[quote="Redmao"]Its just cool to have new playsets for the Joes and Cobras in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.[ /quote] FTFY

_________________

Say what you want about the new movie but Star Trek has needed a reboot for years. I remember when DC said enough and had to reboot with Zero hour. Star Trek is just as messed up as DC was, if not more.

Besides that, the original Star Trek was campy, just like Bat Man was campy in the 70's. What's the biggest blockbuster summer hit from 2008? Bat Man, The Dark Night. Does anyone think that film would have been better with Cesar Romero as The Joker? I doubt it. Would you rather see Adam West (even in his prime) in that movie instead of Christian Bale? I know I'll pass on that. Heck, I put Adam West and William Shatnew is the same league of BAD ACTING.

Everyone that is turning their noses up at the new Star Trek should remember that sometimes things can be made better. I remember thinking the Transformers movie would fail but that was before I saw it. I'm glad I was wrong and that was when I started to think I should give it a try before I give it thumbs up or thumbs down.

I won't be the first guy in line when Star Trek comes out, but I will go see it and I'm looking forward to it.

_________________

Sorry man Chris Pine and Christian Bale are not even close to the same league. Also Classic Star Trek was no way as campy as the original Batman. The original Batman was made to purposefully be ridiculous and mock the character of Batman. Adam West never tried to be a serious actor nor did any of the other actors on that show, it was a very simple and easy paycheck.

Star Trek on the other hand had serious episodes and explored serious situations going on during those times. You need to get past what was technically possible in special effects (which wasn't any worse than any of the other shows of that time but in fact better) and see the deeper message behind that show.

Now something I find interesting is the almost rabid "need" certain people have for this new Star Trek film to be liked. Almost every argument I've heard against this "new" Star Trek is pretty valid. Most feel it is the continuing watering down and lessening of something they loved. The trend started in Voyager when they brought on 7 of 9. Who I loved to look at initially but then I found I didn't tune in as time went on because they were relying on her curves to get viewers. This lessened the franchise due to the transparency as to why they brought Jeri Ryan on the show (great T and A and get the guys and some girls to tune in every week to look at her so don't worry about story)

In Abrams movie we now have a bunch of "pretty" folk and there isn't much going on under the hood. They have taken all of the classic actors and put them through the shallow filter of our current time and made them "prettified" versions of the original actors who were all attractive but normal looking. People who we could all identify with. I guess in the future all of the men are going to be GQ models and all of the women will look like Pornstars.

The thing that has always cracked me up with some Trek fans is that they go on and on and on and on about "IDIC" and yet they never accept opinions that differ from their own. "IDIC" fans if you really grab onto this concept as your motto then you need to accept the fact that some people don't like the approach or methodology of this movie and are not going to see it or like it. It it bombs it bombs and probably deservedly so.

_________________

I laughed when I thought of simon pegg posing on the cover of GQ

Personally, I think the movie is a bad idea and from what I have heard about the storyline, I will wait until it comes onto cable. The last great Trek film as far as I am concerned was Voyage Home. The absolute best is Wrath of Khan.
The only thing I am looking forward to about this film is the 4 inch figure range.

_________________

I think you are missing my point. Whether or not you think Bat Man was meant to be campy (and I read Adam West DID take the role seriously, but he was the only one), my point was it's been remade and is a vast improvement. The fact that you say Bat Man was made to purposefully be ridiculous and mock the character of Batman only helps to prove my point. If they tried to mock Batman and he's been brought back to this level of fandom only helps with the point I've been trying to make that sometimes remakes are an improvement.

Seriously, Shatners act was horrible. Nemoy, Doohan and Koenig were the only half decent actors on the original show.

As for being all pretty boys, I would never consider Simon Pegg as a good looking guy. He's funny as all get up, but he's no Brad Pitt. Should he shoot off the tip of one of his fingers for the role as Scotty while he's at it?

It's a new cast, a new ship and a new direction for an old campy show that the network had originally slatted to have cancelled but fans managed to keep it alive a bit longer.

Besides, no way can this movie be any worse then the original Star Trek movie. Now there is a move I can never bring myself to watch again. Veger. Gah. What a snooze fest that one was.

_________________

Ironic since The Motion Picture was closer to the higher standards that Roddenberry wanted. Also you watched it once, did you watch the director's cut?

