The name "Abrams" just seems to stir some people in an unpleasant fashion:
Mostly because he's a talentless hack who has somehow managed to make it into the industry, only to flood it with a lot of mediocre and pretentious garbage. The execs seem to treat him like he's some kind of wunderkind, yet his output is does not live up to the hype. As someone posted over the page, JJ could not produce a work as spectacular as 2001: A Space Odyssey or ST: The Motion Picture if is life depended upon it. He does nothing more than ride on the coat-tails of whatever franchise he's decided to work on and remake it in his own image.
Mostly because he's a talentless hack who has somehow managed to make it into the industry, only to flood it with a lot of mediocre and pretentious garbage. The execs seem to treat him like he's some kind of wunderkind, yet his output is does not live up to the hype. As someone posted over the page, JJ could not produce a work as spectacular as 2001: A Space Odyssey or ST: The Motion Picture if is life depended upon it. He does nothing more than ride on the coat-tails of whatever franchise he's decided to work on and remake it in his own image.
Mostly I was talking about the people who've come down hard on this movie virtually since it was first announced, without ever even seeing the very first trailer. The name "Abrams" just seems to stir some people in an unpleasant fashion; I wonder if it has to do with Lost, which I've never seen. (I don't blame him for Revolution, which I have seen - it's clear from interviews that that show is almost entirely Eric Kripke's fault.)
The design of the Vengeance is - interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it; I do have to remember that the Galaxy-class took some time to grow on me. I suppose it'll all depend on how it looks in action, much like the newest Enterprise design (I thought it was too bulbous at first, but it's well-designed for big-screen action).
The only way Into Darkness is going to disappoint me, however, is if it turns out that "John Harrison" is in fact Khan Noonien Singh - I thought that would be a horribly stupid plot point when the rumors first started, and I still think so today. I'm open to almost any other possibility.
Boy are YOU going to be disappointed then!
Just wait till you see them transfuse Khans blood into dead Kirk to bring him back to life.
I'm looking forward to May for a lot of reasons now.
I liked the 2009 movie as an action science fiction flick and although there were a lot of inconsistencies that I chafed against and did and still do hate the cheap location shooting for lower ship levels, I still found it very enjoyable.
I think all this kneejerk autohate of the Abrams reboot is getting a bit comically repetitive and all of the foaming at the mouth nerd-geek ranting has never been of help to the franchise whatsoever at any time in it's history, it hasn't helped the franchise move forward, it's held it back, stifled creativity and stigmatized it. The whole point of the alt-timeline reboot was to pry the franchise out of the stranglehold of these dogmatic lunatics and give the franchise a chance at a new future.
I have to laugh a people touting their careers as if it legitimizes their remarks, unless you are a 23rd century naval architect specializing in combat spacecraft all you are bringing to the table is an opinion no more important than anyone else's.
I like the design of the Vengeance, it has a recognizable Starfleet silhouette while still giving the appearance of being heavily armored and bristling with heavy weaponry. It's a pity that the likely plot of this movie will result in it's eventual destruction, I actually much prefer it's design to that of the rather fragile looking Enterprise.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
It definitely looks more oriented to combat that exploration. The armor and weapons make sense, but the donut saucer doesn't make any sense to me at all.
There are two ways in film that a villian's percieved invincibility can be portrayed effectively. One is through size, the other is their ability strike at the hero without being seen or struck back, and Star Trek has beat both of these two concepts to death with a Louisville Slugger bat. It works, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
I don't see anything wrong with the villian (or the villian's ship in this case) being big. When something or someone is bigger than you, you automatically associate that with strength, power, or grandness (the few exceptions not withstanding). How many of Hitler's superweapons were based on size? US tankers were terrorized of an encounter with a Tiger. The British were so afraid of the Bismarck with it's big new 15" guns getting out into the Atlantic that almost the entire Home fleet was devoted to sinking it and it's sister Tirpitz. While it is true that bigger is not always better, it does have a certain psychological effect an enemy. The same way a cat will make it's hair stand up to make itself appear bigger, or the way a bear stands up on it's hind legs before it attacks, bigger can demoralize an enemy before the fight ever starts. Most villians understand this concept, and trying to have the bigger gun, or the bigger ship, etc. can help to give them an advantage in a fight. This is especially true in movies and TV. It helps portray just how dire and serious the situation is for the protagonist. You can find it almost anywhere. The Russian would not have been nearly as imposing if he were closer in size or smaller to the Punisher. I don't think the story of David vs. Goliath would've been used to reference anything from war to sporting events if Goliath was anything but a giant.
