|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:17 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:42 pm
 |
|
|
|
Elle Lyn As a hopeless Eric Bana fangirl, might I point out that alternate-timeline Nero is still alive and well? Though he'd have to be that much younger, and might not have any idea of his future self's time-traveled existence... Don't crush my dreams, k? But realistically, I do hope we have some Klingons in the next one, you gotta love them.
I read somewhere that ever since TOS, the subsequent series have tried so hard to shed a nice light on the Klingons, that bringing the canon Klingons from TOS time back would just kinda knock everyone off.
Maybe since a Federation ship destroyed Nero's ship the Klingons might feel...er...honored at the Federation for destroying it for them. In respect for the ships that were destroyed earlier in the movie.
Yeah, I can see the Klingons in the sequel, but they'll probably be quite different from TOS.
And I never thought about a young Nero. I can see him returning in a third movie, if they decide on a trilogy. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:17 am
|
|
|
 |
Dust Dancer Elle Lyn As a hopeless Eric Bana fangirl, might I point out that alternate-timeline Nero is still alive and well? Though he'd have to be that much younger, and might not have any idea of his future self's time-traveled existence... Don't crush my dreams, k? But realistically, I do hope we have some Klingons in the next one, you gotta love them. I read somewhere that ever since TOS, the subsequent series have tried so hard to shed a nice light on the Klingons, that bringing the canon Klingons from TOS time back would just kinda knock everyone off. Maybe since a Federation ship destroyed Nero's ship the Klingons might feel...er...honored at the Federation for destroying it for them. In respect for the ships that were destroyed earlier in the movie. Yeah, I can see the Klingons in the sequel, but they'll probably be quite different from TOS. And I never thought about a young Nero. I can see him returning in a third movie, if they decide on a trilogy.
I can see them trying to put the Klingons in a good light, but you've gotta remember that the Klingons were the main antagonists in TOS. So, they've gotta be bad in some way, even if they become good in the end. And yeah, young Nero will probably come out in some form or other, even if its just to clear 'his' name.
I don't really want to get into the details, though. So long as the movie rocks, I don't care what or who is in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:25 pm
|
|
|
 |
larxene 12 Dust Dancer Elle Lyn As a hopeless Eric Bana fangirl, might I point out that alternate-timeline Nero is still alive and well? Though he'd have to be that much younger, and might not have any idea of his future self's time-traveled existence... Don't crush my dreams, k? But realistically, I do hope we have some Klingons in the next one, you gotta love them. I read somewhere that ever since TOS, the subsequent series have tried so hard to shed a nice light on the Klingons, that bringing the canon Klingons from TOS time back would just kinda knock everyone off. Maybe since a Federation ship destroyed Nero's ship the Klingons might feel...er...honored at the Federation for destroying it for them. In respect for the ships that were destroyed earlier in the movie. Yeah, I can see the Klingons in the sequel, but they'll probably be quite different from TOS. And I never thought about a young Nero. I can see him returning in a third movie, if they decide on a trilogy. I can see them trying to put the Klingons in a good light, but you've gotta remember that the Klingons were the main antagonists in TOS. So, they've gotta be bad in some way, even if they become good in the end. And yeah, young Nero will probably come out in some form or other, even if its just to clear 'his' name. I don't really want to get into the details, though. So long as the movie rocks, I don't care what or who is in it.
I don't know. You gotta love Eric Bana, and Nero was a pretty badass character, but he seemed more like a one time baddy, not really a character who J.J. (if he did the next sequel) would bring back.
