Peter Laird's opinions about the new Star Trek movie [Archive]

Galactus

05-09-2009, 07:33 PM

Pete so far has been the only really negative review I've heard on Star Trek...

Roger Ebert also gave it a negative review, I'm sure there has been more and will be others, no movie is ever universaly accepted. I've also read a few articles criticising that it doesn't capture the feel of "Roddenberry's vision" or being a sci fi commentary on current events as some episodes of the series have been touted as.

(yes, exactly what the Onion's news video is parodying)

I myself have casualy followed the movies production and even by looking at the trailers I think it's obvious to anyone that this is not going to be the Trek that many already know, that's the whole selling point of the movie. "Think Star Trek is just for sweaty 30 year olds who live with their parents...think again. This is cool with tons of explosions and lense flares and the extreme"

I can certainly enjoy on that level and suspect I will when I go see it, particularly as it seems to retain elements of TOS that I liked and even Laird himself praises one of these aspects.."some of the key cast did excellent work with their interpretations of the established Star Trek" characters, and some of the visuals were very impressive."

I think a lot of Trek fans are enjoying it on the same level as I expect to as well as tons loving the fact that after the last decade or so of dreck and commercial decline thanks to Abram's name and the hype around the film it's not only going to be commercialy succesful but also make the franchise something it's never been before...cool. It's the same with the current crop of comic book movies, generaly comics are looked down upon as kids things but when they make succesful movies it almost makes the twentysomething fans that still read them feel validated.

If Laird is not one of those fans then I'm not really sure how that affects the upcoming TMNT reboot. It's not like the story that most fans want for TMNT
fits with big explosions and more modern hip versions of the characters like what I suspect Star Trek will be or Bay's Transformers:dead:. So it's irrelevant.

What we should be looking at is Laird's opinons on movies that play closer to what fans feel a TMNT film should be. Back when it first came out he stated that he enjoyed Batman Begins and in the first MTV interview he did said that he regards the first live action as being the best.

We also know what he'll never allow in a film, Venus, Bebop & Rocksteady and overt OT pandering. Now if that still makes people uneasy then...well what can ya do?

TristanHuwJones

05-09-2009, 07:57 PM

No offense, but what the hell does this have to do with the TMNT movie? It's a pretty ridiculous argument. Peter Laird didn't like Star Trek = TMNT reboot will be bad.

All I keep hearing, even when I tell the Trek fans I know to cut through the ******** and be honest with me as someone who has never really cared about Star Trek and maybe watched a couple of episodes I can't even recall, is that it's a pretty standard movie. The only reason Trek fans really love it, and this is exactly what I've heard from fans and non-fans alike (again after saying cut the garbage and be honest) is that the film essentially goes through a checklist of things that they hope will ensure the fans love it and then does its thing. Just because Trek fans embrace it, it doesn't make it a good movie for everyone. Star Wars fans embraced the prequels but that didn't necessarily make them good either.

How many other reboots have there been to date? Batman, Superman, X-men, Hulk, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, James Bond... They've all been hit and miss too. So Peter is a Star Trek fan who didn't like the movie. So what? I've got friends who are fans who didn't either. But what has this got to do with the TMNT movie? From the sounds of everything it doesn't exactly look as though they're going to be going into space. It's like saying "okay, this apple wasn't to my liking, therefore that pot roast will not agree with me either."

No one involved in the Star Trek movie is currently working on the film. At the moment it's the dude who put the money forward for the Batman movies, 300 and Superman, and the dude that put the money forward for TMNT 4. Then you've got Peter and Gary and Legendary Pictures. There's not even a writer or director MENTIONED... ANYWHERE... So just chill, and wait until there's something solid ABOUT TMNT said.

What Galactus above me has said is spot on, and my own post probably would've hit around the same time as his if I hadn't taken a phone call :P
Sorry for the repetition without directly quoting you or referencing your own post G!

Machias Banshee

05-09-2009, 08:04 PM

Tristan pretty much said it for me. Star Trek and TMNT are two totally different things. There's no Logical way to compare how the star trek movie was done and what will happen with the new TMNT movie. We don't even know a PERCENT of what's going to happen with the TMNT movie. Can we at least WAIT and SEE something before we immediately go TRASHing it?

I think people are just reaching WAY out and trying to grasp at straws to be negative about something.

VaughnMichael

05-09-2009, 08:09 PM

TristanHuwJones

05-09-2009, 08:33 PM

I think people are worried because he said this about Trek and has said things about George Lucas, when he can't see that it's the same thing when his fans dislike something.
I'm pretty sure thats the point people are trying to make.
It's time to move on from the past and I mean everything, it's time for a new turtles.

I can understand that argument, as it's been brought up in reference to some issues of Tales and Volume 4, and both Peter and the fans have recognised that point. The argument here though, in a nutshell is Peter didn't like Star Trek, therefore TMNT reboot is a write off.

Spitfire

05-09-2009, 08:37 PM

He hated the film because he's a fanboy and he stated that pretty clearly. It's the highest rated movie of the year, with a whopping 94% on Rottentomatoes, so I'm going to take a guess that's it's at least a decent movie. Fanboys don't appreciate it because the guy who directed it doesn't even like Star Trek and it's more of an action film then anything. Star Trek fans like watching what I call "Live action Battle Ship" where rooms of people stand around and yell at each other while occasionally firing weapons and pretending to fly around the room when they get hit.

The point of a re-boot is to appeal to an audience the series has never appealed to before. With this I think this new Star Trek movie probably succeeded just as Batman did. The first 4 Batman films before Begins were goofy and cartoony in nature, not much like the comic book more like the TV series. Then Batman Begins was a lot more hard edged and more like the comic books.

Does this remind you of another franchise? The first turtles film might have been based off the comics but it was obviously geared towards fans of the old cartoon series, as were the other three, the newest one being for fans of the new toon. With that said if he wants to do a new film as a reboot I'd honestly expect a Batman Begins style film like he promised. He's not a turtles fanboy and even if he was he knows that's what almost all his fans want so he'd actually succeed in pleasing everyone. Making a turtles film more like the comics isn't changing the source material or altering the personalities of the characters like this Star Trek reboot supposedly did.

Andrew NDB

05-09-2009, 08:54 PM

Not to play devil's advocate, but I completely agree with Peter Laird on the new Star Trek movie. Pretty much every word.

I will say, however, that it's a highly entertaining film. Very riveting. I'd recommend it to anyone.

But it's a very strange thing, this movie. I mean, I get that it's for new fans who have never really been involved in Star Trek... so why not just do a real reboot? Or if they wanted to do a prequel, why not do a proper prequel?

