Diluted Dante wrote:It can have the rights to the name back when it ties itself back into continuity
mistercrayon wrote:isn't it in the continuity? Surely all that stuff about (you know) couldn't have been explained to Spock if it hadn't happened to (you know).Diluted Dante wrote:It can have the rights to the name back when it ties itself back into continuity
Diluted Dante wrote:As for the films, I really like all of the Next Generation films. Insurrection is a particular favourite. it gets knocked for being like a feature length episode, but what that actually means if that it very much has a Star Trek feel.
Star Trek by comparison was a great film, possibly an even better one, but not a very good Star Trek film.
Verecocha wrote:Like Blue said I would imagine the new Star Trek is a lot closer to the imagined universe originally created with Kirk.
TNG was shambolic though enjoyable with characters like Q and the entire Vagina soft like approach to 90% of the episodes it was so very boring, IMO of course, and far too political in nature. And each to there own but really you enjoyed the TNG films? Generations? Nemesis?
I'd imagine this conversation was had somewhere when TNG replaced the original, when DS9 was around and the Enterprise. The reboot films are how I like and envisage the ST universe and its modernised the brand for new generations. I know its awful when things change direction to appease a new and wider audience but to say its not Star Trek is a little much, just not how you like Star Trek.
mistercrayon wrote:spoilers for new star trek 1 (@dante)Spoiler:
One thing I would love to see is a film (or probably two or three really) of the Eugenics Wars. That allows you to to have Kirk in there to play it safe, but have the main part of the films focusing on Gary Seven, Roberta Lincoln and more importantly, Khan.The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.
Not saying there isn't a whole lot of shit in the franchise, just that the movie seemed to be missing all the not shit bits.Blue Swirl wrote:That I genuinely don't get. Every legitimate complaint I've heard levelled at the JJ Abrams films could be equally applied to any incarnation of Trek.
Yeah never considered him a genius or even a good writer. He did a good job of creating a nice, optimistic, utopian world but I think most of what I like about star trek comes from Nicholas Meyer and whoever produced DS9.tigerswiftly wrote:I'm sure I saw recently that Gene Roddenberry originally wanted Spock to have a tail and be from Mars (can't find evidence of this now though).
VISIONARY.
Blue Swirl wrote:Guess what I'm doing this weekend?
Mod74 wrote:Not having sex.Blue Swirl wrote:Guess what I'm doing this weekend?
Diluted Dante wrote:That's because Insurrection is too popular.
Diluted Dante wrote:I've started watching TOS again as it's on Netflix. I know that Shatner is legendary in his role, but honestly, Jeffrey Hunter could have been a fine Captain. His Pike shares many similarities with Kirk, and it would have been interesting to see what could have come from Star Trek if he had stayed on.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!