Enterprise Is A Dream Says Cho
By Ian M. Cullen
In the new issue of Starburst Magazine just out now in the UK – actor John Cho talked a little about his Star Trek experience.
Over the last 40 plus years Star Trek has enjoyed many incarnations, but of them all the original series characters remain the most iconic. So will this new bunch of actors seek to emulate those performances – will there be a new spin.
Cho for his part feels that everyone concerned in the new movie is respectful of the classic cast – but plan to bring their own take to the core characters.
“I don’t mean to be vague but what I can say is honest which is that I think, myself and everyone else on the film, J.J. and the designers, I think we are trying to be respectful of the original series and we’re also trying to get some new fans, do things differently and put a younger, more vigorous spin on it.”
When asked about the new Enterprise Bridge Cho beamed, “It was lame [Laughter]. It was dreamlike. I would have to say more than anything else. It’s quite special”.
As to the change in release date – the actor is upbeat.
“I think it’s great. I was kind of attached to the Christmas day release because my family and I we used to go see movies on Christmas day so I was excited about that but, I think it probably is a summer movie and it’s sold as a summer movie”.
You can read much more from John Cho in the new issue of Starburst Magazine, which is out now.
Comments (12)
Most verbal diarrhea from the cast about how great this movie is. blah blah blah.
I guess they are under the impression that the more than keep saying the same thing over and over again people will actually believe it to be true.
Quote:”and put a younger, more vigorous spin on it.”
HENCE the American Idol audience they are so desperately trying to get thinking that they will be the salvation of Star Trek. Because people over the age of 22 don’t go spend any money or see any movies. This mess clearly has “Abrams Superman” approach written all over it. If anyone who called themselves a “Fan” of Superman took credit for writing that script. Then there definition of “fan” is highly subjective. Real fans don’t need this pseudo/wanna be fans in charge. Go back to watching American Idol.
More rehashing. It is clear that Abrams and the Transformer twits are over rated and have to go do rehashing because they can’t develop anything new. It is clear that Rick Berman at least moved forward unlike backwards Abrams and his crew of monkeys.
Interesting quotes – I am taking the wait and see approach.
Will answer some of this when I have more time to thing things through. But basically a lot of your argument is flawed.
unfortunate that those fans believe that going back to an origins story is somehow not right and that only a story that takes place in the future will work. we went there with berman’s movies and they had diminishing returns, even most ardent TNG movie fans admit Nemesis was bad, so it seemed logical they try a completely fresh and new approach. I like JJ Abrams and the energy he brings, and I’m close to 50 years old and I can appreciate a new spin or approach to TOS that this movie will bring. again let’s wait and see if he trashes history, I don’t think he will. it is my hope he strikes a balance of being respectful to TOS and adding energy and freshness to it..
Your logic with regards to a Star Trek reboot is flawed.
For one J.J. Abrams is perhaps the best choice to do Star Trek given that he is a fan of the genre and had written and produced many of the best TV and Movies to hit Televisions and Cinema’s in the last 10 + years. Added to which he wrote one of my favourite movies ‘Regarding Henry’ which is a story with a heart and soul to it – and happens to be a none Science Fiction movie.
As to your claim that “At least Rick Berman moved the franchise foreword” your wrong. Enterprise was a prequel produced by Berman and Braga – it was their staying around too far past their sell by date which is one of the reasons there is no new trek on the air – and the last two series Voyager and Enterprise didn’t particularly do anything great for the franchise. Sure both shows had their moments – but they were nowhere near as pioneering and innovative as TOS, TNG or for that matter DS9 was.
I happen to think that this quasi reboot will work. From what we know of it – it is technically both a reboot and a prequel. It will not detract my enjoyment of TOS, TNG, DS9 or the other Star Treks – in fact if it is done well it will enhance my enjoyment of them.
Oh and as for fans having control of Star Trek. Lets not forget Nemesis was written by a life long fan of Star Trek – and look at what a mess that turned out to be.
As to transformers – haven’t seen the movie – I was not a fan of the cartoon series. So in all likelihood I probably will not like the movie.
