RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I seriously don't see them re-re-designing the enterprise, I think we have to live with the one they have given us, although if it gets blown to bits then we can all start hoping they'll dust off the TMP refit again
Yes please. Story-wise, just blow the engines off in a fight. Put 'new improved' ones on it, ones that look less like a kitsch sex toy. Reduce the pylon angle at the same time; don't even bother with an explanation, nobody will care and anyone with an ounce of taste will be grateful.I seriously don't see them re-re-designing the enterprise, I think we have to live with the one they have given us, although if it gets blown to bits then we can all start hoping they'll dust off the TMP refit again
I'll have an extra year to look forward to it and will go and see it two or three times. The first Abrams movie saved Star Trek, let's face it.So you guys will have an extra year to complain and then go see it anyway.
I agree with everyone that they got Bones right. I thought Pegg was okay, considering that there's not many other actors these days that I think could even remotely capture Scotty very well (seriously I can't think of one). Spock, I'm still a little iffy on. Sulu, I'm also iffy on. I say they need to recast Uhura (seriously, Uhura had way too much attitude in comparison to the original Uhura that she doesn't remotely invoke any similarity in appearance or attitude) and Kirk (no offense to Chris Pine. I thought he did a great job in Bottle Shock and in Unstoppable, but he just doesn't scream Kirk to me).LOL! I didn't even notice the flares in Kirk's eyes! :thumbsup
Needs more Bones! Urban was without a doubt the best thing in the last Trek film.
And I wouldn't be against them recasting Scotty. I think Pegg is brilliant but he was totally miscast in this.
I had read somewhere that Abrams was so taken with the idea that the Enterprise was brand new, and that the Star Trek future was so "bright and hopeful", that he just went nuts with those lens flares (which were for the most part done on-set by shining lights directly into the camera lens from just out of frame - not a an effect added in post).
Since the release though Abrams has admitted that maybe he went a little overboard on the flares.
The other films don't get JJ out of jail for me. He attempted TOS remake and that means certain things needed to be there.It is tough for a director to break the framework of a franchise as set in its ways as Star Trek. Abrams Did it !! :eek In a cool way !! :cool
This gives the franchise a rebirth - endless possibilities for a future.
Several of the movies almost killed it - Most notably STAR TREK V - one of the worst films ever made -
Next to Star Trek V - ( even the following horrible films looked GOOD )
Robot Monster - had plot and interesting characters in comparison :eek
... or Leonard Part 6 - :sick
.. or Eddie Murohy in Pluto Nash ..... :confused :thumbsdown Pluto Nash was a masterpeice next to Star Trek V - :cry OMG I can't believe I even said that ....
Maybe Star Trek five needed some lens flare ... and plot ... and good lines ... and well ... it needed just about eveything .... It did produce my favorite Star Trek prop - the assault phaser. And Lt Uhuras Fan Dance ... :$
Amen to that. How anyone thinks that Abrams is a good storyteller, let alone how he continues to get work, is beyond me. The fact that he rode the fence is the thing that ticked me off. If you're going to be true to the canon of the show, then do it. If you're going to do a re-imagining and go in a different direction, then do that. Riding the fence and remaking Star Wars as a Star Trek film is insulting.The other films don't get JJ out of jail for me. He attempted TOS remake and that means certain things needed to be there.
JJ pretty much changed so much it's not Star Trek to me in any important way. So maybe he made it cool, but I don't recognize it as Star Trek.
Some character impersonations, a cameo, and a ship with nacelles and saucer doesn't for Star Trek make for me.
It's JJ Trek and it's a different animal, I will always look at it non-canon and a sad departure from what could have been.
Honestly, I would have preferred Michael Rymer as the director and Ronald D. Moore as the writer. Now I know you're thinking, "These guys did the Re-imagined Battlestar Galactica! Why them?" First of all, if it hadn't been for Michael Rymer, the show's style wouldn't have existed. And he's proven himself to be a good director with the episodes he directed on the show (including the mini-series). And, he would have actually treated the characters as realistically as possible.Well, who would you rather get to direct Trek? Michael Bay? Ewwww, now that is an EVIL thought.
Double ditto.Amen to that. How anyone thinks that Abrams is a good storyteller, let alone how he continues to get work, is beyond me. The fact that he rode the fence is the thing that ticked me off. If you're going to be true to the canon of the show, then do it. If you're going to do a re-imagining and go in a different direction, then do that. Riding the fence and remaking Star Wars as a Star Trek film is insulting.
How about this for a lens flare joke: The only reason why he had so many lens flares on the bridge set was to cover the terrible design choice he went with for his Apple Enterprise's iBridge.I don't know about you guys, but I'm just glad you all have another opportunity to show me how clever you are with LENS FLARE JOKES!