Topic: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before (Read 151289 times)

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #200 on:** 11 Nov 2015, 21:46 »

Enterprise got pretty good in its fourth season, but by then it was too little too late.

The first two seasons were trying to replicate TOS about 40 years too late. The third season tried to replicate ~~the War on Terror~~ DS9 half-assedly.

Some of the best Trek episodes (and movies) are the ones that ignore Roddenberry's rules.

Edguy · « **Reply #201 on:** 14 Dec 2015, 09:22 »

Tariler out. I.. I don't think it looks too good. Standard dumb "witty" dialogue. The make up design is pretty cool tho.

Also, reusing "Sabotage" from the first movie is pretty cheap.

Kugai · « **Reply #202 on:** 14 Dec 2015, 12:39 »

Aaaand the dumbing down of Trek is now complete.

Thank you Darth JayJay.

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #203 on:** 14 Dec 2015, 13:32 »

It looks like that could be a cool action film. But where's the Star Trek trailer?

BenRG · « **Reply #204 on:** 15 Dec 2015, 01:21 »

There is so much about this film that indicates once again that the production team at Bad Robot simply don't get Star Trek.

Worse still... it looks like the Enterprise is getting badly shot up, again (has this ship ever flown a mission without coming back needing a six-month rebuild?) My nightmare scenario: They're going to destroy it outright because it's the third movie and that's what happens in the third movie, right? You blow up the Enterprise so they can get a shiny new one in the fourth! You have Khan in the second and blow up the Enterprise in the third! That's the winning formula, right? If the script for Reboot-4 is already under construction with whales forming a central plank of the plot...? Well, anyway, this one looks bad enough that it will kill the Reboot continuity so, hopefully, we won't have to 'look forward' to that.

Quote from: Kugai on 14 Dec 2015, 12:39

Aaaand the dumbing down of Trek is now complete.

This was an outcome that we should have expected the minute they hired a guy whose résumé includes 'The Fast and the Furious' to direct this one.

Akima · « **Reply #205 on:** 16 Dec 2015, 15:04 »

So, they have Kirk ramping a motorcycle over... a shark?

Neko_Ali · « **Reply #206 on:** 16 Dec 2015, 17:14 »

Funny. I thought the reboot jumped the shark in the first movie.

jwhouk · « **Reply #207 on:** 16 Dec 2015, 19:18 »

We have reached the synergy between the ST and SW universes.

The new Star Trek is "No New Hope."

Kugai · « **Reply #208 on:** 17 Dec 2015, 12:42 »

And much like George did, Paramount seems to be going out of its way to fuck the legacy.

Masterpiece · « **Reply #209 on:** 17 Dec 2015, 15:31 »

Simon Pegg does not like the Star Trek Beyond trailer.

BenRG · « **Reply #210 on:** 17 Dec 2015, 23:22 »

You can't help but wonder if this is a damage-control exercise after the marketing team realised just how totally the trailer has turned off Star Trek fans.

It sort of reminds me of the desperate attempts to get people to watch Pearl Harbour after the critics panned it, the word of mouth was bad and the crowds stayed away. "Don't believe what you've seen and read! See it and you will enjoy it! We promise!"

Edguy · « **Reply #211 on:** 18 Dec 2015, 07:27 »

Hah. As long as it's a franchise you don't care that much about doing poorly, it's always fun reading about the backpedaling, blame shifting and do-overs of the studios!

Kugai · « **Reply #212 on:** 18 Dec 2015, 12:56 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axTdv68wIvk

Kugai · « **Reply #213 on:** 30 Dec 2015, 15:11 »

Seems Paramount is suddenly having issues with Axanar

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #214 on:** 30 Dec 2015, 19:38 »

Palms were meant for greasing.

Hypothetical scenario: A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain. Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?

Kugai · « **Reply #215 on:** 30 Dec 2015, 21:28 »

Either way, this is going to set a legal precedent in regards to projects like this. It could have a knock on effect for those already in progress - PhaseII/Continues, Renegades, Farragut etc.

BenRG · « **Reply #216 on:** 30 Dec 2015, 23:25 »

Likely said in the CBS/Paramount meeting room: "We all know our official product is substandard crap. The only way that we can draw any viewers is to make it the only show in town! If we don't, our subscription channel will crash and burn!"

"Yeah! Besides, they were making too much money! Where's our cut?"

Kugai · « **Reply #217 on:** 31 Dec 2015, 14:45 »

[KoshVoice]You do not deserve a cut[/KoshVoice]

Kugai · « **Reply #218 on:** 05 Jan 2016, 15:22 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr_1K5YOAq0

jwhouk · « **Reply #219 on:** 05 Jan 2016, 21:09 »

Yeah. That.