I'd really like to see some entirely new villains. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:04 pm
|
|
|
|
Miss Mangie larxene 12 Dust Dancer Elle Lyn As a hopeless Eric Bana fangirl, might I point out that alternate-timeline Nero is still alive and well? Though he'd have to be that much younger, and might not have any idea of his future self's time-traveled existence... Don't crush my dreams, k? But realistically, I do hope we have some Klingons in the next one, you gotta love them. I read somewhere that ever since TOS, the subsequent series have tried so hard to shed a nice light on the Klingons, that bringing the canon Klingons from TOS time back would just kinda knock everyone off. Maybe since a Federation ship destroyed Nero's ship the Klingons might feel...er...honored at the Federation for destroying it for them. In respect for the ships that were destroyed earlier in the movie. Yeah, I can see the Klingons in the sequel, but they'll probably be quite different from TOS. And I never thought about a young Nero. I can see him returning in a third movie, if they decide on a trilogy. I can see them trying to put the Klingons in a good light, but you've gotta remember that the Klingons were the main antagonists in TOS. So, they've gotta be bad in some way, even if they become good in the end. And yeah, young Nero will probably come out in some form or other, even if its just to clear 'his' name. I don't really want to get into the details, though. So long as the movie rocks, I don't care what or who is in it.
I'd really like to see some entirely new villains.
Besides, sequels shouldn't be THAT direct.... Look at Star Trek II, III, and IV. Definitely picking up off the heels of the last, but they are still self contained stories.
We have the set up for different sort of relationships with the Klingons, considering that the Federation destroyed the common enemy.
And for the Romulans... Seeing that there is bound to be some prejudice since Nero's attack. The Federation will not hold them responsible, but that might not change public opinion. Also, the Klingons are rash and prejudiced.
We can do a movie that's really heavy in Starfleet politics. Which I always loved on the show. Even though the Romulans were just as much of bad guys in TNG as they were in TOS, they showed you the inner workings so much more, so you could understand them.
Let's play up that in the new movie.
Also, no Khan. Let's not remake every single frickin' story. If you want to bring back a classic villain, at least do one that wasn't in a movie already. Gary Mitchell, anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:40 pm
|
|
|
|
Matt Pniewski SuperCrazyChocolate Matt Pniewski Khan? Why should we go back and use the old villains and re do all the old stories? That would suck. I want new stories, new villains, or maybe one WITHOUT a villain..... Yeah, although I think a story without a villain would not be interesting. We need someone to cause a conflict or problem in a story. Star Trek IV. Conflict doesn't have to have a face or a name.
It did have a name, it was simply labeled "The Probe". And it did have a face: a glowing blue beach ball attached to a tootsie roll several miles long that had a thing for whales.
It is true, conflict could be as non-corporeal as a character fighting his personal fear of the darkness, but that isn't for Star Trek, at least not on the big screen.
I agree; I am really not interested in watching a rehash of the old with the new, that's what the first season of TNG was and it wasn't all that good. And I do not want to see Nero re-appear in a "third" movie based on the alternate universe. But we do need Klingons to scrape off the starboard bow in the next one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Frogr1701 Matt Pniewski SuperCrazyChocolate Matt Pniewski Khan? Why should we go back and use the old villains and re do all the old stories? That would suck. I want new stories, new villains, or maybe one WITHOUT a villain..... Yeah, although I think a story without a villain would not be interesting. We need someone to cause a conflict or problem in a story. Star Trek IV. Conflict doesn't have to have a face or a name. It did have a name, it was simply labeled "The Probe". And it did have a face: a glowing blue beach ball attached to a tootsie roll several miles long that had a thing for whales. It is true, conflict could be as non-corporeal as a character fighting his personal fear of the darkness, but that isn't for Star Trek, at least not on the big screen. I agree; I am really not interested in watching a rehash of the old with the new, that's what the first season of TNG was and it wasn't all that good. And I do not want to see Nero re-appear in a "third" movie based on the alternate universe. But we do need Klingons to scrape off the starboard bow in the next one.