As it is, it is a strange pitch: "What if Kirk wasn't really Kirk... and what if we saw this new Kirk's origins?" It's like a new, less-interesting Mirror Universe or something.

staypuftweepel

05-09-2009, 08:59 PM

The first 4 Batman films before Begins were goofy and cartoony in nature, not much like the comic book more like the TV series. Then Batman Begins was a lot more hard edged and more like the comic books.

Have you even seen Batman and Batman Returns? They aren't anywhere near the 60's show. If anything Batman feels exactly like comics back when it came out.

trustno1

05-09-2009, 09:05 PM

batman and batman returns felt like the comics did at the time.

back on track. this is easily the stupidest thread i have seen started here. tristan, galactus, machias banshee and spitfire speak the truth. i vote this thread be locked.

GK Punk

05-09-2009, 09:08 PM

Machias Banshee

05-09-2009, 09:16 PM

Yeh... if all unlike threads were locked, we'd be running out of thread to talk about.. :lol:

Raph'N'Roll

05-09-2009, 11:46 PM

I think Peter makes a lot of valid points, and you can tell he's a huge star trek fan from the passion in his words.
I thought it was a brilliant blockbuster, even if engineering did look like the inside of a factory, but to state that Peter's opinion of star trek will mean a crap TMNT movie is both irritating and stupid, it really is.

All this negativity is getting really tiresome, but this in particular is taking the piss, as it's based on nothing valid or logical.

Andrew NDB

05-09-2009, 11:51 PM

but to state that Peter's opinion of star trek will mean a crap TMNT movie is both irritating and stupid, it really is.

I wouldn't say it's stupid. Just... really, really unfounded. I'm all about assigning blame and anger where it's due... but looking at someone's view of Star Trek as a reboot (which it isn't) to conjecture their stance on what a TMNT reboot should be just doesn't seem like a sound comparison.

Now, if I read Peter Laird posting to his blog about what a piece of crap "Batman Begins" (which was a reboot) was and how it trampled over the history of the previous 4 movies, I'd be throwing a sh** fit with the rest of you.

Jester

05-09-2009, 11:58 PM

A thread isn't going to be closed just because you don't like it.
What if I don't like it? :P

J/K I guess the fear can be, "Well what if Peter just goes back to the well and doesn't try something fresh, like Star Trek did?" In that case, the question has some merit.

Gah, I love using italics.

EDIT: Then again ST didn't really try something new in that Future Spock (as much as I liked the movie) felt like a huge cop-out.

mumbo230

05-10-2009, 12:56 AM

But it's a very strange thing, this movie. I mean, I get that it's for new fans who have never really been involved in Star Trek... so why not just do a real reboot? Or if they wanted to do a prequel, why not do a proper prequel?

As it is, it is a strange pitch: "What if Kirk wasn't really Kirk... and what if we saw this new Kirk's origins?" It's like a new, less-interesting Mirror Universe or something.

I don't know why it's so odd. I mean the crew members of the USS Enterprise are iconic characters, so I can see why Abrams didn't go with a new crew. And then we start these characters off young with a new, different story, so that it isn't bogged down by all the decades of continuity that your average schmoe coudln't care less about.

Basically your casual viewer will recognize the characters and the lines, like "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!", but then will also be drawn into this new story and timeline.

For all intents and purposes this is a reboot even if it isn't a "real" one.

Anyway all I really want out of the new TMNT film is for it to be true to the characters and for it to be a damn good movie, and of course Laird's opinion of Star Trek doesn't really have anything to do with that.

Dan

05-10-2009, 02:04 AM

Peter Laird is a dork. I don't care what he thinks I'm still gonna she the movie anyway.

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 04:52 AM

Basically your casual viewer will recognize the characters and the lines, like "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!", but then will also be drawn into this new story and timeline.

But everything about the new movie seems to be about deconstructing Trek, making it more accessible to people completely unfamiliar with actually having watched Trek but maybe are passingly familiar with the tropes of it in pop culture. I get it. It's a sound strategy, really.

My question to this end is: Isn't harkening back to Kirk and Spock a bad thing? The "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!"/"Beam me up, Scotty!" stuff? I would think they'd want to distance themselves far away from all of that, and the mileau of something like Star Trek allows it.

It doesn't need to pick up after Nemesis. It doesn't need to even be in the TNG/24th century era. Hell, set it in the 29th century, when Starfleet polices Time, on a temporal ship with a bright and mixed young crew.

Going back to Kirk and Spock just seems pretty creatively bankrupt. And now I'm even reading interviews that say that Abrams and company want to start redoing Khan and other stories in this new Abramsverse... god forbid they attempt to do anything new or original.

People seem very confused about the widely mis-publicized "downfall of Trek." Enterprise wasn't cancelled because of bad ratings... it's ratings were strong, they just weren't getting any better and the show didn't fit in with the-then UPN's present strategy ("OK, we can make an episode of Moesha for $10,000 an episode for pretty much the same ratings as Enterprise, which costs $2,000,000 an episode..."). And the only reason the TNG movies crapped out is because, flat out, the last two movies were horrible. Insurrection and Nemesis, both of them. God awful.

But it's not TNG's fault! First Contact was the last TNG movie that was good, and everybody saw it -- in fact, it's the highest grossing (unadjusted) Star Trek movie to date (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/StarTrek.php), and it's a TNG movie. Proof that if they give us Trek movies that don't suck, we'll see them. Lesson being: don't make Trek movies that suck.

Simple as that. No reboot, no Kirk and Spock needed, no quasi-Mirror Universes or erasing/rewriting of 50 years of history needed.

For all intents and purposes this is a reboot even if it isn't a "real" one.

For most intents and purposes, not all.

R-iZZy

05-10-2009, 06:35 AM

It's funny, I have a childhood friend who is a complete Trekkie. He has the posters, has seen every single episode, memorizes lines and episode titles, seen every movie; hell, he's even tried getting me to watch all the stuff. I told him I was really looking forward to Star Trek, but I guess he didn't know about my undying love for J.J. Abrams' peni- I mean pensmanship. I seriously think anything this man touches is flawless.

Surely enough, my friend texted me as soon as he came out of the earliest showing of the movie (the movie was released Thursday at 7 p.m. in my town), and pretty much every text he sent me was just giddy, overexcited, all-Caps babble about how godly the movie was. I came out of the movie yesterday completely convinced that J.J. Abrams is a god and will soon be etched in film/television history. If Laird wants to complain about his favorite, childhood franchises not sticking well in film nowadays, he should probably be thankful he's not a Wolverine fan right now.

