5 reasons to be worried about the upcoming Star Trek movie

News James Hunt 30 Jul 2008 - 21:39
Star Trek: The original series

Lots of people are really really excited about JJ Abrams' Star Trek movie. But James has some reservations...

For some reason, everyone except me seems to be looking forward to next year’s Star Trek remake from geek Golden Boy J.J. Abrams. I’m not sure why - I’m much bigger Star Trek fan than most of my friends. Some people still love campy, rickety Doctor Who because they grew up watching it. Other people can’t get enough of those ropey B-movies in the Star Wars series. For better or worse, my indoctrination into true geekery occurred over preachy, philosophical episodes Star Trek. I recognise its flaws, but I love it nonetheless.

Perhaps, in fact, it’s those same flaws that make me worried about Abrams’ Star Trek. Bond reboot Casino Royale jettisoned the wise-cracking, smug, gadget-ridden Bond in favour of Daniel Craig’s stripped-down brutalist version, virtually unrecognisable as the same character. Fans of the traditional Bond choked on their muesli while audiences – me included – hailed Craig as a genius, suggesting that Casino Royale had made Bond relevant again.

Now Star Trek’s the series getting the reboot, and with that, there’s the fear that I’m going to be the muesli-chomping fan, scoffing at how badly the Star Trek name has been sullied by someone who just doesn’t get it - but maybe there’s more to it. There are a number of elements that are making me worried about the fate of Star Trek – and here they are, as I present my “top 5 reasons to be worried about J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek remake.”

1. It’s made by J.J. Abrams

A controversial one to start with, perhaps, but look at the evidence - Abrams’ career has just as many downs as ups. His breakout show Alias started out as a tense, cinematic action thriller, but became a convoluted mess too wrapped up in its own mythology by the time it ended. His follow-up series Lost varies wildly in quality from season to season, and it’s hard to tell, when his involvement waxes and wanes, which he’s responsible for.

Far more worryingly, the last time Abrams was called on to re-invent an existing franchise, it was Superman. His proposal famously involved a super-powered Lex Luthor and a Krypton that didn’t explode. Despite all the bluster over Cloverfield (which, let us not forget, Abrams neither directed nor wrote) there’s plenty in his past to make us concerned at what he might personally bring to the Star Trek table. An Enterprise without Warp Drive? No transporters? If that Superman proposal is anything to go by, Abrams has proven that no cow is too sacred for the slaughterhouse.

2. It’s been delayed

Remember when Star Trek was scheduled for a December 2008 release? In February this year, ten months before release, the film was pushed back until May 2009. Paramount explicitly denied it was anything to do with the writers' strike, instead maintaining that they think more people will see it in May rather than at Christmas - but under any circumstance, pushing back the release date for a film is the universal symbol for panic over quality. Can you think of any other high-profile films that faced major delays? How did they turn out?

Well, how about these? The critically-routed Ghost Rider was pushed back a whole YEAR. Richard Kelly followed up Donnie Darko with flop Southland Tales, which faced seemingly endless delays even before audiences got a look and tore it to shreds. Meanwhile, the sequel to the Bond reboot, Quantum of Solace has actually been brought FORWARD. There’s not always a direct correlation between the quality of a film and the direction its release date travels, but there’s certainly enough of one to justify getting antsy about it…

3. It’s a prequel

It’s well-known that Star Trek is going to feature younger versions of the classic Trek cast. Leaving aside the very simple fact that it’s virtually insane to think you can separate Kirk & Shatner, Spock & Nimoy, or even Bones & Kelley, so synonymous have the characters become with their actors, the idea of a prequel is worrying in itself. The presence of Leonard Nimoy as the older Spock marks it unashamedly as a prequel rather than a reboot, and the last Trek prequel was the occasionally campy, often outright dire Enterprise – and yet the concerns go even wider than that.

Consider this: The dictionary defines a prequel as “the stuff that happened before the interesting bit.” We can all name a few sequels that are better than the original, but who among us can think of a movie PREQUEL that can make the same claim. (note: if any of the prequels you’re thinking of involve George Lucas, you’re incorrect.) If you can name more than three, then please leave a comment doing so, because nothing would please me more than to find out that movie prequels do work. So far, though, I think history agrees with me – prequels are a mistake.

4. It’s got Simon Pegg playing Scotty

Virtually every British geek around will rave for hours, given the chance, about how brilliant Simon Pegg is. In Spaced, in Shaun of the Dead, in Hot Fuzz – the man can write up a storm. Unfortunately, in a seemingly desperate bid to crack the US market as an actor, he’s squandering his almost-unlimited goodwill on tedious rom-coms and David Schwimmer vanity projects. I cringe every time I see him appear in yet another movie that mistakes his natural comic ability for actual jokes – much like that other ubergeek actor, Kevin Smith, the man just needs his own script to work properly.

And now he’s been cast in Star Trek as Scotty, presumably to score a few points with the nerdy audience who universally (and not unreasonably) love him. Having a big star like Pegg alongside a cast of virtual unknowns immediately smacks of stunt casting - the next most popular cast member is Zachary Quinto. You know, Sylar. From Heroes. The thing with Hayden Panettiere in. No disrespect to Pegg’s considerable talent, but it’s going to be near-impossible to watch him on screen without waiting for him to crack wise about George Romero or eat a Cornetto. There’s every chance his presence will simply be distracting and make the film look like a Comic Relief mock-up of Star Trek instead of the real thing.

