T'Lara
-
Posts
14,346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by T'Lara
-
-
Thank you. This is a subject I feel very passionate about.
-
Both Nimoy and Shatner are 75 years old, and making them look younger would take extensive Photoshopping. De Kelly is dead and Scotty is dead, so at this time I don't think they are inclined to do any more work. I agree, though, if we MUST go back in time, (oh god please NO!) I think they should focus on something other than the original crew. (TOS, not ENT original Enterprise crew)
Or, here's an even better idea: COME UP WITH SOMETHING ORIGINAL! The thing that really drove Trek was the idea. The moment Piller and Co. decided to plunge into the "sex sells, to heck with the writing" market is the moment that Trek started to decline. Think about it ... 7 of 9 and her tight bodysuits. Deanna Troi's plunging necklines, T'Pol and her very obvious assets (and the fact that that woman's butt crack was shown so often it should have recieved it's own credit.) All the obvious sexual tension in Enterprise. For the love of god, this show was not about SEX. It was about STORIES! It was intergalatic exploration, new worlds, new civiliazations! Going boldly (and in Picard's case, Baldly) where no one had gone before! Relationships! Wars!
But Piller decided he had to go for RATINGS. That all important youth market! Unlike Roddenberry, who sacrificed ratings for good plots, Piller was a corporate man thru and thru, and gave Paramount exactly what they wanted. And then exactly what they didn't want: backlash and lower profit points.
There are great writers in Hollywood who would KILL for the chance to write an epic story, which is what Star Trek is. Let someone with a true appreciation of the franchise write the story, direct the movie, and star in it! I heard a rumor on some web site that Tom Hanks is interested in working on a Trek film. He is a HUGE Trekkie. I say, let him! It's about time someone who cared about Trek stepped up to the plate.
-
Okay, now, I agree that Star Trek can and should make a comeback. But it should be done logically (excuse the pun) and with thought, not just "how do we squeeze one more dollar out of a dead horse?"
1. Get rid of that guy ... the one who replaced Roddenberry ... (can't remember his name right now. Must not be worth remembering) because he has ROYALLY screwed up Star Trek. Take it away from him before he finally does put the last nail in the coffin.
2. Hire a writer who didn't just graduate from some low-level correspondance course in screen writing.
3. Do not make the characters look stupid or do things to appeal to the "youth market."
4. For the love of god, have a decent storyline and ... heavens forbid! ... A PLOT!
Just my .02, but hey, no one ever said I knew everything.
-
I have: First Contact, Nemisis, Star Treks IV, V, VI and TMP
No episodes on DVD. I'm trying to pay off my credit cards.
-
It can happen. But I also think Paramount needs to back off. The fans have been smothered in bad Trek for years. They need to get rid of Piller and get someone in there who has a real revernce for the Roddenberry vision of Star Trek and what it stands for. Not someone who could have been the inspiration for the Ferengi!
-
Who ever heard of him before this? Not me!
To heck with him. Star Trek isn't dead. It needs a vacation. That's all.
Much like me.
-
Your memory does you credit, sir. It's more than I could remember. But then again, I can hardly remember my name.
-
::Scratches head::
Hmmm, I don't recall that part. Looks like it's time to drag out the DVD again ...
-
Which is, I'm sure, what Rick Berman is aiming for. Once Gene Roddenberry died, he really took over and started to paint the Star Trek universe in his own colors.
-
Well, just remember what being cancelled did for TOS. I know that seems silly to say so, but being cancelled is the best thing that ever happened to Star Trek. The mania surrounding it has died way, way down. This means we get to take a break, regroup, and come back in fighting shape.
-
Picard rocks.
-
It could have been done better.
-
Well, there was the problem of the fact that Kirk would most likely be dead by the time of the Next Generation films. They had to have the Nexus Ribbon in order to get Kirk and Picard together. However, with all the strange time anomolies in Star Trek, they could of thought of a better way to do it ... the only redeeming quality to Generations was Malcom McDowell.
-
I agree. It was a one-trick movie. And the trick was to get Kirk on the screen with Picard. It was a dream that turned into a nightmare.