There is nothing wrong with making the villian big, and it doesn't necessarily mean that big equals evil, because it absolutely does not.
Mostly because he's a talentless hack who has somehow managed to make it into the industry, only to flood it with a lot of mediocre and pretentious garbage. The execs seem to treat him like he's some kind of wunderkind, yet his output is does not live up to the hype. As someone posted over the page, JJ could not produce a work as spectacular as 2001: A Space Odyssey or ST: The Motion Picture if is life depended upon it. He does nothing more than ride on the coat-tails of whatever franchise he's decided to work on and remake it in his own image.
While I wouldn't put him up there with other directors, I wouldn't call him 'talentless' either :P
I thought Lost was pretty good, as I enjoy a show with many plot elements to keep up with. And I might add, ST2009 made more money that any other previous ST film, plus it did pretty well with most critics and the general crowd.
Maybe the film wasn't what everyone wanted, but it got the job done: reinvigorated Star Trek.
And P.S, you're using Motion Picture as an example of a 'spectacular' work?
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I have to laugh a people touting their careers as if it legitimizes their remarks
Touting?
Responding to a legitimate (if ironically distasteful) question is hardly 'touting'... As for the rest of your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it
It definitely looks more oriented to combat that exploration. The armor and weapons make sense, but the donut saucer doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Actually, I can see a purpose to that. While weight is irrelevant in space (there being effectively no gravity), mass, and therefore inertia, remain a constant. Eliminating as much mass as possible from the design will decrease inertia, thus will allow the ship to accelerate and maneuver more nimbly. If that saucer area can be removed without compromising the ship's structural integrity, it would make sense.
I thought Lost was pretty good, as I enjoy a show with many plot elements to keep up with. And I might add, ST2009 made more money that any other previous ST film, plus it did pretty well with most critics and the general crowd.
"Perform for applause, and applause is all you'll get..."
Maybe the film wasn't what everyone wanted, but it got the job done: reinvigorated Star Trek.
An online game and a couple of movies every few years is hardly 'reinvigorated'... Personally, I don't think Trek needed reinvigorating. It had a strong backstory of work, a loyal following, and massive cultural impact. They just called it 'Star Trek' because it was guaranteed to bring in the dollar...
And P.S, you're using Motion Picture as an example of a 'spectacular' work?
Sure, it drags something chronic, and could do with a good 15 minutes of exterior shots edited out, but in terms of plot and story, it is a fantastic piece of work...
I would say reinvigorate if it brought in new fans who have never been fans before. I would say reinvigorate if they start putting out tech manuals again (that's something they said was too expensive to create back towards the end of the prime timeline era. I would say reinvigorate if they started selling a toyline again. All of those are true.
The franchise needed a kick, in terms of story-telling and entertaining the masses in the last decade, it was failing, but it had a good run of nearly two decades near continous Trek for the better part of the year.
You are very naive if you think that the TPTB put out Trek solely for the purpose of story-telling and expanding the franchise, no its always about money.
It did invigorate the IP....STID is one of the most anticipated movies of the summer, non Trekkies/ Trekkers are excited for this movie....when was the last time that happened??? Star Trek II or III?
Like it or not for Trek to survive it must evolve....just like Batman and James Bond, Trek must be flexible and change with the times. We have had six series and several movies of old trek...it's still around easily available for viewing on Netflix. It's time to be open minded and give new trek a chance....just like when we all calmed down and gave TNG a chance when it first came out.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I would say reinvigorate if it brought in new fans who have never been fans before.