5. It’s using the Romulans. Again

In a move clearly designed to save the Klingons for the Bigger, Badder Sequel (tm), the main villain in the Abrams Star Trek movie is Nero, a Romulan. Ish. The last time a sort-of Romulan was used as the villain in Star Trek, it was in Star Trek: Nemesis, undeniably one of the poorest Trek films to date. The smart money, then, says to stay away from the Romulans altogether - but Abrams apparently laughs in the face of good sense. Not only is he using the Romulans, the fact that the villain is called “Nero” suggests that he’s going to play up the “we’d rather forget it” Roman aspect of the characters as seen in the original Trek series, wisely abandoned from TNG onwards.

In fact, there’s a good reason you can finds hundreds of fanwank explanations (including a story arc on Enterprise) about how the human-looking Klingons of TOS became the bumpy-foreheaded versions we know today, and yet you find NONE to suggest why the Romulans abandoned their bafflingly-accurate Roman stylings. It’s because even us Trek fans know when to tacitly agree that things are better off without it. You only have to look at the plaster falling from the ceiling of Romulan STARSHIPS when they get damaged in TOS to know that.

So there we have it. Perhaps I’m being melodramatic, but all of my fears seem wholly rational and reasonable to me. I don’t like judging films before they’ve come out, and I’m not saying it’ll definitely be rubbish – certainly, nothing will please me more than if I’m wrong and it’s a complete masterpiece – but based on what I’ve seen, I can’t help feeling nervous. Between the twin failures of Nemesis and Enterprise, Star Trek as a whole is weaker than it’s been in decades. Another crap film could knock the franchise down for decades to come!

What’s worse, even if the film is a huge success and Trek makes it through Abrams’s gambles unscathed, there’s no guarantee it’s going to be recognisable as Star Trek afterwards. Some people say Star Trek has to change or die. All I can say to that is... what was the first option again?

Star Trek: four full scenes and new trailer reviewed

More Star Trek at Den of Geek:
Kirk and Spock posters revealed
Chris Pine talks James T Kirk
Loads of new images released
William Morgan Sheppard interview

Women In Star Trek - Will Chris Pine be merrily slapping yeomen's arses in Summer of 2009?

 

Click here for a list of ALL the lists at Den Of Geek...

Disqus - noscript

I'm not as concerned as you are. And...An Enterprise without Warp Drive? Where did you get that from? I've seen the footage, and it certainly has got warp drive...Whatever he's done to the franchise it can't be any worse than the tepid Nemesis. But we'll get a proper trailer soon, and then the geek-bitching can really begin!

My only concern is that by putting Karl "I am a spy!" Urban and Eric "Chop chop!" Bana in it, that I might actually start liking Star Trek!

Really, romulans? Bummer, those guys suck.

Eric Bana and Karl Urban? Screw it, I'm sold.

As a huge Star Trek fan, I am dreading this 'prequel'!
Just the mention of someone else playing the parts of Kirk and Spock put the whole idea in immediate wrongness. And I think Cloverfield was completely overated. As for Enterprise, I stopped watching after about 6-7 episodes. I shouldn't have done that. Going back recently, I discovered that the show improved immensely in later dates... The one thing working with the show was the chemistry of the cast (one of the basic ingredients in both the success of TOS and STNG). I don't know know if that kind of chemistry can work for this prequel with actors playing roles as known to me as some of my dearest friends and family members! Gene's ashes are rolling about in the urn right now!

I am worried about Chris Pine. Don't get me wrong, his sterling performance in Lohan vehicle Just My Luck coined a whole new phrase for a bad day ("Chris Pine Day", which sounds sort of boring explained like that) but... he's no Shatner, is he?



Or maybe that's for the best. I just don't see him as a starship captain of any heft.

Finally! Someone talking sense. Prequels suck, replacing cast members with younger versions never work. One might think it may be time either to find new directions for Star Trek to journey into or to lay it to rest.

I am NOT British, and I adore Simon Pegg so much that if he weren't married, I'd have a legion of geeky babies with him and try to take over the planet. He's got more talent in his little toenail than Kevin Smith has in his entire body (no offence to Lunchbox, who would probably agree.) The only one doing the pigeonholing is you.

Pegg plays a certain type very well, but he's not exactly proven his talent outside that type. He may - like Kevin Smith - be near-incapable of acting out of type for all either of us know!

Even so, my biggest problem, as I say in the article, is more that he's a high-profile face in a gallery of virtual unknowns - that's why it feels like stunt casting, like he's there to add goodwill and credibility to the film. Certainly he's no more suited to playing Scotty than he is to playing Kirk! They just can't give a Kirk's role to someone who would eclipse the character with their own star power, so instead, they're sidelining him as a minor member of the Trek canon where he can pull in the fans without becoming the focus.

See, MILFWeed, you're exactly the kind of person they're trying to attract by putting Simon Pegg in the film. Run Fat Boy Run and Big Nothing were complete turkeys compared to the films he wrote, and relied purely on his innate comic ability to seem like they were funny. He's a great actor, but he's a GENIUS comedian. Let's not pretend anything else.

So by your own admission he's a great actor - yet he should limit himself as a performer to just doing comedy, merely for your edification because you feel as though that's what he does best? That's pretty effed up - great talents should be encouraged to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to thrive as artists. Eddie Izzard will always be the greatest standup of his time IMO, but if he stuck to standup we'd never have his terrific performance in The Riches, and that'd be a shittin' shame.

Right off hand I can think of one prequel that was...well, I won't say it is necessarily better than the original, but both are fabulous movies. They aren't sci-fi, though. I'm thinking of Zulu (1969) followed in 1979 by its prequel Zulu Dawn. So it's been done...but not very dang often.