I can sorta understand how he's upset that the movie is probably nothing like the Star Trek he knew [to be honest, I can't comment on it because I've never seen an episode/previous movie of Star Trek in my life] and that it wasn't meant to appeal solely to the diehards [even though many of the diehards I know personally and the ones online are raving about this movie]; but this just means that the new TMNT movie's plot that he and the production team are personally working on better be fan-f***ing-tastic in the sense of capturing the essence of the comics.

Either way, I can't say I agree with Laird when he says this movie was a huge disappointment or that it's a bad thing that the future of Star Trek films will be in the direction Abrams took it. Sorry if most of the movie doesn't consist of 100-word techno babble sentences, I still think it was a kick-ass movie.

Jester

05-10-2009, 09:09 AM

ToTheNines

05-10-2009, 10:54 AM

At the moment it's the dude who put the money forward for the Batman movies, 300 and Superman

I guess you're talking about Scott Mednick, but I can't find any connection between him and any Batman movie.

Have you even seen Batman and Batman Returns? They aren't anywhere near the 60's show. If anything Batman feels exactly like comics back when it came out.

Batman Returns was one of the most ridiculous movies ever. I watch it to cleanse myself of sin, it's that brutal.

ToTheNines

05-10-2009, 10:56 AM

Isn't it ironic that Laird hated Star Trek because it'd totally not the Star Trek he knew, but he had little problem with TMNT, which was hardly even about the Turtles, or for that matter allowed things like Secret of the Ooze, Turtles III (Which aren't the worst, but are about "meh."), and CooTS, the 2 Turtle sing-along cassettes (Turtle Tunes and We Wish You a Turtle Christmas), and the Next Mutation?

It's not ironic. He makes money off that garbage, so of course it's "good enough".

Spitfire

05-10-2009, 12:49 PM

Have you even seen Batman and Batman Returns? They aren't anywhere near the 60's show. If anything Batman feels exactly like comics back when it came out.

I have in fact, I own them. Batman is super goofy, and cartoony. The museum scene...the way the Joker acts 90% of the movie. The way the goons act is way over the top screaming as loud as they can and wearing matching jackets with Joker's face on them.

Returns was a step in the right direction but I still don't feel it made it all the way. As much as I like the film it's still cartoony to me. The Penguin is way over the top, giant rubber duck boat and penguins with missiles strapped to them I mean come on. I can't take a film with stuff in it like that and go "Yeah this is just like the comic where Batman fights serial killers and is tormented by the death of his parents".

Jester

05-10-2009, 02:09 PM

It's not ironic. He makes money off that garbage, so of course it's "good enough".
HEY!! Did I ask you? NO!! NO!!!

J/K. I'd like to think as someone who calls himself an artist, Peter Laird would prefer quality product over schlock that will bring in a quick buck, but what do I know, I'm just somne guy in fly-over country.

CyberCubed

05-10-2009, 02:26 PM

Heh, which one of you posted the last few replies on Pete's blog? :D

VaughnMichael

05-10-2009, 02:52 PM

HEY!! Did I ask you? NO!! NO!!!

J/K. I'd like to think as someone who calls himself an artist, Peter Laird would prefer quality product over schlock that will bring in a quick buck, but what do I know, I'm just somne guy in fly-over country.
No considering the turtles all started out as a Dare Devil spoof/ joke.
I think some times fans see things differently than those who created the characters.

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 03:09 PM

No considering the turtles all started out as a Dare Devil spoof/ joke.

An homage to a couple of aspects from Daredevil, Elektra, and Ronin do not a spoof/joke make.

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 03:14 PM

Ok, I'll ask this to Andy, since he's the most die hard Mirage fan I know here: Isn't it ironic that Laird hated Star Trek because it'd totally not the Star Trek he knew, but he had little problem with TMNT, which was hardly even about the Turtles, or for that matter allowed things like Secret of the Ooze, Turtles III (Which aren't the worst, but are about "meh."), and CooTS, the 2 Turtle sing-along cassettes (Turtle Tunes and We Wish You a Turtle Christmas), and the Next Mutation?

When you put it like that, I would almost have to say yes... but I guess it would depend on what Laird considers "the TMNT he knows." I think "the TMNT he knows" might be different than, say, the TMNT Kevin Eastman knows, or the kind of TMNT we know that comes when the two of them work together, collectively.

But I'm not sure. Both men are guilty of making some head-scratchingly terrible deals in the mainstream with Hollywood and TV.

ToTheNines

05-10-2009, 03:42 PM

The museum scene...the way the Joker acts 90% of the movie.

You just made me think of
http://www.therightone.biz/_RefFiles/Prince%20Symbol.gif

HEY!! Did I ask you? NO!! NO!!!

Maybe my real name's Andy. :P

Galactus

05-10-2009, 03:50 PM

The concerns that Laird voices about the new Star Trek movie on his blog is pretty much the way I felt about Transformers. It was a movie that bore the name Transformers and a vague similarity but that's were it ended.

The franchise was capable of making a much better film and while I knew Hollywood would never take the concept of transforming robots seriously it's sad that it felt it had to make a mindless action flick which instead of at least attempting something decent...and lets not forget that Bay's Transformers also had a lot of hype, made a lot of money and people loved it, then a few months on forget and dismiss soon after.

While I don't think Star Trek will be quite like that from what I've read it almost reminds me of this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwyIMzfzz8o

I realise that a lot of people want the TMNT reboot to be popular and make money and whatnot but is that what we really want Is that what we really want for the turtles?

[SCENE 1 April sits up in a pile of unconcious Foot Solidiers, Raph stands over her]

Raph: They were sent here to kill you

April: What are you.

Raph: You don't want to know what I am.

April: But you're so..so-

Raph: Different?

April: Hot.

SCENE 2 Mike and Don hiding behind a wall as Don franticaly works on something. As Foot Ninja charges at them from a distance Don leans his home made bazooka over the wall and fires at an oil tanker causing a massive explosion with the Foot caught in it.

Mike: Dude, we were supposed to take one alive so we could find out were they're holding Splinter.

Don: um...my bad.

[FINALE Mike, Don and Raph are fighting the Shredder when the battle is interrupted by head lights. It's Leo driving the Party Wagon full of explosives. The turtles dive out of the way as the wagon goes directly into Saki. As a huge explosion erupts we see Leo jumping out of the flames. His friends help him up, the four turtles stand dramaticaly over the fire, close up on Leo

Leo: (to camera) Turtles to Shredder you've been pwned!

[CUE CREDITS]

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 03:52 PM

Truly horrible.

CyberCubed

05-10-2009, 08:01 PM

I think Peter is not going to be happy when reading the new replies on his blog. It's turned into a real Vol. 4 bash-fest.

Dan

05-10-2009, 09:14 PM

Leo: (to camera) Turtles to Shredder you've been pwned! That would be awesome!