Yes, it has possibly created new awareness of the franchise, but I don't consider that reinvigoration, as there are no new ongoing series. Just a movie in 09 and another one 4 years later... There're TV shows which have had runs shorter than that / :eek:
I would say reinvigorate if they start putting out tech manuals again (that's something they said was too expensive to create back towards the end of the prime timeline era. I would say reinvigorate if they started selling a toyline again. All of those are true.
That's not reinvigorating the franchise, that's just marketing to bring in the Dollar...
The franchise needed a kick, in terms of story-telling and entertaining the masses in the last decade, it was failing, but it had a good run of nearly two decades near continous Trek for the better part of the year.
Personally speaking, I'd disagree that it needed a kick, the original episodes are still showing on Sky for anyone who wants to watch them. I agree, yes, with a nearly twenty year run, that is awesome. Doesn't mean it needs to keep going though... Even Pammy and The Hoff knew when it was time to hang up the red costumes... (although I am sure that there would be many fans of Baywatch who would go and see a movie if one was released...)
You are very naive if you think that the TPTB put out Trek solely for the purpose of story-telling and expanding the franchise, no its always about money.
You are very naive if you think that the TPTB put out Trek solely for the purpose of story-telling and expanding the franchise, no its always about money.
I seem to have mislaid my copy of Heinlein's Expanded Universe, but there was an essay in there in which he stated that every author must keep in mind the need to entertain. He might have a lesson to teach, he might have a story that he needs to tell, he might want to sell you something - but he must keep foremost in his thoughts that he needs to entertain the customers, or he'll find himself out doing menial scutwork in order to survive.
Every successful "artist" is about the money. If he weren't, he wouldn't be successful. Were you under the impression that Michelangelo painted those scenes on the Sistene Chapel's ceiling because the blank spaces offended his artistic senses? He did it because the Pope was paying him a load of cash.
Don't sneer at "money"; it's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek in the first place. And it's the reason the franchise needed to be reinvigorated - self-satisfied contemplation of one's own artistic navel might satisfy some of the fans, but it would inevitably lead to the franchise dwindling away.
Yes, it has possibly created new awareness of the franchise, but I don't consider that reinvigoration, as there are no new ongoing series. Just a movie in 09 and another one 4 years later...
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of reinvigoration....when people who aren't fans are excited for the movie...that's reinvigoration. It doesn't need a series to qualify as a reinvigoration....Nolan did the same with Batman...does it not count because there was no tv show?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
This sudden excitement about Star Trek will more than likely result in a new series. Probably the only reason it hasn't happened yet is that Abrams and Co. are still making their movies.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
I seem to have mislaid my copy of Heinlein's Expanded Universe, but there was an essay in there in which he stated that every author must keep in mind the need to entertain. He might have a lesson to teach, he might have a story that he needs to tell, he might want to sell you something - but he must keep foremost in his thoughts that he needs to entertain the customers, or he'll find himself out doing menial scutwork in order to survive.
Every successful "artist" is about the money. If he weren't, he wouldn't be successful. Were you under the impression that Michelangelo painted those scenes on the Sistene Chapel's ceiling because the blank spaces offended his artistic senses? He did it because the Pope was paying him a load of cash.
Don't sneer at "money"; it's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek in the first place. And it's the reason the franchise needed to be reinvigorated - self-satisfied contemplation of one's own artistic navel might satisfy some of the fans, but it would inevitably lead to the franchise dwindling away.
I snicker in agreement with you, sir.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
I seem to have mislaid my copy of Heinlein's Expanded Universe, but there was an essay in there in which he stated that every author must keep in mind the need to entertain. He might have a lesson to teach, he might have a story that he needs to tell, he might want to sell you something - but he must keep foremost in his thoughts that he needs to entertain the customers, or he'll find himself out doing menial scutwork in order to survive.
Every successful "artist" is about the money. If he weren't, he wouldn't be successful. Were you under the impression that Michelangelo painted those scenes on the Sistene Chapel's ceiling because the blank spaces offended his artistic senses? He did it because the Pope was paying him a load of cash.
Don't sneer at "money"; it's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek in the first place. And it's the reason the franchise needed to be reinvigorated - self-satisfied contemplation of one's own artistic navel might satisfy some of the fans, but it would inevitably lead to the franchise dwindling away.
