If you need me, I'll be out back reading my new issue of Nacelles Monthly. :sleep
Star Trek (2009 J.J. Abrams movie) Phaser Defined Thread!
- Thread starter Jack T Chance
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star trek xi
The problem is JJ and others working on the film went to great lengths to say they were honoring "canon". Well, they aren't. If they were the props, sets and wardrobe would look just like they did in the Enterprise episode "In a Mirror, Darkly". The writers and producers of that episode were following canon. Well, for the most part.
If JJ had just said "We're re-imagining, updating, re-booting Trek for a new generation" there would be little to complain about (although some would anyway :rolleyes).
I never believed for a moment they were going to follow canon and always assumed this would be a re-boot of the franchise. So that's the mind set I'm taking into the theater. At least I'll try...
If JJ had just said "We're re-imagining, updating, re-booting Trek for a new generation" there would be little to complain about (although some would anyway :rolleyes).
I never believed for a moment they were going to follow canon and always assumed this would be a re-boot of the franchise. So that's the mind set I'm taking into the theater. At least I'll try...
Well to be fair, they've said a combination of BOTH things... but I think if you read between their lines, they've always been consistent about the fact that this is "Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek"... aka the vast majority. Not the folks who, like us, already liked it.
Given that, I think their "subhead" was "don't worry, you old-school fans, there's something here for you too". And Abrams specifically called out those of us who are offended by changes ("we're NOT making this movie for readers of "Nacelles Monthly"...)
So, digesting everything I've heard, I think they've been trying to say
1. This is a movie for everyone, not a niche audience.
2. we have respected the old-school Trekkers with a few references that they will "get"
3. We don't care if you don't like it because it's not Star Trek As You Know It.
Is this arrogant, short-sighted, insulting? Well, yeah :lol But it reflects a guy who went to the studio with the attitude, "hey Star Trek is a dead property... you want to make money with it again. I can translate it into terms today's audiences will respond to."
What gets lost though, may be the spark that made Roddenberry's Star Trek unique. I'll have to wait to see the damn thing before I can tell. :unsure
The philosophical question is, "if a guy destroys the unique appeal of Star Trek but turns it into a mass market monster that makes a ton of money, is that a good thing?" CBS or whoever it is who gets the money, is going to say "yes". :lol
First off, PP - i'm printing that out and framing it to hang behind my trek models.
Secondly, I think Roger Ebert summed it up best in his "at-the-time" review of The Phantom Menace: Star Wars has always been about big battles and amazing special effects and the like (he was saying this as a compliment to TPM), but "hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies."
GL tried to marry space opera and character interaction with big special effects and failed miserably at the "characters" part. JJ Abrams is trying to do the same thing, but coming from the other side. If he succeeds, everybody will hail him as a genius. I'm willing to wait and see. It's a big task.
Secondly, I think Roger Ebert summed it up best in his "at-the-time" review of The Phantom Menace: Star Wars has always been about big battles and amazing special effects and the like (he was saying this as a compliment to TPM), but "hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies."
GL tried to marry space opera and character interaction with big special effects and failed miserably at the "characters" part. JJ Abrams is trying to do the same thing, but coming from the other side. If he succeeds, everybody will hail him as a genius. I'm willing to wait and see. It's a big task.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
The "unique appeal of Star Trek" is alive and well. Perhaps more so than at any time since TOS' inception. And in any case,
commercial success and artistic success are not mutually exclusive.
No, they'll simply hail him as a guy who, like Nick Meyer, understands better than most what made TOS tick and figured out a way to adapt the formula to the big screen.
On the other hand, considering all the lame Trek movies and TV series out there, maybe Abrams is a genius.
Last edited:
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Yeah, after the timeline switch Starfleet laser scalpels become salt shakers again.
Neon Sentry
Sr Member
These dudes are the same species.
It took Star Trek 17 years to even acknowledge that anything was different, in the form of a gag. And another 9 years after that to bother explaining it.
A new looking Phaser is desecrating the spirit of Star Trek? Come on...
Onigiri
Sr Member
Oh youre going to see phasers and comms in this movie that you recognize (Im hoping they make toys out of these) but these pre-date the ones the new crew uses. My issue is that I just think this NEW design is ugly and that spinning nozzel is nothing more then a gimmick to sell toys without any functional or rational reasoning behind it. It was a gratuitous design that panders to the toy industry. Nothing more. I want to see them make the phasers and comms used on the Kelvin and THEN Ill be happy.
This design sensibility is from the same knuckleheads who thought a brewery with incandescent lights makes a bleievable 23d Century Starship engine room..:rolleyes
This design sensibility is from the same knuckleheads who thought a brewery with incandescent lights makes a bleievable 23d Century Starship engine room..:rolleyes
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Maybe so, but it's a toy selling gimmick that happens to look really cool on screen.
just picked mine up at Kmart, didnt have any comms or tricorders. Its pretty cool, you need to pick through em if you can, some had damaged chrome or paint.
The flipping barrells are a little annoying, doesnt point completely straight in either mode because of the spring inside.
however, it is nice that the copyright info on the inside of the handle is a sticker that can be removed.
The flipping barrells are a little annoying, doesnt point completely straight in either mode because of the spring inside.
however, it is nice that the copyright info on the inside of the handle is a sticker that can be removed.
It's amazing how a single comment can damage a person's online credibility (whatever that is worth in the first place).
I can not imagine a single scenario where that feature will "look really cool".
Neon Sentry
Sr Member
Well then I suppose it's a good thing you're not writing the new movie, huh?
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Yeah. This from a guy who wouldn't cop to liking Trek XI if it was the sci-fi equivalent of Citizen Kane.
With all due respect, I'll stake my "online credibility" against yours any day of the week. What I won't do is judge a film before I've seen it, or arrogantly call into question the credibility of another poster for daring to like a special effect I don't "imagine" to be any good.
I just ordered mine, cant find em yet in CA, I dont really care what everybody is complaining about, I like the designs and am just glad to have some trek stuff on the shelves again!
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Similar threads
