Topic: No word on Star Trek XI...

[Lieutenant_Q]

...but this does raise a question or three.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081015/media_nm/us_paramount_2

[Cptn_Pestalence_XC]

According to the Official site.. they have 2 release dates shown.. the main page shows May 8, 2009 release date, however the browser tab shows May 30, 2009 release date..

No mention of cancellation.. especially since so much money has already been spent on the movie.. Filming IIRC is complete.. it is in the Cutting room and CGI departments currently .. Music and Audio will be added after that.. should be complete in advance of May 30.. however they may not make the May 8th release date shown on the site currently, which is why the tab is showing a different "In Theatres" date.

I do not believe that Paramount will can ST XI.. they have already invested so much money and almost 2 1/4 years into ST XI production.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

That's garbage. No issues with the new trek movie.  A new trailer with footage of the ship and cast from the movie will be out in november. For news on the movie check:

 trekmovie.com

look at a picture of the uss kelvin in battle.

[Cptn_Pestalence_XC]

I'm going by the Official site set up by Paramount..

www.startrekmovie.com

or you can look in the official forums

www.startrekmovie.com/forums

when you go to the first link.. you will see the advertised release date.. but look at your browser tab and put your mouse over it.. it will say "In Theaters May 30, 2009" where as the main page states May 8, 2009 .. so the movie may yet be delayed again.. the original release date was suppose to be Dec. 2008 and got pushed back because of Abrams working on that other movie last year...

Anyhow terkmovie.com is a good site for investigating the making of the movie and spoilers.. however you have to keep in mind that 40% of what they post, especially images, are fan created and 60% of articles are pure speculation.. Abrams has attempted to keep a lid on most information of the movie.. some stuff has leaked but not a lot.

So I still rather stick with the official site...

[dragoon]

They've released a shot of the USS Kelvin..

http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/10/16/Entertaiment-Weekly-Reveals-Spoilers-for-the-Movie-Plus-New-Photo-of-the-USS-Kelvin.shtml

I like the design.

[Lieutenant_Q]

NCC - 0514?

Shouldn't that be NCC - 514?  What's up with the leading zero?

Ship looks nice, but I have to wonder if Abrahms has any clue to Star Trek.

[Corbomite]

NCC - 0514?

Shouldn't that be NCC - 514?  What's up with the leading zero?

Ship looks nice, but I have to wonder if Abrahms has any clue to Star Trek.

Like everyone else that has helmed it in recent years, he wants to "reboot" it... whatever that means. The first Trek he ever saw was TMP and he wasn't impressed. He's more into Star Wars.

[Roychipoqua_Mace]

The visuals for the film, including the fiery Kelvin in battle, look nice. I think they have too much CGI, though. The TMP-series models were perfect - enough detail to stand out from TOS, but not so much as to be overwhelming. It just seems that now that things are all computer-generated, the animators get too bogged down in little details. As another example, comparing the original Star Wars trilogy with its special effects to the second trilogy: it's hard to describe how the CG starship effects are different, they just look off.

I could only hope that big Hollywood productions go back to models, but I can't see that happening. Maybe in a few years, animators will have the technology to make a simpler style that looks more realistic.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Best example with Star Wars.  Compare the Imperial Walkers in The Empire Strikes Back, to the Republic Walkers at the end of uh...whatever that POS II was called.

[knightstorm]

This film is gonna suck.  I can honestly say that this will. the first trek film that I haven't seen in theaters since I was 7.  I may watch it on DVD, but there is no way I am going to shell out $15 to watch it on the big screen.

[dragoon]

This film is gonna suck.  I can honestly say that this will. the first trek film that I haven't seen in theaters since I was 7.  I may watch it on DVD, but there is no way I am going to shell out $15 to watch it on the big screen.

I don't see how you can make that judgement based on what we know... I thought apart from First Contact, TNG films sucked, and I think that only Wrath of Khan and undiscovered country were good.. So really, only 3 out of 10 films were even worth watching.... granted Trek 4 was amusing, but not worth a cinema viewing.

This is a $150 million film, that is making an effort to put some life into something that's been on slow death for 10 or more so years.

I for one will see this in the cinema. If it's a load of crap, then shame on me for going to see it, but if it is brilliant, then I would have had the joy of seeing it on the big screen... however, what I pay for my local cinema is about $7.80, so it's not a big loss.

I for one am generally excited about it, and thankful that they're willing to throw out some " canon ".... a term which has never really been consistent anyway.
The whole thing of people frothing at the mouth because some minor "fact" has changed is stupid in the extreme. ( not saying that's your reason though )

I wen to see Keanu Reeves film Street Kings a few months back.... I thought it would be a load of rubbish, but I went because my friend had nobody to see it with that week. And I really enjoyed it.

