Lucas is at it again

I'm a fan of the Classic Star Trek and I enjoyed the 2009 movie. With a few obvious laughable moments as the "ultra-clean" future was transformed into more of a Star Wars "dirty, lived-in universe". The 2009 movie was superficially fun, but it didn't have the same flavor as classic Trek.

And good story ideas, Rust! My biggest gripe with the prequels is that Revenge of the Sith somehow ended up quite boring and utterly predictable. Maybe your storyline would have been more exciting.

I'm also a 40+ person who grew up watching TOS. The only thing in the 2009 Trek film that really bugs me is that George Samuel Kirk... James Tiberius Kirk's older brother... doesn't even get a mention. He was supposed to be the voice yelling at young Jim to bring the car back, but for some reason got written out of the script. That bothers me.

Well, now that I think of it, the way they had Kirk beat the Kobiyashi Maru kind of sucked, too. But this being a more rebellious Kirk who grew up fatherless softens that for me. I just think a better depiction of it could have been thought up.

squishy wrote:

I'm a fan of the Classic Star Trek and I enjoyed the 2009 movie. With a few obvious laughable moments as the "ultra-clean" future was transformed into more of a Star Wars "dirty, lived-in universe". The 2009 movie was superficially fun, but it didn't have the same flavor as classic Trek.

That's because it was an admitted Star Wars fanboy who made this film, he even said, "What can I use from Star Wars when making this?" To me, there was no classic flavor of Trek in this one. I'm sorry, but I want that classic flavor back, I'm so tired of any and all sci-fi having to have the "Dirty, lived-in universe" as you mentioned. I also would love to see more of "To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before", and not another villain of the week or pointless explosions....and Trek 2009's villain was a very forgettable one. Also, there was NONE of that magical chemistry the original cast had, or that of the TNG cast....it felt more like Jersey Shore in Outer Space. And making Kirk into some bad ass/bad boy rebel without a clue was so wrong.....I liked the good, respectable James T. Kirk.....not some arrogant prick. It's like a stereotypical story of "the bad boy" becoming "good", which never happens.

And with original Trek, there's the DVD's of both the original and remastered available, so one can choose which ones one wants. Lucas seems to want to avoid that altogether.

You know what Lucas should do...instead of fiddling around trying to "fix" the original films...he should just remake them.

He could make all-new versions that mesh better with the look and tone of the prequel trilogy...with hot young actors relevant to today's audiences (I understand the "Twilight" cast will soon be available)...and shoot the whole thing in 3-D! Dear Lord, why hasn't he already done this? A remake is the perfect way to reinvigorate the franchise.


(And this is the part where I'd say I'm joking, of course...but the idea makes too much sense. Why hasn't he done it?)

The Castellan wrote:

That's because it was an admitted Star Wars fanboy who made this film, he even said, "What can I use from Star Wars when making this?"

It really irks me when people misquote JJ Abrams on this. Yes, he's admitted he likes Star Wars, but in regards to Trek he flat out said at the time that the movie wasn't going to compete with Star Wars because it was so different a film. If he took a few inspirations from Star Wars, I don't exactly see that as a bad thing. Fiction - especially Science Fiction - has been cribbing off itself since time immortal.

Quote :

To me, there was no classic flavor of Trek in this one. I'm sorry, but I want that classic flavor back, I'm so tired of any and all sci-fi having to have the "Dirty, lived-in universe" as you mentioned. I also would love to see more of "To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before", and not another villain of the week or pointless explosions....and Trek 2009's villain was a very forgettable one.

I didn't mind the "lived in" look to Star Trek - I personally feel it makes the setting "more real" if things have a bit of wear and tear on them - but I won't disagree I wish they'd stop trying to remake The Wrath of Khan for the nineth time.

Quote :

Also, there was NONE of that magical chemistry the original cast had, or that of the TNG cast....it felt more like Jersey Shore in Outer Space. And making Kirk into some bad ass/bad boy rebel without a clue was so wrong.....I liked the good, respectable James T. Kirk.....not some arrogant prick. It's like a stereotypical story of "the bad boy" becoming "good", which never happens.