As to your assertion that this new Trek movie is being made for American Idol viewers shame on you. Fact is that American idol has nothing whatsoever to do with science fiction or Star Trek – unless your saying that some of the really bad auditions and David Hasslehoff and Simon Cowel are alien spies perhaps. Fact is you are being as bad as the none science fiction fans who go round labelling people that like science fiction as geeks or sub human or whatever. Things have to evolve and change – it is part of the great adventure known as life.
Fact is just about everything gets reinvented at some point and Star Trek after 40 years its time – Nichelle Nichols, Leonard Nimoy, George Takei and pretty much every original series cast member is behind this project – which to me is a massive vote of confidence – and I don’t particularly care whether or not William Shatner is in this new one or not. He died in Generations remember – love it or loath it that is cannon. I’ve moved on and so should you. Fact is I took the loss of both my parents much harder – and still continued to run this place during that profoundly painful period in my life – because I love science fiction – not just Star Trek.
No one is forcing you to watch this new movie – and the point is to retain what fans Star Trek has and build on them – because when I die not that I plan to – but should that happen in say another 1000 or so years. Star Trek is going to need newer fans to continue on and it can’t do that by standing still.
Encouraging younger fans to embrace a new version of Trek is not a bad thing. Try to think of this logically. I was lucky – I caught the original series when I was 6 or 7 in the 70’s so I grew up with TOS and when that wasn’t on the air I had Doctor Who, Logans Run, Space 1999 and any number of other science fiction shows to go at. Star Trek and Doctor Who was my Gateway into Science Fiction Television and movies. I agree with you on one thing. The Star Wars prequels sucked – but they were made by George Lucas who made the originals – which only goes to show that their comes a point where the creator of a franchise can make mistakes as well. Fact is though those new movies got an audience – someone had to have watched them.
Fact remains Star Trek led me to explore other genres of Science Fiction – the 30’s movie serials of Flash Gordon for one – sure they were primitive but they had a fun story – and because of seeing those I read up on it and even read about Alex Raymond and so and so.
Now whose to say that a inquisitive ten or twelve year old who sees J.J. Abrams Star Trek next year – will not do the same and start looking through the Star Trek back catologue because of seeing the J.J. Abrams movie.
I feel that you are grossly underestimating the intelligence of today’s youth culture and young up and coming fans. Star Trek has to move with the times in order to pull in newer fans – that is a fact. Under Berman and Braga for most part of Voyager and Enterprise it was dead in the water and on life support.
Fact remains if you do not like the idea of the new movie – don’t go see it. No one is holding you at gun point to do so.
Quote:”Will answer some of this when I have more time to thing things through. But basically a lot of your argument is flawed.
You say it is flawed but give nothing to demonstrate this point. It is quite clear you are one of these people that will just go around with their head in the sand with the “hopes” it will be good. But when someone says anything that you can’t negate or against things that you wish to believe in, then their argument is labeled as “flawed” BUT fail to back it up.
Quote:”unfortunate that those fans believe that going back to an origins story is somehow not right and that only a story that takes place in the future will work. we went there with berman’s movies and they had diminishing returns, even most ardent TNG movie fans admit Nemesis was bad, so it seemed logical they try a completely fresh and new approach.
So going forward is bad but going backwards is somehow labeled as “fresh”? Give your head a shake! Once again I have to see the on going kiss ups to Abrams. No one is denying that Nemesis sucked. No one is denying that Trek got boring. TNG movies were only bad because Berman was involved in the scripts and we all know he couldn’t write anything worth while to save his life. What was lacking was a real script that could bring out TNG. But instead of moving forward. Just like DS9 was. We have to go backwards and the Abrams kiss ups call it “new”. hahaha What Trek needed was to get rid of Rick Berman after DS9. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga ruined Trek.
Quote:”I like JJ Abrams and the energy he brings, and I’m close to 50 years old and I can appreciate a new spin or approach to TOS that this movie will bring. again let’s wait and see if he trashes history, I don’t think he will. it is my hope he strikes a balance of being respectful to TOS and adding energy and freshness to it..
Again with the “wait and see”. How incredibly sad! Trek fans are by far the most laziest people on the planet. They have to wait until the train wreck happens despite seeing it coming before they decide to do or say anything. What is this energy is he bring? Where are you getting any of this nonsense from? Abrams (the new Rick Berman) and the rest of the monkeys are going to dumb down Trek to the American Idol level. They have lied to the fans for months and tried spinning out a bunch of crap to justify this up coming mess.
