|
I'm not sure a Star Trek show, even a top notch one, could work today. It was somewhat slowly paced, a lot of things happened offscreen (battles mainly consisted of people at terminals narrating what was going on), serviceable visuals, and had an optimistic view of humankind. It's the exact opposite of today's programming. HBO's going to make some kind of Game of Thrones in Space and that will be as close as you get to a new Trek.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:Maybe, but there were so many near misses by things that are definitely still out there that he really should warn them, because really the odds of them making it through, say, V'Ger or Whale Probe are practically nil. They just got incredibly lucky the first time around. Which JJTrek IV should be about the crew traveling back to the 80s and constantly running into their original Trek IV actor selves and hiding before they see them. Then Spock realizes, "We need the whales to save OUR timeline, and the timeline they come from may no longer exist for THEM to save once they leave this era." Then New Kirk and company have to find another set of whales to take back to the future with them. Eventually, the many repeated changes to the timeline gets so muddled that the population of California, for brief moment in the 80s, has a huge spike made up mostly of time traveling crews of the Enterprise collecting whales. Eventually one of the crews realize, "These whales didn't go extinct because of people from the 20th century!! IT'S BEEN US! IT'S BEEN US THE WHOLE TIME! It's been people from the future coming back to this exact moment in time to SAVE the whales that we are the ones that caused them to go extinct in the first place in this era! WE'RE the ones who have been overfishing them!!" "Whales are not fish, Captain." "..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 10:05
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:It was somewhat slowly paced, a lot of things happened offscreen (battles mainly consisted of people at terminals narrating what was going on), serviceable visuals, Well, LOST exceeded it in every one of these factors...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Which JJTrek IV should be about the crew traveling back to the 80s and constantly running into their original Trek IV actor selves and hiding before they see them. Then Spock realizes, "We need the whales to save OUR timeline, and the timeline they come from may no longer exist for THEM to save once they leave this era." It does bring up an interesting point though, would OT Kirk and the gang be back in 1985 of this timeline? I'd say no, because what future could they go back to? Like Old Spock, their timeline is locked out. Somebody else would have to have invented transparent aluminum, Gillian is still back in the 20th century and probably dies well before WWIII. Basically, when Nero went back the entire future as we knew it was cut off, and therefore all the future chicanery and time travel from the 23rd century and up to the 20th and 21st that we saw never happened. In JJTrek, Kirk is NOT in the 1930s with Edith Keeler. The Borg never come back to gently caress with First Contact, therefore Picard wasn't there, and the Borg stuff that happened in Enterprise never happened. Most likely, even the Future Guy stuff and Temporal Cold War may never have happened. So actually events in Enterprise that would have been canon aren't necessarily so. Every time travel ep we've seen...Tomorrow is Yesterday, Little Green Men, the Voyager one where they go to the 90s. Not in the JJ Trek timeline. And speaking of DS9, what does that mean for The Sisko? Do the Prophets still bring him into existence, or is there some other Emissary? Depending on their real power, Sisko might actually still be around in a hundred years. But the odds of many of the cast of TNG, DS9, and Voyager even being born are pretty slim. Even the slightest change of a second related to their conception, even if their parents still got together and even if they had sex at the same time, still might mean Picard and everyone may never have been born. The farther you go, the more likely things will have changed. Noonian Soong was pretty old by TNG, so he might have squeaked in and could still create a Data-like android. Tuvok was probably born around the time of TOS, but after Nero's original arrival, so he may not even have been around for the destruction of Vulcan, but he probably wouldn't have survived that. Sadly, Neelix is still destined to be born.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
Astroman posted:It does bring up an interesting point though, would OT Kirk and the gang be back in 1985 of this timeline? I'd say no, because what future could they go back to? Like Old Spock, their timeline is locked out. Somebody else would have to have invented transparent aluminum, Gillian is still back in the 20th century and probably dies well before WWIII. They would still exist in the new timeline as artifacts of time travel between timelines, akin to the jet engine in Donnie Darko. It's an unexplained anomaly in the new timeline (this mysterious fat Scotsman appeared and gave a company the patent for transparent aluminum back in the '80s and, along with a Russian, is involved in a whale kidnapping) that does have an explanation (time travel). Just because there's time travel that happens later in the series canon doesn't mean it didn't happen in the JJTrek Universe. Edit: I'm not sure if Abrams has mentioned the Sisko, so long as he doesn't blow up NOLA or Bejor, the Prophets will continue to look after the Sisko. A quick check of Tuvok indicates he was born on Vulcanis, a lunar settlement, some nine years after Star Trek, so his mother could have been there or lucked out and were survivors before Vulcan imploded, while his father could still be in Starfleet Academy. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 10:50