I simply disagree with you. Enterprise was not SHIT because it was a prequel. I thought it was a good idea and they had many good episodes with potential for many exciting adventures. The UPN network that was specifically created for Star Trek (Voyager specifically) was a bad idea from the start. They didn't advertise properly and they didn't have the widespread support and coverage from local affiliates. Support of the shows in syndication and DVD sales support the fact it was a good show that simply didn't have the foundation of a strong network backing it. As for my political leanings, I couldn't be more right-wing conservative. I would personally bleed on my flag to make sure the stripes stay red. You on the other hand, being from Britain, I'm guessing are just another brain-washed, dolt blindly paying your poll taxes, and your road taxes and your tv tax, and your value added tax, and God knows what other taxes to support an oppressive, yet extremely proper and polite Nanny State. So go have your tea and crumpets and then some steak and kidney pie washed down with a nice warm beer before you go online to offer more depressing prophesies of doom for all of Trekdom. I for one think the new movie looks interesting and plan to see it. My God man! It's just a freaking MOVIE! Get over it!

James I could not agree with you more you have took the words right out of my mouth, I too am dreading this Movie it will quite possibly spell the end for Star Trek. And to the comments made by:Posted by MadOvid on July 31, 2008 10:50:15 PM and,
Posted by Darth_Maiku on July 31, 2008 11:27:32 PM. I could not agree with you more A prequel movie is doomed for faliure, They should have done a DS9 or Voyager movie, Either of those would have worked. Or a movie set after Nemesis.
It just really annoys me that the movie has actually gone ahead, Obviously nothing was learned from the prequel faliure know as Enterprise. I am gratified to find a site that says exactly what i think about the new movie, Unlike the closed minded people who love prequels, Even though prequels do away with continunity and canon.

Oh one other ting if "Enterprise" had been set in say 2380 it would most certainly have worked all that would be needed is a ship to fir the time. Most likley a name change as well.

Well i disagree with you, Enterprise IS and WAS shit. If you dont like it tough. As for what else you say about me well you guess wrong, I and so far right wing i am a strong supporter and member of a FAR right wing party. I am so pround to be English i am not knocking you for being American quite the contuary, But your stero type image i can assure you is not who i am. The only problem at the moment is how F##cked up the country has become under 10years of labour, The country is full of those who dong belong here. and labour continue to let them in. I would go to war for my country and die But not for the current government as they have no respect for the country. I am most certainly not brainwashed when civil war starts i'll be there in the thick of it. Not sure if you know but recently Labour **coughs** leaked some of the members names of far right wingers outside, because they fear their growing power. Finally my advice to you is go eat yout Hot dogs and oversized burgers, drink your sugar filled extra large coke Vist your local Mc,Donalds for breaky. And realise that the new movie has completely violated Star Trek lore (Just look at the fact that the 1701 in the movie looks NOTHING like is does in TOS).
So do you not pay tax's how do you get away with that?

Five reasons NOT to worry.

1-It's just a movie. It does not erradicate the series and movies we love in that franchise. "Nemesis" does not kill my enjoyment of "First Contact".

2-Unknowns?? A cast of unknowns??? Karl Urban, Bruce Greenwood, Chris Pine - all unknowns???

3-Iron Man demonstrated that starting a sci/fi action film in May is VERY good business; Zack and Miri Make a Porno demonstrated that geeks don't all flock out in masses when the going gets cold. SO the movie from Dec. to May is NOT necessarily a bad sign.

4-The Romulans have never been exploited properly as a vilain race - They should've been what the Cardassians became in DS9. There's plenty of room for them to be proper nasty.

5-J.J. Alone is not a safe bet. JJ with a great team arond him and plenty of dough to work with - fasten your seatblets. M:I3 was wicked, Fringe is a huge hit in the making, Lost already has its place in the TV hall of fame, etc.

WOW talk about an overreaction, Fortunatly i am not like the examples you provided above, Enterprise was and is "SHIT" why do you think it failed because it was shit and a prequel You imperternant, ignorant obtuse idiot. So if people who disagree with you about Enterprise they are illiterate you are obviously a hippociate. And just for the record this is a argument about SyarTrek not the completely random topics you have gone on about, nevertheless i will respond.
1. Eugenics in Germany, Well for one i dont recall saying it was a good idea. A terrible thing they did.
2. Normandy ivasion, Carbon footprint, We certainly are going off on a tanjant, I am one of the most patriotic people you could meet the idea of leaking war plans just to stop a bit of global warming is ludicrious. (Oh and people were not really aware of global warming back then)
HOW DARE YOU CALL me schadenfreude!! You know nothing about me except that i know this new movie will fail and if you want to be ignorant about it so be it. I dont recall sating i take pleasure from others misey (Well depends who it is E.g That twat Brown or those who sponge of the govenment)
3. How exactly have i sopiled everyones night at the cinema ? if people want to see it thay will if they dont they dont. simple as.
And how exactly do i have negativity and hatred at mankind. What give you the right to say all these lies and slander from one comment i made, you dont know me at all. You are one of those goody two shoes people A far left winger who given the chance would destoy all that we have left of who we are and what we are. You are a dangerous caner that cares nothing for how corrupted and posioned things are. You are the same as what Sloane said to Bashier "You are a dangerous man, who given the chance would destroy the federation, Fortunatly there are people like me who would stop you"

You are a incredabily gullable and naive. Much like Neville Chamberlain (Since tou seem to have a WWII theme going here) also on a side note I have the upmost respect for those who died and fought in the war to the poin where i ALWAYS particapate in the NOV 11th remberance day.

So dont you dare be such a condsending and patronising impudent person.

