iso_55 Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 DC Fontana must not be around anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted May 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, iso_55 said: DC Fontana must not be around anymore. I believe she's still active but at 77 perhaps not up to the rigors of network television. I could see her submitting stories thoigh, if they are willing to accept story submissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 6 hours ago, iso_55 said: DC Fontana must not be around anymore. Not as popular as Marvel Fontana. Wanna-B-Fanboy and The Unknown Poster 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 38 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: Not as popular as Marvel Fontana. I don't know who that is. DC Fontana was a writer on Star Trek: TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, iso_55 said: I don't know who that is. DC Fontana was a writer on Star Trek: TOS. LOL @FrostyWinnipeg . He's joking. DC vs Marvel. YOU'RE A WEIRDO FROSTY!!! Edited May 31, 2016 by Logan007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 Guess you had to be there. Wanna-B-Fanboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) Anton Yelchin was killed last night. He played Checkhov in the current movie series. This is a huge blow to the movie series as the character Checkhov was aways seminal to the ST brand. IF... there is a fourth Star Trek movie should his character be re-cast? Or would it be better to just explain Checkhov's untimely death in the series & go forward without him? I've always liked Checkhov. I wouldn't be against his character being re-cast. Edited June 19, 2016 by iso_55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 His character in these films is rather minor. In that respect it doesn't matter what they do but if it was me I'd not recast and keep the character alive in the universe by way of reassignment. In that way they Honor the actor. The third film is in the can so they don't have to worry for awhile. No guarantee of a 4th. Although as gruesome as it sounds Anton's death will surely result in a few extra bucks for the films box office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 I had read he died but didn't know he was killed. Poor kid. He was a good actor too. I had watched him in some other films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: His character in these films is rather minor. In that respect it doesn't matter what they do but if it was me I'd not recast and keep the character alive in the universe by way of reassignment. In that way they Honor the actor. The third film is in the can so they don't have to worry for awhile. No guarantee of a 4th. Although as gruesome as it sounds Anton's death will surely result in a few extra bucks for the films box office Checkhov was originally created by Roddenberry to try to make the original series more hip. he had longer hair & there were storylines created where he was one of the main characters. Walter Koenig took the character from being a minor one to one where he was a major player in the ST franchise. I don't agree he's a trivial one but JJ Abrams made him so just like he trivialized ST lore by just changing it. It's too bad what the Star Trek movies have become. Trek fans love a story. They also love action but the action has to make sense with the story. All ST has become & from what I understand it will be overboard in the new film is a super fast action special effects train wreck film series. At least the movies have spurred CBS to bring back Star Trek as a tv series & in our universe not an altered one. Let's hope the writers bring back some some of Gene Roddenberry's values back into the new series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 I think major character is a bit of a stretch for Chekov. TOS was never an ensemble until the films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: I think major character is a bit of a stretch for Chekov. TOS was never an ensemble until the films. Never said it was an ensemble but if you do your TOS history, walter Koenig was brought in as Checkhov to bolster the ratings with younger demographic as the show was struggling. He got as much if not more television time as other characters orther than the Big 3. Don't forget when ST returned to the theatres in 1978, Checkhov was there with everyone else. If he was a minor & unimportant character he never would have been brought back. Edited June 20, 2016 by iso_55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 You're misrepresenting what I said. Firstly the actors who played Chekov, Sulu, Scotty and Uhura were not critical to the return of the TOS in 1978. Had any of them held out or opted out the films still would have happened In fact arguably the only person critical was William Shatner. When TOS was going to be a relaunched TV series in the 70's Nimoy opted out. Chekov was as important as the other secondary characters. That is to say not very, nostalgic aside. Scotty would have been the most important of the secondary characters Rand and Kyle were in the films too but most people won't even know who they are. I always liked Chekov a lot as a kid so don't get me wrong. But let's be realistic. In the new film series he shouldn't have even appeared until this third movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 What does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 7 hours ago, iso_55 said: What does that mean? Which part? That he shouldnt have appeared until the third movie? Because he was so much younger than everyone else in TOS. He was born earlier in the JJ films to explain how he could be in Starfleet at that time. I didnt think it was necessary. While he had the one critical role of beaming them out while they were falling, it wasnt a scene that necessitated creating this entirely new Chekov character. If it was me, I would have not had him in the film at all. Maybe you tease him in STID being "dropped off" at the Academy if you want to be cute. And then in the third one, he's introduced. Its another little hook for the third film and parallels TOS in that Chekov wasnt there from the beginning then either. It would have allowed them to use Gary Mitchell (who was the Ops officer in the second pilot) although I imagine tasking those writers with giving Kirk more than one friend in Starfleet was probably asking too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: Which part? That he shouldnt have appeared until the third movie? Because he was so much younger than everyone else in TOS. He was born earlier in the JJ films to explain how he could be in Starfleet at that time. I didnt think it was necessary. While he had the one critical role of beaming them out while they were falling, it wasnt a scene that necessitated creating this entirely new Chekov character. If