VaughnMichael

05-10-2009, 09:16 PM

An homage to a couple of aspects from Daredevil, Elektra, and Ronin do not a spoof/joke make.
Ummm both Peter & Kevin have said exactly what I just did on a number of occasions in interviews Andrew.
So take that one up with the both of them.
I think Peter is not going to be happy when reading the new replies on his blog. It's turned into a real Vol. 4 bash-fest.
Lovely now he's never gonna finish it never! never!:|
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/Harmophious/Character_donmusic-bw.jpg

Dan

05-10-2009, 09:20 PM

Isn't Peter Laird a total hypocrite? I mean this guy allowed Shredder to be turned into an alien imposter.

TristanHuwJones

05-10-2009, 09:27 PM

That was in an alternate version of the TMNT though, not the "true"/comic one.

CyberCubed

05-10-2009, 09:30 PM

Isn't Peter Laird a total hypocrite? I mean this guy allowed Shredder to be turned into an alien.

Yes, but the original Oroku Saki was still human.

Although I do see your point since the 2k3 series was a major change from the Mirage comics.

Dan

05-10-2009, 09:40 PM

That was in an alternate version of the TMNT though, not the "true"/comic one.
Yes but he still had control over it. That's my whole point Laird allows alternate versions of his franchise to be different, yet complains when other people do it.

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 10:37 PM

Though he's talking about one media vs. something in the same media. In the live-action medium, the new Star Trek is a very different beast than everything that has come before in the live-action medium. Comparing what he and Kevin did in the comic books to what the children's film spinoffs were isn't quite the same sort of comparison.

Which doesn't mean it's any less disappointing than it is. But it's not the same sort of comparison.

TristanHuwJones

05-10-2009, 10:38 PM

I was under the impression that this new Star Trek was, through some sort of weird time-travel revelation, part of the official continuity in spite of it being a reboot. If that's true then the difference is there. The comics and cartoons continue on as two separate entities. Maybe I should go and see it, just so I can judge properly...

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 10:49 PM

I was under the impression that this new Star Trek was, through some sort of weird time-travel revelation, part of the official continuity in spite of it being a reboot.

Look at it this way... after the movie is over, the entirety of what we knew as TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY lives on... but only in Spock, the last survivor of that timeline. And I would be surprised if Abrams bothers to bring him back in any future movies, now that his role is done (provide a hook for existing Trek fans).

gobo

05-10-2009, 10:59 PM

I understand how a life-long Trekkie might find this new time-line ridiculous, but here's how I can justify it. After Earth's first contact with the people of Vulcan, humanity would have become the quiet, peaceful race ruled by reason seen in Roddenberry's vision. However, because of Nero's presence and the destruction he caused, humanity didn't learn to fully trust that way of life.

Jester

05-10-2009, 11:00 PM

I wrote a blog (http://gogreenmachine.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/whats-lairds-love-got-to-do-with-it/)...I don't really know what to think anymore.

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 11:04 PM

Jester

05-10-2009, 11:07 PM

Several, remember the other ships that left to save Vulcan. Oh yeah...and Vulcan...

gobo

05-10-2009, 11:15 PM

Because he blew up one ship?
Forgotten about 'the butterfly effect', have we? :)

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 11:20 PM

Oh, I thought you guys were talking about the present of the movie. Going forward... we have no idea how Vulcan is going to impact things. History could go more or less the same... just with less Vulcans.

Spock just better not get himself killed again. No more Mount Selaya.

Jester

05-10-2009, 11:23 PM

Pon'far is gonna suck!!!

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 11:34 PM

Pon'far is gonna suck!!!

Not really. All he needs to do is throw Uhura a bone and be done with it... his wife is dead and gone.

Jester

05-10-2009, 11:36 PM

Not really. All he needs to do is throw Uhura a bone and be done with it... his wife is dead and gone.
But that's not Star Trek!!!!

Too soon?

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 11:38 PM

I'm too lazy to double-check the timeline right, but factoring in the year of the movie and the season/year that Spock had the Pon'Farr in "Time Amok" we could figure out exactly when he'd be due for his Pon'Farr, too.

Jester

05-10-2009, 11:39 PM

Just as long as it doesn't become a crazy Star Trek teen sex comedy.

Spock: It is the Pon'far. I must mate or die.
Kirk: Snap, son...we got to get you laid!!

Andrew NDB

05-10-2009, 11:42 PM

Just as long as it doesn't become a crazy Star Trek teen sex comedy.

Spock: It is the Pon'far. I must mate or die.
Kirk: Snap, son...we got to get you laid!!

Hey, you remember the movie, right?

UHURA: What can I do for you? I'll do anything you want.

Now when the Pon'Farr hits he can finally have an answer for her.

SPOCK: Lieutenant Uhura, I have need of your private parts. Accompany me to my quarters for de-briefing.

Jester

05-10-2009, 11:44 PM

Ah, Andy, we may have our quibbles, but you're alright, man!

jerome

05-11-2009, 03:31 AM

Andrew NDB

05-11-2009, 03:44 AM

I loved this movie. I honestly don't give two craps about star trek though. I mean i've watched the majority of the original series and its cool but TNG and beyond are just plain boring...

and i mean would all you trekkies have liked this movie more if kirk fought a man in a god awful lizard costume at a snails pace and throw rocks that BOUNCE at each other:roll:

this movie had:
people sky diving from the edge of vlucan's atmosphere
a sword fight
time travel
awesome space battles
engaging charecters
good performances and great casting... these things are exciting, and fun...that can't be said for previous treks'.

I would have killed for any of the star wars prequels to be half this good (it would have made camping in front of a theatre for 3 weeks even more fun...yeah i did that. it was sweet)

anyway maybe this movie isn't missing heart, soul, brains etc...but maybe just maybe..SOME of its viewers are...

I don't know what to say to any of this aside from all of it, collectively, being a very silly thing to say.

I mean, really? The whole basis of your case seems to be that Star Trek fans are people that dry-hump memories of Kirk fighting an alien in the worst costuming in Star Trek's history... is this what you think fans of the past 60 years of Trek have found an affinity toward? Really?

I think a bit of frustration from fans of the past 60 years of Trek (which has managed to exist without any reboots) that, well, the past 60 years of Trek is going in to toilet is OK, and it's even sillier to criminalize/demonize these individuals. How do you know there wasn't a way for TPTB to do a reboot in such a way that we could have our cake and eat it too (preserve all the history, but start anew in a crowd-pleasing/accessible enough way)?

And despite the spin the media seems to be putting out, Star Trek was never in dire straits... Enterprise's ratings were not at cancellation numbers and were actually very consistant and strong pretty much to the end... they just weren't getting any better, either, and the show didn't fit into UPN's then-strategy ("OK, we can do an episode of Moesha at $10,000 an episode versus $2,000,000 an episode for Enterprise at only slightly better ratings..."). That's Enterprise.