Quote:”Your logic with regards to a Star Trek reboot is flawed.
Suddenly you found your voice 10 hours later? The only thing flawed here are some people that call themselves Star Trek fans who actually think this backwards 90210 movie is a good idea. I have yet to see 5 reasons why this movie should make any Trek fan want to go see it.
Quote:”For one J.J. Abrams is perhaps the best choice to do Star Trek given that he is a fan of the genre and had written and produced many of the best TV and Movies to hit Televisions and Cinema’s in the last 10 + years. Added to which he wrote one of my favorite movies ‘Regarding Henry’ which is a story with a heart and soul to it – and happens to be a none Science Fiction movie.
Really he is the only one? Really??? Based on what? The success of Felicity? His incredibly stupid Superman script that he tried to pawn on us? Oh yes Alias. Yawn!! MI3.. BORING. Even the studio didn’t want him back for the 4th movie. Then there is Lost. A show that started off strong and through the incompetence of the network and the creators drove it right into the ground. It hasn’t been in the top 10 since Season 2. Ratings have nose dived.
Abrams has not written anything Trek or anything close to it. So he has failed to prove that he can. So your logic is flawed because you have failed to provide a concrete example. For this mess he is not writing it, just directing it. Big deal. Just because you and about 6 other people (including Abrams and his mother) liked Regarding Henry doesn’t mean jack. To use this as an example for justifying his “Trek” is laughable.
Quote:”As to your claim that “At least Rick Berman moved the franchise foreword” your wrong. Enterprise was a prequel produced by Berman and Braga – it was their staying around too far past their sell by date which is one of the reasons there is no new trek on the air – and the last two series Voyager and Enterprise didn’t particularly do anything great for the franchise. Sure both shows had their moments – but they were nowhere near as pioneering and innovative as TOS, TNG or for that matter DS9 was.”
Rick Berman moved the franchise forward with DS9. Period! And that was bad how? He didn’t have to go back and give us TOS 90210. I am no fan of Rick Berman especially near the end. But at least the guy didn’t have to shamelessly jump on the Star Wars “wanna be” prequel band wagon. Trek did not do well because of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. PERIOD. So this fact does not justify the “time travel, FC” movie that Abrams is now making. Your completely contradicted yourself.
Quote:”I happen to think that this quasi reboot will work. From what we know of it – it is technically both a reboot and a prequel. It will not detract my enjoyment of TOS, TNG, DS9 or the other Star Treks – in fact if it is done well it will enhance my enjoyment of them.”
I happen to think that rebooting Trek with TOS is a ridiculous. Of course there will be people who support anything due to their low entertainment standards. There is nothing to suggest that this up coming piece of crap will enhance any enjoyment of Trek. I have yet to see 5 reasons why. This is just wishful thinking on your part.
Quote:”Oh and as for fans having control of Star Trek. Lets not forget Nemesis was written by a life long fan of Star Trek – and look at what a mess that turned out to be.”
Again the same old arguments that just don’t hold water. You saw what Manny Coto and the team of Garfield and Judith did for S4 of ENT. Fans that got it. Fans that proved it. Abrams is no fan of Trek. The idiot completely missed ENT and the last few movies. What kind of Trek fan is that? He is a casual viewer, not a fan.
Quote:”As to transformers – haven’t seen the movie – I was not a fan of the cartoon series. So in all likelihood I probably will not like the movie.”
You missed nothing. It was stupid, lame and was only saved by the special effects. The very same formula that will save this upcoming mess.
Quote:”As to your assertion that this new Trek movie is being made for American Idol viewers shame on you. Fact is that American idol has nothing whatsoever to do with science fiction or Star Trek – unless your saying that some of the really bad auditions and David Hasslehoff and Simon Cowel are alien spies perhaps. Fact is you are being as bad as the none science fiction fans who go round labelling people that like science fiction as geeks or sub human or whatever. Things have to evolve and change – it is part of the great adventure known as life.”
