistic" in nature. A hologram can (generally) only be as original as its programming.
Even things like houses still are probably built by humans. The materials are likely replicated, but the assembly is probably easier to just have a person do. Holograms are generally not portable, and replicators haven't been shown to be on the scale of replicating entire structures, and should there be any of that size, they're probably stationary.
So it's not terribly different from today. Money = human labor. It just so happens the standard of living is basically as high as it can be, because any physical item you desire can be conjured from thin air, and a lot of services you'd want from a person (a massage?) could be provided by a computer.
So there's still a lot of work to be done, and a lot of stuff to spend money on. It's just not the primary factor in life anymore. People can do job they enjoy without the drudgery.
Also consider: most of TNG (and ENT) focused on Starfleet. There would be no money, because the entire operation is funded by the government. Voyager was lost in the middle of nowhere, so the rules were totally different there. DS9 is where you really see a little bit how the galactic economy works.

--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Re:It's dead, Jim by RespekMyAthorati · 2009-04-01 09:18 · Score: 1

Additionally, if people can have all the food, drink and basic shelter they need, there had better be contraceptives added to the water. Otherwise the population would swell until there was no more room on the planet.

Speaking of contraception, has anybody ever heard any mention of religion among earthlings in Star Trek? If not, that may be the reason it is so peaceful.
Re:It's dead, Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 11:31 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW2MnZynv-Y
start watching at 45 seconds. Is gold worthless or not?
Re:It's dead, Jim by quacking+duck · 2009-04-01 14:46 · Score: 1

Additionally, if people can have all the food, drink and basic shelter they need, there had better be contraceptives added to the water. Otherwise the population would swell until there was no more room on the planet.
You have it exactly the other way. In the developed world today, where we (generally) have all the food, drink and shelter we need, population is either very near stable, or even in decline.
It's developing areas like parts of Africa where too many babies are born for the majority to make it to healthy adulthood.
Anyway, even if population swells in the Star Trek future, why is this a problem? That's what starships and colony worlds are for.
Re:It's dead, Jim by randyleepublic · 2009-04-01 16:11 · Score: 0

Read my sig

--
Social Credit would solve everything...
Re:It's dead, Jim by GMFTatsujin · 2009-04-02 05:48 · Score: 1

"Latinum (which, being a liquid, is typically stored in gold bars for exchange) can not be replicated..."
But couldn't they remodulate the resonance of the ... Oh, no, that only works against the Borg.
What about nutating the tachyon matrix of the ... Oh, no, wait, I think that's for recovering weak transporter signals.
Oh! I know! They could repolarize the distribution of the plasma manifold in the ... Hmm. Nope. That's when the warp engines throw a rod.
I guess you're right. Replicating latinum is far beyond the means of Star Trekian science.
Re:It's dead, Jim by GMFTatsujin · 2009-04-02 05:54 · Score: 1

Explain your sig?
Re:It's dead, Jim by Starcub · 2009-04-02 06:08 · Score: 1

The idea of scarcity has nothing to do with economic models, and everything to do with the people themselves. We could eliminate scarcity today if we wanted to. Even in a system of unlimited resources, there will always be those who wish to prevent others from aquiring their own fair share if for no other reason than to use it as a sort of hammer to get people to do their bidding.

Even in the Star Trek universe, there could be no elimination of scarcity amoung humans. If the people were truely capable of living in such a fashion, they would have no need and probably no desire to form a federation with races that lived in constant internal conflict.
Re:It's dead, Jim by randyleepublic · 2009-04-02 07:12 · Score: 0

Yeah, I tried to put a link in there but some obfuscation rendered my attempt unsuccessful.

Here: http://198.66.229.35/resources/resources/social_credit_by_ch_douglas.pdf

The easy intro is to read Heinlein. Especially his worst novel: For Us the Living. Worst novel, best description extant of a society adhering to the principles of Social Credit - a practial utopia!

--
Social Credit would solve everything...

god, another? by Niris · 2009-03-31 17:49 · Score: 3, Funny

whats this going to be, movie 15 by now?

Re:god, another? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 17:52 · Score: 0

What are you talking about? There only have been six films.
Re:god, another? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 17:55 · Score: 0

Yes, ONLY six..
Re:god, another? by bleedingpegasus · 2009-03-31 18:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Haha, how does it feel to become the first victim for /. April Fools?
Re:god, another? by Niris · 2009-03-31 18:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Slashdotters, the finest detectors of sarcasm on the Internet.
Re:god, another? by WCLPeter · 2009-03-31 18:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, only six. But which six?
For me Two, Three, Four, Six, and Eight were all pretty good and I would count them in my top six easily. But that leaves only one slot out of six left. Both One and Five are fairly, with Five being obviously worse than One. However One and Five can't hold a candle to the suck brought out by Seven, Nine and the bad, emotionally devoid, remake of Two that we call Ten.
Perhaps there really are only FIVE good Star Trek films?
Re:god, another? by Niris · 2009-03-31 18:12 · Score: 1

Feels good, man.
Re:god, another? by yammosk · 2009-03-31 18:25 · Score: 1

Really? Is this the best slashdot has to offer for April's Fools? If you ask me it's pretty lame.
Re:god, another? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:45 · Score: 0

If you watch all ten, you'll wish you'd only seen six.
Re:god, another? by dswensen · 2009-03-31 18:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Flamebait? Bad form. It was at least as funny as the grandparent post.
Re:god, another? by chimpo13 · 2009-03-31 19:40 · Score: 4, Funny

"Of Gods and Men" is pretty good, if you're a geek. Luckily, I'm a geek so I liked it. The sad thing is, I've been hosting a Peep Off, a Marshmallow Peep eating contest, for every fucking Star Trek movie there has been. I've been calling it "the last ever Peep Off" for a few years now and I'm sadly disappointed that there's another sequel coming. Please make it stop!
http://www.nokilli.com/food/peep.html

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:god, another? by Xaositecte · 2009-03-31 19:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, but how many lights do you see?
Re:god, another? by newcastlejon · 2009-03-31 20:40 · Score: 1

You liked IV? Seriously? Whales and Nuclear Wessels? Still, you were spot on about X, so you can't be all bad.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:god, another? by MoldySpore · 2009-03-31 21:25 · Score: 0

There...are...FOUR Lights!!!!!!!11111

--
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Re:god, another? by ionix5891 · 2009-03-31 21:35 · Score: 0, Offtopic

theres only one SIX [NSFW]
Re:god, another? by Coppit · 2009-03-31 22:55 · Score: 1

Is that supposed to be a joke?
Re:god, another? by ionix5891 · 2009-03-31 23:03 · Score: 1

hand over your geek card
Re:god, another? by jonadab · 2009-04-01 00:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Out of the numbered ones I would take STII:TWOK, STIII:TSFS, STIV:TVH, and STVI:TFF. That's four. Of the ones without numbers, I particularly like ST:FC, ST:I, and ST:N, which would make a total of seven, but I think I'm just about alone on that last one, so we'll say six.

If you number the unnumbered ones according to release order, I guess that makes the good ones 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9.

Of course, even the bad ones have redeeming qualities for fans.

ST:TMP for instance is on the whole a fairly terrible movie, with a thin plot and some of the most egregiously overdone special effects in the history of moviedom (long, long scenes of pretty much nothing BUT special effects strung together by lame "oh, look at that" dialog), but on the other hand it features some of the best acting in Leonard Nimoy's career up to that point.

STIV:TFF seems to go out of its way to create as many continuity problems for the franchise as possible and also has a pretty hokey basic premise (the whole "take away your pain" thing), but the opening scenes are very well done (up to about the point where they get sent to investigate the crisis), and the brig/jailbreak scenes are nicely done, and also Spock's use of the jet boots in the turbolift shaft is pretty cool.

