Peter Laird's opinions about the new Star Trek movie

[Raph'N'Roll]

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]

Originally Posted by Raph'N'Roll

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]

Originally Posted by GK

A thread isn't going to be closed just because you don't like it.

What if I don't like it?

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]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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]

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

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by mumbo230

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, 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]

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]

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?

[ToTheNines]

Originally Posted by TristanHuwJones

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.

Originally Posted by staypuftweepel

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]

Originally Posted by Jester

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]

Originally Posted by staypuftweepel

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]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

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]

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

[VaughnMichael]

Originally Posted by Jester

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]

Originally Posted by VaughnMichael

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]

Originally Posted by Jester

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]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

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

You just made me think of

Originally Posted by Jester

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

Maybe my real name's Andy.

[Galactus]

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]

Truly horrible.

[CyberCubed]

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.