Yes, the left-wingers are slowly but surely taking over my country as well. I pay my taxes like I'm supposed to. But at least I don't have to pay for a freaking TV license. Do they still do that over there? I was stationed there in the early '90s while in the US Air Force. But if my new president Obama has his way, he may think that TV tax is a pretty good idea. I'm expecting my property taxes to go up as well. No hard feelings mate. I sometimes like to get on these forums to see if I can push someone's buttons. I did take your remarks a bit too seriously. Honestly, it looks like it might be a cool movie. And since when did Star Trek writers care about consistency? I feel that Captain Archer should have been involved in a major Romulan conflict. That would have been more in line with "Balance of Terror" They should have had a Captain Styles in command of NX-02 or something. That would have been a good story arc to lead to the formation of the Federation. I wasn't a big fan of the whole "Xindi" storyline. But accept my apologies. I didn't mean to insult you. I deserve the hot-dogs and burgers remark. Pretty funny, actually! I would hate to see civil war break out in your country. Unfortunately, I see America headed down the same path. You may not have a safe haven to retreat to if Obama accomplishes half of what he wants. Go see the new movie when it comes out. I know you will just so you can rip it to shreds. But who knows? You might like it. ;-)

I would also like to apologise, I have never been in the armed forces but as i said i would more than willing to fight but only for a Government that has reapect for its own country and people. We do still have tv tax but its only for the bbc so it should really be a bbc lience. I must admit i have some major concerns about Obama becomeing president even though it may only indirectly affect me. I know that apparantly Obama is very pro-european which means he may try getting the U.K more involved in europe And that is the last thing i want. Strong is the £ and raise St,Georges flag i say, Specially since Brown is so gullable. As for civil war well the only reason i say that is becasue of the amount of those who dont belong here, it will soon be them vs those who do belong here. It's just a matter of time before it all kicks off, 1 week or 1 year who can say. Two role models in my life are the late great Winston Churchill and the legand (at least to some here) that is Enoch Powell. As for the Movie, Well because i am such a loyal fan and have watched star trek for as long as i can remember i have developed strong expecations to what star trek should be. And this new movie unfortunatly shatters those expectations. That is why i am so hostile to it. I am currently not sure if to see it or not. One of my biggest fears is that this new movie will kick or a re-boot of star trek just like the way the new BSG has gone, And that a whole new star trek will lead on from this movie with its own continunity and history and the past 40 years of the Star Trek we know will slip into the mists of time. Just like with BSG its all talk about the new series and practically no talk on the old series. I do understand and respect your views on the new movie but no matter how hard i try i just cant bring myself to incorparate it into Star Trek, The best i can do is to see it as not a Star Trek movie but just a movie but even that i find difficult. Also with these forums i as youv'e seen can get carried away and as such just type rather than think. So i to say no hard feelings mate and no offence ment. All that being said there is a small chance i will see it lol. Take it easy, i am more than willling to continue here chatting with you, but ahould we be told to move on let my know where, Heh Heh :-)

Ah yes....the typical, snarky, arrogant, Mr. Knowitall response on a purely subjective topic. He voices his all-knowing opinion on a movie he is already determined not to like. So why should anybody else like it? Opinions like yours are worth exactly what one pays for them. I happen to think that "Enterprise" was one of the few great tv series that has come out in the last 10 years. And anybody who disagrees with me is an illiterate, sciolist ignoramus who doesn't have two functioning neurons to rub together to simulate a cogent thought. It's people like you who thought eugenics in Germany during the late 1930's was a good idea. People like you would have leaked the Normandy invasion to the New York Times in order to save polar bears from the global warming caused by the US Military's awful carbon footprint. People like you thrive on the schadenfreude you generate by spoiling everyone's night at the movies. Not enough of you people paid the price for your negativity and hatred of mankind at Nuremberg. In the words of Khan Noonien Singh, "For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

You foolish people, Enterprise failed not because of the network but because it was a prequel, And this new movie is a faliure due to it being a prequel. And the romulans most certainly have been exploites as a villian perhaps you forget Tomalok. I can quite easily poot this new movie in the rubbish bin before its launch, due to all the available info on it, the words "Its set during kirks time at the academy" was enough to bin it. Abrams has NO respect AT ALL for star treks history, canon and continunity that is another reason it will fail. So take your head out of the sand stop wallowing in ignorance and see the reality that "THIS MOVIE IS SHIT AND WILL MOST CERTAINLY 100% FAIL"

I think you're nothing but a pessimistic, arrogant, condescending retard. If you're a trek fan chances are you'll see the movie. You will either like it or you won't. Why do you insist on spreading your misery to others by dooming a film to the rubbish bin 6 months before it's released? Nemesis was a good film. Aside from the fact it was an obvious rip-off of "The Wrath of Khan" I thoroughly enjoyed it for its technical aspects and interesting storyline. And you couldn't be more wrong about "Enterprise." That was a genius show that got trashed by a crappy network. It had great characters, exceptional acting and direction, and loads of potential. It got cancelled way before it's time. So why don't you just shut your pie-hole and let people have fun going to the movies. Let them decide whether or not they like it on their own!

I still want to see the movie mainly because I'm curious about it. But I was watching one of the original episodes the other night. By the way, I DO like what they've done with the "Remastered" series. But there were Kirk, Spock and McCoy arguing over something, and I thought to myself, "How can you replace those three???" The extras had an interview with Shatner, and even today, I look at him and say, "He IS Captain Kirk!" How can anybody else do that character in a serious way that isn't a silly parody? I don't know. It will be interesting to watch anyway. I'll try to maintain an open mind. I also happen to be a BIG fan of the new BSG. Shall we start another slew of racial epithets over that show? :-)

P.S. On the TV tax....I always wondered about that. I knew it was a government thing because they run BBC1 and BBC2. But what if I'm watching ITV or Channel 4?