Generations has its problems (internally inconsistent continuity, undesirable changes to Data's character that have to be worked around in all the subsequent movies (though First Contact does a reasonably good job with that), and too much time spent on the wrong things (e.g., they pour time into further developing Kirk's character, which is entirely unnecessary at that point; the viewer either KNOWS who Kirk is by now, or never will and doesn't care), but on the other hand it shows off Spiner's considerable acting skill in new ways, and the main villain is compelling, and also you get to see Lursa look at an image of Dr. Crusher and say to B'Etor, "Ugg! Human females are so repulsive!", and that right there makes it all worthwhile.

As for Nemesis, I know a lot of people don't like it, but personally I find the villain compelling, and also his name is really fun to say, and the female Romulan commander is also very well portrayed, and I think what happens to Data at this point, as much as it does bother me (and as lame as the whole B4 thing was), was nonetheless really the only acceptable way to deal with the changes to Data's character that were introduced in Generations.

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Re:god, another? by SkyDude · 2009-04-01 00:26 · Score: 1

theres only one SIX
Yeah but that's a 10 in my book.
Of course no one reads my book......

--
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
Re:god, another? by falcon5768 · 2009-04-01 00:44 · Score: 1

yep especially since Paramount announced Monday it was going to be doing the sequel.

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Re:god, another? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 01:08 · Score: 0

No amount of Cardasian trickery and torture will make me see more than six.
Re:god, another? by operagost · 2009-04-01 02:19 · Score: 1

Four was worth it just for Scotty's lines: "There be WHALES here!" and "Hellloooo computer!"

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:god, another? by Chlorine+Trifluoride · 2009-04-01 03:11 · Score: 1

ACs don't know bout my hyperbole
Re:god, another? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 04:30 · Score: 0

Whooosh!
There are only six Trek movies.
Hint: There was no such thing as Highlander II, and there was no such thing as Rocky V. Rocky IV might have existed but not in my mind.
Really bad movies that are painful and not fun to watch MST3K-style are best burned and forgotten.
Re:god, another? by QuantumPion · 2009-04-01 06:17 · Score: 1

I agree, but it seems we are in the minority here. ST4 had some good moments but the lame hippie plot of "omg we killed the whales and thus aliens will annihilate us in the future!" was pretty lame. It's like the whole movie was an ad for greenpeace or something.
Re:god, another? by Cally · 2009-04-01 06:57 · Score: 1

You have a collection of Star Trek movies. Minus 50 points.
You have everyStar Trek movie. Minus 500 points.
You make a reference to some sort of alien race (I guess, from the context) as if they were real, and expect people to find that funny. Minus 10,000 points!

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:god, another? by Soruk · 2009-04-03 03:16 · Score: 1

A keyboard. How quaint.

--
-- Soruk

Please by bigstrat2003 · 2009-03-31 17:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard

Re:Please by spiffyman · 2009-03-31 17:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Doesn't seem too likely. TFA was written "Yesterday," and it likely references this article, which was written March 30.
Sorry to disappoint.

--
So you can laugh all you want to...
Re:Please by R3d+M3rcury · 2009-03-31 18:32 · Score: 4, Funny

I like to think of it as "Younger and Edgier."
Re:Please by bonch · 2009-03-31 18:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Another fucking sequel.
Hollywood is on its way out.
Re:Please by bigstrat2003 · 2009-03-31 18:41 · Score: 1

I don't mind sequels, really, as long as there's something there, some more story to be told. A sequel to a movie which is already a bad take on an existing franchise... that just has no potential at all.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:Please by Phroggy · 2009-03-31 19:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.
You know, if they made a really great Star Trek movie that was totally true to everything we hold dear... the best thing they could do is make the trailers for it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie, to ensure box office success. I'm not saying that's the case here, just saying... when was the last time you heard someone comment about how accurate a trailer was?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Please by paganizer · 2009-03-31 20:51 · Score: 1

Damn. That really is insightful.
But, perceive for a moment, my problem: I grew up in extremely rural southern Illinois; while I have vague recollections of watching ST on my parents Black and white TV during first run (I was 6 or so), I didn't really get into it until I was 14. I purchased a ungodly large UHF antenna so I could pick up the broadcasts from st. Louis; I bought all the James Blish novelizations. I bought, frankly everything there was, sometimes 2, like the technical blueprints; there was a time, and I'm not kidding here, that you could put me at any spot in the NCC-1701 and I could tell you exactly where I was; I could identify any episode from 5 random seconds of dialogue.
I grew up, kinda. got a life, jobs, kids, etc. I thought Next Generation was sad, and pussified, but still watched it. I stopped buying stuff. I can no longer even tell you the writers of some of the episodes.
The movie, for me, is going to suck. there is no way it can NOT suck. it's anti-canon. No one on this or any other planet can possibly bring to Kirk what Shatner brought to Kirk. The only way I would ever possibly enjoy the premise of this movie is CGI or animation, because it's just farking impossible to do Star Trek with different actors correctly.

--
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Re:Please by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2009-03-31 20:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.
Erm did you ever see the original series in it's original late night spot???
Mindless sex and violence was what I remember but hey at least it was in space:)

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:Please by eltaco · 2009-03-31 21:51 · Score: 1

that's part of the setup nowadays though, isn't it? everyone chants "OMG APRIL FOOLS!", but in the article's defense it was posted 1-2 days earlier. also, that's sorta the time-frame virals need to spread around to become known.

hell, I hope I don't eat my words later, but I agree, it seems legit this time.

--
It's not about fate, it's about character.
there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
Re:Please by SerpentMage · 2009-03-31 22:26 · Score: 1

Of the little that I have seen through the trailers I thought the exact SAME THING...
I thought, oh god not yet another movie that targets this "reality TV" generation. What I always liked about Star Trek is that they always tried to put some techy stuff into the overall scheme of things. They tried to answer or provoke some question.
For example with Star Trek 1 it was women and aliens... Ohhh they could even be NORMAL...
Star Trek NG... Ohhh robots can intermingle with HUMANS...
Star Trek DS9... Ohhh sometimes humans have to HUMANS...
Star Trek Voyager??? Well sort of bouncing around to survive, granted this one was entertainment more than anything. And some would argue bad entertainment...
Star Trek Enterprise: YAWN...
So when I see these trailers all I can think of is, "wow Star Trek is dead... "

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Please by SerpentMage · 2009-03-31 22:36 · Score: 1

Or they could just make the movie for the mindless sex-and-violence crowd...
Come on... Spock and emotions with women? Yeah that will fit well into the overall scheme of things.
So the director is a producer, directory, and writer from? Lost, Alias?
Look I happen to be a huge Lost fan, but Lost is a fantasy, not scifi! Or it is that new age goo that people call scifi mixed in with a whole bunch of make believe garbage.
I think that this is what Star Trek has become FANTASY that tries to pass off as SciFi...

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 23:37 · Score: 0

I absolutely agree with you. I don't mindlessly watch each new episode and each new movie so that I could enjoy them. I watch them so I get to see the characters I grew up with, and love. Frankly, I don't care how bad the movie is... The only time that can happen is when they kill off one of my beloved characters.
Different actors == different characters. For me, anyways. I don't care how good their acting, their impersonation, etc. If I don't get to see Shatner as Kirk, or Nimoy as Spock, etc then it ain't a fucking trek movie for me.
If it was up to me, I'd never have them change actors, ever. And I'd never have them stop any series.
RIP ToS.
-XcepticZP
Re:Please by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-03-31 23:52 · Score: 1

So the director is a producer, directory, and writer from? Lost, Alias? ..and Fringe.
Oh god, the movie is doomed.
Re:Please by furby076 · 2009-04-01 00:54 · Score: 1

mindless sex and violence...so what's your problem with this movie?