I think the problem with a lot of Trek Fans is that, they are afraid that this will be bad and spoil something important to them. It's understandable... but I don't care about the old fans. I want this to gain a massive new following, what with Children being the future and all that.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I can say this.  I Absolutely HATE the new Bridge.

Is that going to keep me from watching it?  No.

[knightstorm]

This film is gonna suck.  I can honestly say that this will. the first trek film that I haven't seen in theaters since I was 7.  I may watch it on DVD, but there is no way I am going to shell out $15 to watch it on the big screen.

I for one am generally excited about it, and thankful that they're willing to throw out some " canon ".... a term which has never really been consistent anyway.
The whole thing of people frothing at the mouth because some minor "fact" has changed is stupid in the extreme. ( not saying that's your reason though )

I wen to see Keanu Reeves film Street Kings a few months back.... I thought it would be a load of rubbish, but I went because my friend had nobody to see it with that week. And I really enjoyed it.

I think the problem with a lot of Trek Fans is that, they are afraid that this will be bad and spoil something important to them. It's understandable... but I don't care about the old fans. I want this to gain a massive new following, what with Children being the future and all that.

The problem is that I don't think that hack Abrams wants to throw out "some cannon."  Generally all of the movies have been watchable, and even Nemesis is better than that drivel that Lucas was busy churning out at the time.  A few such as 2, 6, and 8 were masterpieces.  I'm also afraid that in addition to dumping cannon, Abrams might try to pervert Star Trek into some sort of flash gordonesque type thing.  These fears are based on the teaser which shows the Enterprise being built planetside, and the warp nacelles which appear to have tail fins.

[dragoon]

I just don't see why the ship having slight fins and being built on a planet should mean the film will suck.
Everything i've read, and all that has been said by those working on the film, haev said that they've kept as much cannon as possible, and even refered back to some of the various books too.... Aparently they even adopted aspects of the Romulan Lanuage from the series of Rhianssu books.

In the end, none of us can really judge the film until we see it.... but for me, i will see it in the cinema, because if I don't and it turns out to be brilliant, I will regret that I never took the chance when it was. Of course if it's crap, i'll regret going.....
But the Trek is supposed to be positive, so I will be too.   

[Corbomite]

I don't care what anyone says, I like ST III. It has a lot of funny moments, good McCoy lines "How can you be deaf with ears like that!" "That green blooded SOB! This is payback for all those arguments he lost!" and Christopher Lloyd is the best Klingon ever. He set the template for all TNG Klingons. Kirk's scene with Sarek is also really well done.

[dragoon]

I don't care what anyone says, I like ST III. It has a lot of funny moments, good McCoy lines "How can you be deaf with ears like that!" "That green blooded SOB! This is payback for all those arguments he lost!" and Christopher Lloyd is the best Klingon ever. He set the template for all TNG Klingons. Kirk's scene with Sarek is also really well done.

Maybe I was a bit harsh about the trek films.... what I meant was that only 3 of them I feel are worth seeing in the cinema.
When their on TV, then they naturally get watched

I actually look forward to remastered/Blu ray versions of them.

[Roychipoqua_Mace]

I don't care what anyone says, I like ST III. It has a lot of funny moments, good McCoy lines "How can you be deaf with ears like that!" "That green blooded SOB! This is payback for all those arguments he lost!" and Christopher Lloyd is the best Klingon ever. He set the template for all TNG Klingons. Kirk's scene with Sarek is also really well done.

ST3 is a lot of fun, so many great scenes. Do you remember the Seinfeld episode where Kramer and Jerry argue over which Star Trek movie is the best (Kramer for III, Jerry for II), and Kramer meditates on his 'katra' to defeat little kids in Karate?

For some reason, my favorite Trek film is The Motion Picture. Each time I watch it or even think about it, the more I like it. The novelization by Roddenberry is supposed to be better than the film, so I will give that a try.

[Vipre]

ST:II and III seem like halves of a whole to me and storywise with ST:IV you could call it a "Death and Rebirth of Spock" trilogy.

[knightstorm]

I just don't see why the ship having slight fins and being built on a planet should mean the film will suck.

It represents a style of storyline which is directly opposed to what Star Trek is.  One of the reasons why Star Trek was so memorable was that it broke away from earlier conventions in science fiction.  Now Abrams wants to drag it back to them.

Everything i've read, and all that has been said by those working on the film, haev said that they've kept as much cannon as possible, and even refered back to some of the various books too.... Aparently they even adopted aspects of the Romulan Lanuage from the series of Rhianssu books.

Books aren't cannon.  Especially ones like the Rihansu series which was started so long ago, that cannon has diverged very far away from it.