Even Gene Roddenberry recognized the need to service the bottom line. If you read his initial pitches for Star Trek, at least half of everything he wrote was intended to cater to studio execs who would immediately dismiss the very concept of a space TV show as too expensive (after all, there's a reason the TV show "Lost in Space" spent almost its entire run marooned on one planet. . .) The whole reason for the transporter was to save money by not having to land a 24-storey tall spaceship on a planet every week. He cited Hodgkin's Law as an excuse to save money on makeup for aliens (since they'd all pretty much look human anyway) as well as sets and costumes, since similar sociological and technical developments means you could use the backlot sets and leftover costumes for the Wild West Planet, the Victorian England Planet, the Roman Empire planet, the TRIBBLE Germany Planet, and so on. He was very, VERY away of budgetary concerns and what he had to do to just get the show on the air so he could sell the message he wanted to sell. . . again, Kirk ended up in all those bareknuckle fistfights with a ripped shirt for a reason. If anything, the original Star Trek failed at being accessible to its audience. . . it took a decade or so for it to find its audience and grow into the phenomena it is today.
Even Gene Roddenberry recognized the need to service the bottom line. If you read his initial pitches for Star Trek, at least half of everything he wrote was intended to cater to studio execs who would immediately dismiss the very concept of a space TV show as too expensive (after all, there's a reason the TV show "Lost in Space" spent almost its entire run marooned on one planet. . .) The whole reason for the transporter was to save money by not having to land a 24-storey tall spaceship on a planet every week. He cited Hodgkin's Law as an excuse to save money on makeup for aliens (since they'd all pretty much look human anyway) as well as sets and costumes, since similar sociological and technical developments means you could use the backlot sets and leftover costumes for the Wild West Planet, the Victorian England Planet, the Roman Empire planet, the TRIBBLE Germany Planet, and so on. He was very, VERY away of budgetary concerns and what he had to do to just get the show on the air so he could sell the message he wanted to sell. . . again, Kirk ended up in all those bareknuckle fistfights with a ripped shirt for a reason. If anything, the original Star Trek failed at being accessible to its audience. . . it took a decade or so for it to find its audience and grow into the phenomena it is today.
Please do not fail to mention the lovely ladies in my signature. We all know why that was done. And Star Trek just wouldn't be Star Trek without them.
The ship is ugly and I hate it. It's blocky and awful and has an utterly un-creative hole in the saucer and everything about it except maybe those bussard collectors is terrible.
The ship is ugly and I hate it. It's blocky and awful and has an utterly un-creative hole in the saucer and everything about it except maybe those bussard collectors is terrible.
I say again: Giant Rotary Phaser Cannons.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of reinvigoration....when people who aren't fans are excited for the movie...that's reinvigoration. It doesn't need a series to qualify as a reinvigoration....Nolan did the same with Batman...does it not count because there was no tv show?
JJ & Co really are completely incapable of coming up with a genuine original idea between them.
His idea was how to take the biggest dump on TOS-era fans as possible while pandering to whatever is popular with the average action movie patron...
The more cliche and un-original the better as his target demographic isn't going to know or care about the ST universe. Every element from the ST universe he twists and mangles is for the sake of ST fans who care about the franchise... it's his way of giving them a huge F-YOU and laughing all the way to the bank.
I really hope this movie fails horribly as does his Star Wars movie... his ego needs a good b#&*$# slapping
Oh well - everyone has different tastes, and the existence of people who don't like the reboot 'verse doesn't interfere with my joy of it, just as my liking of it shouldn't take away from their dislike.
The ship is an interesting design choice. Sure, it's unsightly, but that may be on purpose. It's not supposed to be a beautiful ship of the line.
Comments
Mostly because he's a talentless hack who has somehow managed to make it into the industry, only to flood it with a lot of mediocre and pretentious garbage. The execs seem to treat him like he's some kind of wunderkind, yet his output is does not live up to the hype. As someone posted over the page, JJ could not produce a work as spectacular as 2001: A Space Odyssey or ST: The Motion Picture if is life depended upon it. He does nothing more than ride on the coat-tails of whatever franchise he's decided to work on and remake it in his own image.