The movies... OK, it's really quite simple. The last two Star Trek movies were HORRIBLE. I mean, TERRIBLE. But it's not TNG or the 24th century's fault or continuity that's the problem... the problem is truly horrific, hackneyed, and unremarkable scripts coupled and lifeless direction. The last TNG movie that was good was First Contact, and people DID turn out to see that... in fact, depending on where you go for your box office numbers it remains the HIGHEST grossing Trek film of all time -- and this is a TNG film.

Proof that the solution has always been very simple: make a Trek movie that doesn't suck... people will turn out and see it. No reboot, no Kirk and Spock needed, no quasi-Mirror Universes or erasing/rewriting of 50 years of history needed.

It's a very strange thing when you think about it, this movie. I mean, I get that it's for new fans who have never really been involved in Star Trek... so why not just do a real reboot? Or if they wanted to do a prequel, why not do a proper prequel?

As it is, it is a strange pitch: "What if Kirk wasn't really Kirk... and what if we saw this new Kirk's origins?" It's like a new, less-interesting Mirror Universe or something.

Everything about the new movie seems to be about deconstructing Trek, making it more accessible to people completely unfamiliar with actually having watched Trek but maybe are passingly familiar with the tropes of it in pop culture. I get it. It's a sound strategy, really.

My question to this end is: Isn't harkening back to Kirk and Spock a bad thing? The "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!"/"Beam me up, Scotty!" stuff? I would think they'd want to distance themselves far away from all of that, and the mileau of something like Star Trek allows it.

It doesn't need to pick up after Nemesis. It doesn't need to even be in the TNG/24th century era. Hell, set it in the 29th century, when Starfleet polices Time, on a temporal ship with a bright and mixed young crew.

Going back to Kirk and Spock just seems pretty creatively bankrupt. And now I'm even reading interviews that say that Abrams and company want to start redoing Khan and other stories in this new Abramsverse... god forbid they attempt to do anything new or original.

Let me temper this post by reiterating that I really enjoyed the new Star Trek movie. I found it exciting riveting, and at times I was on pins and needles (in kind of an Armageddon/Independence Day way... but I really liked those movies, too) and would recommend it to anyone I know.

Jester

05-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Something dawns on me....what created the Mirror universe anyway? Human-kind being royal douchebags? Maybe the destruction of Vulcan didn't create a new timeline, but is the catalyst that creates the Mirror universe....

Oh wait, the Mirror universe was used in Enterprise too wasn't it. DAMN YOU ENTERPRISE!!!

EDIT: Also, is going back to a previous post creativly bankrupt too? Just askin. :D

Andrew NDB

05-11-2009, 08:13 PM

Something dawns on me....what created the Mirror universe anyway? Human-kind being royal douchebags?

It's never revealed. It's just an evil dimension where good is bad and bad is good.

Lord Nightwalker

05-11-2009, 08:55 PM

After reading the last few post, And agreeing with a lot of what Andrew has said, and whith the opinions of others, But not having seen it myself...I will not pass judgment yet. But I'm getting this nagging feeling "Crisis" is creeping up on me again....

Andrew NDB

05-11-2009, 09:01 PM

METALHEAD

05-11-2009, 10:58 PM

i thought star trek xi was awesome. better than the other star trek movies.:D i ain't joking.

steve

05-12-2009, 09:51 AM

A reeee BOOOOTTT was totally necessary for a star trek film. If they had went on with a continuation with the film I would NOT have gone to see it.

They didn't do a reboot just because they did it to really show what happened in the begining. There are many things that were unexplained about kirk's past and they showed them all - WHICH WAS awesome.

Instead of showing the crew and having a long lasting friendship they showed kirks relationships from the very begging. ALSO AWESOME!.

From a movie standpoint this reboot is doing GREAT at the box office and ALSO has pleased all of the fans I know -1. It gets you excited for star trek.

ALSO This was a movie. Unlike the other movies which were long episodes. Cough cough TNMT. =D

Tuxedo Moroboshi

05-12-2009, 09:59 AM

Unlike the other movies which were long episodes. Cough cough TNMT. =D

As far as Star Trek's concerned, I might agree... but I don't think ANY of the TMNT movies can really be considered "long episodes". :ohwell:

steve

05-12-2009, 11:57 AM

As far as Star Trek's concerned, I might agree... but I don't think ANY of the TMNT movies can really be considered "long episodes". :ohwell:

I love the turtles. but that last TNMT movie really felt like a really long episode.

Leo656

05-12-2009, 04:14 PM

I'unno, I think people are just cranky. I get that a lotta people love Star Trek and everything, but if a flick like this gets more people to go back and seek out older Trek stuff, which I guarantee it will, and enjoy it for what it is, which I guarantee most will, then who really gives a sh*t?

I mean, I like the old Superman flicks. I also loved Superman Returns (yeah, me and my fiancee were the two people that loved it). I also have thousands of Superman comics, every show except Smallville on DVD, all the cartoons, and so on. And they have nothing to do with each other at all past the main character! Everything is represented slightly differently in every single Superman continuity!

And somehow, my head doesn't explode. I'm fine with it. I just don't dig Smallville because it just seems extremely committed to undermining and/or rewriting every single piece of continuity when it isn't necessary.

But I really don't think this Trek movie even comes close to doing what Smallville does to the Superman mythology, so why the moral outrage by some? Just take it for what it is and be happy people care about Star Trek again. Let's not be all protective and pretenious about "Gene Roddenberry's alleged vision". It's Stardate 2009, kids.

lukekeith

05-14-2009, 12:35 AM

I love the turtles. but that last TNMT movie really felt like a really long episode.

I couldn't possibly agree with you more on this point and that every previous Trek film felt like an overextended episode that went to theaters.

So far, the only criticism I can find on the new Star Trek movie is built around the idea that they somehow changed Star Trek history by altering how things happen in the beginning.....

That is utterly ridiculous! Last I heard Star Trek is pure fiction designed to entertain an audience. To that point it has served it's purpose well for the past few decades and certainly continued that tradition with it's latest incarnation. So why is anybody complaining? Since when does a fictional story have to remain the way it is forever without any possibility of change? If you are going to pick on the movie, you should pick on the things that contribute to making a film good or bad... such as....

story - (is it interesting to watch?)
characters - (are they well defined and well portrayed?)
casting - (do the actors perform well with respect to their role?)
chemistry - (do you enjoy watching the characters interact?)
production - (was it well made?)
pace - (did it keep your interest?)
purpose - (does the movie have a point?)
entertainment - (did you enjoy the movie and why?)
consistency - (Does it make sense within the world created by the story?)