it was me, I would have not had him in the film at all. Maybe you tease him in STID being "dropped off" at the Academy if you want to be cute. And then in the third one, he's introduced. Its another little hook for the third film and parallels TOS in that Chekov wasnt there from the beginning then either. It would have allowed them to use Gary Mitchell (who was the Ops officer in the second pilot) although I imagine tasking those writers with giving Kirk more than one friend in Starfleet was probably asking too much. Abrams probably never saw the original ST: TOS pilot from 1964. Gary Mitchell became a God. A naughty one mind you. Kirk had to kill him off or be killed. Then again, he didn't know what it was like... to be... a.... God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, iso_55 said: Abrams probably never saw the original ST: TOS pilot from 1964. Gary Mitchell became a God. A naughty one mind you. Kirk had to kill him off or be killed. Then again, he didn't know what it was like... to be... a.... God. Certainly. JJ was never a Trek fan. He admits this. He was a Star Wars fan. He felt Trek needed to be more like Wars. That was his angle in taking on Star Trek. Also, the purpose of creating a new universe was a plan by Bad Robot to own all derivatives of their "universe". They wanted to create an entire new Star Trek Universe with merchandise, animated programs etc. The plan was to basically write over traditional Star Trek with this new version and own it. Paramount disagreed on things and that was basically the break down in the relationship. There were some rumors of money paid to JJ that didnt add up also. CBS also refused to stop selling TOS merch because it made so much money and outsold the new universe merch. Bad Robot tried to get CBS and Paramount to come together and play nicely (with the intent of Bad Robot becoming the new keepers of Trek) to no avail. I asked one of the writers a few times what research they did and never got an answer. I believe their research was likely watching the TOS films, if even that. Because they didnt seem to have a basic understanding of the voices of the characters or their histories. The JJ characters were all sort of paraodies. Like Kirk was the wild womanizer, the stereotype of James T Kirk in popular culture but nothing like what the character really was like. Spock was the emotionless character who always struggled with emotions...so in JJ films he was constantly emotional. Bones was scene chewing one liners. Scotty was comic relief. None of it was true to the originals. When Nick Meyer was hired to make Wrath of Khan, he didnt know Star Trek. So he immersed himself in it, watching every episode so he understood what Star Trek was and, more importantly, understood who the characters were and their relationships to each other. I dont believe Bad Robot did any of that. One of their writers was the self-professed Trek expert so they all deferred to him. Except he wasnt a Trek expert and not a very good writer and so we got stuck with two films that ranged from underwhelming (09) to awful (STID). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 hour ago, iso_55 said: Abrams probably never saw the original ST: TOS pilot from 1964. Gary Mitchell became a God. A naughty one mind you. Kirk had to kill him off or be killed. Then again, he didn't know what it was like... to be... a.... God. See, Gary Mitchell would have been a great alternative to Khan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: See, Gary Mitchell would have been a great alternative to Khan. Yes and would have fit the timeline better. But then Bob Orci couldnt do his war on terror story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: Yes and would have fit the timeline better. But then Bob Orci couldnt do his war on terror story. Could still have it just diff character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 55 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: Could still have it just diff character. The War on Terror wasnt a bad idea in theory but Bob's perceptive was very anti-USA which permeated the entire script and rendered it almost useless. Too much focus on the sympathetic terrorist and the evil government. The way to do it was to make Marcus the main bad guy and expand his character and motivations. He was the **** Cheney stereotype. But show us some sympathy on his part, show us why he believes what he does. If you have to involve Khan, make it a lie...make it Khan's right hand man pretending to be Khan to save him. That would explain why he looks and acts so different. Plus preserves the reveal and gives you a shocking swerve when its revealed he's not Khan (use Prime Spock for that reveal so his cameo is more than just a "hi guys, whats shakin, yeah its nice here on New Vulcan. Take care. Love Spock". Mitchell would have taken the story in a completely different direction and rightfully so. It would have been the deep space, crew on the final frontier, all alone type of "episode" story. And the likelyhood of its success would have meant Paramount didnt panic and fire the Bad Robot production team and provided an opportunity to do a 50th Anniversary film thats worthy of the 50th Anniversary rather then this irrelevant movie we're about to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: If you have to involve Khan, make it a lie...make it Khan's right hand man pretending to be Khan to save him. That would explain why he looks and acts so different. Would not work, they would have pics of Khan(see TOS episode). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 36 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: Would not work, they would have pics of Khan(see TOS episode). Then it really makes no sense since the actor in STID looked nothing like Khan. In the TOS episode Space Seed Spock said records were fragmented and he was guessing at Khan's history. The whole khan thing in STID was convoluted and pointless anyway but if they had Joachin (or whatever his name was) pretending to be khan they still get the I am khan reveal (which Kirk never checked out anyway). And when they phone Spock to say hi he could say "that is not khan" so his cameo means something. Use the revelation against Joachin to defeat him. End the film with the camera panning the cryotubes and lingering on the face of a young Montalban. Voila. Logan007 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) Thought Spock pulled up pics of Khan on the viewer in TOS. Time to hit Kodi... Edited June 21, 2016 by FrostyWinnipeg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacklewasher Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Or just not make a movie that stupid to start with. I feel like your discussing what type of sprinkles to put on your pile of ****. Logan007 and The Unknown Poster 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now