[Dash Jones]

ST:II and III seem like halves of a whole to me and storywise with ST:IV you could call it a "Death and Rebirth of Spock" trilogy.

Does this mean that V-VII are the Death of Kirk Trilogy?  Where Kirk says he knows he's going to die alone in V....has problems in VI...and then disappears alone...and brought back and then dies in VII?

[Vipre]

ST:II and III seem like halves of a whole to me and storywise with ST:IV you could call it a "Death and Rebirth of Spock" trilogy.

Does this mean that V-VII are the Death of Kirk Trilogy?  Where Kirk says he knows he's going to die alone in V....has problems in VI...and then disappears alone...and brought back and then dies in VII?

Hadn't thought of that but I suppose you could.

The difference in my eye though is that major parts of III and IV revolved around Spock's death and difficulties after coming back to life, III as we know being almost totally about how far the crew would go to recover his body even to the point of completely throwing their careers away. IV used it mostly for comedic effect unfortunately but it was still a major part. Kirk's on the other hand was not the focus of V, VI or VII, his death in VII just being a way to pass the torch and more a parallel of ST:II and Spock's Death. Had the next two been based on Shatner's books then there'd be IMO a comparable Kirk Death/Life trilogy.

ST:II, III, IV are linked together fairly solidly though just in the way that III picks up almost right where II leaves off showing the aftermath and IV starts I think six months after III ends and finishes with the consequences of the actions in III. The last three don't have that same type of connection.

[knightstorm]

ST:II and III seem like halves of a whole to me and storywise with ST:IV you could call it a "Death and Rebirth of Spock" trilogy.

Does this mean that V-VII are the Death of Kirk Trilogy?  Where Kirk says he knows he's going to die alone in V....has problems in VI...and then disappears alone...and brought back and then dies in VII?

No.  2-4 were loosely planned out ahead of time as a coherent storyline.  Also, originally, the Excelsior was supposed to become the new Enterprise, but alot of fans reacted hostily to the idea because lets face it, The refit constitution class was probably the most aesthetically pleasing of all of the Enterprise models.

[knightstorm]

also, another area which shows the high and mighty producers didn't bother to do research is the uniforms.  While I can't say I'm against mini-skirts , the uniform used in both TOS pilots is of a different design. 

[James Smith]

also, another area which shows the high and mighty producers didn't bother to do research is the uniforms.  While I can't say I'm against mini-skirts , the uniform used in both TOS pilots is of a different design.

Oh, for the love of God.....

It's a re-boot, not a direct prequel to TOS as we know it. They could have done whatever they wanted with the uniforms. It isn't an example of "the high and mighty producers" stomping all over the beloved Trek universe.

[knightstorm]

Oh, for the love of God.....

It's a re-boot, not a direct prequel to TOS as we know it. They could have done whatever they wanted with the uniforms. It isn't an example of "the high and mighty producers" stomping all over the beloved Trek universe.

ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REBOOT.  They said they were going to be respectful of cannon.  So that makes them liars.  I don't consider the uniforms that important, but the fact that they couldn't even get that right is more evidence that they are going over the franchise with a blunt instrument.  Add to that the fact that Abrams once submitted some crazy martial arts/sci-fi script as his pitch for the superman film I have cause to be concerned.

[dragoon]

They have said it's not a reboot, but also not meant to be a direct prequel. They are following "cannon" but also taking some of the best stuff from various books too, that they feel make sense and add to the film.

However, you have got to remember that they don't want to weigh the film down with "Cannon" to the point that a new audience feels like they can't get into it.
If they made the film for people who nit-pick over uniforms, or nacelle fins ( as an example ), then it will never make enough money to deserve a sequel. This film can not be made just for us, it has to appeal to a new audience too, and by going back to just before TOS, they are offering new viewers the chance to get into the wider stories.

That depends of course, that new audiences could ignore the age of TOS after watching this. I for one am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[knightstorm]

They have said it's not a reboot, but also not meant to be a direct prequel. They are following "cannon" but also taking some of the best stuff from various books too, that they feel make sense and add to the film.

However, you have got to remember that they don't want to weigh the film down with "Cannon" to the point that a new audience feels like they can't get into it.
If they made the film for people who nit-pick over uniforms, or nacelle fins ( as an example ), then it will never make enough money to deserve a sequel. This film can not be made just for us, it has to appeal to a new audience too, and by going back to just before TOS, they are offering new viewers the chance to get into the wider stories.