Are you kidding me? What colour is the sky in your world? It is quite clear that you didn’t understand a single word that I wrote. You have this preconceived notion already that this movie and Abrams and anyone who can rattle your cage on this gets what appears to be a bizarre unrelated response to a comment. Comments like “a younger approach” is to attract who? People over 35? NO people around 21. They have said on record that this movie is going to be a movie “your mother will love”. What does that mean? It is going to be so dumb down that any old idiot will get it. Thus having “lame jokes”, the comic relief character etc.
They have tried to pass off this ridiculous idea that “Trek” has no new fans. That is complete BS! ALL 5 series are on everyday across the entire world. TNG went off in the mid 90′s. ENT just a few years ago. So if no one was watching then how on bloody Earth could it be so popular in syndication? People are clearly watching it. People keep saying this line of crap about no new fans because they haven’t seen Trek pull in “big ratings” in a long time or do an outrageous amount of business at the theaters. That is it!
The next line of crap that they tried to feed everyone is that “people can’t follow Trek’. Trek is not that complicated and after watching a few episodes and the power of the internet ANYONE who found Trek interesting could easily pick it up. So these lies that you believe by Abrams and the Transformer twits are ridiculous.
Things have to evolve huh? So going backwards with kiddie Kirk is the next “evolutionary” step for Trek? Since 1987 we have seen evolve into 4 series and over 6 movies. Now evolution has stopped and we are seeing it “unevolve” back to a silly adolescent 90120 state. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Trek needed a new blood to push it forward. I am sure if Rick Berman had NOTHING to do with another TNG movie or another TV series, it would of been better. The problem was the stranglehold that he had on Trek and the idiots in the studio who allowed it to happen. But how you see “flavour of the month” Abrams and his Regarding Henry (HAHAHA) and Felicity team come by and you are overjoyed for Trek? Allow me to stop typing for 2 minutes so that I can wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes.
Quote:”Fact is just about everything gets reinvented at some point and Star Trek after 40 years its time – Nichelle Nichols, Leonard Nimoy, George Takei and pretty much every original series cast member is behind this project – which to me is a massive vote of confidence – and I don’t particularly care whether or not William Shatner is in this new one or not. He died in Generations remember – love it or loath it that is cannon. I’ve moved on and so should you. Fact is I took the loss of both my parents much harder – and still continued to run this place during that profoundly painful period in my life – because I love science fiction – not just Star Trek.”
Really now? Star Wars? Blade Runner? X-Files? Hmmmm that fact is your sorry self allows it to get “rehashed” NOT reinvented. Of course Nimoy is behind the project. He is getting $15 million for 7 minutes worth of screen time. George Takei is just happy to talk to anyone about anything because he has no career. It is not a vote of confidence, it is self promotion. How you can’t see that is beyond me.
Spock died in STII. So maybe you should go rethink that “move on, Generations” crap. No where is it written that everything in Sci Fi is ever a done deal. Harve Bennett once said that you can do anything in Sci Fi if you sit in front of a typewriter for 15 minutes. So incredibly dense you are thinking that Kirk can’t be returned but it is ok for Spock to be? Are you just playing favorites? Let me guess you have a chip on your shoulder against Shatner as well? If that was true then Spock would of been dead since STII. Where you pissed when they brought back Spock in STIII? Did you go around saying “well he died, so no more Spock forever”. So your argument here is again lacking. The loss of your parents has nothing to do with this argument so don’t bring it up.
Quote:”No one is forcing you to watch this new movie – and the point is to retain what fans Star Trek has and build on them – because when I die not that I plan to – but should that happen in say another 1000 or so years. Star Trek is going to need newer fans to continue on and it can’t do that by standing still.”
Once again the “no one is forcing you argument”. haha This is just typical. And again I see this “Trek needs new fans”. Have you read ANYTHING about this movie? You have people who are dying to be in this movie? WHY is that? Because they are FANS. Trek gets new fans everyday! Otherwise it would NOT be in syndication across the planet.
Quote:”Encouraging younger fans to embrace a new version of Trek is not a bad thing. Try to think of this logically. I was lucky – I caught the original series when I was 6 or 7 in the 70’s so I grew up with TOS and when that wasn’t on the air I had Doctor Who, Logans Run, Space 1999 and any number of other science fiction shows to go at. Star Trek and Doctor Who was my Gateway into Science Fiction Television and movies. I agree with you on one thing. The Star Wars prequels sucked – but they were made by George Lucas who made the originals – which only goes to show that their comes a point where the creator of a franchise can make mistakes as well. Fact is though those new movies got an audience – someone had to have watched them.”
