Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

what is wrong?

It is the Star Trek Universe. With the Star Trek characters.

Just an altered timeline due to the events of the film.

It's a way of rebooting the franchise, so that people other than Trek Nerds will care again.

[Anthony P]

so that people other than Trek Nerds will care again.

but Trek nerds care about the Trek Universe, Trek haters hate Trek so who gives a sh!t about them. It is the same stupid mistakes they did at first with comic book heroes. Usurp the name, make something irrelevant, PO the fans to try and get the people who don't care and then ask why no one likes your film.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but Trek nerds care about the Trek Universe, Trek haters hate Trek so who gives a sh!t about them. It is the same stupid mistakes they did at first with comic book heroes. Usurp the name, make something irrelevant, PO the fans to try and get the people who don't care and then ask why no one likes your film.

If Trek nerds cared, series like Enterprise would have performed better.

Clearly it's time to grow the franchise, by reinvigorating it so it appeals to a larger fanbase.

And I don't think your argument about comic book heroes works.

[Jeff Kleist]

If they loved it and respected it so much, then they wouldn't see room for "improvement" would they? I wouldn't paint a different woman in the same pose and call it the Mona Lisa.

I absolutely respect that other people draw the line differently from I do, but it still doesn't mean that people should be given a license to kill with a property, sometimes going out of their way to get things wrong when getting it right is actually easier.

One that more people can probably get attached to is 2001- I think this film is a goddawful piece of junk. It's an acid trip with beautiful photography, and no substance that would take more than an afterschool special to deliver, and the only way I could see seeing a deeper purpose behind it is with pharmaceutical assistance.

Give me $50 million, and I'll make 2001 based on the book, which contains all the plot, character developement, dialog and pacing that the original movie is missing (yes I know the entire story behind the book and the movie co-existing). Since my film would not deviate from CLark's book, I would remain completely faithful, but deliver an entirely different film from the original (Disney's Peter Pan is based on the stage play, which was authored by Barrie from his novel as a more toned down version of his book, and the new movie could have been just as valid had they not screwed it up). How can that be so wrong? Yet many would want to lynch me for it.

Well, I think the pitchfork brigade needs to be brought out a lot more often. It keeps people on their toes and keeps them honest. The established story is a challlenge to be overcome, not an insurmountable mountain, and getting over it requires climbing, not the dynamite team

Cause it featurs the Star Trek Universe and characters. Just with new actors.

And Star Trek isn't being ruined. No more than it was with Star Trek V or any of the other crap sequels.

Or with Enterprise. Or any of the crappy novels, including Shatner's ones.

So because people have done bad episodes/movies/series, the entire thing is broken beyond repair? That's saying you should trash the entire car for a few defective tires. Enterprise tried pulling a lot of the exact things I'm complaining about, the novels don't count, and Trek 5, well, everyone but Shatner agrees that was a horrible mistake But Trek 6 was great fun right after it.

[Jeff Kleist]

Honestly, no... they're not.TNG's success proves it was better than TOS.
And everyone on TNG was better than Kirk. Including Data's cat Spot.

Well, even I know better than to start a Kirk vs Picard debate :P For the record, TOS is far more successful than TNG has ever been, syndicated for 30 years straight in broadcast major markets. What's really interesting is that it would not have been cancelled had it started just a few years later when networks started doing demographics, and realized the show had a lock on the 18-40 demo in its timeslot. The show was a giant cash cow for Paramount, that's why they were going to make it the flagship show of UPN when it was first going to be launched in the 70s, bringing it back. The "Phase 2" show was reassigned as the first theatrical feature when the network tanked/star wars came out

And? It still makes perfect sense. Spock goes back to attempt to keep the timeline on course.

The problem with a Shatner cameo was he was dead. Spock was canonly alive during the TNG era.

He's one of the only characters who makes sense as a bridge to the reboot.

But this movie is about TOS, and sine I already said that that scene would take place before the events of Generations (and Kirk's dissapearance), Kirk would not be dead.The timeline does not have to be put back on course, because the alternate timeline was created to put Nimoy in, and with this new point of cameo entry (which would also allow everyone else to be there who's still alive), I don't see the issue.....

If Trek nerds cared, series like Enterprise would have performed better.

Or you might surmise that because Trek nerds cared, it didn't do better

[Anthony P]

If Trek nerds cared, series like Enterprise would have performed better.

maybe it is exactly because Trek nerds care so much and people that don't care about Trek don't watch crap just because it has Trek in the title. The same that happened with early comic book movies.

Clearly it's time to grow the franchise

n issue with that. The franchise has grown in the past, right? the issue is not growing it but destroying it in the name of "it is a new movie so anything goes"

In TOS Klingons and the federation where at war. In TNG they where at peace. A big difference but the universe evolved during all those years between the fictional time of both series.

No one is saying things can't be different, but all Universes have a box that describes them, you can't work outside that box and still call it the same Universe. if like Jeff said, they

[Show spoiler] blow up Vulcan

then they destroyed the Universe because it happened in the past (before TOS and the other series) and in them it still exists.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Beast

TNG's success proves it was better than TOS.

Wow. So, Titanic is the best movie ever made! Thanks for clearing that up for me. It's all so much easier now.

[PeterTHX]

Anthony? Have you seen the new film?

If not why bash it ahead of time? This is precisely why the "normals" make fun of us nerds.

I'm going to it with an open mind.

PS: Another problem with a Shat cameo is that he's 15 years older and xxx pounds heavier. It would take some pretty heavy duty CGI to make it appear it was before Generations. His Kirk is dead. In 1994 Shat wanted that. If he can't handle that decision now, well...