That depends of course, that new audiences could ignore the age of TOS after watching this. I for one am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not nitpicking.  If you had bothered to read my previous posts fully, I gave reasons why I feel these things are important.  The look they give the Enterprise represents the overall tone of the  film.  The fact that they gave it tail fins means they're probably going to stick it in some sort of Flash Gordonesque adventure.  As I also stated the uniforms aren't really that important, but with everything else, it shows they really didn't put a lot of effort into respecting cannon despite their earlier promises.  We're talking about a guy who wanted to have a Kung Fu Superman in a cybersuit battle a kryptonian Lex Luthor.  There is a good chance that he will keep the name, but produce a product that is definitely not Star Trek.

[James Smith]

ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REBOOT. 

Really? Sure looks like a reboot to me.

They said they were going to be respectful of cannon.  So that makes them liars.

Being 'respectful' of Trek canon doesn't mean 'follow it slavishly'.

I don't consider the uniforms that important

Apparently, you do....you're certainly making a fairly big deal out of it in this thread.

but the fact that they couldn't even get that right is more evidence that they are going over the franchise with a blunt instrument.

Melodramatic, much? It's not like they're calling warp drive "hyperspace". Or giving the Enterprise plasma cannons. Or making Scotty a girl.

Canon is great. It's nice when a universe hangs together coherently. But canon has been overtaken by events in the Real World™, and has even been re-written within the Trek universe by the various powers that be over the years. And at the end of the day - we're talking about uniforms here FFS!

Add to that the fact that Abrams once submitted some crazy martial arts/sci-fi script as his pitch for the superman film I have cause to be concerned.

And you think that not using the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" uniforms is on that level, huh? Yikes.

I'll say again - canon is great, but to say that they have to follow it exactly when it doesn't even hang together absolutely perfectly anyway is a bit short-sighted.

[knightstorm]

ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REBOOT. 

Really? Sure looks like a reboot to me.

They said they were going to be respectful of cannon.  So that makes them liars.

Being 'respectful' of Trek canon doesn't mean 'follow it slavishly'.

I don't consider the uniforms that important

Apparently, you do....you're certainly making a fairly big deal out of it in this thread.

but the fact that they couldn't even get that right is more evidence that they are going over the franchise with a blunt instrument.

Melodramatic, much? It's not like they're calling warp drive "hyperspace". Or giving the Enterprise plasma cannons. Or making Scotty a girl.

Canon is great. It's nice when a universe hangs together coherently. But canon has been overtaken by events in the Real World™, and has even been re-written within the Trek universe by the various powers that be over the years. And at the end of the day - we're talking about uniforms here FFS!

Add to that the fact that Abrams once submitted some crazy martial arts/sci-fi script as his pitch for the superman film I have cause to be concerned.

And you think that not using the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" uniforms is on that level, huh? Yikes.

I'll say again - canon is great, but to say that they have to follow it exactly when it doesn't even hang together absolutely perfectly anyway is a bit short-sighted.

If you had bothered using that lump of matter between your ears I wouldn't have to repeat myself in saying that the uniform is not important as long as they don't make severe changes to cannon.  The only reason I brought it up is that from what little they have released about the film, it doesn't seem to be keeping with their promise to respect cannon.  And excuse me if my decision to not write in simple sentences, and to make use metaphors offends you.  As for my comparison to the superman pitch, lets face it superman is definitely more iconic than star trek, and if he was willing to do that to him, imagine what he wants to do here.

[James Smith]

If you had bothered using that lump of matter between your ears I wouldn't have to repeat myself in saying that the uniform is not important as long as they don't make severe changes to cannon.

Oh, I see. We're going to be like that are we? Fair enough.

Quick point. Your quote that I replied to was:

also, another area which shows the high and mighty producers didn't bother to do research is the uniforms.  While I can't say I'm against mini-skirts  , the uniform used in both TOS pilots is of a different design.

So, no mention of it not being important as long as severe changes to canon are not made. But what the hell, right? I mean, I ought to have been able to read your ******* mind....

The only reason I brought it up is that from what little they have released about the film, it doesn't seem to be keeping with their promise to respect cannon.

They're keeping a lid on the details. I see no reason to worry about their respect or (or lack of respect) for canon until we have rather more than tail fins on the nacelles and the style of the uniforms....

And excuse me if my decision to not write in simple sentences, and to make use metaphors offends you.

Believe me princess, if your post had offended me I simply wouldn't have replied to it. I just found it fascinating that you were whinging about the damned uniforms and holding them up as an example of how disrespectful of canon the film-makers were being.

As for my comparison to the superman pitch, lets face it superman is definitely more iconic than star trek, and if he was willing to do that to him, imagine what he wants to do here.

Oh, okay. So we're going to complain about the potential for them to completely disregard Trek canon, rather than complain about them actually disregarding Trek canon.

Yes, potentially they can royally **** this movie up. They could even make a good movie that isn't a very good Trek one (which would probably be even more irritating). But to throw around statements such as "This film is gonna suck" based on the very limited amount of info we have right now....