*Sigh.*

sitnspin · « **Reply #220 on:** 05 Jan 2016, 23:51 »

I'll admit my knowledge of Star Trek is extremely limited, but the idea that anyone will be listen to the Beastie Boys in 200 years seems a bit ludicrous.

Kugai · « **Reply #221 on:** 06 Jan 2016, 12:37 »

I dunno, the Klingons might like it

jwhouk · « **Reply #222 on:** 06 Jan 2016, 14:03 »

"You have never listened to 'License to Ill' until you've heard it in the original Klingon!"

Kugai · « **Reply #223 on:** 07 Jan 2016, 13:54 »

Hmmmm

I wonder what AC/DC's Thunderstruck would sound like in Klingon.

Or even anything by Motorhead

hedgie · « **Reply #224 on:** 07 Jan 2016, 14:05 »

Somebody has probably done it.

Kugai · « **Reply #225 on:** 07 Jan 2016, 14:15 »

THAT wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #226 on:** 07 Jan 2016, 18:25 »

Bing Translator speaks Klingon.

vaj gamble ghaytan SoH, loD qaja'
vay', SoHvaD Qap 'op luj, Hoch rap jIHvaD
QujmeH, vaj nuq Dajatlh mIw, ponglIj pagh difference bel
greed ghewmey SoH jIH, neH chaw' Sumqu'
spades, ace spades ace

celticgeek · « **Reply #227 on:** 07 Jan 2016, 19:49 »

'IwlIj jachjaj!

jwhouk · « **Reply #228 on:** 07 Jan 2016, 21:00 »

SUHAY'DI' BANG! SoHvaD maw' yItungHa', qaH QaQ baS porgh Damo' ghaH!

Akima · « **Reply #229 on:** 09 Jan 2016, 04:33 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 30 Dec 2015, 19:38

Hypothetical scenario: A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain. Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?

Only if it includes the shape-shifting cat-girl...

BenRG · « **Reply #230 on:** 09 Jan 2016, 07:50 »

Quote from: mustang6172 on 30 Dec 2015, 19:38

Hypothetical scenario: A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain. Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?

He's a time-travelling secret agent. He's only a 'villain' from the protagonists' perspective and is, in fact, trying to change the timeline back. This gives The Powers That Be a chance to undo the entire reboot and turn it into a temporal hiccup if they choose at the end of the story.

Pilchard123 · « **Reply #231 on:** 09 Jan 2016, 08:35 »

Quote from: BenRG on 09 Jan 2016, 07:50

He's a ~~time-travelling secret agent~~ semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #232 on:** 10 Jan 2016, 17:58 »

Quote from: Akima on 09 Jan 2016, 04:33

Quote from: mustang6172 on 30 Dec 2015, 19:38
Hypothetical scenario: A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain. Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?
Only if it includes the shape-shifting cat-girl...

Well obviously there's a shape-shifting cat-girl! Geez!

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #233 on:** 14 Jan 2016, 21:08 »

I recently found a place to download Michael Piller's unpublished book, "Fade In: The Writing of Star Trek Insurrection." It's a surprisingly compelling read for how disappointing the movie was. There were a few ideas rejected that could have made the movie unintentionally hilarious, and some rejected ideas could have made the movie tolerable. I don't think I can attach a .pdf so I'll link to another forum where you can download it.

http://nightly.net/topic/67586-fade-in-the-writing-of-star-trek-insurrection-by-michael-pillar/#entry1976323

Kugai · « **Reply #234 on:** 13 Mar 2016, 21:25 »

Some interesting news regarding Axanar.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/paramount-cbs-list-the-ways-star-trek-fanfic-axanar-infringes-copyright/

I think there are valid views on both sides.. Paramount, in all fairness, does have the right to protect its property, but there also is the viewpoint that, with a franchise as old as this, one could put a case that it's in public domain. I think if they can and have reached a compromise, it will speak well for the future for both sides of the argument.

Torlek · « **Reply #235 on:** 14 Mar 2016, 22:07 »

Wrong link?

But the Axanar producers invalidated their arguments the moment they started using Kickstarter money to pay themselves salaries and found a for-profit studio. They're making money off an IP they don't own, might as well dance in front of CBS headquarters with a giant, flashing SUE ME sign. It's a damn shame they decided to go the shady route because the concepts looked amazing and that's an era of Trek that's ripe for exposition, not even the books are working in that time period.

