What now for Star Trek? (spoilers)

[wayzim]

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/69...-Spoilers.html Interesting read. Wadda you guys think? Since they already tapped the new BattleStar Galactica for the warp affect ( and we know how that show handled the original plot. ) Abrams and crew should just go ape-shit and be original. Keep the basics intact but don't worry about trying to placate everyone. Make a great freakin sequel. Like Harlen Ellison had said to J. Michael Strazynski (creator of Babylon 5 ) "If it's crap it won't sell, so don't write crap. " Not entirely true, because the universe is unfair that way, too much crap has done remarkably well. Whatever, this is an opportunity to do well. Wayne Z

[darth los]

No way. Q is way above Khan (if you consider him a "villain", which is kind of fuzzy). If you want to bring the next generation into it I guess you could make that argument. That's part of the reason I brought up being a recurring character. That almost by default makes the villain have more impact on the cannon and thus a "greater" villain. Can you just imagine if Khan would show up a couple of times a season wreakig havok!?! That would have been freakin' sweet man! In terms of Spanish accent, in the absence of any other ideas I nominate Antonio Banderas. ( Just a suggestion)

[Publius]

I've not seen it yet either so I don't know exactly what happens, but of course it does require a ridiculous amount of energy to blow up a planet. However, to bring back the dead as unstoppable eating machines you'd need to go one further and actually reverse the flow of cosmic entropy! Local reduction of entropy in an open system is what life does. From a physics perspective, it's within the realm of plausibility for a bacterium or nanobots to take over and reanimate a corpse, at least for a short period of time. The biggest difficulty is postulating an energy source that will extend that period of time for as long as possible. But what happens in Star Trek is a total non-starter as far as the laws of physics are concerned.   My understanding is that the planet is not just blown up, but is eaten by a black hole. The mass of the black hole could not possibly eat up Vulcan anywhere near as quickly as is shown in the movie -- the event horizon and tidal forces would just be too small -- and before the planet could be eaten up, the pressure of all that matter would cause the bulk of the planet's mass to blow off in a huge explosion (probably killing those watching the destruction of Vulcan) before it could actually be sucked into the black hole. Some of these details were discussed extensively back when the Large Hadron Collider became operational last year.

[Mike70]

Local reduction of entropy in an open system is what life does. From a physics perspective, it's within the realm of plausibility for a bacterium or nanobots to take over and reanimate a corpse, at least for a short period of time. The biggest difficulty is postulating an energy source that will extend that period of time for as long as possible. But what happens in Star Trek is a total non-starter as far as the laws of physics are concerned.   My understanding is that the planet is not just blown up, but is eaten by a black hole. The mass of the black hole could not possibly eat up Vulcan anywhere near as quickly as is shown in the movie -- the event horizon and tidal forces would just be too small -- and before the planet could be eaten up, the pressure of all that matter would cause the bulk of the planet's mass to blow off in a huge explosion (probably killing those watching the destruction of Vulcan) before it could actually be sucked into the black hole. Some of these details were discussed extensively back when the Large Hadron Collider became operational last year.   and a really small black hole might not even get the chance to get started because it just might evaporate very shortly after formation because of hawking radiation.

[bassman]

No story details, but great news that Abrams has officially signed on to return for the sequel. Script being polished, filming begins at the end of this year, release either Christmas 2012 or Summer 2013. Yay. Just thought that picture was awesome...

[AcesandEights]

Awesome news as far as I'm concerned! Been waiting on this announcement.

[Mike70]

Awesome news as far as I'm concerned! Been waiting on this announcement. me too. i know that i had some criticisms of the first flick, but it's become a case of the more i've watched it, the more i've liked it.

[bassman]

The new film kinda turned me on to the older Trek stuff. I had casually seen all the movies, a few of the original series, and a great deal of TNG, but after seeing the new film i'm now going back and watching the original series on instant netflix. Hasn't aged well, but still lots of fun. Can't wait to see what they do with Trek 2!