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:They would still exist in the new timeline as artifacts of time travel between timelines, akin to the jet engine in Donnie Darko. It's an unexplained anomaly (this mysterious fat Scotsman appeared and gave a company the patent for transparent aluminum back in the '80s and is involved in a whale kidnapping) that does have an explanation (time travel). Just because there's time travel that happens later in the series canon doesn't mean it didn't happen in the JJTrek Universe. A long time ago I thought it would have been sort of interesting in JJTrek or Enterprise to show off a temporal artifact division, so to speak, where there were people in charge of collecting and cataloging chronological displacement events and items that didn't make sense to belong. It'd be a bit of an fun callback to all the time-travel shenanigans that happened in Trek over the years: The remains of Spock's computer from Edge of Forever, a TNG era commbadge that was damaged, hints of things that hadn't happened that could be played out in other series, movies or episodes and potentially things that in that timeline could seemingly NEVER happen but still existed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 11:02
|
|
|
Lest we forget the alternate reality where the Borg took the galaxy and Riker's beard is out of control
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 11:08
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:A long time ago I thought it would have been sort of interesting in JJTrek or Enterprise to show off a temporal artifact division, so to speak, where there were people in charge of collecting and cataloging chronological displacement events and items that didn't make sense to belong. Well, DS9 did show us the existence of the Department of Temporal Investigations; some more stuff involving them would have been awesome. ("James T. Kirk. Seventeen separate temporal violations. The biggest file on record. The man was a menace.") MikeJF fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
Do you think it's widespread knowledge that Ambassador Spock is from another universe, in the world of JJTrek? Or is it a closely guarded secret or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Lest we forget the alternate reality where the Borg took the galaxy and Riker's beard is out of control Or Tasha Yar's Romulan daughter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
In one of the first episodes of the animated series, the crew finds a sentient time portal and go through it to watch the beginning of the universe or something and somehow Spock accidentally erases himself from existence. The animated series rules, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
By the way I think Galaxy Quest qualifies as a Star Trek movie and as such, it's in the Top 5. Genuinely great movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:By the way I think Galaxy Quest qualifies as a Star Trek movie and as such, it's in the Top 5. Genuinely great movie. I remember laughing about that when it came out. Then I saw it. Absolutely blew me away
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:I'm not sure a Star Trek show, even a top notch one, could work today. Basically I really, really miss Star Trek on TV, and the longer I go without having my thirst quenched the tastier sea water looks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:I would be okay with this. Even if it's not Star Trek as I know it at least it would be watchable. Society grows dumber every day there's no Star Trek on TV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
If you're being exceedingly optimistic we could conceivably see a TV revival before the movies are utterly played out, think Avengers. Then again, the Avengers is probably a bad example since they aren't just "The Avengers" and they played out the rest of the Marvel universe pretty hard in movie form for like, what half a decade, before going to TV? What I'm saying is, you probably won't get TV Trek until they've done quite a bit more movie stuff, if at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
I guess all the sci-fi nerds shifted mediums and are all working in video games now, because it seems like 90% of all games that come out these days are either straight science fiction or have some kind of science fiction bent. Even Assassin's Creed, a series about murdering people in various historical settings, has a sci-fi framing device. Or Mass Effect, which is overtly a pastiche of Star Trek and Star Wars that manages to pull of both better than most of the recent offerings from those respective franchises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
I don't understand how we're supposed to believe for a second that Cumberbatch is some sort of genetic superman when his head is shaped like a giant tater 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I don't understand how we're supposed to believe for a second that Cumberbatch is some sort of genetic superman when his head is shaped like a giant tater See thread title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:I'm not sure a Star Trek show, even a top notch one, could work today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
Astroman posted:It does bring up an interesting point though, would OT Kirk and the gang be back in 1985 of this timeline? I'd say no, because what future could they go back to? Like Old Spock, their timeline is locked out. Somebody else would have to have invented transparent aluminum, Gillian is still back in the 20th century and probably dies well before WWIII. I think they used the time-travel stuff to set everything up like a remake where they're allowed to change whatever they want without people complaining. They're not going to be touching other star trek stuff unless it's to get some nostalgia power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:I'm not sure a Star Trek show, even a top notch one, could work today. Excuse me.         