Wow! I was expecting another heated exchange over BSG. The original has a special place in my heart. I was a youngster when it was on tv and I loved it. Even now, as campy as it is, they are still enjoyable. But I am totally consumed with the new one. Love it! I think it is actually farther in the future than 2100. But I do think the basic chronology is this: In Earth's distant future, interstellar travel became possible using FTL technology. Either as explorers or out of necessity mankind ventured out and eventually found a habitable world they called Kobol. They carried the ancient Greek mythology and somehow modeled a society out of it. Some sort of tragedy or mass evacuation led to the discovery of a new system with 12 habitable planets. To make a long story short, a 13 colony rebelled and decided to return to their legendary home world of "Earth." They returned to our society after eons of time and were regarded as invaders. Both sides were decimated in the ensuing conflict with only ruins left on Earth. Some survived to return to the 12 colonies with the story of their incredible journey. Then eventually the Cylons turned on their creators and rebelled and thus began the second exodus retracing the path of the original 13th colony, now so long ago it is little more than legend.

On taxes in the US...We have a federal income tax. At the local level each state sets its own policy. Where I live there is also a state income tax. Then there is a state sales tax applied to material goods. Then at the more local community level I pay property tax on my mortgage. Then at the end of every year, your employer issues your "W2" form which summarizes your income taxes for the previous year. Then you use that to fill out a whole bunch of complicated forms that are due to the government by April 15. These forms are the responsibility of every citizen with a taxable income (i.e. anyone with a job). What you actually do is calculate your taxes based on all of your recorded income. There are several formulas and rules that allow you to declare certain portions of your income as "tax exempt" as long as you have the documentation to back it up. If you wound up "paying" more tax than you should have then you get a refund. That's basically it in a nutshell. I think it is overcomplicated and in need of some major retooling and simplification.

Well i must say that i agree with you on the comment that replacing the original 3 is ..... Well just wrong. Shatner is kirk, DeForest is McCoy and Nimoy is Spock. And to see others in their shoes rsplacing them just wont work. As for the New BSG i dont remember the original and dident really watch it so i cant get as worked up over the new one as i do with this new movie. But I and completely taken in by the new series i love it, Cant wait to see what happens in the season finalle. My theory on the last episode though is this... BSG is set around 2100 perhaps more and i think that around 2000 earth had a nuclear war and what we see is what remains after that war and 100+ years of degrdation. As for the tax issue unfortunalty it dosent matter if you only watch ITV or C4 you still have to pay, BAH. Do you have taxs on things there that we dont have here ? (I cant think of any examples)

Well i agree with you on that, Replacing the original 3 with others i just wont work. Shatner is Kirk, DeForest is McCoy and Nimoy is Spock. And getting others to replace them is just wrong. BSG well i have barely watched the original BSG so i cant get as worked up about it as i do with Star Trek. But the new Series of BSG i am completely hooked on what a show. My theory on the latest episode is... BSG is set in around 2100 maybe more and the earth they have found has had a nuclear war about 100 years ago (2000) not to mention 100 years of degradation. Also i think either Baltar or Thrace is the final cylon. TV lience well if you only watched ITV of CH4 it wouldent matter you would still have to pay BAH!!

Not sure why my post took so long to come up here, Hence the double but slightly diffrent post. Anyhow An intresting theory on BSG, What are your thoughts on what happens next, who the final cylon is, And if what the hybrid said about Kara will come true. Also i enjoyed the Razor movie and the great battles with the battlestars. I hear that there will be a new BSG series somthing about Caprica and the first cylon war??? The tax issue does seem very complicated, Much simpler here (No offence). On a completely diffrent topic i watched a programme recently called "Voyages of discovery" recently about the U.S.S Squalus and how the men were rescued, There was even an interview with the last survivor. I love those kind of programmes very intresting. I hope to vist the U.S some day and vist the museum ships/subs, But it is affording it at the moment.

I'm not as concerned as you are. And...An Enterprise without Warp Drive? Where did you get that from? I've seen the footage, and it certainly has got warp drive...Whatever he's done to the franchise it can't be any worse than the tepid Nemesis. But we'll get a proper trailer soon, and then the geek-bitching can really begin!

Really, romulans? Bummer, those guys suck.

My only concern is that by putting Karl "I am a spy!" Urban and Eric "Chop chop!" Bana in it, that I might actually start liking Star Trek!

Eric Bana and Karl Urban? Screw it, I'm sold.

I am worried about Chris Pine. Don't get me wrong, his sterling performance in Lohan vehicle Just My Luck coined a whole new phrase for a bad day ("Chris Pine Day", which sounds sort of boring explained like that) but... he's no Shatner, is he?



Or maybe that's for the best. I just don't see him as a starship captain of any heft.

Finally! Someone talking sense. Prequels suck, replacing cast members with younger versions never work. One might think it may be time either to find new directions for Star Trek to journey into or to lay it to rest.

As a huge Star Trek fan, I am dreading this 'prequel'!
Just the mention of someone else playing the parts of Kirk and Spock put the whole idea in immediate wrongness. And I think Cloverfield was completely overated. As for Enterprise, I stopped watching after about 6-7 episodes. I shouldn't have done that. Going back recently, I discovered that the show improved immensely in later dates... The one thing working with the show was the chemistry of the cast (one of the basic ingredients in both the success of TOS and STNG). I don't know know if that kind of chemistry can work for this prequel with actors playing roles as known to me as some of my dearest friends and family members! Gene's ashes are rolling about in the urn right now!

I am NOT British, and I adore Simon Pegg so much that if he weren't married, I'd have a legion of geeky babies with him and try to take over the planet. He's got more talent in his little toenail than Kevin Smith has in his entire body (no offence to Lunchbox, who would probably agree.) The only one doing the pigeonholing is you.