That's not exactly what I meant.... It's like saying that the bad guy in "Twister' is the Tornado. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:42 pm
|
|
|
|
Matt Pniewski Frogr1701 Matt Pniewski SuperCrazyChocolate Matt Pniewski Khan? Why should we go back and use the old villains and re do all the old stories? That would suck. I want new stories, new villains, or maybe one WITHOUT a villain..... Yeah, although I think a story without a villain would not be interesting. We need someone to cause a conflict or problem in a story. Star Trek IV. Conflict doesn't have to have a face or a name. It did have a name, it was simply labeled "The Probe". And it did have a face: a glowing blue beach ball attached to a tootsie roll several miles long that had a thing for whales. It is true, conflict could be as non-corporeal as a character fighting his personal fear of the darkness, but that isn't for Star Trek, at least not on the big screen. I agree; I am really not interested in watching a rehash of the old with the new, that's what the first season of TNG was and it wasn't all that good. And I do not want to see Nero re-appear in a "third" movie based on the alternate universe. But we do need Klingons to scrape off the starboard bow in the next one. That's not exactly what I meant.... It's like saying that the bad guy in "Twister' is the Tornado.
"It" is. Seriously. Or Nature is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:13 pm
|
|
|
|
Frogr1701 Matt Pniewski Frogr1701 Matt Pniewski SuperCrazyChocolate Matt Pniewski Khan? Why should we go back and use the old villains and re do all the old stories? That would suck. I want new stories, new villains, or maybe one WITHOUT a villain..... Yeah, although I think a story without a villain would not be interesting. We need someone to cause a conflict or problem in a story. Star Trek IV. Conflict doesn't have to have a face or a name. It did have a name, it was simply labeled "The Probe". And it did have a face: a glowing blue beach ball attached to a tootsie roll several miles long that had a thing for whales. It is true, conflict could be as non-corporeal as a character fighting his personal fear of the darkness, but that isn't for Star Trek, at least not on the big screen. I agree; I am really not interested in watching a rehash of the old with the new, that's what the first season of TNG was and it wasn't all that good. And I do not want to see Nero re-appear in a "third" movie based on the alternate universe. But we do need Klingons to scrape off the starboard bow in the next one. That's not exactly what I meant.... It's like saying that the bad guy in "Twister' is the Tornado. "It" is. Seriously. Or Nature is.
No. A Villain needs to have deliberate intent for wrong doing. That's the dictionary definition of Villain. The Probe didn't have that. It was merely a probe, scanning for life. Tornadoes are phenomena. They are not there to create a conflict. The conflict is caused by them being there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:44 pm
|
|
|
|
Matt Pniewski Frogr1701 Matt Pniewski Frogr1701 Matt Pniewski Star Trek IV. Conflict doesn't have to have a face or a name. It did have a name, it was simply labeled "The Probe". And it did have a face: a glowing blue beach ball attached to a tootsie roll several miles long that had a thing for whales. It is true, conflict could be as non-corporeal as a character fighting his personal fear of the darkness, but that isn't for Star Trek, at least not on the big screen. I agree; I am really not interested in watching a rehash of the old with the new, that's what the first season of TNG was and it wasn't all that good. And I do not want to see Nero re-appear in a "third" movie based on the alternate universe. But we do need Klingons to scrape off the starboard bow in the next one. That's not exactly what I meant.... It's like saying that the bad guy in "Twister' is the Tornado. "It" is. Seriously. Or Nature is. No. A Villain needs to have deliberate intent for wrong doing. That's the dictionary definition of Villain. The Probe didn't have that. It was merely a probe, scanning for life. Tornadoes are phenomena. They are not there to create a conflict. The conflict is caused by them being there.
Something went amiss here...I think my attempt at humor was mistaken for my labeling the Probe as a villain (face and name)...thinking you were trying to make a point that the conflict of a story did not have to have to have a "villain" in the flesh (which I agreed with)...and then I mislabeled "bad guy" as "villian" still in the "conflict" thinking but you weren't...because I consider the tornado to be a really angry air elemental?
Now that I think about it, could the Probe have had a deliberate intent for wrongdoing? After all it couldn't hear from it's whale buddies so it started wrecking up the place. Otherwise I'd have to assume the 'alien probe' had a mind of a child and didn't understand it was harming Earth (hard to believe) until two teeny tiny whales told it everything was going to be okay...great a giant alien intelligence whose only interest on Earth was in its Humpback Whales with a childlike mentality...since its never known to us how the Probe actually feels, its all left to guessing...oh Gods I need to warp a couple of laps around the Antares Nebula... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
