any thoughts about that new Star Trek movie?
 

They're going to be shooting it in Nov 'til March.

What are these new actors like?

Big budget or low budget?

Too bad that the old movie sets were torn down a couple of years back.

I'm torn. On the one hand I hate remakes and prequels, but on the other hand I love Star Trek. They definitely need to revitalize the franchise so I really hope this isn't as bad as the last movie. I was mourning the death of science fiction after Nemesis but Battlestar Galactica renewed my faith.

Are there any new Battlestar Galactica episodes yet?

I miss DS9.

No new BSG until next month and that is a mini series. The season doesn't start until next year.

DS9 was the last time I enjoyed Star Trek with any regularity. The portent of things to come was evident even then, but I loved some of the characters. Most recently, I liked some of the last season of Enterprise because they changed up the producers and directors, but it was too late to save the show. The prequel movie is supposed to have a different producer from the one responsible for Nemesis, so I have a glimmer of hope.

I liked DS9 too.

Good characters.

I think they should have given Star Trek a long rest-but Paramount has toys to sell.
I hate the idea of other people playing the roles.

I'll only go see it if Shatner and Nimoy are in it, playing their parts, in a cameo that either starts(or better yet) ends the movie.

I have zero interest in seeing it otherwise. Who did they get for Kirk? I just cant see anyone doing the parts without it being a caricature.


I am more keen about the DVDs--I have only seen stills from the fx-updated episodes--but it looks quite good.

...as long as they have the complete running times. No edits!

I was just watching the first move (Star Trek, The Motion Picture) again last night. Personally I think it's a cut above all the others for a number of reasons. Paramount gave this project the full Hollywood treatment with Robert Wise directing. The effects by John Dykstra and Douglass Trumbull are phenomenal, some really beautiful model-making, lighting and motion control on display there. For some reason I admire that more and more as time goes by... CGI has come a long way but the craftsmanship and love which went into the old sci-fi effects really has a visceral effect on me.

Then there's Jerry Goldsmith's excellent music, including an overture (another touch which lets you know you're about to see a big budget Hollywood epic before the credits have even rolled).

And finally you have the emotional impact of seeing your "old friends" from a canceled TV show on the big screen. The Directors Edition DVD (supervised by Robert Wise) is a nice restoration of the film and adds some CGI effects, but they're subtle enough to blend in and enhance the original movie without calling attention to themselves. The other original cast movies are fun, but IMO the production values of the first movie put it in a league of its own.

There was one really big error with the special effects in the original which was fixed with the CGI. At one scene near the end, the Enterprise was shown with people on the exterior. The size perspective was WAY off and I noticed it the first time I saw the movie in theater. It was corrected. I also like the way the special effects were enhanced for the original series. They really did a good job that doesn't insult the original work. The original sometimes suffered due to budgetary and technological limitations. The re-working of the graphics seems to be the same stuff with the problems removed.

I'm not sure of their logic with doing a prequel, but it does seem like someone is paying attention to the history of Star Trek by not insulting the original with the new CGI. That same mindset was not present for most of Enterprise but there were a few good episodes from people that seemed informed about the Star Trek universe. Perhaps these are the people behind the new movie?

I heard they revealed who is playing Kirk.
I forgot the name (sounds like Pike? Pine?) anway he doesnt look anything like Shatner.
I havent heard about him appearing in it as a cameo(and I guess it would be hard considering Generations) so with only Nimoy, I dont think it will be enough to drag me into a theater.

At first I thought you were talking about how they cast Captain Pike, but you are right in that the actor who is to play Kirk is Chris Pine. He is only 26 so that is going to cause lots of Trekkies(ers) to scoff. I don't even think the boy wonder, Wesley Crusher, could have gotten through the academy and made captain by age 26. William Shatner started as Kirk at age 35 and Jonathan Frakes was also 35 when he started as first officer on the Next Generation. Checkov is being played by an actor who is (and looks) 18 so that means he is on the bridge of a starship without going through the academy. Wil Wheaton, who played Wesley Crusher, was 20 in the episode where they covered up a training accident at the academy. I admit that Walter Koenig may have been a bit older to play an ensign at the age of 30, but 18 seems implausible especially considering that there was an episode in TNG where they showed that they only hold the entrance exam once a year. Perhaps Starfleet had different rules in the early days, but I'm still pretty sure attending the academy was a requirement.

I'm not even a detail-oriented Trekkie and I figured these things out. I'll probably see the movie, but I'll wait until Monday.

But doesnt the movie cover the starfleet academy days? So Kirk wouldnt even be a..
oh forget it.
Everything I think of that guy as Kirk I just lose focus. Its like trying to put 2 and 2 together and getting 5.
lol

I don't think the movie covers the days when Kirk was captain of the Enterprise, but some earlier period either when they were at the Academy or right afterwards. Spock is older than Kirk, and served under Capt. Christopher Pike of the Enterprise for years, so this story must take place even before that period. I wonder if Pike will be a character in this movie.

Judging from the casting, this story must take place nearly a decade before the period of "Star Trek" (The Original Series). Kirk was in his early 30's in that period (I seem to recall an episode where he said he was 34), so casting someone in their 20's for this story seems about right.

I'm still skeptical due to my discomfort with prequels, but if they are going back ten years then the casting works. Obviously, the story is going to be rather important in selling a prequel but I have doubts about how they could put a story together with the whole Enterprise crew since they were not working together ten years before the original series. Due to the age and rank differences, they couldn't have all gone to the academy together so it must involve something else entirely that hasn't been divulged. TOS also didn't seem to start out with them all chummy so I don't get the impression they were all introduced to each other ten years earlier.

I hope they have a really good idea that they are keeping secret and not just throwing a movie together to capitalize on the appeal of young Captain Kirk. In the past I would never have thought that way, but some of the more recent Star Trek offerings have left me with doubts.

I suspect that the movie will center on how Kirk, Spock, and McCoy first met, before they served together later on the Enterprise, and probably the other characters are more peripheral to that, though I suppose the writers may think of an incident where they would all have to work together, maybe on a training cruise. Chekov is the youngest of the bunch and would be hardest to see how he would fit into the story.

It's hard to imagine an original series Star Trek story without the Enterprise in it though, and technically if it did make an appearance, it would be the design used in the original series.

There was a news item that Shatner expressed disbelief he wasnt cast in the new movie as it would have boosted the marketability so i guess its official he isnt in it.

Casting casting casting...will the the key to the sucess or failure of this one, I agree.