Star Trek: The Next Generation in HD

Ohhhhhh now it's on...

 

When they start over again and reboot it, all numbers are off. Trust me, they ain't gonna call this summer's Sony blockbuster "Spiderman 4." They would rather you just forget all the Toby McGuire movies that came before it.

Same with J.J. Abrams and this crew. Whole different ship, different people, different effects, slightly different ship, different uniforms, different universe. The planet Vulcan no longer exists, Spock and Uhura are doin' the nasty, Scotty is losing his hair (and very funny), and Kirk is about 6-7 years younger than he was supposed to be when he first became captain.

Oh, and the Bridge's viewscreen has a different aspect ratio. (But we'll convert it to 4x3 for home video.)*

______________________________
*It always comes back to aspect ratio in this thread.

 

lol!!

 

I'm just glad the viewscreen isn't 3D...Kirk would keep having to put on glasses every time he came on the bridge.

 

That would be awesome! lmao!

 

yeah well Hitler had something to say about all that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9i9N-Ez5Y8

 

Wow, only $10 for The Next Level. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ref_=sr_1_1&s=movies-tv&qid=1331875280&sr=1-1

 

Robert Wilson would certainly agree

 

I see it as the First in a new series of films, "Based on" Star Trek, but not actually part of the "real" Star Trek.

I say this not as some obsessed fan that cant accept anything new,updated or modern or flashier, but as a moderate fan that realizes, "everything" being changed and new, simply equates to no longer being the same thing as we all grew up on.

Its Star Trek only in name. Not in spirit, mentality, morality or story telling.

It could simply have all new characters that were not based on Star Trek and done just as good.

I had an acquaintance ask me if they should go see the "New" Star Trek movie, as they knew I saw it. I asked them if they liked "Trek" before, and they told me ...."Not all that much".

I told her, "You will love the new one then, cause its not really like star trek", to which she looked puzzled.......

 

I'll go to see it purely out of curiosity but, if the "first" film's anything to go by, I'll never watch it again.

 

It was a "decent fun popcorn summer blockbuster movie", but it was missing everything that "Trek" normally is.

A lot loved the movie, but im wondering if they would have, if it didnt have all the action scenes and flashy lights and cameras panning around?

Can they pull off a decent "real story" that doesnt rely on Time travel mumbo jumbo and tons of special effects and action only??

I get the sense, that JJ, knew what was appealing about trek in general, but chose to only take the elements he felt would sell to the general public and boost them to the forefront.

We all love a few action scenes throughout trek, but in the end thats not "What its all about"

Its more about friendship, comaraderie, exploration, drama, science, families, how humans deal with different situations and new cultures. Thought provoking, wonderous and inspiring.

 

Some folks (well, Plinkett in particular) have argued that the films have been that way for a while, in particular that "TV Picard" is totally different from "film Picard", who is somewhat of a reckless action hero.

 

You are probably right. I think they just took it a few steps too far with this new reboot though. People will expect even MORE CGI and action on the next one though, or will tire of it. Thats the problem, to appeal to a wide audience you must keep upping the action and excitement. Soon it will not even seem to be star trek at all.

Right now I felt like it was coming close to Starship Troopers, or star wars, with a wink and nod to the names and some situations from star trek.

 

It used to be that the Star Trek franchise was about including some science or imagination. The new revision dropped characters from the Star Trek franchise into a pretty typical SciFi action flick.

Maybe the next movie will be about how Trelane was forcing all the actors to behave like action heros in the first movie and the crew's quest to regain their identities.

 

FYI:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-first-contact/

Some silliness, but many good points too.

 

A lot of great points. Ive watched that review about 5 times and you can kinda read inbetween all the silly stuff to see what he really thinks.

IN the end id say he thinks its basically a really dumb movie, with a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all, but it was made to make money and it did....

 

The "real" Star Trek? Have you seen the movie Galaxy Quest?

 

I really hate it when people who know nothing about other peoples' motivations say it's about money. Ron Moore and Brannon Braga did not write First Contact with the goal of maximum box office or perosnal financial gain. That was not where their minds were. They were thrilled to have the opportunity and were all about making the best movie they could make. If folks don't like the movie then fine but enough with this "they were just in it for the money" crap.

 

Neither 'First Contact' nor the 2009 movie felt like cash-ins to me. No, they're not the same as 1966-69 Trek, but only a few want to see precisely THAT on a big screen.

Maybe in a few years there will be a Final Fantasy - Star Trek Movie. They can 100% accurately clone the original cast and make it a hard-core sci-fi movie (I thought the 2001 Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within film was largely misunderstood).

 

Can't be done in today's movie environment...the only way we'll ever get "real" Trek again is if it comes back to TV...

 

For sure.

Its either a huge blockbuster with huge budget or its a low budget good quality indie today.

There is not much room for a middle of the road decent sci-fi flick with intelligence.