So we are encouraging new viewers now? So anyone over 25 is now “passe”? I found your arguments to be lacking any type of thought or substance. It is merely based on your “wimes and wishes”. Trek gets new fans EVERY day. If you think that a movie that only attracts people under 21 is a good thing. All I can say is, thank god you are not doing this movie or any other movies.
Quote:”Fact remains Star Trek led me to explore other genres of Science Fiction – the 30’s movie serials of Flash Gordon for one – sure they were primitive but they had a fun story – and because of seeing those I read up on it and even read about Alex Raymond and so and so.”
So what? This somehow justifies Abrams pathetic Star Wars wanna be prequel movie called STXI? Stay on topic.
Quote:”Now whose to say that a inquisitive ten or twelve year old who sees J.J. Abrams Star Trek next year – will not do the same and start looking through the Star Trek back catologue because of seeing the J.J. Abrams movie.”
I am sorry to tell you this but if this movie is made to the level of 10 year olds. Then Trek is completely finished. You might as well make it “Captain Shrek” then. You seriously need to stop selling out the #1 demographic that everyone wants “male 18-45″. Not “American Idol audience” under the age of 18.
Quote:”I feel that you are grossly underestimating the intelligence of today’s youth culture and young up and coming fans. Star Trek has to move with the times in order to pull in newer fans – that is a fact. Under Berman and Braga for most part of Voyager and Enterprise it was dead in the water and on life support.”
I feel that you as a whole have no idea what you are talking about. Again I have pointed out a major flaw in your point. Trek gets NEW viewers EVERYDAY. Otherwise it would NOT be in syndication everyday across the planet. If no one was watching then why would it be on the air? People are watching. Trek in the last few years sucked because of B&B. Period. But that doesn’t mean we have to go do a Star Wars wanna be 90210 movie to attract your beloved “10-12 year olds” that you think will save the day. I think you are grossly underestimating the viewing power of people over the age of 25.
Quote:”Fact remains if you do not like the idea of the new movie – don’t go see it. No one is holding you at gun point to do so.”
And “bang” that final silly comment that is made when the author can’t put up a reasonable discussion about Trek. Let me guess, you will then say “there are still your DVD’s at home that are untouched”. Another lame ass excuse.
People who are complaining about STXI being as stupid as it sounds are justified to make the claim. The pro-Abrams nuts have yet to give a simple list of 5 points that makes anyone want to see this piece of shit next summer. The story line and the on going lies about the film are incredibly bad and show absolutely no respect to the fans of Trek. If you think that the American Idol audience, Paris Hilton crowd are remotely interested in seeing a movie called “Star Trek”. (They wanted to call it Star Trek: Zero but changed it because they know if it bombs the name will get blasted and turned into a joke). Star Trek is Sci-Fi. Period. Not some stupid 90210 melodrama with a touch of tiny ton thrown in.
As a whole after reading your response I am without a doubt saddened by how low Trek fans have fallen. Excuse after excuse is given in order to cover up the incredible laziness of fans. It is the attitude that has really hurt Trek. Sitting around with your finger cross is no way to go through life. Having to wait to see the train wreck even though you saw the accident coming is truly shameful.
Nice to see the response I wrote up commenting on your flawed logic was deleted. Only proves I am right.
Under the website name put in brackets “Welcome to Censorship Comrade”.
“You say it is flawed but give nothing to demonstrate this point. It is quite clear you are one of these people that will just go around with their head in the sand with the “hopes” it will be good. But when someone says anything that you can’t negate or against things that you wish to believe in, then their argument is labeled as “flawed” BUT fail to back it up.”
Ok scorned this is where I back it up. Because you skimmed my 12 hour post – before posting your 15 hour post. You missed my point entirely.
Your passion is a good thing – but I think you let it rule you a tad too much.