If you evaluate a movie based on things that matter and not purely an emotional reaction to what you consider to be botching your "nerd knowledge" of Trek history, then I think you will find that Star Trek is a great movie, well made, well received, and overall very excellent.

So as it relates to the next TMNT film, I obviously believe it is important to maintain the spirit and history of the source material, but the primary focus aught to be making a good movie, not just rehashing the same old stuff with a bigger budget.

Ryona

05-14-2009, 01:14 AM

Is it really a big deal if Peter Laird didn't like the Star Trek movie?

From what I understand, the new upcoming TMNT movie is heavily based on the Mirage comics... which is barely anything like Star Trek (Minus the outer space stuff... >.> )

I'm expecting good things.

And for the record, I loved the new Star Trek movie.

Andrew NDB

05-14-2009, 01:16 AM

So far, the only criticism I can find on the new Star Trek movie is built around the idea that they somehow changed Star Trek history by altering how things happen in the beginning.....

Look a little harder.

Dragon Turtle

05-14-2009, 03:52 AM

I love the turtles. but that last TNMT movie really felt like a really long episode.

Whereas Star Trek felt a bit like a two hour made for TV movie that kicks off a TV series.

gobo

05-14-2009, 05:18 AM

Diggin' the new thread-title... :tthumbsu:

CyberCubed

05-14-2009, 12:45 PM

Why was this thread moved?

Doc_ock_4mugen

05-14-2009, 12:56 PM

Because it seems to be more of a general Discussion (Peter Laird talks about Star Trek) than it has to do with the new TMNT movie.

Kendamu

05-14-2009, 02:29 PM

It doesn't matter what Pete says. Drama gets made out of it.

willtupper

05-14-2009, 10:17 PM

I'm actually convinced that Mr. Laird never saw the new Star Trek movie. He intended to, but I think he maybe misread his ticket (i.e. read that he was supposed to go to "Theater 6," when it was really "Theater 9") and instead went into a theater that was showing the Matthew McConaughey vehicle, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.

He got there a bit late, missing the opening credits. So he wasn't sure why the whole thing took place on Earth... and there was really no adventure.

Because, it's weird. If you take every place where Mr. Laird mentions the new Star Trek, and replace it with Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, and then take every place where he mentions the old Star Trek, and replace that with the 1947 classic, It's A Wonderful Life, then Mr. Laird's assesment makes total and perfect sense.

It's also possible that Mr. Laird accidentally went to see the dreamy Zak Efron in 17 Again. It's weird, because you can do the thing with It's A Wonderful Life and Zak's new movie, and it works perfectly there, too! :D

gobo

05-14-2009, 10:47 PM

^^ :lol: Awesome.

Jester

05-15-2009, 09:35 AM

Buslady

05-15-2009, 05:03 PM

I loved it. Everything about it. Simon Pegg nailed a good younger Scotty. Karl Urban, god choice for McCoy....

I don't think Mr Laird saw it either Will. I love all Trek, all series, all movies even the bleah ones...this is just another piece of the history.

Andrew NDB

05-15-2009, 07:29 PM

I don't think Mr Laird saw it either Will. I love all Trek, all series, all movies even the bleah ones...this is just another piece of the history.

Not precisely, if it's overwriting the existing history.

Cipher

05-16-2009, 01:32 AM

I saw it tonight. I know jack-sh*t about Star Trek outside of major pop-culture references. I thought it was a decent action flick, but far, far short of its glowing reviews. It seemed like a fairly vapid homage piece.

I don't really think Laird's comments have any relevance to the upcoming TMNT movie. If anything, it's reassuring. He wasn't reviewing Star Trek as a good movie or a bad movie. He wasn't criticizing the idea of reboots. He was simply lamenting the fact that the most recent theatrical version of Stark Trek wasn't faithful (at least in his mind) to the spirit of the source material he loved.

So it does nothing but give me hope that Laird will deny TMNT scripts that aren't close to the Mirage version.

GK Punk

05-16-2009, 01:48 AM

Not precisely, if it's overwriting the existing history.

It isn't. They even mentioned in the film about it being an alternate time line. This version is in it's own pocket universe.

Andrew NDB

05-16-2009, 02:57 AM

It isn't. They even mentioned in the film about it being an alternate time line. This version is in it's own pocket universe.

Time travel doesn't really work like that in Star Trek... see "Yesterday's Enterprise" of TNG, and others. Unless that artificial Black Hole actually sent Nero and Spock not just back in time, per se, but to an alternate dimension... but that's really reaching.

Bottom line, it seems highly unlikely after this movie that we'll see anything more of the continuity seen in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the TOS/TNG movies... so it matters little what they "call it" -- it is what it is, and it's wiping all of that stuff clean.

Which is fine and sound for gathering a new audience... but let's call a duck a duck.

willtupper

05-16-2009, 02:58 AM

Even if it wasn't it's own pocket universe (which it is), I don't see why a fan of the franchise (or any franchise, for that matter) just can't make their own "DIY" continuity. Taking the things they approve of and like to cobble together a more personal version of a property's storyline.

That's certainly what I've done with the Turtles. There are holes in my TMNT education like you wouldn't believe. Not only that, there are a number of stories I place on a much higher level of importance than others. Some are in official continuity. Others are not.

They just mean more to me than other stories. That's all. Personal taste, personal choice I even consider the origial cartoon part of my own "personal official" version of continuity. Just due to all the great memories I have associated with it, growing up.

I'm also considering the possibility that Mister Laird maybe actually accidentally saw Tyler Perry's latest movie, "Madea Goes to Jail," and thought IT was the new Star Trek movie. I see how that might not have been to his liking.

What with the movie being about "Uhura," an angry 6'5" loud-talking pot-smoking woman inexplicably referred to as "Madea," who gets locked in a Romulan prison where all the guards look like stereotypical caucasian humans.

THAT version of Star Trek would have stunk, for sure :D.

It isn't. They even mentioned in the film about it being an alternate time line. This version is in it's own pocket universe.

GK Punk

05-16-2009, 03:01 AM

I'm fine with them doing it this way, and I grew up as a Star Trek fan. The fact is, this is just a new continuity. It doesn't take away from any of the previous series. I can still watch TNG when I want. I can watch DS9, or Voyager, or Enterprise. This is just adding a new chapter to the franchise, which is fine. It's not deleting those shows from existance.

It's only in this one continuity where none of that stuff may happen. And who knows how much of it still can, it's always possible a lot of it could happen again just with minor differences. Complaining about them doing it this way is a lot like all of those people that complained when TMNT2k3 came out claiming it ruined their childhood.