As far as Batman goes. The character was originally created to be serious. He was for several decades then the Bat Man t.v. show came along and caused 20 years of damage on the character until Frank Miller's Dark Knight storyline came around in '86 and gave Batman his balls back. Then the '89 movie came along and continued the trend until Schumacher came into the fold and went back to the...well whatever it is he did to those movies.

Star Trek was never created to be campy or to ridicule itself as the camp Bat Man did. A shot in the arm as you put it would of been good if they had casted it with more integrity then what they ended up going for. I'd say Greenberg as Pike is the most substantive casting they made (although he looks nothing like Jeffrey Hunter). This is an actor with real acting chops and is the template that Abrams should of used if he took the property and characters seriously. It doesn't help his case that in most of his interviews he comes across as a horses-ass but then that may just be him.

Based on your above statements you sound like the the type of guy that they are making this movie for. The current "generation" out there wants a lot of sizzle and no steak to just about everything. Substance in things have gone out the window sadly.

I also find it funny that out of all the people in the cast who are GQ/Pornstar quality. Those folks are glossed over by people disagreeing and decide to point out Simon Pegg. Ohhhhkay I concede Pegg isn't GQ quality, so where are the snappy comebacks for the rest of the main cast? Exactly my point.

_________________

So they are making 3 3/4" figures for this movie....


Put me in the same boat as everyone else who hopes that they will have some decent articulation. Regardless of likenesses, it will still be cool to finally have some 3 3/4" Star Fleet representation.

_________________

Actually, Neal Adams moved Batman away from the Adam West show and back toward his roots as early as 1970. As far as 20 yrs of damage, I'm sure we all watched and loved that show as kids. Nevermind that's how Batman was portrayed during the silver age.

_________________

Bats really started to lean to the "adam west" idea after the congressional hearings from congress on the "damage comics were doing to the youth of america, " Tons of comics had to clean up thier act especially after EC was dragged through the mud and ended up shutting down (but did give us Mad magazine so not all bad).

Willaim Gains was actually asked how much blood was appropriate for a decapitation.

Also where the comics code authority came from (which was intended to halt government regulations which would have amounted to censorship).

And jcast is correct that Bats got serious again in the 1970's (in fact some of my fav Batman stories come from that era). The major problem in that era was continuity and the fact that one issue would be completely ignored after a major function in the previous one (This is even more pronounced with Superman however, but did happen to Batman as well) hence why Crisis on Infinite Earths happened (To explain the multiple storylines that didn't connect on any level as well as clean up the continuity).

The point being while I love Frank Miller and give major props to many of the stories he has created over the years, he does not deserve sole credit for switching gears on Batman, there is a laundry list of creators who deserve just as equal credit for this.

Looking at the promo photos for the new movie, yes the new crew is an attractive bunch, but isnt that what the original cast was supposed to be? Atleast attractive by the standards of that time? I am sure now that you look back on the old trek series you dont see Shatner as attractive in any way, but back in the day the standard of attractiveness was different and by the standards of the 60's the crew of the enterprise was a grouping of attractive actors. Nimoy being an obvious exception ofcourse.

I was about to make that exact point but you beat me too it. I'd throw McCoy in the "not so hot" list from the original series as well.

Still what does hot or not have to do with anything? Does anyone think that a big motion picture is going to cast the lead characters with Steve Buscemi as Kirk? Heck no. Oh course they are going to use good looking people. This is Hollywood we're talking about. What's the point about?

_________________

Maybe the new Spock will put out a music album like Nimoy did. If you've never heard Nimoy sing, you owe it to yourself to check it out on Youtube!

As with everyone else, if the figures are decent, I will buy them.

*Actually* Batman moved away from the TV show before there was a show to distance itself from. Julie Schwartz revamped Batman in 1964, erasing the Bat Family (Batwoman, Batgirl, Ace the Bathound, and Alfred) and returning both Batman and Detective Comics to their mystery story roots.

And while the correleation is there, the Silver Age Batman stories were not exactly the same as the TV show. The move to Sci-Fi villians, space adventures, and humor over brooding were all moves to lighten the comic and tone down the violence. But the stories were, if ridiculously conceived, serious sci-fi tales of Batman and Robin fighting evil.

The TV show, on the other hand, was a light-hearted comedy that played the ridiculous situations for laughs. It was *meant* to be campy, because that's what the audience was looking for. This is the same era that birthed The Monkees, the Flying Nun, Laugh-In and a thousand awful technocolor hipster spy movies. Nothing was to be taken seriously!

man buscemi would be an awsome mccoy.no one can grump like busci.

_________________