Anyway. When I said Star Trek wasn’t moving foreword under Berman and Braga – I was talking more from the production side of things. The stories were drying up and they were just rehashing old TOS and TNG scripts for most part during the first two seasons. Enterprise sadly got cancelled just as it was getting interesting due to the addition of Manny Coto who actually did some really cool things by cherry picking some of the best story aspects of TOS – which is what I suspect Abrams will be trying to do with his new cast. Coto was original is that he took elements from tos and elaborated on them as apposed to trying to remake them.
I’m thankful that Ron Moore isn’t doing this new Star Trek. Can you imagine James T. Kirk as a woman? At least the gender roles in this new movie are being respected.
Anyhow this is my last post on this matter.
Please try to reign in the passion a little scorned – some may find being called lazy offensive. Am not wanting to have a flaming session on here. Thanks.
Scorned have not deleted a thing of what you have said. Though for throwing out such accusations you are no longer welcome here. Now lets agree to differ – I can.
Fact is you have a few good points – but must correct you on something. It was Bryan Singer who re did Superman not J.J Abrams and as far as I know he never had any take on Superman.
Either way this is a warning. If you can’t agree to differ and post less aggressively you will no longer be welcome here.
I run this place and as such I do not have time to be drawn into long drawn out conversations – and I am even less inclined to participate with someone such as yourself who refuses to see reason.
If you don’t like the new movie – don’t go see it. Simple as that really isn’t it.
Respectfully, I’m not sure that arguements like “if you do not like the idea of the movie – don’t go see it,” hold much water with dedicated fans, Ian. Although, I can certainly appreciate (and agree with) the shut up and wait pretext. Scorch is decidedly more vehement on the subject but he has a right to be skeptical.
History shows that there is a pattern or trend among movie-makers who base their works on short-stories (I, Robot), novels (The Lord of the Rings), comic books (take your pick), or previously filmed counterparts (Star Wars Epsd 1, 2, & 3). For all the excitement they generate when they’re NEW or COMING SOON, we all know, even at their best, they fall short of the original works. I saw each of those afore mentioned movies in theaters BECAUSE I was a fan already. It seldom works in reverse, for me anyway. So I’ll see this reboot of Star Trek as well – to whatever end that serves – because I am a fan.
But I empathize with many purists when it comes to this sort of revisionist commercialism. Some of the responsibility does rest with the creative team and studios that endorse such projects. Even the latest Indiana Jones movie flopped among supposed “true fans.” Such lackluster attempts don’t generate dollars and certainly don’t promise sequels.
Take the Spider-man movies, which I love (but secretly balked at seeing at first). Stan Lee – and thank GOD for Stan Lee – himself backed the direction, script, etc and still only managed to capture the essence of the prolific comic book character(s). For all their merits, they still lacked authenticity. Anyway, with seeming inherency, once you “borrow” a concept, original storylines diverge, genuine characters deviate, and all in the name of “reaching out to a new fan base. It’s about money people. Not fan loyalty.
And that’s the crux of the issue, I think. It isn’t enough, for most of us, for directors and producers to enlarge the genre by adding to it if the finished product is insubstantial. It’s like they take the quote from “Field of Dreams” too literally. “If you build it, they will come.” That, to me, is the height of arrogance. I don’t doubt that the original cast members did endorse this project. But then, why wouldn’t they?
Ultimately, for all my hyperbole, the fact remains, we won’t know the value of this “reboot” until it’s out in theaters. And if my guess is right, the argument will likely persist long after.
Shinobi,
To a point I also have a degree of empathy with purists – but scorn has just oversterpped the mark and will not be posting here again.
Much of what you have to say is right. But to add to your point on why would the original cast not endorse tha new movie – well they would not endorse it if they didn’t feel it was going to be respectful of the franchise as a whole. If you think back to the early days of the TNG the media was saying, ‘Gene Roddenberry can’t catch lightning in a bottle twice – yet somehow he did.’ yet original cast members like Walter Koenig, George Takei and a few others were initially very much against TNG because they felt it would be the death of Star Trek – and apart of it may have been their lack of involvment in the series. Yet here they are endorsing J.J. Abrams and have absoluetly nothing to gain by doing so.
Now Scorn makes a few good points – but at the same time when he is making them and making personal attacks on people and being belligerent and nasty while making his points, well I cannot allow that to go on – and will only tolerate so much. Fact is I moderated one poster out of the equation who just told Scorned to ‘Get a life’. So the least Scorned can do is reign his attitude in a little and try to make his points in a more pleasent fashion – much like yourself.