And the movie...:mad:
And what Hollywood studio do you work for?
How many films have you directed?
Didn't think so.
Boy are YOU going to be disappointed then!
Just wait till you see them transfuse Khans blood into dead Kirk to bring him back to life.
Oh my no spoilers eh ?;)
I always thought STO's Chimera was the ugliest ship... I have been proven wrong.
I liked the 2009 movie as an action science fiction flick and although there were a lot of inconsistencies that I chafed against and did and still do hate the cheap location shooting for lower ship levels, I still found it very enjoyable.
I think all this kneejerk autohate of the Abrams reboot is getting a bit comically repetitive and all of the foaming at the mouth nerd-geek ranting has never been of help to the franchise whatsoever at any time in it's history, it hasn't helped the franchise move forward, it's held it back, stifled creativity and stigmatized it. The whole point of the alt-timeline reboot was to pry the franchise out of the stranglehold of these dogmatic lunatics and give the franchise a chance at a new future.
I have to laugh a people touting their careers as if it legitimizes their remarks, unless you are a 23rd century naval architect specializing in combat spacecraft all you are bringing to the table is an opinion no more important than anyone else's.
I like the design of the Vengeance, it has a recognizable Starfleet silhouette while still giving the appearance of being heavily armored and bristling with heavy weaponry. It's a pity that the likely plot of this movie will result in it's eventual destruction, I actually much prefer it's design to that of the rather fragile looking Enterprise.
There are two ways in film that a villian's percieved invincibility can be portrayed effectively. One is through size, the other is their ability strike at the hero without being seen or struck back, and Star Trek has beat both of these two concepts to death with a Louisville Slugger bat. It works, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
I don't see anything wrong with the villian (or the villian's ship in this case) being big. When something or someone is bigger than you, you automatically associate that with strength, power, or grandness (the few exceptions not withstanding). How many of Hitler's superweapons were based on size? US tankers were terrorized of an encounter with a Tiger. The British were so afraid of the Bismarck with it's big new 15" guns getting out into the Atlantic that almost the entire Home fleet was devoted to sinking it and it's sister Tirpitz. While it is true that bigger is not always better, it does have a certain psychological effect an enemy. The same way a cat will make it's hair stand up to make itself appear bigger, or the way a bear stands up on it's hind legs before it attacks, bigger can demoralize an enemy before the fight ever starts. Most villians understand this concept, and trying to have the bigger gun, or the bigger ship, etc. can help to give them an advantage in a fight. This is especially true in movies and TV. It helps portray just how dire and serious the situation is for the protagonist. You can find it almost anywhere. The Russian would not have been nearly as imposing if he were closer in size or smaller to the Punisher. I don't think the story of David vs. Goliath would've been used to reference anything from war to sporting events if Goliath was anything but a giant.
There is nothing wrong with making the villian big, and it doesn't necessarily mean that big equals evil, because it absolutely does not.
Rest in Peace Brothers
I thought Lost was pretty good, as I enjoy a show with many plot elements to keep up with. And I might add, ST2009 made more money that any other previous ST film, plus it did pretty well with most critics and the general crowd.
Maybe the film wasn't what everyone wanted, but it got the job done: reinvigorated Star Trek.
And P.S, you're using Motion Picture as an example of a 'spectacular' work?
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Responding to a legitimate (if ironically distasteful) question is hardly 'touting'... As for the rest of your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it
Actually, I can see a purpose to that. While weight is irrelevant in space (there being effectively no gravity), mass, and therefore inertia, remain a constant. Eliminating as much mass as possible from the design will decrease inertia, thus will allow the ship to accelerate and maneuver more nimbly. If that saucer area can be removed without compromising the ship's structural integrity, it would make sense.
"Perform for applause, and applause is all you'll get..."
An online game and a couple of movies every few years is hardly 'reinvigorated'...
Sure, it drags something chronic, and could do with a good 15 minutes of exterior shots edited out, but in terms of plot and story, it is a fantastic piece of work...