See, MILFWeed, you're exactly the kind of person they're trying to attract by putting Simon Pegg in the film. Run Fat Boy Run and Big Nothing were complete turkeys compared to the films he wrote, and relied purely on his innate comic ability to seem like they were funny. He's a great actor, but he's a GENIUS comedian. Let's not pretend anything else.

So by your own admission he's a great actor - yet he should limit himself as a performer to just doing comedy, merely for your edification because you feel as though that's what he does best? That's pretty effed up - great talents should be encouraged to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to thrive as artists. Eddie Izzard will always be the greatest standup of his time IMO, but if he stuck to standup we'd never have his terrific performance in The Riches, and that'd be a shittin' shame.

Pegg plays a certain type very well, but he's not exactly proven his talent outside that type. He may - like Kevin Smith - be near-incapable of acting out of type for all either of us know!

Even so, my biggest problem, as I say in the article, is more that he's a high-profile face in a gallery of virtual unknowns - that's why it feels like stunt casting, like he's there to add goodwill and credibility to the film. Certainly he's no more suited to playing Scotty than he is to playing Kirk! They just can't give a Kirk's role to someone who would eclipse the character with their own star power, so instead, they're sidelining him as a minor member of the Trek canon where he can pull in the fans without becoming the focus.

Right off hand I can think of one prequel that was...well, I won't say it is necessarily better than the original, but both are fabulous movies. They aren't sci-fi, though. I'm thinking of Zulu (1969) followed in 1979 by its prequel Zulu Dawn. So it's been done...but not very dang often.

James I could not agree with you more you have took the words right out of my mouth, I too am dreading this Movie it will quite possibly spell the end for Star Trek. And to the comments made by:Posted by MadOvid on July 31, 2008 10:50:15 PM and,
Posted by Darth_Maiku on July 31, 2008 11:27:32 PM. I could not agree with you more A prequel movie is doomed for faliure, They should have done a DS9 or Voyager movie, Either of those would have worked. Or a movie set after Nemesis.
It just really annoys me that the movie has actually gone ahead, Obviously nothing was learned from the prequel faliure know as Enterprise. I am gratified to find a site that says exactly what i think about the new movie, Unlike the closed minded people who love prequels, Even though prequels do away with continunity and canon.

Oh one other ting if "Enterprise" had been set in say 2380 it would most certainly have worked all that would be needed is a ship to fir the time. Most likley a name change as well.

I simply disagree with you. Enterprise was not SHIT because it was a prequel. I thought it was a good idea and they had many good episodes with potential for many exciting adventures. The UPN network that was specifically created for Star Trek (Voyager specifically) was a bad idea from the start. They didn't advertise properly and they didn't have the widespread support and coverage from local affiliates. Support of the shows in syndication and DVD sales support the fact it was a good show that simply didn't have the foundation of a strong network backing it. As for my political leanings, I couldn't be more right-wing conservative. I would personally bleed on my flag to make sure the stripes stay red. You on the other hand, being from Britain, I'm guessing are just another brain-washed, dolt blindly paying your poll taxes, and your road taxes and your tv tax, and your value added tax, and God knows what other taxes to support an oppressive, yet extremely proper and polite Nanny State. So go have your tea and crumpets and then some steak and kidney pie washed down with a nice warm beer before you go online to offer more depressing prophesies of doom for all of Trekdom. I for one think the new movie looks interesting and plan to see it. My God man! It's just a freaking MOVIE! Get over it!

Well i disagree with you, Enterprise IS and WAS shit. If you dont like it tough. As for what else you say about me well you guess wrong, I and so far right wing i am a strong supporter and member of a FAR right wing party. I am so pround to be English i am not knocking you for being American quite the contuary, But your stero type image i can assure you is not who i am. The only problem at the moment is how F##cked up the country has become under 10years of labour, The country is full of those who dong belong here. and labour continue to let them in. I would go to war for my country and die But not for the current government as they have no respect for the country. I am most certainly not brainwashed when civil war starts i'll be there in the thick of it. Not sure if you know but recently Labour **coughs** leaked some of the members names of far right wingers outside, because they fear their growing power. Finally my advice to you is go eat yout Hot dogs and oversized burgers, drink your sugar filled extra large coke Vist your local Mc,Donalds for breaky. And realise that the new movie has completely violated Star Trek lore (Just look at the fact that the 1701 in the movie looks NOTHING like is does in TOS).
So do you not pay tax's how do you get away with that?

Five reasons NOT to worry.

1-It's just a movie. It does not erradicate the series and movies we love in that franchise. "Nemesis" does not kill my enjoyment of "First Contact".

2-Unknowns?? A cast of unknowns??? Karl Urban, Bruce Greenwood, Chris Pine - all unknowns???

3-Iron Man demonstrated that starting a sci/fi action film in May is VERY good business; Zack and Miri Make a Porno demonstrated that geeks don't all flock out in masses when the going gets cold. SO the movie from Dec. to May is NOT necessarily a bad sign.

4-The Romulans have never been exploited properly as a vilain race - They should've been what the Cardassians became in DS9. There's plenty of room for them to be proper nasty.

5-J.J. Alone is not a safe bet. JJ with a great team arond him and plenty of dough to work with - fasten your seatblets. M:I3 was wicked, Fringe is a huge hit in the making, Lost already has its place in the TV hall of fame, etc.