--

I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 01:23 · Score: 0

Spock and emotions with women?
"Excuse me, Mr. Spock; you've come!"
"Why, so I have, lass! Thank you; here's a quarter for your efforts."
Re:Please by originalTMAN · 2009-04-01 02:38 · Score: 1

festival! festival! festival!
Re:Please by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 04:39 · Score: 0

>Or it is that new age goo that people call scifi mixed in with a whole bunch of make believe garbage.
I think you mean to call that "Syfy", pronounced "Siffie".
Re:Please by Phroggy · 2009-04-01 04:53 · Score: 1

Come on... Spock and emotions with women? Yeah that will fit well into the overall scheme of things.
Spock has always had emotions, he just attempts to hide them, like all Vulcans do. However, being half human, he is perhaps less adept at this than other Vulcans normally are. Over time, he has learned how to strike a balance.
It totally makes sense that in his younger days, he wouldn't be as good at hiding his emotions than he is in TOS. He hasn't entirely figured out that balance yet.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Please by ildon · 2009-04-01 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Therein lies the problem. For Star Trek to continue, they have to discard you, the old fan base, and forge a new fan base. You are far too few to make them enough money for it to be financially viable to continue making new series/movies. Without it being financially viable, there is no new content.
It's a trade off. The real question is whether the original vision of Gene Roddenberry (a relatively hopeful future in which human nature and contemporary conflicts are explored through a future/space allegory) is lost in the process. Of course, some say it was already lost by mid TNG, anyway.
Re:Please by CyberLord+Seven · 2009-04-01 07:02 · Score: 1

Wow, I feel everything you say. I too, at one time, could tell you the name of any episode, it's writer, and what season it first broadcast from a random five second sampling of dialogue. I too think I am not going to enjoy this new Trek.
So, why am I going to pay money to see it and drag my wife kicking and screaming into the theater with me?
Simple, I can retain the original series as it is and just watch this Trek for what it is. As an example, I am an former collector of comic books. At one time I had a nearly complete set of Amazing Spider-man; I had #1, #2, #3, all the way up to #120 missing only Amazing Fantasy #15 and a few select issues in the teens. I was a total Spider-man fan. So, when the movie came out, I dragged my wife kicking and screaming into the theater to see the movie with me. She made it clear that I was going to pay for this atrocity.
I hated the idea of Mary Jane appearing before Gwen Stacy or Liz Allen for Pete's sake! :)
There was no hint of a potential romance between Peter and Betty. He graduated High School and went to college awful damn fast. And what was up with the Goblin's mask! His expression never changed! What a shame!
Bottom line, the movie was GREAT! I liked it even with the changes. My wife liked it, and stopped resisting my movie suggestions for a while after that.
This new Trek might be like this. We may not like the changes, but it might still be a very good movie. Understand I am not guaranteeing it will be good. I'm just open to the possibility.
BTW, am I the only one who thinks the new Spock looks gay? And McCoy looks like he could kick Kirk's and Spock's ass.

--
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Re:Please by Haoie · 2009-04-01 07:33 · Score: 1

It's way too easy to mess up a prequel.
I'll leave you thinking about that, with another movie beginning with 'Star'.

--
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Re:Please by bigstrat2003 · 2009-04-01 07:57 · Score: 1

I thought the Star Wars prequels were quite good, actually. Episode I was questionable, but overall, they were even better than the originals. The only thing the originals had was the special effects, which the prequels did better. The prequels also added a story which was actually interesting, unlike the giant cliche that was in the original trilogy.
Quite simply, I really think there's no reason to rip on the Star Wars prequels.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard

to boldly go by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 17:50 · Score: 1, Informative

where every other franchise screwing leech has gone before.

April Fool's by gmhowell · 2009-03-31 17:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:April Fool's by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

10 is even. Nemesis sucked.
Re:April Fool's by gmhowell · 2009-03-31 18:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Odd sucks" does not mean "even does not suck".

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:April Fool's by lordholm · 2009-03-31 18:18 · Score: 5, Funny

I disagree, Nemesis was a very good movie. I really dont get it why people dislike the movie.
Yes, it was very dark and not the normal Trek, but it was still good and explored some interesting questions (i.e. who am I, what is a person?).

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Re:April Fool's by Socguy · 2009-03-31 18:25 · Score: 1

Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!
Duh, that's why they need to start the sequel right away. They need to get this forthcoming abomination out of the way so that they can cash in on the even numbered awesomeness!
Re:April Fool's by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:28 · Score: 0

The reason why Nemesis was so thoroughly panned was because it lacked originality - it blatantly recycled major plot elements from past Trek films (mainly Treks II, III and VI). Recycling - it's great for bottles and cans, but not so good when it comes to stories and films.
Re:April Fool's by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:44 · Score: 0

Maybe if they put freckles on Spock...
Re:April Fool's by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 21:00 · Score: 0

Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think anything connected to Shatner won't suck. OMG Khaaniez!
Re:April Fool's by interested+pyro · 2009-04-01 00:16 · Score: 0

Nemesis was a very good movie.
Nemesis was soooo messed up, I thought it was something that was shown to be an example of how not to do a Star Trek movie. I mean really, Picard's brother? If only Q was there to repay a favor to Picard and help.
Re:April Fool's by iainl · 2009-04-01 00:16 · Score: 1

My solution to that conundrum (although I thought 8 was over-rated, purely because the rest of the Next-Gen films were so unutterably terrible) is to make Galaxy Quest canon. They're quite clearly playing the cast of Trek anyway, and it's a great movie. That slots in as the real 10, with Nemesis as 11.
Of course, I'll probably revise that if Abrams turns out to have made a mess of this new one.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

Star Trek Reloaded? by Darkk · 2009-03-31 17:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Problem is the new Star Trek movie is too much like Fast and Fury which won't be appealing to older audience. Young audience might like it but I think the movie overall will fail.

Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by Aranykai · 2009-03-31 18:07 · Score: 1

I saw Fast and Furry on pay per view... Totally not work the money man.

--
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by symbolset · 2009-03-31 18:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hm. What are you, 12? It's not possible for a Trek movie to fail. It won't win an Oscar but they're not supposed to. It can't do that and fulfill Roddenberry's vision for social change through fantasy.
Not one Trek movie has ever failed to get more box office than its production cost, let alone before you figure DVD sales and merchandising. Nemesis came close but over the history of the franchise they're running 2:1 just in box. With a Costneresque budget on Trek XI they're doing their best to see if they can spend more than any box office can handle and it might just happen, but net of DVDs and books and merch the movie will make money. Old jerks like me will still drag their kids out to see it no matter how much they don't want to. We'll buy the new lightsabers for birthday gifts and the scale models for Christmas, the desk calendars and action figures and hundreds of cobranded happy meals with the cheesy Chinese lead-based toy. We'll do it because we're struggling to connect our spoiled brats with the hopeful social message of yesteryear when you didn't know the doomed guy's shirt was red because the TV was black and white. As a side effect we'll perpetuate the exploitation of a franchise that's gradually losing the vision of its creator, but hey -- that's what memes and pop culture are about.
One day my kids will be dragging their kids to Trek films. They won't know why and the films won't contain anything that makes the endeavor worthwhile. Perhaps the tradition will die with that generation. In the meantime the landfill is going to see billions of those happy meal toys. Hollywood is going to try to milk this one long after it's dry because they ran out of new ideas 15 years ago if they ever had any.
Let me condition that: If Sony buys the franchise from Viacom/Paramount it's over in one movie flat. Sony just doesn't get it and they never will.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by Darkk · 2009-03-31 18:58 · Score: 1

Dragging their kids to the movies?
Is this like brainwashing?
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by symbolset · 2009-03-31 19:29 · Score: 1

Is this like brainwashing?
Yes. Do You have a problem with parents guiding the development of their offspring? That would make you avante-garde for the 1984 movement.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 19:47 · Score: 0

I think that expecting a movie to fail because it's too popular with young people and not appealing to old people, suggests you don't understand where Hollywood gets all its money from. (Not that I agree with your other statements.)
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by FlyingSquidStudios · 2009-03-31 19:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Star Trek has light sabers too these days? As a great half-man once said, "fascinating."