I disagree there. I thought the new cast had wonderful chemistry, and as for Kirk's change...this universe's Kirk grew up without his father. That's going to have an impact, since it seems his mother wasn't around often. The real shift in Kirk's personality came after he met "Spock Prime" and he came to understand just how drastically the universe had been changed.

If I have one beef with the movie, it's that Kirk went from effectively a Midshipman to Captain in one gigantic leap. I've rationalized it away with Starfleet having been decimated from the Narada, but at the same time that is a pretty huge pill to swallow.

Jumping ranks seams to be something Star Trek does, Kirk jumped from Captain to Admiral in the movies,as did Pike in this one. Not to mention, Kirk jumps down from Admiral to Captain...twice.

But, Midshipman to Captain is a huge link.

I always saw Star Trek as having a dirty,lived in feel too. Except for the Starships. The dig site and quarters in Man Trap was very spartan and dirty, not to mention the miner's living conditions in Mudd's Women. It was the same in Star Wars. The Empire was very clean and sterile, only the outer rim and Rebels had that dirty feel to them. I always took that as a borrow from Star Trek when I was a kid!

Anyway, back to Star Wars, Except for the Greedo and Jabba sections,I enjoyed the changes to Star Wars. I am glad Luke's scene with his friends is being put in as a deleted scene, just so we can see it, but for the flow of the story, it did not make sense to meet Luke before C-3PO and R2-D2 meet him. And I thought the new effects did enhance my enjoyment of the story, especially after watching the Prequels.

Empire had very few changes, just the back ground of Bespin and Vader's shuttle.

Jedi had the fewest, just the scenes of celebration at the end on the various planets. I am not sure about the new Vader "Nooo" thing, but I will reserve judgement until I see it.

In the whole running time of the movies,the changes don't amount to much.

The originals were released on the last Dvd set, but there were even complaints about those, but I still enjoyed watching them, but since I have them memorized, I hardly watch them anymore. I look forward to seeing a bit of difference in the next version.

To me, it seams so many fans have just gotten jealous and protective of Star Wars so much that they resent anything done that does not go with their vision of the story. But,it is not their story to change, it is Lucas. Doctor Who fans are the same way, complaining about how the 4th Doctor was wrong or the 5th Doctor. Well, when they grow up and become the show runner, (like RTD and Moffet) they can make the show in their own image.

Remember, like Doctor Who, Star Wars spans generations now, so it isn't just the saga of us old fans who saw it in 1977 in some theater with gum on the floor and a crappy sound system. These new kids are somewhat different in their tastes!

I haven't put my two cents worth in yet, because most folks have already said one thing or another that I agree with, so no use belaboring the point.

Until Ron.

You've pretty much summed up how I feel about the whole thing. From the new effects in A New Hope and the things better left out, the originals actually being available in a digital format, "ownership" of the property, and the new generations of fans. You said it so well, I didn't have to post and weigh in on the matter.

...but I just did...

Ronpur wrote:

Jumping ranks seams to be something Star Trek does, Kirk jumped from Captain to Admiral in the movies,as did Pike in this one. Not to mention, Kirk jumps down from Admiral to Captain...twice.

But, Midshipman to Captain is a huge link.

Pike tells him he could have his own ship in 8 years. That's a pretty short amount of time. 8 years in today's military only gets you about 2 steps in rank, and some time in toward the third (assuming you make grade when you are eligible). Granted, Pike never said he would have captain's rank, nor be in command of a starship.

But the jump he made with actual rank is like taking a 3rd year AFA cadet and making him a full Colonel.

From my perspective- Pike didn't promote him rank wise. He advanced him to the position of first officer. Position and rank are separate. If you want to leave Kirk in command after the emergency was over, you can make him a brevet captain, or advance him a couple of steps. The position puts him in charge. As far as command staff go, only Spock and Scotty have actual rank and time in. Everyone else is just like Kirk.