Andrew NDB

05-16-2009, 04:52 AM

This is just adding a new chapter to the franchise, which is fine. It's not deleting those shows from existance.

It's just deleting them from canon is all.

Though "Star Trek Online" sounds like it might be moderately entertaining, I have little doubt everything in the movies and TV is only going to revolve around this new alterered Abramsverse... which, for all intents and purposes outside of things like novels, puts the final nails in the coffins on the whole TOS => TNG, DS9, VOY continuity.

It's only in this one continuity where none of that stuff may happen. And who knows how much of it still can, it's always possible a lot of it could happen again just with minor differences. Complaining about them doing it this way is a lot like all of those people that complained when TMNT2k3 came out claiming it ruined their childhood.

That's so impossibly a different comparison it would pain me to illustrate how. But I will if prodded.

GK Punk

05-16-2009, 05:25 AM

What it sounds like you are upset about with it to me, is what a lot of people were upset about when they did a new TMNT Cartoon continuity.

Therefore Upset about new continuity killing old continuity in both conversations. When the fact is, it's just it's own thing doing something new. And the old continuity is still there for you to enjoy. That's what I was trying to get across with that.

Andrew NDB

05-16-2009, 05:30 AM

What it sounds like you are upset about with it to me, is what a lot of people were upset about when they did a new TMNT Cartoon continuity.

I really struggle to see how. The 4Kids series made no bones about it being a completely different/new universe from the get-go, no attempt to string continuity from the old Fred Wolf cartoon into itself to do a semi-reboot. If any Fred Wolf cartoon fans believed that the 4Kids series was continuing things or trampling on those old episodes, that's really their own fault and they deserve it.

If the new Star Trek movie had been a straight out reboot or straight-out prequel, there would be no problem and I wouldn't have any argument.

Therefore Upset about new continuity killing old continuity in both conversations. When the fact is, it's just it's own thing doing something new. And the old continuity is still there for you to enjoy. That's what I was trying to get across with that.

I understand what you're trying to get across. What I'm trying to get across is that this new movie slams the door shut on any continuance of the previous 60 years of relatively uninterrupted, ongoing Star Trek continuity unnecessarily. I think that sucks... sorry for that.

Was the movie good? Yes, it was fantastic. Was a back-to-basics, redefining the Star Trek wheel necessary to attract a new audience? Probably. Was the movie's approach to things and continuity the only way it could have been done? Absolutely not, and it truly shakes me that people are so shortsighted/unimaginative that they seem to honestly believe this.

GK Punk

05-16-2009, 05:36 AM

I'm just viewing it differently I suppose. Kind of like the Mirror universe in a way. TOS-VOY was one time-line and this in it's own pocket universe that was created by accident. I still see it as the Original universe unfolding with out a hitch, while this one has variations to it occurring due to the arrival of Nero and Spock. And mostly, because it was said in the film that it was an alternate time-line.

Andrew NDB

05-16-2009, 05:42 AM

I'm just viewing it differently I suppose. Kind of like the Mirror universe in a way. TOS-VOY was one time-line and this in it's own pocket universe that was created by accident.

The only way that's possible is if when Nero and Spock originally went into that artificial Black Hole near Romulus in the 24th century, that they weren't just thrown back in time, but into a different dimension... and that's reaching.

I still see it as the Original universe unfolding with out a hitch, while this one has variations to it occurring due to the arrival of Nero and Spock. And mostly, because it was said in the film that it was an alternate time-line.

None of this matters if the original timeline is never revisited... which it won't be, after this latest film.

GK Punk

05-16-2009, 05:46 AM

I don't really think it's reaching that bad, I mean we are talking about time travel and interstellar spaceships here. I mean, anything is possible.

Andrew NDB

05-16-2009, 05:48 AM

I don't really think it's reaching that bad, I mean we are talking about time travel and interstellar spaceships here. I mean, anything is possible.

But we're talking about a franchise in which time travel and interdimensional travel is well documented... what you propose simply isn't supported by the existing material. See "Yesterday's Enterprise" or "City on the Edge of Forever" or others.

Even "First Contact." If the Borg going back in time to the 21st Century to assimilate Earth was only in an alternate dimension, why would Picard and company even bother time-travelling back to fix things, if their own timeline was intact as its own thing?

GK Punk

05-16-2009, 07:03 AM

Well those things could have already been part of their timeline and were supposed to happen, as where the events in the new movie were not supposed to happen, and only occurred due to the black hole. It's the age old problem with using Time travel as a story telling device. It doesn't always make sense, and there will almost always be plot holes.

Mr._Mutant_Man

05-16-2009, 08:01 AM

None of this matters if the original timeline is never revisited... which it won't be, after this latest film.

Has it really looked like it would ever be revisited anyway after Nemesis and Enterprise were unsuccessful?

gobo

05-16-2009, 08:12 AM

You can't say anything Trek, especially TOS, was never 'reaching'. ;)

Andrew NDB

05-16-2009, 03:46 PM

Has it really looked like it would ever be revisited anyway after Nemesis and Enterprise were unsuccessful?

Enterprise wasn't unsuccessful. And Nemesis (and Insurrection before it) was unsuccessful because it was a horrible movie... not because of the continuity or the 24th century.

Buslady

05-17-2009, 02:29 AM

why cant people just enjoy the movie for what it is?

it was great. who cares about canon, continuity, and all that...just enjoy it.

Andrew NDB

05-17-2009, 02:49 AM

why cant people just enjoy the movie for what it is?

I do. It's a great movie.

who cares about canon, continuity, and all that

Now that's a silly question. A ton of people care about "canon, continuity, and all that."

Tuxedo Moroboshi

05-17-2009, 04:18 AM

Although I haven't seen this movie myself just yet (I can't help it, I'm broke), does it really matter that this movie "erases" the old timeline? I mean, let's stop to think about it for a moment. Would things really be all that different if it was a normal reboot? Everytime a series has ever had a reboot, they never visit the previous continuity. So how is this really any different than a "real reboot", outside of the superficial?

Mr._Mutant_Man

05-17-2009, 08:44 AM

Enterprise wasn't unsuccessful. And Nemesis (and Insurrection before it) was unsuccessful because it was a horrible movie... not because of the continuity or the 24th century.

Enterprise didn't last as long as the other Star Trek shows that were on in the 80's to 90's.

I never claimed that it was the continuity's fault that the last two Star Treks were bad, but in Hollywood these days it seems like when there's a couple of bombs in the franchise the thing to do is to start over. I usually dislike the idea of remakes, but Star Trek was probably a franchise that needed something completely fresh. It was at a point where they couldn't pull in a fresh audience because there hadn't been a good "jumping on" point in a while.