[NL197]

The only thing that would make TOS fans happy about this movie, is if the filmmakers did one of two things:

-Resurrect the deceased actors (Kelley, Doohan) so the original cast could be in it

or

-travel back in time to 1966 and either make the movie then, or bring the actors forward in time to make it now


TOS fanboys are going to whine no matter what. Batman fanboys whined about Ledger's Joker not having bleached skin. Indiana Jones fanboys whined about him having Shia The Beef as his son (and if they didn't complain about that, they should have!)

But for everyone who complains, there will be others who don't and will see these things for what they are, and embrace the differences. That's just how it goes with these things.

In terms of Trek, I'm nowhere near the big fan of it:

-Barely saw TOS, but loved the movies...even "Final Frontier". I was expecting garbage and it wasn't remotely as bad as people make it out to be.

-TNG didn't mean anything to me because I didn't really care about the characters all that much.

-DS9 is one of the best shows I've ever seen, period. Also the least successful Trek show in the long term.

-Voyager was a show I liked at first, but from season 4 onward it became a nightmare to endure....I hated it. Total betrayal of the concept by endless hitting of the reset button.

-Enterprise....first mistake was choosing a Diane Warren-written song for its theme. It too betrayed its concept, and I didn't have to watch it to know that because the episode promos were telling enough. Ferengi, Borg, ripping off (of all things to repeat) VOYAGER episodes....I heard Peter Weller was appearing on it in later seasons, but I'd given up not even halfway through season 1 so it was too late.

I'd say by not having the names Berman and Braga attached to this new film, it's already heading in the right direction.

[NL197]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Anthony? Have you seen the new film?

If not why bash it ahead of time? This is precisely why the "normals" make fun of us nerds.

I'm going to it with an open mind.

Precisely, but that's not going to change the fanboy mentality any time soon.

PS: Another problem with a Shat cameo is that he's 15 years older and xxx pounds heavier. It would take some pretty heavy duty CGI to make it appear it was before Generations. His Kirk is dead. In 1994 Shat wanted that. If he can't handle that decision now, well...

They pulled it off quite well a couple of years ago in a DirecTV commercial.

They re-used shots of Kirk from Trek 6 (from behind) and added prosthetic makeup and a wig to make him look younger. They also did it with Christopher Lloyd in a "Back To The Future"-based DirecTV commercial as well - a kind of youth makeup.

[NL197]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Or you might surmise that because Trek nerds cared, it didn't do better

Trek nerds cared, Berman and Braga didn't.

[Anthony P]

Anthony? Have you seen the new film?

no, I said as much

If not why bash it ahead of time?

who is bashing. Jeff leaked some of the plot that seriously bothered him. None of the "it should not matter and they can do what they want" said that what Jeff said was incorrect and

[Show spoiler] Vulcan did not blow up

It is a general discussion based on a particular example (one that has Jeff PO right now). Have you seen it? if so, is Jeff a liar? If not then yes I would have a problem with the tidbits of the plot lines he described. Do I need to watch the movie to know something is wrong with the plot when enough of the plot is revealed before hand?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If they loved it and respected it so much, then they wouldn't see room for "improvement" would they? I wouldn't paint a different woman in the same pose and call it the Mona Lisa.

Now your comparing a campy TV Show to a masterpiece of art.
Congratulations, you just effectively lost all credibility in anything that follows.
I love the old Batman TV series as well. Doesn't mean I think it's a masterpiece.

You sound like those people who think Joker should never appear in anything ever again (comics, film, animation), just because of Heath Ledger's death. It's just taking a step too far.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by NL197

The only thing that would make TOS fans happy about this movie, is if the filmmakers did one of two things:

-Resurrect the deceased actors (Kelley, Doohan) so the original cast could be in it

or

-travel back in time to 1966 and either make the movie then, or bring the actors forward in time to make it now.

Pretty much.

Maybe they can hope for the Nexus Ribbon to strike Earth before the next film comes around.

Either that or finance a spaceship so they can slingshot around the sun.

[NL197]

This whole thing is "Lucas raped my childhood" all over again.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

But this movie is about TOS, and sine I already said that that scene would take place before the events of Generations (and Kirk's dissapearance), Kirk would not be dead.The timeline does not have to be put back on course, because the alternate timeline was created to put Nimoy in, and with this new point of cameo entry (which would also allow everyone else to be there who's still alive), I don't see the issue.....

Honestly, keep your day job. Cause that idea wouldn't make much sense.

The tech levels and designs were already going to not match the shabby TV series.

This way the inconsistancies actually make sense, the timeline was altered creating a divergant reality.

Spock is there to steer things back on the correct path the best he can, though changes have/will occur.

Spock is the only character that makes sense in cameo. Due to his longer lifespan.

Everyone except Scotty would be dead and buried at this point. Unless McCoy was still kicking.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by NL197

This whole thing is "Lucas raped my childhood" all over again.

Pretty much.

Except Gene Roddenberry isn't involved, so it's utter blasphamy.

[Anthony P]

Now your comparing a campy TV Show to a masterpiece of art.

but to people with better taste then you ST is a masterpiece of art. If you don't like it, that is your problem not ours.

[spartanstew]

Who cares? It's just a movie(s). I'm so glad I'm not a geek.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but to people with better taste then you ST is a masterpiece of art. If you don't like it, that is your problem not ours.

I see. So if you don't like Star Trek you have bad taste?

This reminds me so much of all the whining and gnashing of teeth when TNG was announced.