BenRG · « **Reply #236 on:** 15 Mar 2016, 02:27 »

Fan film recommendation: Star Trek: Horizon.

It's no-where near as ambitious as Renegades or Anaxar. However, it is a solid little amateur dramatic production with lots of thought being put into characterisation and plotting. It got the things right (coherent, progressive plot) that it needed to get right and clearly put resources into things like post-production only after they were sure of the story.

Furthermore, It is the story that makes Horizon stand out.

(click to show/hide)

Don't watch this if you want an Abrams-esque popcorn flick. Watch it if you want to see a fan of Enterprise try to rediscover the essential atmosphere of TOS.

Akima · « **Reply #237 on:** 15 Mar 2016, 02:31 »

Quote from: Kugai on 13 Mar 2016, 21:25

with a franchise as old as this, one could put a case that it's in public domain.

If you did, you would lose. Star Trek isn't nearly old enough to be out of copyright. And in fact CBS and Paramount have already gone after the Axanar people.

Quote from: BenRG on 15 Mar 2016, 02:27

Fan film recommendation: Star Trek: Horizon.

Thank you for the link; I watched this last night. Yes, it is a little cheesy in places (though not more so than many episodes of Doctor Who), but it's a remarkable amateur achievement, and the team that produced it deserve congratulations.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #238 on:** 18 Mar 2016, 21:00 »

Some of the dialogue in Horizons felt cheesy, but that could result from inexperienced actors. There weren't as many abandoned plot points as Renegades. Shaky-cam during the action scenes was tolerable, but felt silly for exposition scenes.

The movie could have used more intrigue. Perhaps clues could have been dropped to make us wonder if T'mar was a defector or a spy? I know TNG made that episode, but it's a good episode and this movie could have used more B-plot.

Kugai · « **Reply #239 on:** 13 Apr 2016, 15:26 »

Something from the rumor mill about the new series

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/04/13/the-new-star-trek-tv-show-will-be-set-before-the-next-generation

LeeC · « **Reply #240 on:** 19 May 2016, 08:35 »

http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-2017/

Comes out next January.

jwhouk · « **Reply #241 on:** 19 May 2016, 14:19 »

Wired Article on Justin Lin as ST:B director confirms one thing without saying it outright...

(click to show/hide)

Edguy · « **Reply #242 on:** 19 May 2016, 17:21 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 19 May 2016, 14:19

Wired Article on Justin Lin as ST:B director confirms one thing without saying it outright...

THIS IS HOW YOU MOVE A 390-POUND GORILLA ACROSS THE COUNTRY

jwhouk · « **Reply #243 on:** 19 May 2016, 18:31 »

...I have no idea what you're talking about.

BenRG · « **Reply #244 on:** 19 May 2016, 23:25 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 19 May 2016, 14:19

Wired Article on Justin Lin as ST:B director confirms one thing without saying it outright...
(click to show/hide)
The Enterprise is destroyed during the movie (insert joke about "third movie trope" here).

Prediction for ST reboot movie #4:

(click to show/hide)

Kugai · « **Reply #245 on:** 19 May 2016, 23:53 »

And that would just be more proof that Paramount has 'Jumped The Shark' as far as the Trek Franchise is concerned.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #246 on:** 20 May 2016, 19:04 »

Some of the Star Trek titles Bryan Fuller wrote have me worried about the new series, but most of the bad ones were co-written by Kenneth Biller so there's plenty of blame to spread.

Every Trek series usually needs a couple years to not suck, so this seasonal anthology idea could crash and burn quickly.

TheEvilDog · « **Reply #247 on:** 20 May 2016, 19:45 »

Quote from: BenRG on 19 May 2016, 23:25

Quote from: jwhouk on 19 May 2016, 14:19
Wired Article on Justin Lin as ST:B director confirms one thing without saying it outright...
(click to show/hide)
The Enterprise is destroyed during the movie (insert joke about "third movie trope" here).

Prediction for ST reboot movie #4:

(click to show/hide)
New Enterprise and whales.

No.

(click to show/hide)

Kugai · « **Reply #248 on:** 20 May 2016, 22:08 »

So, word currently doing the rounds is that Abrams has gone to Paramount and gotten them to drop the Lawsuit against Axanar. I'll wait for the official confirmation from both sides I think, but if that's true, it may be good news for Fan Based Trek Series

jwhouk · « **Reply #249 on:** 21 May 2016, 09:32 »

This one looks a LOT better than that first one.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before (Read 151289 times)

TheEvilDog