--
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by symbolset · 2009-03-31 20:31 · Score: 1

Don't mess with my flow. I'm on a roll.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by newcastlejon · 2009-03-31 20:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, and you lost poor Jacqui her job. Still, she was on the fiddle and had to go, would you mind seeing to the rest of them too? You can have all the pr0n you want.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by ionix5891 · 2009-03-31 21:57 · Score: 1

mod parent UP
sorry no mod points today
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by MMC+Monster · 2009-03-31 23:38 · Score: 1

People who grew up with the Star Trek TV show are in their 40s now. They are no longer the target demographic for action movies.
It's surprising that they're making another movie at all.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by jellomizer · 2009-04-01 01:04 · Score: 1

I think the fact that people want a bunch of cool special effects is hurting the story.
The Old Star Trek up to Star Trek II space battles were more like submarines in battle. Hide and fire, avoid fire, target fire. Try to find a mistake from you enemy take advantage of it. It makes a lot of drama during the fighting and a lot is going on except for shooting and flying.
The new ones when they try to put more effects have became more like Fighter Planes in close combat where it is basically if you shoot more you win, everything is going on so fast there is no drama, just action.
Also with man to man fighting. The old Star Trek hand to hand was because either they were caught so off guard that they didn't have phasers, or they were not trying to kill the guy, or they were captured and lost their phasers. However with todays effect it is way to easy to kill a guy with a phaser. Have you ever used a laser pointer and found how easy it was to hit a target. Opps you missed well I have a less then a second to adjust my hand 2 degrees to be right on.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by mcdeath · 2009-04-01 01:29 · Score: 0

Soooooo. You're training your kids into a Pavlovian response? Is this an experiment?
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 01:37 · Score: 0

Dragging their kids to the movies?
Is this like brainwashing?
Hey, kind of like church.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by S-100 · 2009-04-01 02:39 · Score: 1

People who grew up with TOS are in their 50's now. The new movie is not meant to appeal to them at all - it's the passing of the guard to a new generation a few decades younger. Whether the oldies (like me) consider the new movie a triumph or an abomination will be irrelevant to its success or failure.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by operagost · 2009-04-01 02:39 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is Star Trek is too big to fail?

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by furby076 · 2009-04-01 03:07 · Score: 1

Problem is the new Star Trek movie is too much like Fast and Fury which won't be appealing to older audience. Young audience might like it but I think the movie overall will fail.
What are you defining as older/younger? How do you know who it will appeal to? Is it because this is an action movie you think older folks won't like it? You think older folks on like non-action movies? I grew up with star trek (shatner) all the way through. I've seen all the tv shows (every single episode), and all of the movies. I'd like to judge this movie myself, but if I were going straight on previews I already love it.

Your statement makes huge assumptions about the population.

How about you give this movie a chance before stating how much you think it will suck for a certain audience group. When you do watch it then poll about 40 "older" folks and ask them "so what did you think?"

--

I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 04:31 · Score: 0

Well in Star Trek space is pretty much two-dimensional, so... 'submarines' and 'fighter planes' are the wrong examples. The correct metaphor is 'boat'.
Space is an ocean.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by GMFTatsujin · 2009-04-01 05:15 · Score: 1

My hope is that they will drop both the submarine and the fighter pilot analogies and figure out something that actually takes the potential of space combat somewhere interesting. Somewhere strange and new, if I may borrow a previously coined phrase.
It's a vast, 3D battlefield with infinite visibility. Huge distance are involved, along with big guns and hyper-accurate computer targeting systems. Starships are mammoth, solid, semi-intelligent beasts that can take a pounding; the people inside are fragile, clever, and require very specific environmental tolerances. Vessels can move really damn fast in some ways and really damn slow in others. Individuals can carry hand weapons capable of vaporizing boulders, and space suits are practically recreational vehicles at this point.
Surely we can come up with better battle tactics than Evasive Pattern Omega.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by ildon · 2009-04-01 05:18 · Score: 1

Part of the reason the TNG movies had such a good return on investment was that they were literally glorified TV episodes. Even a very expensive TV episode is cheap compared to the average movie. I don't intend this to be an indictment, I enjoyed the TNG movies, but they are what they are. You paid ~$6.50 (at the time) to watch a really well made Star Trek episode in a nice theater.
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? by jamstar7 · 2009-04-01 08:36 · Score: 1

From everything I'm seeing so far (the trailers, the hype, ad nauseum), I'd say it's more like child abuse.
I might watch this over a buddy's house, or on cable when it hits, but I'm not going to the theatre for it. And I won't bother stealing it, either.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Confidence? by tpgp · 2009-03-31 17:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.

Paramount would have been planning another feature even if they were confident this trek was going to bomb.

--
My pics.

Re:Confidence? by Brett+Buck · 2009-03-31 17:51 · Score: 1

And be on the internet in minutes, registering their disgust!
Brett
Re:Confidence? by tcolberg · 2009-03-31 18:10 · Score: 4, Funny

What the hell!? They had to leave the field lie fallow for five years because they had squeezed every last ounce of creativity out of the last production team working on Trek. Now the comeback movie hasn't even been released yet and they're already back to raping the land for all it's worth.
Re:Confidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:13 · Score: 0

People watched Nemesis and Enterprise, so yes, I agree with the parent post.
Re:Confidence? by rolfwind · 2009-03-31 18:17 · Score: 1

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.
I never watched one in the theatre (haven't watched that many at all, actually) even though I lived through some trailers of them over a while.
I don't know what it is, but this one actually seems compelling. Perhaps it's just because there doesn't seem to be anything worth watching until May when this and then T4 comes out, but I'm plannng on seeing it.
Re:Confidence? by symbolset · 2009-03-31 18:51 · Score: 1

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.
I'll agree - unless Paramount sells the franchise to Sony. I'll bet Sony could kill even this. They are that bad.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Confidence? by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-04-01 02:12 · Score: 1

I worked with a bunch of science fiction geeks when Star Trek V came out. We all went to opening night as a group. When we came out of the theater, one member of the group said,"Wasn't that the best Star Trek Movie yet?" He was serious. The rest of us replied instantly in unison, "No!"

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Confidence? by drinkypoo · 2009-04-01 04:50 · Score: 1

Leaving fields fallow is ignorant. You plant native grasses and graze animals, to shit all over it... which is pretty much what's been done to the franchise. Now we just have to hope something good comes out of all that shit. As you might imagine from my metaphor, expecting such an outcome would be pure hallucination.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Here's to hope... by MrEricSir · 2009-03-31 17:51 · Score: 2

....hope that J.J. Abrams and friends don't screw up Star Trek. Because it sounds like they have been given carte blanche over the franchise for the time being.