The depleted officer corps situation does help in that regard.

I always wondered about the officer process myself. In the Star Trek universe, it seems like SFA is it. No OCS for enlisteds, no ROTC programs. You want to be an officer, you have to go through the academy. Look at McCoy. A doctor in our reality goes to essentially a basic military orientation, then training on how the military medical organization works and runs. They don't go through the standard commissioning training programs.

McCoy telling the guy he is one of Enterprise's senior medical officers (as a 3rd year cadet) means he must have the experience and not just someone right out of med school. I'd assume that once he graduated the academy, they would advance him in rank according to his education level, so he'd probably be a Lt right out the academy door.

Another good one is Spock and Uhura. An active duty Commander having a relationship with a 3rd year cadet, especially one under his training authority.

But I know there are many ST people out there that avoid military points like this by essentially saying it doesn't matter- Starfleet isn't military. It's a para-military organization.

My view on that is... yeah, right.

Cruel Angel wrote:

From my perspective- Pike didn't promote him rank wise. He advanced him to the position of first officer. Position and rank are separate. If you want to leave Kirk in command after the emergency was over, you can make him a brevet captain, or advance him a couple of steps. The position puts him in charge. As far as command staff go, only Spock and Scotty have actual rank and time in. Everyone else is just like Kirk.

Yup. Which is why Pike bestows the "captaincy" to Spock and "first officer" status to Kirk while he's away. Kirk's actual promotion to Captain was bestowed by the admiralty at the end of the film. Still the youngest captain in the fleet, I would guess - just like Shatner's Kirk...

I have heard a number of fans argue that Starfleet advancement can be quicker because, well, it's "better" than our military. It isn't as mired in bureaucracy and institutionalized thought at real-world militaries, meaning that it can recognize brilliance and advance individuals based on merit rather than their time in.

It's silly in a number of ways, but it fits with the utopian ideas Star Trek has long embraced.

Or we can just be up front and admit Star Trek has had probably the loosest and worst ranking system of all Science Fiction franchises. I mean, look at the original crew movies. By Star Trek VI the entire command staff were Commanders and Captains.

mysterylad wrote:

I have heard a number of fans argue that Starfleet advancement can be quicker because, well, it's "better" than our military. It isn't as mired in bureaucracy and institutionalized thought at real-world militaries, meaning that it can recognize brilliance and advance individuals based on merit rather than their time in.

It's silly in a number of ways, but it fits with the utopian ideas Star Trek has long embraced.

Precisely, one needs to stop thinking directly military. Starfleet is devoted to science and exploration....THEN defense. That's what makes it so desirable, plus the fact people in Starfleet can, and are encouraged to actually think.

And it's the Utopian ideals that fans like me want to see happen one day, especially since all other science fiction, Star Wars included, is pretty much distopian.

Rust wrote:

Or we can just be up front and admit Star Trek has had probably the loosest and worst ranking system of all Science Fiction franchises. I mean, look at the original crew movies. By Star Trek VI the entire command staff were Commanders and Captains.

Perhaps, but it seems to work, plus remember that humans are only one of many different species in Starfleet, and remember, it's not really a military organization, it's a mix of many things.....plus I am RELIEVED that it's not like our current military systems....otherwise it would be just everyone shouting "SIR, YES SIR!" and watching nothing but combat.....if one wants that, they got Starship Troopers and a bunch of other genres for that.

And whatever it is in Trek, it has a future I so desire to see happen.....I want our future to be like that, and not like Mad Max, Star Ship Troopers or Aliens.

The Castellan wrote:

and remember, it's not really a military organization.

That flew out the window as of Deep Space Nine. The Enterprise D had Children aboard and was designed for Deep Space Exploration. The Enterprise E was a Warship, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Rust wrote:

Or we can just be up front and admit Star Trek has had probably the loosest and worst ranking system of all Science Fiction franchises. I mean, look at the original crew movies. By Star Trek VI the entire command staff were Commanders and Captains.