Aatrek fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Man, Deep Space Nine ruled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
CPFortest posted:Man, Deep Space Nine ruled. The greatest of the Treks. I'm a devoted 9'er. That show was on and hitting its stride just as I came of age, so to speak so it has a special place in my heart, even deeper than TNG which I watched as a little kid. That said, I stay mute on these new films because I've always considered my self to be sorta black sheep to the Roddenberry purists that think DS9 was heretical. SO...that SAID...I have a mild distaste for JJ Abrams and everything he's ever made, liked the first movie, even though it was shallow and pretty typical. This just looks like more typical..and that makes me sad. There doesn't seem to be any adventure or exploration..its just all blammo and something about Earth being in peril and ....you know, who really gives a gently caress? Companies are so chickenshit nowadays. That's why these movies happen. Happens in the gaming industry too. You can be almost completely assured that when they say 'reboot' it means 'We're a bunch of chickenshit MBA's that won't greenlight a new IP." And that also makes me sad. Eh gently caress Abrams. Edit: VVVVV What that man said below. I think my affinity for TNG and DS9 was so high because, like the show, I was also filled with wonder and learning about the human condition in this life as well. It just 'fit' the time for me. I liked that. I hope to find something like that to watch again. TyroneGoldstein fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
The thing that defines Star Trek is not the slow paced plots, offscreen action style and mediocre special effects. It can be Star Trek with all those changed. The thing that defines Star Trek is the optimistic future where we're exploring the universe out of the sheer joy of it, and along with it, our own issues in metaphor as well as philosophical and moral conundrums. Admittedly, it usually wasn't always done very well or with great depth or skill, but just the act of trying meant that occasionally it was amazing, and I do think that you could wrap that concept into a modern-style television series with all the pacing, plotting and visuals a modern audience expects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The thing that defines Star Trek is not the slow paced plots, offscreen action style and mediocre special effects. It can be Star Trek with all those changed. The thing that defines Star Trek is the optimistic future where we're exploring the universe out of the sheer joy of it, and along with it, our own issues in metaphor as well as philosophical and moral conundrums. It's more natural to make a TV series about that, because the focus is on character development and world building spread out over a longer time table, whereas films by their nature train themselves on much more immediate developments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:That's not what any of the movies are about, though. The movies tend center around singular threats, either against galactic peace as a whole or against individuals or specific factions. Oh, yes. Star Trek as I described it is something that lends itself naturally to a series, not a movie. The movies, all the movies, have just been... bonuses. Peeks of action fun. Which is fine and enjoyable, and I enjoyed JJTrek enormously, but it's the serieses that are the core of Trek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Oh, yes. Star Trek as I described it is something that lends itself naturally to a series, not a movie. The movies, all the movies, have just been... bonuses. Peeks of action fun. Which is fine and enjoyable, and I enjoyed JJTrek enormously, but it's the serieses that are the core of Trek. TMP was probably the closest the movies came to the whole 'exploring the human condition' thing. It's just really slow and plodding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:TMP was probably the closest the movies came to the whole 'exploring the human condition' thing. It's just really slow and plodding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3507949 Honestly, you can do this to just about any movie, no matter how bad it is, when you disregard every possible bit of creator intent (because the forum rules forbid discussion of actual intent, unless that goofy rule has changed). This forum excels at it. Nemesis is one SMG-esque post away from being considered one of the finest pieces of sci-fi ever created. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
There's no prohibition on discussion of creator intent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
I got rules lawyered for it a number of months ago during a discussion, so I take the safe road and just avoid it. Maybe things have gotten a bit more sane since then. EDIT: It may have specifically been during a discussion of subtext in a movie, although I can't remember the details. EDIT 2: I apologize for the derail. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
There was never a prohibition on discussion of creator intent. However, if you think it's the end all be all of an argument, don't be surprised when people disagree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Nemesis is one SMG-esque post away from being considered one of the finest pieces of sci-fi ever created. I always figured SMG as a gimmick/troll account because his posts always start out interesting but end up in  land. Do people actually read his posts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Honestly, you can do this to just about any movie, no matter how bad it is, when you disregard every possible bit of creator intent (because the forum rules forbid discussion of actual intent, unless that goofy rule has changed). This forum excels at it. Nemesis is one SMG-esque post away from being considered one of the finest pieces of sci-fi ever created. Yes you can "read" any movie, but there's a difference between analyzing the themes and subtext in a film and saying its a masterpiece or enjoyable to watch. WarLocke posted:I always figured SMG as a gimmick/troll account because his posts always start out interesting but end up in Yes. His analyses come from a specific idea of "reading" the film itself while deemphasizing the filmmaker's stated intentions or the consensus assumption of what the film is supposed to be, and they make sense in that light. How come there's no thread on film theory, since it seems to come up so often in various threads? Was there one before but it didn't work out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:How come there's no thread on film theory, since it seems to come up so often in various threads? Was there one before but it didn't work out? Because apparently you're crazy if you think things about film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:How come there's no thread on film theory, since it seems to come up so often in various threads? People who bristle at subtext-based readings don't show up in threads about film theory, they show up in the Comic Book Movie thread, the Prometheus thread, etc., so that's where the arguments happen. The people who would participate in a more general thread about analysis already tend to be on one side of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:There's no prohibition on discussion of creator intent. The best thing that Roddenberry ever did for Star Trek was to die. Also, a friend claims Cumberbatch has silver eyes in the trailer, I can't tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Also, a friend claims Cumberbatch has silver eyes in the trailer, I can't tell. I saw it in one scene, but not aother
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:11
|
|