RIP Gene Roddenberry.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

Re:Here's to hope... by Darkk · 2009-03-31 17:55 · Score: 1

I think Gene Roddenberry will haunt Abrams if he really screwed it up which I think he will since the latest movie is totally different from what we're used to seeing for the past 20 years.
Re:Here's to hope... by iced_773 · 2009-03-31 18:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

J.J. Abrams. Damon Lindelof. LOST. Need I say more?
Nemesis and Enterprise made me want to abandon Star Trek altogether (actually should have even earlier). But having seen who's working on this one, and being a huge Lost fan, I'm actually excited.
I still can't imagine Sylar as Spock, though...
Re:Here's to hope... by f2x · 2009-03-31 18:53 · Score: 3, Funny

No, no... You're missing the big picture. With both Roddenberry and Barrett passed on, the vacuum energy created by the suction of this next release should set their final remains into a "Hyper-spin". This in turn will induce a casimir effect so we can create the first stable worm hole. Since only parts of their remains are being launched into space, this will allow one end of the wormhole to remain on earth while the other extends deep into outer space allowing us travel to the stars at a fraction of the cost needed to produce nanotube beanstalks.

See? It's absolutely brilliant!

--
Blessed with all the brains that God gave a duck's ass, and twice the charisma.
Re:Here's to hope... by N1AK · 2009-03-31 20:45 · Score: 1

I think Gene Roddenberry will haunt Abrams if he really screwed it up which I think he will since the latest movie is totally different from what we're used to seeing for the past 20 years.
What we are used to seeing for the last 20 years includes a hell of a lot of crap. Frankly the last thing I want is another film anything like the last two. JJ Abrams could well of created something terrible with Star Trek, but I don't think the trailer is proof of that.
Re:Here's to hope... by kv9 · 2009-03-31 23:03 · Score: 1

J.J. Abrams. Damon Lindelof. LOST. Need I say more?
you make it sound like that's a good thing.

--
Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
Re:Here's to hope... by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-04-01 00:10 · Score: 1

J.J. Abrams. Fringe. Need I say more?
Re:Here's to hope... by nabsltd · 2009-04-01 03:43 · Score: 1

J.J. Abrams. Damon Lindelof. LOST. Need I say more?
Nope. That's enough to say that the movie will be pointless, with many dream sequences, time travel, and anything else to keep filling time without anything actually happening to the characters.
This will also allow the writers to not have to think about continuity at all, so we can have some kick-ass action scenes without consequences that might have to be resolved later.
Re:Here's to hope... by mattack2 · 2009-04-01 06:54 · Score: 1

Fringe is a very entertaining show.
Re:Here's to hope... by iced_773 · 2009-04-01 10:56 · Score: 1

That would be because it is.

snark->End();

You either absolutely love or absolutely hate Lost. I guess we're on the opposite sides of that one, eh?

What! No ponies??!! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 17:52 · Score: 0

It's April 1st after all.

Star Wars > Star Trek by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-03-31 17:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Though I'll admit that Trekkies are probably better than Furries.

The Reboot by Toonol · 2009-03-31 17:55 · Score: 1

In fairness, this movie does not have to be that good to be better than a number of the Star Trek movies. Their quality has been... inconsistent, at best. I'm skeptical, but I'll give it a chance.

After all, this is supposed to be modeled after the original series, which (while cerebral) also had a good share of fist-fighting and babes. More than any of the later series did, I think, at least considering the time it was aired.

Re:The Reboot by dbcad7 · 2009-03-31 18:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Personally, I would be more enthused if they did something totally different. I really have little interest in the origins of Kirk and Spock.. and I didn't care for the Enterprise series either.. I think maybe it's just the Next Gen, Voyager, DS9 series where more interesting to me, and trying to go back to the hokey past series.. is just hokey... It's like trying to remake the Dukes of Hazard.. you got to say, sure you can do it.. and probably explore different angles.. but why ?

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Re:The Reboot by sdnoob · 2009-03-31 19:02 · Score: 1

... this movie does not have to be that good to be better than a number of the Star Trek movies ...
The new Trek movie could be "Gigli in Space" and still be better than at least one of them
Re:The Reboot by Dragonslicer · 2009-04-01 04:32 · Score: 1

Because it's easier than coming up with new characters in a new story.

Aprilfoolsday is better served cold by gmuslera · 2009-03-31 17:55 · Score: 1

Is not a good day for serious announcements, so... then they DONT plan to make a sequel? What happens in the 1st one, all die? Or they are already covering their backs from the wrath of the fans if this one flops saying "next one will be good, we promise".

Pizza? by mcrbids · 2009-03-31 18:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

To paraphrase Garth Brooks....

"Star Trek is like a pizza: When it's good, it's just great. But even when it's bad, it's still pretty good!"

I'm not the type to wear blue face paint, stick pointy ears on, or know the Klingon alphabet. But I've seen every single Trek movie. I've watched all the shows, time permitting. I even endured 'Enterprise'.

Seriously, making money at a Trek show is like shooting fish in a barrel without water in it. There's a HUGE fanbase of nerds like me who dig it and make enough money to matter.

All it has to do is not actually suck bad enough to cause migraines and it will profit!

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.

Re:Pizza? by largesnike · 2009-03-31 18:33 · Score: 1

I'm not the type to wear blue face paint, stick pointy ears on, or know the Klingon alphabet. But I've seen every single Trek movie. I've watched all the shows, time permitting. I even endured 'Enterprise'.
wow...so you're the next level. I just couldn't take Enterprise, it actually physically hurt.

--
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
Re:Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 20:17 · Score: 0

wow...so you're the next level. I just couldn't take Enterprise, it actually physically hurt.
I'm afraid that wasn't Enterprise.
I'm sorry you have to find out like this, but... you have cancer and it's metastasized to your lungs and brain. You have six weeks to live.
We'll do all we can to make you comfortable in the time you have left.
Re:Pizza? by acehole · 2009-03-31 20:21 · Score: 1

"I even endured 'Enterprise'."
Much the same way I can endure water boarding. Not much difference really.

--
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Re:Pizza? by SupremoMan · 2009-03-31 21:07 · Score: 1

So people don't like Enterprise? Thank God, I thought I was the only one! You don't know what it's been like, the guilt, the fear of being exposed and shamed. I am a StarTrek fan, but I could not stomach that show!
Re:Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 21:21 · Score: 0

I liked Enterprise. I think it's better than Voyager, or even TNG. For me, TNG really lacks credibility ... I mean they have the best f*cking ship in the known universe and they get their ass kicked by pretty much everyone.
Re:Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 21:36 · Score: 0

Agreed. Enterprise is the only star trek i liked! TNG and voyager was watchable but could hardly be described as good or interesting (a few episodes are the exceptions).
Posting anonymous for obvious reasons
Re:Pizza? by FTWinston · 2009-03-31 22:57 · Score: 1

For kicks: Later TNG > Enterprise > Voyager > Early TNG > DS9 > TOS
For giggles: Enterprise > TNG > TOS > Voyager > DS9

At least, thats the way I roll.
Re:Pizza? by drinkypoo · 2009-04-01 04:59 · Score: 1

To paraphrase Garth Brooks....
Garth fucking Brooks? You may hand in your geek card on the way out. No, in fact, just give me the fucking thing now, you're leaving by the trap door. And by leaving I mean soon to be impaled on sharp fucking spikes. Besides being a totally talentless dipshit he is also a crusader against first sale rights.