Vegita-San

05-17-2009, 02:04 PM

I'm almost dreading reading the full response of Peter's latest post in the Star Drek thread :).

My personal opinion is that first Peter is way off base on this movie. Leanord Nimoy wouldn't have signed onto it if he didn't think it was pure Trek at heart, and that's a big stamp of approval right there.

I saw it last night. While I didn't go in intending to hate it, I wasn't exactly sure what to expect. But I came out finding it the most enjoyable movie experience in the last few years. Not once did I find myself thinking, 'When is this going to be over?'

The ONLY problem I had with it was the actor who played Chekov. He took me out of the movie every time I saw him, and it's like he was struggling with the 'Russian' accent throughout. Especially in the scene where the computer was trying to understand him. I didn't find it funny at all because the actor and accent just wasn't working.

Everyone else, especially McCoy, fit in pretty good.
Oh, and my one minor gripe about the movie is the interior of the Enterprise. I felt like I was walking the boiler room of the Titanic while watching some of the scenes...a minor gripe, but a gripe.

This is a fun movie. Turtles 5, if a true reboots, needs to be this fun and engaing for EVERYONE, not just fans of the turtles who still only remember the 80's series.

As I said before in the blog:
Give them all red bandanas. The voices are enough to distinguish them.
Go into the history of Shredder and Yoshi in the opening credits..get it done in 5 minutes.
Start the movie with Splinter in new York as a normal rat, show a bit of the turtles child hood and Ninja training....also Shredder as a serious business man in New York City.
Show the origin of the Shredder persona itself if possible.

Make the first movie about the Turtles, Splinter and Shredder. Wait for April, Casey, Baxter and the mousers for movie 2.

Oh, and unless they want to expand the rouges gallery, don't kill Shredder off. Unless it's a sure kill and done for shock value (this ain't the cowabunga tmnt type of campaign).

Sadly, none of that will happen as long as playmates has any say as the master toy licensee..

CyberCubed

05-17-2009, 02:16 PM

Peter's last response was so forceful he triple posted it! :P

Andrew NDB

05-17-2009, 03:30 PM

Enterprise didn't last as long as the other Star Trek shows that were on in the 80's to 90's.

But it wasn't cancelled due to ratings or general popularity.

I never claimed that it was the continuity's fault that the last two Star Treks were bad, but in Hollywood these days it seems like when there's a couple of bombs in the franchise the thing to do is to start over

Well, as long as you're clear on the reasons they bombed.

I usually dislike the idea of remakes, but Star Trek was probably a franchise that needed something completely fresh. It was at a point where they couldn't pull in a fresh audience because there hadn't been a good "jumping on" point in a while.

You know, the new movie can be called a lot of things... but "remake" certainly isn't one of them. In any case, I do hope that TPTB realize that Star Trek isn't a movie franchise... it's a television franchise, which occasionally spawns a movie. If it does anything, I hope the new movie does lead us to a new TV show... and how I hope against hope it won't have anything to do with this new Abramsverse.

willtupper

05-17-2009, 06:30 PM

You know what I wonder? This is what I honestly wonder.

I wonder if Mr. Laird saw the first episode of the very first "Star Trek" series when it was originally on television (not on reruns where his views might have been colored by later versions).

I wonder if he saw it, and when he saw it, I wonder if Mr. Laird just nodded to himself and said, "Yes. This is CLEARLY going to be one of the most groundbreaking creative series in all of modern HISTORY."

I wonder if he said that.

Or, I wonder, if when he saw that first episode (or any of the earliest stuff, for that matter), he didn't say to himself, "Well, this is fun. It's a little goofy, sure. But the stories are good, the characters are fun, and I'm having a good time following their advnetures together."

I wonder, because I wonder if way back then, if that was enough.

Because I bet, maybe two or three new "Trek" movies down the line, that maybe even this one (good as it was) might look a little more lackluster than we see it as, now.

To be fair, there were moments in the film (only a few) where I just wanted to go, "coughStar Wars ripoffcough," but even then I kind of liked it. Because I felt like the movie was being tied-in to a deeper history. And I appreciated that.

That first Trek series obviously was inspired by something (and my scholarship of early Sci-Fi history is too weak to know what). But did anyone go, "Wow, this is a total ripoff of __________________ (insert story or author here). Therefore, it sucks!"

No, they gave it a chance. They were grateful for it. They watched what was there, and they enjoyed themselves.

That's where I want to approach fandom from. A place of gratitude. I wasn't particulary moved by the '07 TMNT movie, but you know what?

I'm glad it was made.

There's spots on volume 4 of the TMNT comic that I'm not too hot on, but you know what?

I'm glad it's still going. There ARE plot points I'm very interested in (Karai / Casey / Shadow, particularly). And even if I wasn't interested in it at all, I'd STILL be grateful for it. If only because it was might pique someone else's curiousity about the characters, and get them to delve into the back issue boxes. Where they might find stories that they REALLY like.

We're lucky. All of us reading this, and just so fortunate that we easily forget it. We probably don't have to duck mortar shells on a daily basis, probably don't have to scrounge around for a meal.

We have computers, for goodness sake. We can talk to each other across the planet in nanoseconds.

Anything on top of that, from comics to books to movies to whatever... that's just gravy for me.

That's just the way I want it. And just the way I like it.

willtupper

05-17-2009, 06:48 PM

Sorry for the double-postage, but I thought this link (not a joke - an honest, actual review/critique of the movie) might be interesting to you guys:

http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1311575.html

LiveJournaler Nick Mamatas is a multi-award winning Science Fiction novelist, essay writer, and creative writing teacher. He is also the most cynical person to ride around Chicago in my car (as I drove him to and from Book Expo of America events, circa '01 or '02) EVER.

He, literally, is critical of pretty much everything.

Including, as you will see, the new Trek movie. He fleshes out his arguements well, though. And he goes into quite a bit more detail than I think Mr. Laird did.

Dragon Turtle

05-17-2009, 11:02 PM

You know, the new movie can be called a lot of things... but "remake" certainly isn't one of them. In any case, I do hope that TPTB realize that Star Trek isn't a movie franchise... it's a television franchise, which occasionally spawns a movie. If it does anything, I hope the new movie does lead us to a new TV show... and how I hope against hope it won't have anything to do with this new Abramsverse.

This is what I believe is the heart of Peter Laird's argument against the new movie, but personally, I don't believe that Trek history will be wiped out by the "Abramsverse", no more then how the Marvel Universe was wiped out by the Ultimate Universe.

Including, as you will see, the new Trek movie. He fleshes out his arguements well, though. And he goes into quite a bit more detail than I think Mr. Laird did.

"Well, it's...not bad. Not great, but not bad." Pretty much sums up my feelings about the new Trek movie, fairly average.