Or just say it is a TV show and the ranks are given to suit whatever dramatic needs of the storyteller is at the moment. Need a new, young Kirk fresh from his 3rd year at SA to be a captain, no problem, just have the Admiralty promote him.

Rust wrote:

The Castellan wrote:

and remember, it's not really a military organization.

That flew out the window as of Deep Space Nine. The Enterprise D had Children aboard and was designed for Deep Space Exploration. The Enterprise E was a Warship, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Dayum right. Sovereign class is my favorite

Ronpur wrote:

Or just say it is a TV show and the ranks are given to suit whatever dramatic needs of the storyteller is at the moment. Need a new, young Kirk fresh from his 3rd year at SA to be a captain, no problem, just have the Admiralty promote him.

DING! Winner! Trying to make this stuff realistic is silly. As the old saying goes, the Enterprise moves "as fast as the speed of plot." We all take this crap too seriously.

mysterylad wrote:

We all take this crap too seriously.

Sad, but true. Then again, it beats drugs and alcohol.

Rust wrote:

Sad, but true. Then again, it beats drugs and alcohol.

That's what I tell those of the Not We (mainstream people) when they they give me the disapproving/ haughty/ oh that stuff is so childish look and treatment when it comes to my sci fi, horror, movies, shows, toys, comics, etc etc etc.

Most don't have anything to say when I counter with the 'how much do you spend on alcohol, nicotine, etc... and how healthy is all of that for you?'

I LOVED the changes in Empire Strikes Back, since it really opened up Bespin as a really big space city and not just some sets on a soundstage.

Cruel Angel wrote:

Rust wrote:

The Castellan wrote:

and remember, it's not really a military organization.

That flew out the window as of Deep Space Nine. The Enterprise D had Children aboard and was designed for Deep Space Exploration. The Enterprise E was a Warship, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Dayum right. Sovereign class is my favorite

Much to Picard's annoyance, I remember that line from Insurrection:

Picard: ~sigh~ Remember when we used to be explorers?
I want to see the exploratory elements brought back. I was also quite fond of the Galaxy Class, the 1701-D was offed in such a stupid way, and did not need to be offed to begin with.



Plus I was not fond of Deep Space Nine.

TNG stories I enjoyed most were combat related, such as:

Encounter at Farpoint, Haven, Where No One Has Gone Before, Homesoil, Where Silence Has Lease, Measure of a Man, The Schizoid Man, The Royale, Booby Trap, Evolution, First Contact, Galaxy's Child, Data's Day, Night Terrors, Masks....and that's just a few....and the sort of stories I prefer.

Cruel Angel wrote:

Rust wrote:

Sad, but true. Then again, it beats drugs and alcohol.

That's what I tell those of the Not We (mainstream people) when they they give me the disapproving/ haughty/ oh that stuff is so childish look and treatment when it comes to my sci fi, horror, movies, shows, toys, comics, etc etc etc.

Most don't have anything to say when I counter with the 'how much do you spend on alcohol, nicotine, etc... and how healthy is all of that for you?'

Not to mention the reality TV, Jersey Shore, and American Idol type crap they live on.

The Castellan wrote:

TNG stories I enjoyed most were combat related, such as:

Encounter at Farpoint, Haven, Where No One Has Gone Before, Homesoil, Where Silence Has Lease, Measure of a Man, The Schizoid Man, The Royale, Booby Trap, Evolution, First Contact, Galaxy's Child, Data's Day, Night Terrors, Masks....and that's just a few....and the sort of stories I prefer.

Now I need to make a list

Cruel Angel wrote:

The Castellan wrote:

TNG stories I enjoyed most were combat related, such as:

Encounter at Farpoint, Haven, Where No One Has Gone Before, Homesoil, Where Silence Has Lease, Measure of a Man, The Schizoid Man, The Royale, Booby Trap, Evolution, First Contact, Galaxy's Child, Data's Day, Night Terrors, Masks....and that's just a few....and the sort of stories I prefer.

Now I need to make a list

Also Identity Crisis is another good one.