[...]Brooks' stance against used CDs so infuriated West Coast consumers that hundreds of fans last week roasted the singer's albums in protest, staging "Garth Buck$ BAR-B-Qs" from Seattle to Los Angeles--including one bonfire at Silver Lake-based Rockaway Records.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Pizza? by mcrbids · 2009-04-01 06:52 · Score: 1

It's about frakkin' TIME somebody was clueful enough to notice!
I was wondering if everybody around here was an idiot?!?!? But you sir, you have finally shown some sign of cluetivity! I post an article about being a big STAR TREK fan, manage to work in a GARTH BROOKS quote, get it modded way up, and you are the only one to notice?
Srsly... WTF?!?!? What does a guy have to do around here to get some respect?!

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.

Re:Star Wars Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:09 · Score: 0

Star Trek and Star Wars do have one unfortunate thing in common. Each series is under assault by their own creators who fail to understand what it is that made them good in the first place.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-03-31 18:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-03-31 18:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

saw the trailer on the IMAX by Archfeld · 2009-03-31 18:16 · Score: 1

while catching the Watchmen...Eh...I decided right then to save a few $'s and see Star Trek on the small screen.

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Re:saw the trailer on the IMAX by Thanshin · 2009-03-31 18:36 · Score: 4, Funny

I decided right then to save a few $'s and see Star Trek on the small screen.
Great idea.
That way, when it becomes unbearable, you can simply close the phone.

Re:Star Wars Star Trek by gmhowell · 2009-03-31 18:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Star Trek's creator is dead. Paramount is no more the 'creator' of Star Trek than the RIAA (or member company) is a recording artist.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Sequel..... by IHC+Navistar · 2009-03-31 18:24 · Score: 1

"Star Trek Sequel Already Planned"

-Is that like when two Trekkies talk about having a baby?

--
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....

Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:28 · Score: 0

I can't remember if this will be even or odd numbered.. Which is it?

Re:Remind me... by Phroggy · 2009-03-31 19:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

They've left the number off, for precisely this reason.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

freudian slip? by cencithomas · 2009-03-31 18:38 · Score: 2, Funny

I read the title as "Star Trek Sequel Already Panned".

--
...'tis easier to blame than to improve.

Will ALWAYS do well? by DesScorp · 2009-03-31 18:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality

Then why was Nemesis a total failure?

No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise. And while the trailers look exciting in some regards, I have no hope that JJ Abrams will make a real Star Trek movie, just another "shiny box" movie with Star Trek characters.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Re:Will ALWAYS do well? by feepness · 2009-03-31 21:17 · Score: 1

No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise.
Enterprise actually picked up well in the last season. I was sad to see it go.

TNG started out pretty craptastic too. I think Enterprise just got too aggressive too fast with big storylines.
Re:Will ALWAYS do well? by bhunachchicken · 2009-03-31 22:47 · Score: 0

Then why was Nemesis a total failure?
I'll tell you why I didn't like it: nothing happened! The tag line for the film was "A Generation's Final Journey... Begins" and on the poster we have a sinister looking Shinzon clutching a knife. Now, seriously, given those two things am I so wrong as to believe that all (or a lot) of the cast and characters would be bumped off over the course of the movie as they tried to tackle some great evil?
It's not an unreasonable expectation, is it?
But no. Instead we get the usual bloody nice and fluffy Star Trek where fuck all happens and you never feel the characters are in mortal danger or are in fear of their lives. I mean, technically Data didn't even die!
Having said that, I'm going to go and see the new film, in the hope it is a little edgier and gritter than past movies.

--
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
Re:Will ALWAYS do well? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 22:54 · Score: 0

Enterprise had a certain je ne cais quo ... a kind acknowledgement something like "yes, we don't take ourselves too seriously... but thats ok, cos lets face it - star trek never made much sense when you took it too seriously anyway" And yes, AC :)
Re:Will ALWAYS do well? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 23:38 · Score: 0

Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality
Then why was Nemesis a total failure?
No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise. And while the trailers look exciting in some regards, I have no hope that JJ Abrams will make a real Star Trek movie, just another "shiny box" movie with Star Trek characters.
Nemesis was not a total failure as you suggest. IMDB says the budget was estimated at $60 mil, and the worldwide box office revenue was $67 mil. I think a 12% profit on the investment is not bad, especially when you consider that does not include all the revenue after boxoffice (rental, DVD sales, on-demand, etc)
Sure, it didn't generate the mega millions that some movies do, but it did make a healthy profit so you have no right to call it a total failure.
Re:Will ALWAYS do well? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 01:22 · Score: 0

Perhaps that is why they are changing the overall feel of the movie... BECAUSE they are burned out and need something shiny and new. Most of us are looking forward to the movie so go sulk in your mothers basement corner and continue to work on the "best trek movie ever to be made!" MUHAHAHA.
Re:Will ALWAYS do well? by Bemopolis · 2009-04-01 04:26 · Score: 1

No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise.
Let's lay blame where it belongs: at the feet of Berman and Braga. If anything, Paramount should be applauded for giving those hacks the damn boot and trying again with a different, and hopefully much better, team.

--
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain

Being Directed By by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:43 · Score: 1, Funny

The great Uwe Boll!!! You heard it here first folks.

Re:Being Directed By by roarinelk · 2009-03-31 21:17 · Score: 1

I wonder what Star Trek directed by Quentin Tarantino would look like...

April Tools! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 18:44 · Score: 0

No joke these are the coolest tools I've ever seen.

Re:Star Wars Star Trek by gmhowell · 2009-03-31 19:13 · Score: 1

Modded as flamebait? I guess you pissed off someone in a chipmunk suit.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Here's why by Weaselmancer · 2009-03-31 19:24 · Score: 5, Informative

I really dont get it why people dislike the movie.

This guy explains it more eloquently than I can. NSFW language.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

Re:Here's why by krou · 2009-03-31 20:49 · Score: 1

That's hilarious, thanks for the link :)

--
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Re:Here's why by Anonymusing · 2009-03-31 21:03 · Score: 1

Thank you, that was the funniest thing I've read in awhile.

--
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Re:Here's why by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 23:21 · Score: 0

NSFW language? I'm not sure a proper review of that movie could be done without heavy doses of NSFW language. There aren't non-NSFW adjectives strong enough.
The movie is a multi-million dollar "What the #!$%!% were they thinking??" moment.
I mean, I thought ST:V was bad.
Re:Here's why by Bucc5062 · 2009-03-31 23:41 · Score: 4, Funny

"DATA: The transporters conveniently failed after sending Picard, so I'm going to leap across space to get to Shinzon's ship.
GEORDI: What about the transporters in the shuttles?
DATA: Shut up.
GEORDI: What about the Captain's Yacht?
DATA: Shut up.
GEORDI: Why didn't we just send a bomb instead of Picard?
DATA: Shut up.
GEORDI: What about the transporters in the cargo bays? They're independent units, remember?
DATA: What part of "shut the fuck up" do you not understand? This is my big heroic exit, asshole. Don't fuck it up."
This has to be some of the best dialog I've read for Star Trek. if sums up every contrived scene in almost every show and movie. FCOL, if you can't use technology to your advantage, you don't deserve it.
Best laugh of the morning for me.

--
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Re:Here's why by jellomizer · 2009-04-01 00:48 · Score: 3, Funny

I agree I haven't read something so funny in a long time.
RIKER: Dim red light makes everything look more foreboding.
WORF: But didn't they say that the Remans see really well in the dark and can't stand bright lights? Why don't we crank up the lights to fullbright and blind 'em?
RIKER: Shut up and just try to look dramatic.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Here's why by slapout · 2009-04-01 01:40 · Score: 1

You forgot:
GEORDI: Hey Data, when we found an exact duplicate of you, why didn't we immediately think about Lore?

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Re:Here's why by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 04:51 · Score: 0

While that review is spot on, the hoops that site jumps through to defend the latest Star Wars disasters is embarrassing...
Re:Here's why by A.+B3ttik · 2009-04-01 05:15 · Score: 1

That way my reaction, as well.