WOW talk about an overreaction, Fortunatly i am not like the examples you provided above, Enterprise was and is "SHIT" why do you think it failed because it was shit and a prequel You imperternant, ignorant obtuse idiot. So if people who disagree with you about Enterprise they are illiterate you are obviously a hippociate. And just for the record this is a argument about SyarTrek not the completely random topics you have gone on about, nevertheless i will respond.
1. Eugenics in Germany, Well for one i dont recall saying it was a good idea. A terrible thing they did.
2. Normandy ivasion, Carbon footprint, We certainly are going off on a tanjant, I am one of the most patriotic people you could meet the idea of leaking war plans just to stop a bit of global warming is ludicrious. (Oh and people were not really aware of global warming back then)
HOW DARE YOU CALL me schadenfreude!! You know nothing about me except that i know this new movie will fail and if you want to be ignorant about it so be it. I dont recall sating i take pleasure from others misey (Well depends who it is E.g That twat Brown or those who sponge of the govenment)
3. How exactly have i sopiled everyones night at the cinema ? if people want to see it thay will if they dont they dont. simple as.
And how exactly do i have negativity and hatred at mankind. What give you the right to say all these lies and slander from one comment i made, you dont know me at all. You are one of those goody two shoes people A far left winger who given the chance would destoy all that we have left of who we are and what we are. You are a dangerous caner that cares nothing for how corrupted and posioned things are. You are the same as what Sloane said to Bashier "You are a dangerous man, who given the chance would destroy the federation, Fortunatly there are people like me who would stop you"

You are a incredabily gullable and naive. Much like Neville Chamberlain (Since tou seem to have a WWII theme going here) also on a side note I have the upmost respect for those who died and fought in the war to the poin where i ALWAYS particapate in the NOV 11th remberance day.

So dont you dare be such a condsending and patronising impudent person.

Yes, the left-wingers are slowly but surely taking over my country as well. I pay my taxes like I'm supposed to. But at least I don't have to pay for a freaking TV license. Do they still do that over there? I was stationed there in the early '90s while in the US Air Force. But if my new president Obama has his way, he may think that TV tax is a pretty good idea. I'm expecting my property taxes to go up as well. No hard feelings mate. I sometimes like to get on these forums to see if I can push someone's buttons. I did take your remarks a bit too seriously. Honestly, it looks like it might be a cool movie. And since when did Star Trek writers care about consistency? I feel that Captain Archer should have been involved in a major Romulan conflict. That would have been more in line with "Balance of Terror" They should have had a Captain Styles in command of NX-02 or something. That would have been a good story arc to lead to the formation of the Federation. I wasn't a big fan of the whole "Xindi" storyline. But accept my apologies. I didn't mean to insult you. I deserve the hot-dogs and burgers remark. Pretty funny, actually! I would hate to see civil war break out in your country. Unfortunately, I see America headed down the same path. You may not have a safe haven to retreat to if Obama accomplishes half of what he wants. Go see the new movie when it comes out. I know you will just so you can rip it to shreds. But who knows? You might like it. ;-)

I would also like to apologise, I have never been in the armed forces but as i said i would more than willing to fight but only for a Government that has reapect for its own country and people. We do still have tv tax but its only for the bbc so it should really be a bbc lience. I must admit i have some major concerns about Obama becomeing president even though it may only indirectly affect me. I know that apparantly Obama is very pro-european which means he may try getting the U.K more involved in europe And that is the last thing i want. Strong is the £ and raise St,Georges flag i say, Specially since Brown is so gullable. As for civil war well the only reason i say that is becasue of the amount of those who dont belong here, it will soon be them vs those who do belong here. It's just a matter of time before it all kicks off, 1 week or 1 year who can say. Two role models in my life are the late great Winston Churchill and the legand (at least to some here) that is Enoch Powell. As for the Movie, Well because i am such a loyal fan and have watched star trek for as long as i can remember i have developed strong expecations to what star trek should be. And this new movie unfortunatly shatters those expectations. That is why i am so hostile to it. I am currently not sure if to see it or not. One of my biggest fears is that this new movie will kick or a re-boot of star trek just like the way the new BSG has gone, And that a whole new star trek will lead on from this movie with its own continunity and history and the past 40 years of the Star Trek we know will slip into the mists of time. Just like with BSG its all talk about the new series and practically no talk on the old series. I do understand and respect your views on the new movie but no matter how hard i try i just cant bring myself to incorparate it into Star Trek, The best i can do is to see it as not a Star Trek movie but just a movie but even that i find difficult. Also with these forums i as youv'e seen can get carried away and as such just type rather than think. So i to say no hard feelings mate and no offence ment. All that being said there is a small chance i will see it lol. Take it easy, i am more than willling to continue here chatting with you, but ahould we be told to move on let my know where, Heh Heh :-)

Ah yes....the typical, snarky, arrogant, Mr. Knowitall response on a purely subjective topic. He voices his all-knowing opinion on a movie he is already determined not to like. So why should anybody else like it? Opinions like yours are worth exactly what one pays for them. I happen to think that "Enterprise" was one of the few great tv series that has come out in the last 10 years. And anybody who disagrees with me is an illiterate, sciolist ignoramus who doesn't have two functioning neurons to rub together to simulate a cogent thought. It's people like you who thought eugenics in Germany during the late 1930's was a good idea. People like you would have leaked the Normandy invasion to the New York Times in order to save polar bears from the global warming caused by the US Military's awful carbon footprint. People like you thrive on the schadenfreude you generate by spoiling everyone's night at the movies. Not enough of you people paid the price for your negativity and hatred of mankind at Nuremberg. In the words of Khan Noonien Singh, "For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