I enjoyed the spiderman movies – the last one was a little cramped though – too many villains – and they tried to do too much with it. I generally enjoy comic book movies and am learning about comics books at the moment via my re introduction to them.
The thing is with Star Trek though is it needs some kind of reinvention – regardledd of whetever it is a prequel, reboot or a sequel – it needs a fresh take from a new team.
Star Trek II was only succesful because it had new people come in, and they were none fans of the franchise – who watched space seed and took their cue from that – yet to this day we still have the continuity issue of Chekov not actually serving as a member of bridge crew in the series – yet someone in the movie Khan knows him. That in its self has created much fan speculation over the years – and was addressed somewhat in the fantastic Greg Cox series of books about Khan.
I liked the new Indy movie myself – but it was not as good as the classic. Fact is I measure Indiana Jones by his first movie and none of the sequels have ever lived up to the first one which to me remains the best out of them.
As to Superman I can take or leave superman – have no idea what Abrams had in mind for that because I basically stopped following the story after Kevin Smith departed it – and even that version sounded pretty lame due to the producer that Smith was having to work with. I was not overly enthused with Singers version – which tried valiantly to continue the series from the Christopher Reeves movies – but fell short due to the fact that Brenden Routh just didn’t have the same level of charisma in his performance of Superman – and also Kate Bosworth didn’t convince me that she was a hardened journalist.
Your right when you say its about money – and the last Star Trek movie didn’t cut it – and was basically a riff on Wrath Of Khan in many ways. The Star Trek I like is TOS, TNG and DS9 – everything after that was just a big rehash – other than the final season of Enterprise which started to get interesting.
I will go to see the new trek movie because am a fan – and also like Abrams work. But if it sucks you will all know about it – because though I liked Abrams work. I do not like everything he produces. Cloverfield for example just didn’t do it for me and neither did his TV show Alias. Yet Lost to me along with Heros are the best two US Imports we get here in England right now.
Loved LOTR, loved Babylon 5 which was basically a reimagining of LOTR.
Your right in what you say that Star Trek will always be cause for much debate. Many Tos fans got off when TNG came out – it was only the younger ones like me. I was 17 at the time that stuck with it – and some older fans came back to it a bit later on perhaps. Then DS9 came out and some folks tuned out because it wasn’t for them. Then Voyager and Enterprise. The sad thing is though by time Voyager and Enterprise came along the market place for Star Trek had become saturated.
Personally I will see the new movie – but at the same time I’d rather have waited a few years longer before bringing Star Trek back.
I will watch the new movie as I have been and always will be a big Star Trek fan. However, I would prefer new stories moving the franchise into the future, perhaps a film or series featuring the ‘New Frontier’ characters in the Peter David books. I think they have great potential. I would rather see that than a detailed rehash of what already happened. That is a big reason why Star Wars 1,2,3 failed.
In a nut shell, get a grip everyone. I love Star Trek as much as the next fan. Whether the film is the greatest movie ever produced, or is the worst piece of crap is irrelevant. The point here is that Abrams, love him or leave him, went in a direction with the Star Trek universe that has not been visited that much. Sure, there is Enterprise, but there is still much out there in the ether that has not been touched upon.
Wait for the movie to come out, go see it and then decide. The worst that could happen is that you are out the $7.50 you paid to see it, or you will see it again and buy the DVD release. This talk about “logic” this, and the rest of the “purists” crap, is nothing but smoke. A “purist” is an elitist way of saying narrow-minded and unwilling to bend.
Gene Roddenberry, (you know the guy who’s original idea this all started from…) was fond of change and growth. I think he would be behind this as much as the original cast. While I am leary of some obvious changes, such as the ship’s design or having to grow accustomed to a new cast of actors protraying characters that we all know and love, I am excited for this movie and can’t wait to see it. Hell, I even have friends that are not fans of Star Trek who are excited to see it.
So, wait and see, ladies and gentlemen. Assuming that they don’t change the release date again, I am willing to give it a chance and I urge some of you nay-sayers to be patient and openminded. That would be the “logical” thing to do.