Would've been a much better movie if it HAD been Lore.
Re:Here's why by jamstar7 · 2009-04-01 08:15 · Score: 1

Dude, you owe me TWO monitors and another pot of coffee!!!
Bout the ONLY funny thing I've seen all day!

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

EFF star anything by wintermute000 · 2009-03-31 19:43 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Star wars.
Star trek.

Two of the biggest ball and chains any geek has had to live with even if they never consented to being tarred with the same brush as all the Star X fans.

I hope the franchises die an awful death. Having some of their diehard nut fans meet the same fate would also do wonders for our cred. The only good thing about those shows is that it forms the basis for comic-book-guy's character. Oh yeah, and "Luke be a jedi toniiiiiight"......

Gayest shows ever (yes flame me please, its slashdot and "I'm not new here")

final nitpick: Star wars is not sci fi. Its a adolescent boy fantasy except with blasters and hyperspace instead of sword and sorcery. Ooh I am cruisin for a flamewar

Re:EFF star anything by teebob21 · 2009-03-31 20:12 · Score: 1

You, sir, may be trolling for some epic battle of 'teh flames' but your points are valid. Star Wars had the makings of an epic tale, if only G-Lucas could have contrived a coherent delivery. In its current form, it's been nothing more than the wet dream of a DND Magic Missile D20...with blasters and midichlori-something-or-others in the end.

--
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
Re:EFF star anything by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 01:41 · Score: 0

Star wars is not sci fi. Its a adolescent boy fantasy except with blasters and hyperspace instead of sword and sorcery.

Which I find amusing, because there are many science fiction fans who positively loath the term 'sci-fi'.
Frankly, those people need to get a life.
Re:EFF star anything by Dragonslicer · 2009-04-01 04:38 · Score: 1

The original Star Wars movies were meant to be more or less a space opera. The war pretty much was the story.

The new Star Wars movies were meant to just make easy money by exploiting the name.
Re:EFF star anything by largesnike · 2009-04-01 15:20 · Score: 1

Star wars is not sci fi
It depends on your point of view and how strict you are about a genre.

If your a hard science purist, then nothing with psychic powers or faster-than-light travel will be science-fiction, because they depart from established science fact. If your looser with the definition, then you can include FTL on the basis of science that hasn't been invented yet, and psychic or mystical content on the basis of a stretching of science in the face of some logical framework that allows more subjective material to be studied.

In fact George Lucas moved Star Wars away from (at least) the mystical by inventing metaclorins and, in-effect, turning the force (which was mystical and sort of eastern) into a biomedical phenomenon (which is kinda western).

--
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo

A series is needed, not movies. by master_p · 2009-03-31 19:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

A series allows the development of characters and story in much greater detail than movies allow. And Star Trek is special because of the details.

Star Trek became an important aspect of today's (sub) culture due to the series (TOS, TNG, DS9 etc). The movies aren't so important.

Uh Oh! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 20:04 · Score: 0

Hollywood is producing nuclear weapons...

That's... by feepness · 2009-03-31 21:13 · Score: 2, Funny

...counting your tribbles before they've hatched.

Re:That's... by mdielmann · 2009-04-01 05:58 · Score: 2, Funny

The problem with counting tribbles before they've hatched is that your number is always low.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

What's in a name? by OMGcAPSLOCK · 2009-03-31 21:23 · Score: 1

You guys piss and moan all you like. Personally, I can't wait to watch James Siberius Kirk getting into a punch-up with an angsty emo-Spock on the bridge of the Enterprise. Luckily they got somebody with the integrity and credibility of JJ Abrams to steer the good ship Trek this time round, and not some opportunistic, over the top Hollywood schmoozer who thinks all you need is a couple of badly thought out twists and a sackful of explosions to make a decent movie....

Re:What's in a name? by FTWinston · 2009-03-31 22:59 · Score: 1

James Siberius Kirk
I hope that's an attempt at humor... if not, kindly hand over your license
Re:What's in a name? by OMGcAPSLOCK · 2009-04-01 00:03 · Score: 1

I guess you've never seen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScHxUopDlKc
Re:What's in a name? by SithLordOfLanc · 2009-04-01 01:53 · Score: 1

Its Tiberious. Please turn in your geek card on your way out.
Re:What's in a name? by OMGcAPSLOCK · 2009-04-01 02:25 · Score: 1

Do I need to spell it out for you?

Tis the day... by cayenne8 · 2009-03-31 22:27 · Score: 1

April Fool's

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Living up to expectation by glwtta · 2009-03-31 22:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

My expectations are that it's going to be a pile of utter shite - should I still be hoping that it lives up to that?

--
sic transit gloria mundi

Re:Living up to expectation by Mordaximus · 2009-04-01 00:31 · Score: 1

From Wikipedia : "A newly Captained James T. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise fights Romulans from the future, who are interfering with history by destroying the Federation."
Are they KIDDING?! Time travel to interfere with history and destroy the Federation? Really? Everyone loved it in Enterprise, how could it fail here?
Hopefully, we get more Space Nazis.
I'm sure this will meet your expectations.
Re:Living up to expectation by Kagura · 2009-04-01 05:53 · Score: 1

There are very few time travel Star Trek plots that I find compelling. I enjoyed the idea of traveling back in time to recover extinct whales. I also enjoyed that time-traveling finale for TNG. However, there are too many plot holes that exist for a world allowing time travel, and I'm not pleased after hearing the basis for this script.

personally, I'm tired... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-31 23:18 · Score: 0

..of the movie industry raping my childhood. I grew up with Star Wars, Star Trek, and Indiana Jones. The last Indiana Jones movie sucked worse with Windows ME. The newest Star Wars turned darth Vader into a whinny pansy with a parasite infection so now I cann't even watch the old ones with any enjoyment. And now Star Trek? Dear lord when will the pain end?!

Timestamp: 01:46 AM April 1st, 2009 by wiredog · 2009-03-31 23:34 · Score: 1

Yep. Thought so.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Haha... by __aahurc460 · 2009-03-31 23:46 · Score: 1

April Fools!

woudl be 11 then 12 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 00:21 · Score: 0

currently :
Star trek 1 the motion picture
Star trek 2 the wrath of khan
Star trek 3 search for spock
Star trek 4 the voyage home
Star trek 5 final frontier
Star trek 6 The undiscovered country
Star trek 7 Generations
Star trek 8 First contact
Star trek 9 insurrection
Star trek X10 Nemisis

retro-soaps IMO by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-01 00:22 · Score: 0

Really, thats all I can think of when I see any of the current ongoing "revamps" of older classic series. Take BSG.. I actually managed to watch an episodes when I eventually wondered if I was watching a sci fi series or some "Bold and the Beautiful up in space" kind of thing. The story line is dragged and smeared out almost into an absurd pase; in a timespam where normally you'd have some badguy (Balthasar for example) setting up a twisted evil plot and trying to work it out we're now treated to someone who needs to get with herself and bring herself to admitting a mistake she made. Two people look at each other, the image freezes and whoosh; off to another scene right untill that time where we're back to the confession again. I don't know about you, but I can only stick a label soap onto it. Its the same kind of sillyness that my gf uses to watch with the big exception being that this one is allowed to label it under a well known name.

And now Star Trek again? I fear for the worst.