PS Never watched Lost, and no plans to...
The franchise needed a kick, in terms of story-telling and entertaining the masses in the last decade, it was failing, but it had a good run of nearly two decades near continous Trek for the better part of the year.
You are very naive if you think that the TPTB put out Trek solely for the purpose of story-telling and expanding the franchise, no its always about money.
Like it or not for Trek to survive it must evolve....just like Batman and James Bond, Trek must be flexible and change with the times. We have had six series and several movies of old trek...it's still around easily available for viewing on Netflix. It's time to be open minded and give new trek a chance....just like when we all calmed down and gave TNG a chance when it first came out.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
That's not reinvigorating the franchise, that's just marketing to bring in the Dollar...
Personally speaking, I'd disagree that it needed a kick, the original episodes are still showing on Sky for anyone who wants to watch them. I agree, yes, with a nearly twenty year run, that is awesome. Doesn't mean it needs to keep going though... Even Pammy and The Hoff knew when it was time to hang up the red costumes... (although I am sure that there would be many fans of Baywatch who would go and see a movie if one was released...)
Precisely...
Every successful "artist" is about the money. If he weren't, he wouldn't be successful. Were you under the impression that Michelangelo painted those scenes on the Sistene Chapel's ceiling because the blank spaces offended his artistic senses? He did it because the Pope was paying him a load of cash.
Don't sneer at "money"; it's the reason Roddenberry created Star Trek in the first place. And it's the reason the franchise needed to be reinvigorated - self-satisfied contemplation of one's own artistic navel might satisfy some of the fans, but it would inevitably lead to the franchise dwindling away.
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of reinvigoration....when people who aren't fans are excited for the movie...that's reinvigoration. It doesn't need a series to qualify as a reinvigoration....Nolan did the same with Batman...does it not count because there was no tv show?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
I snicker in agreement with you, sir.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Even Gene Roddenberry recognized the need to service the bottom line. If you read his initial pitches for Star Trek, at least half of everything he wrote was intended to cater to studio execs who would immediately dismiss the very concept of a space TV show as too expensive (after all, there's a reason the TV show "Lost in Space" spent almost its entire run marooned on one planet. . .) The whole reason for the transporter was to save money by not having to land a 24-storey tall spaceship on a planet every week. He cited Hodgkin's Law as an excuse to save money on makeup for aliens (since they'd all pretty much look human anyway) as well as sets and costumes, since similar sociological and technical developments means you could use the backlot sets and leftover costumes for the Wild West Planet, the Victorian England Planet, the Roman Empire planet, the TRIBBLE Germany Planet, and so on. He was very, VERY away of budgetary concerns and what he had to do to just get the show on the air so he could sell the message he wanted to sell. . . again, Kirk ended up in all those bareknuckle fistfights with a ripped shirt for a reason. If anything, the original Star Trek failed at being accessible to its audience. . . it took a decade or so for it to find its audience and grow into the phenomena it is today.
Please do not fail to mention the lovely ladies in my signature. We all know why that was done. And Star Trek just wouldn't be Star Trek without them.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
I say again: Giant Rotary Phaser Cannons.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
And they look stupid on a starship.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
Admiral Dananra Lekall - R.R.W. Teverresh, Deihu-class Warbird
General J'Kar son of K'tsulan - I.K.S. Dlahath, Vo'devwl-class Carrier
If you say so
His idea was how to take the biggest dump on TOS-era fans as possible while pandering to whatever is popular with the average action movie patron...
The more cliche and un-original the better as his target demographic isn't going to know or care about the ST universe. Every element from the ST universe he twists and mangles is for the sake of ST fans who care about the franchise... it's his way of giving them a huge F-YOU and laughing all the way to the bank.
I really hope this movie fails horribly as does his Star Wars movie... his ego needs a good b#&*$# slapping
Captain Ariel Trueheart Department of Temporal Investigations
U.S.S. Valkyrie - NCC 991701
=/\= ================================= =/\=
The ship is an interesting design choice. Sure, it's unsightly, but that may be on purpose. It's not supposed to be a beautiful ship of the line.