-
Actually, the director's cut of ST:TMP is pretty cool. It's been reedited and moves much faster now than it ever did. Also, the effects have been updated, which usually I hate, but in this case, it really worked out great. I think part of the reason for the failure of ST:TMP to really work was
1. Robert Wise, the director, had no time to edit the film.
2. The effects were poorly done and on the fly, since the production company hired to do them fell behind in the work.
3. Roddenberry's story had no discernable ending.
4. The story is a lovely novelization, or, as some have said "A tone poem about God." However, sometimes, you can't really effectively film a tone poem.
5. The script was being written, quite literally, while the movie was being shot, and got thrown back and fourth between Roddenberry and several other writers, none of whom had any idea how to end the smegging thing.
Just my .02
-
What is love?
Is it a chemical reaction? A bunch of random neurons firing in a random pattern? Is it the feeling you get deep in your gut? Is it your heart's reaction to the world around us?
The stars, the moon, the entire universe built on one, simple chemical reaction.
It's a mind boggling concept. One simple, routine chemical reaction of the human brain stirs us to write songs, compose poetry, and do the dumbest stuff imaginable. We loaf around, we avoid paying bills, we ignore all our friends and family, all because of love. Or what we think is love.
One simple, routine chemical reaction. The same chemicals that also induce stress, depression and anxiety also induce love. Perhaps that is why there is a thin line between love and hate. The same chemicals, after all, that induce love, also induce hate. Different chemicals that are stored in the brain ... they are all there, waiting for us to feel their power.
Waiting for the perfect opportunity to make us look foolish.
Waiting for the perfect opportunity to make us cry, laugh, sob and giggle, all at the same time.
What is love?
It is so much more than that. At least, I hope it is.
-
The worst movie in the entire franchise has to be Star Trek V. Why? Oh, please, it was nothing but a Shatner ego-fest. As many of you know, I have no love for William Shatner. He's an egotistical putz. Anyway, STV had no discernable plot, no real action, just a dumb thread of a storyline that no one, including God himself, could have saved. Shatner's disdain for the rest of the crew was evident in the writing ... Sulu and Chekov getting lost in Yosimite, Scotty getting bonked on the head, Uhura barely having enough lines to justify her role in the movie. And to top it off, the rest of the crew is stupid enough to get caught up in the entire Sybock thing. The entire movie centered on Spock, Bones and Kirk. And if he could have, I am willing to bet that Shatner would have excluded them, as well.
It's just a bad, bad movie.
Star Trek XI Coming 2008!
in Trek Discussion
Posted
Let's think about this for a second. What made "First Contact" so good? Was it sexual tension? No. Was it the fact that they went back in time? No. (Although meeting Zephram Cochran and CO was cool) What was it?
"First Contact" is a prime example of how good Trek can be when it is in the right hands. The writers have an appreciation and knowledge of what makes a good story. The director, in this case, Johnathan Frakes, had an appreciation for the material. The story was strong. The action was strong. Everything about it was good. There was nothing that smacked as "Gimmick" (except, of course, a few set-up Worf jokes). It was pure Trek.
Now think of what made "Nemisis" bad. (Although I do like parts of the film)
1. The cheap thrill of a Riker/Troi wedding and erzats sex scene.
2. Sexual tension between Picard and Crusher? It's always been there, yes, but this time it was way played up.
3. B4? What's next 2B and Not2B? This is a set up for:
4. Data kicking the bucket. DUH! Brent Spiner just wanted to kill the character so he could start all over again with B4. Different character, same premise. Only will "RainData" (as I have called B4 ... well, before) might have more of a struggle because Soong has managed to create the worlds first mentally disadvantaged andriod.
Data's death smacked of being a gimmick. The Riker/Troi pairing, again, smacked of being a gimmick. The wedding scene: Guinan and Wesley Crusher ... where the heck did he come from and why was he in a SF uniform? I pinpoint that movie as the moment that Paramount began the slow murder of Star Trek. Because a few months later, along came Enterprise.
I guess I'm preaching to the choir, but the real need here will be for STORY DEVELOPMENT and CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. Enough gimmicks. Paramount needs a writer who can go back to the story-line and action driven days of First Contact and deliver the goods.
Heck, I'll even volunteer to come in and write the stupid thing for WGA scale!