Is this a reboot? by XxtraLarGe · 2009-04-01 00:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm a casual Star Trek fan. I've seen all the movies, watched quite a bit of TOS & TNG, but never got into DS9 or the others. I've seen the trailer for this, but must admit, I don't know too much about it except that it's supposed to start from when Kirk first enters the academy. I'm not a stickler for cannon, and I don't mind when a movie takes some liberties with the origins of characters (like in Iron Man, Spiderman, etc.). Since I'm only a casual fan, I wouldn't mind a reboot of the series. I just hope everybody will be able to judge the movie on it's own merits and not have a bunch of complaining about how something in the plot line doesn't grok with episode y of series x.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

Re:Is this a reboot? by Devistater · 2009-04-01 00:53 · Score: 1

Ok, but how about the books?
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Destiny-Star-Diane-Carey/dp/0671795880
The best star trek book ever written. Tells about his father and kirk, and an experiance they had together that shaped kirk's entire life. Has a number of moving scenes of self sacrifice on the part of both kirk and his dad (after kirk starts to get over his teenage issues with his dad).
It would be a TRUELY great star trek movie if they used that book. Unfortunately, the movie seems to be going in a totally differant direction (from watching the trailers).

Yank the plug... by CFBMoo1 · 2009-04-01 01:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd rather see stories of other ships in the Federation, not rehashes of the same ship and crew as the time line gets bent over sideways and backwards.

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~

Re:Yank the plug... by Abcd1234 · 2009-04-01 02:39 · Score: 1

I'd rather see stories of other ships in the Federation
Yeah. They did that. It's called Voyager. And Enterprise. I'm sure there are plenty of fans (myself included) who wouldn't want to see a repeat of them...
not rehashes of the same ship and crew as the time line gets bent over sideways and backwards.
Not that I have any faith whatsoever in the work Abrams, et al, have done, but to be fair, it's quite clear the new movie is intended to be a reset, in which case there is no time line to get "bent over sideways".
Re:Yank the plug... by Taibhsear · 2009-04-01 08:26 · Score: 1

I'd rather see stories of other ships in other races, allied to the federation or not. I think a Klingon or Romulan based show would be crazy. They're such drama queens there would always be plenty of material.

cool... by Darkdio · 2009-04-01 02:08 · Score: 1

thats cool

finish it by Oldyeller89 · 2009-04-01 02:29 · Score: 1

when will it end? They need to just stop trying to suck money out of the series. Only thing they can do is tarnish the episodes of yore.

Re: Mindless Sex and Violence by GargamelSpaceman · 2009-04-01 03:08 · Score: 3, Informative

The trailers I've seen for the new Star Trek movie make me actually want to see it. It looks edgier which is exactly what Star Trek needs to survive.

TNG, and Voyager were space soap operas. The original Star Trek had some mild edginess though, albeit necessarily fit for 1960s TV. Star Trek can have more Edginess today.

Star Trek Original re-vampped has at least as much value as the zillions of Comic Book Superhero movies with the same story that have come out of late. I watch those for fun. I'll watch the new Star Trek too.

--
...

Re: Mindless Sex and Violence by nabsltd · 2009-04-01 03:31 · Score: 1

The trailers I've seen for the new Star Trek movie make me actually want to see it. It looks edgier which is exactly what Star Trek needs to survive.

Since the most "edgy" Star Trek series flamed out after 4 years, I don't know whether it's what ST fans want.

You can argue about other issues with Enterprise, but any series where the captain of "The Big E" is torturing prisoners (and not just in the mirror universe) has to win the "edgy" crown.

The most complaints about Enterprise seem to be about the changing of canon (Romulans were pre-warp until Kirk's time, Borg and Klingon first contact were retconned, and don't get me started on the Suliban and Xindi), and this new movie does exactly the same sort of things.

I have no doubt it will make a crapload of money the first weekend, and it might even make a lot overall, but it's not going to be because it's a good Star Trek movie.

Trading Places by SteveFoerster · 2009-04-01 03:42 · Score: 1

I still can't imagine Sylar as Spock, though...

I think they got him in trade for letting George Takei be on Heroes. Anyway, I think he'll be good. Remember that a core message of Star Trek is to have optimism about the future even in the face of what seems like adversity. Why not apply that philosophy to the series itself?

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org

Re:Here's to hope they DO mess it up. by GargamelSpaceman · 2009-04-01 03:50 · Score: 1

That's what Star Trek DESPERATELY needs. The fans know what's going to happen long before it does. The fans know too much about the characters, who are stiff and bland appeal to mass TV audiences as well as a knowledgeable fanbase over the years. The old Trek had more spunk than anything since in that regard which makes it the ideal Trek to reboot.

The fans know too much about the Star Trek universe, and even too much about Star Trek technology. This severely needs a reboot. Star Trek Technology has evolved to conveniently resolve plot points. And each technological development elimnates potential plots from being interesting in the future. They have a way out of anything now.

The New Star Trek should have ( if it didn't ) start out with something that loudly proclaims to fans that they don't know shit. Something needs to happen that says forget whatever you think you knew about Star Trek, it's universe or it's characters. The expectations of existing fans should be COMPLETELY and even deliberately disrespected throughout with the goal of forging new and interesting possibilities and plots. Knowing much of anything about a universe is anathema to the feeling of exploring the unknown that a movie about space explorers should drip with, and that goes for the characters too. They shouldn't be too cozy with each other, they shouldn't know each other too well, the audience shouldn't either. Will Spock act human like or vulcan like? He should NOT always act in the way that makes him likeable, or even admirable by a MASS audence. People don't shape their personalities to appeal to a mass audience. Star Trek characters do unless they are wearing a red shirt.

Star Trek needs unpredictablility not just in points of plot, but in points of fact, and in points of character. Without not just disrespecting but deliberately DESTROYING the baggage of the past, can there be any hope to mine the PREMISE for worthwhile stories going forward.

I want half the audience to thing Spock is a dick. I want half the audience to think Kirk is an asshole. Etcetera. Everyone should be able to find someone they like, at least somewhat, and the interaction should be interesting and unpredictable, and most of all worthwhile to watch.

--
...

Re:Timestamp: 01:46 AM April 1st, 2009 by Ghost+Hedgehog · 2009-04-01 03:55 · Score: 1

Lets hope so.

Why so dismissive of a new cast? by gknoy · 2009-04-01 05:23 · Score: 1

No one on this or any other planet can possibly bring to Kirk what Shatner brought to Kirk.... [I]t's just farking impossible to do Star Trek with different actors correctly.

I agree that the original cast brought amazing intensity and excellence to their portrayals, but I think it's too harsh to say that NO ONE can every do it "correctly" besides them. For classic literature (and Star Trek is IMO a classic among science-fiction, at least for its popular impact), the story and characters can be interpreted well by multiple people, as it's the core of it that is the classic part. The Cage was one of my favourite Star Trek episodes, and has very few of the same cast members. Similarly, I've read Hamlet, and seen several performances of it. I felt that Kenneth Branagh's portrayal was very nuanced, and highlighted things which the text only hints at -- I had many "so THAT is what that could have meant!" moments.

Do we miss out on the original performers' interpretations of Hamlet (or Star Trek) when others do it? Yes. However, I don't think one can say that everyone else is Doing It Wrong. A story has little value if the audience cannot connect with it ... in two hundred years, will people be watching Shatner, or some other (more contemporary) actor portraying Kirk? Students of film or sci-fi may watch Shatner, but I don't think that it will be a tragic loss if others portray the same character as well.

May I suggest... by thetoadwarrior · 2009-04-01 07:33 · Score: 1

It needs more fast cuts while adding in Matrix-like slo-mo. The actors should be very young too...perhaps one without public hair.

Nothing makes a movie lamer than it not catering to my ADD while featuring actors who clearly aren't hip, fresh and speak my language.

Slashdot Mirror

Star Trek Sequel Already Planned

213 comments