You foolish people, Enterprise failed not because of the network but because it was a prequel, And this new movie is a faliure due to it being a prequel. And the romulans most certainly have been exploites as a villian perhaps you forget Tomalok. I can quite easily poot this new movie in the rubbish bin before its launch, due to all the available info on it, the words "Its set during kirks time at the academy" was enough to bin it. Abrams has NO respect AT ALL for star treks history, canon and continunity that is another reason it will fail. So take your head out of the sand stop wallowing in ignorance and see the reality that "THIS MOVIE IS SHIT AND WILL MOST CERTAINLY 100% FAIL"

I think you're nothing but a pessimistic, arrogant, condescending retard. If you're a trek fan chances are you'll see the movie. You will either like it or you won't. Why do you insist on spreading your misery to others by dooming a film to the rubbish bin 6 months before it's released? Nemesis was a good film. Aside from the fact it was an obvious rip-off of "The Wrath of Khan" I thoroughly enjoyed it for its technical aspects and interesting storyline. And you couldn't be more wrong about "Enterprise." That was a genius show that got trashed by a crappy network. It had great characters, exceptional acting and direction, and loads of potential. It got cancelled way before it's time. So why don't you just shut your pie-hole and let people have fun going to the movies. Let them decide whether or not they like it on their own!

I still want to see the movie mainly because I'm curious about it. But I was watching one of the original episodes the other night. By the way, I DO like what they've done with the "Remastered" series. But there were Kirk, Spock and McCoy arguing over something, and I thought to myself, "How can you replace those three???" The extras had an interview with Shatner, and even today, I look at him and say, "He IS Captain Kirk!" How can anybody else do that character in a serious way that isn't a silly parody? I don't know. It will be interesting to watch anyway. I'll try to maintain an open mind. I also happen to be a BIG fan of the new BSG. Shall we start another slew of racial epithets over that show? :-)

P.S. On the TV tax....I always wondered about that. I knew it was a government thing because they run BBC1 and BBC2. But what if I'm watching ITV or Channel 4?

Well i must say that i agree with you on the comment that replacing the original 3 is ..... Well just wrong. Shatner is kirk, DeForest is McCoy and Nimoy is Spock. And to see others in their shoes rsplacing them just wont work. As for the New BSG i dont remember the original and dident really watch it so i cant get as worked up over the new one as i do with this new movie. But I and completely taken in by the new series i love it, Cant wait to see what happens in the season finalle. My theory on the last episode though is this... BSG is set around 2100 perhaps more and i think that around 2000 earth had a nuclear war and what we see is what remains after that war and 100+ years of degrdation. As for the tax issue unfortunalty it dosent matter if you only watch ITV or C4 you still have to pay, BAH. Do you have taxs on things there that we dont have here ? (I cant think of any examples)

Wow! I was expecting another heated exchange over BSG. The original has a special place in my heart. I was a youngster when it was on tv and I loved it. Even now, as campy as it is, they are still enjoyable. But I am totally consumed with the new one. Love it! I think it is actually farther in the future than 2100. But I do think the basic chronology is this: In Earth's distant future, interstellar travel became possible using FTL technology. Either as explorers or out of necessity mankind ventured out and eventually found a habitable world they called Kobol. They carried the ancient Greek mythology and somehow modeled a society out of it. Some sort of tragedy or mass evacuation led to the discovery of a new system with 12 habitable planets. To make a long story short, a 13 colony rebelled and decided to return to their legendary home world of "Earth." They returned to our society after eons of time and were regarded as invaders. Both sides were decimated in the ensuing conflict with only ruins left on Earth. Some survived to return to the 12 colonies with the story of their incredible journey. Then eventually the Cylons turned on their creators and rebelled and thus began the second exodus retracing the path of the original 13th colony, now so long ago it is little more than legend.

On taxes in the US...We have a federal income tax. At the local level each state sets its own policy. Where I live there is also a state income tax. Then there is a state sales tax applied to material goods. Then at the more local community level I pay property tax on my mortgage. Then at the end of every year, your employer issues your "W2" form which summarizes your income taxes for the previous year. Then you use that to fill out a whole bunch of complicated forms that are due to the government by April 15. These forms are the responsibility of every citizen with a taxable income (i.e. anyone with a job). What you actually do is calculate your taxes based on all of your recorded income. There are several formulas and rules that allow you to declare certain portions of your income as "tax exempt" as long as you have the documentation to back it up. If you wound up "paying" more tax than you should have then you get a refund. That's basically it in a nutshell. I think it is overcomplicated and in need of some major retooling and simplification.

Well i agree with you on that, Replacing the original 3 with others i just wont work. Shatner is Kirk, DeForest is McCoy and Nimoy is Spock. And getting others to replace them is just wrong. BSG well i have barely watched the original BSG so i cant get as worked up about it as i do with Star Trek. But the new Series of BSG i am completely hooked on what a show. My theory on the latest episode is... BSG is set in around 2100 maybe more and the earth they have found has had a nuclear war about 100 years ago (2000) not to mention 100 years of degradation. Also i think either Baltar or Thrace is the final cylon. TV lience well if you only watched ITV of CH4 it wouldent matter you would still have to pay BAH!!

Not sure why my post took so long to come up here, Hence the double but slightly diffrent post. Anyhow An intresting theory on BSG, What are your thoughts on what happens next, who the final cylon is, And if what the hybrid said about Kara will come true. Also i enjoyed the Razor movie and the great battles with the battlestars. I hear that there will be a new BSG series somthing about Caprica and the first cylon war??? The tax issue does seem very complicated, Much simpler here (No offence). On a completely diffrent topic i watched a programme recently called "Voyages of discovery" recently about the U.S.S Squalus and how the men were rescued, There was even an interview with the last survivor. I love those kind of programmes very intresting. I hope to vist the U.S some day and vist the museum ships/subs, But it is affording it at the moment.

Sponsored Links