[Trin]

I'm a Star Trek fan. Maybe even fanboy. I'm not sure about rabid fanboy, but I watch Star Trek about 5 times a week in one form or another. Let's just get any perception of my views coming from being a fanboy out of the way. I'm not against the reboot. I'm not irritated that they forked off another universe to play in. I'm fine with them going back and starting the characters off from scratch with new actors and broad latitude to recreate events. I'm not tied to cannon. I was excited to see what the new Trek had to offer. But I hated the reboot movie. Hated, hated, hated. It was awful. On a broader note, I think the author of the linked article represents EXACTLY what is wrong with movies today. He goes into all the reasons why the Star Trek movie sucked, then excuses it all because the movie "kicked ass" with action and special effects. Is that all we demand from movies these days? I think the idea of reinventing Khan is actually a pretty good one. It gives fanboys an iconic character to draw them into the theaters, and with the events unwritten the movie could take the events in a whole different direction to keep them from seeming stale. But I have zero hope that anything coming out of Star Trek is going to be anything better than a rash of special effects executed against a backdrop of arrogant teenagers.

[rongravy]

Can't wait to see what they do with Trek 2! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAN!!! I liked the reboot. Also, only ever liked original show and crew. Eff that Next Gen and beyond crap. My sister shits her pants over it, though.

[Trin]

Star Trek has been a troubled series on the big screen since day one when ST:The Motion Picture made us all take a collective yawn. Wrath of Khan was awesome, cementing Star Trek in that tiny category of franchises where the sequel outdid the original. After that we had a rash of mediocre movies with some real stinkers thrown in. Time travel to save the whales being my personal least favorite. Then the ST:TNG movies hit. Generations was mediocre, but iconic since it had both Picard and Kirk. And with TNG once again the franchise is hit and miss. I personally loved both Insurrection and First Contact. But Nemesis? I've never sat through the whole thing. As I wrote above I am not a fan of the reboot. And I have no expectations for the reboot sequel. I expect it'll be awful. What got me started on this today is the Deep Space Nine coming to Netflix. And I have to ask myself the question I've asked several times before. Why no DS9 movie?!? Sure they wrapped up the Dominion business in the series. But come on! Before I sit through another reboot suck-fest I'd love to see either Voyager or DS9 hit the big screen. How cool would it be for a rogue group of changelings to attempt to reassert the Dominion, dragging Enterprise, the Defiant, and Voyager into the conflict? That'd be good movie fodder right there.

[Kaos]

it is easier to believe in that than in a madman on a spacecraft or station destroying an entire planet. PS Good to see you, man.

[bassman]

Benecio Del Toro has been cast as the films villian. Rumor has it that it's Khan, but JJ Abrams is denying that. The gorgeous Alice Eve has been cast in an unspecified role. Most likely a member of the Enterprise. And last but not least....Robocop himself, Peter Weller has also been cast in an unspecified role. Haven't seen him around lately... All unknown roles, but i'ts nice to see this thing is finally and truthfully rolling along.

[AcesandEights]

And last but not least....Robocop himself, Peter Weller has also been cast in an unspecified role. Haven't seen him around lately... He was in Dexter last season. He still has that commanding voice, but he's gotten long in the tooth. He could make a great character or a hammy one depending on how it all washes out.

[JDFP]

DS9 was absolutely the best Trek. Not only was it great Trek but it was great sci-fi - I'd rank it along with nu-BSG as being one of the best sci-fi series of all time. It's just that fantastic. And I'd agree with others here that Gul Dukat was probably the best villain in all of Trek. Sure, Khan is wicked groovy - but Gul Dukat is the epitome of absolute power corrupting absolutely and madness following the loss of power in overcoming his entire nature. Marc Alaimo was incredible in the role and overall I'd rank him as one of the greatest "bad guys" in any series or film for that matter. I'd give the new Trek a 3/5 for a rating. It kept my interest and there were enough nods to we old school Trekkers to give honor/homage when it was due. However, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy other people playing the roles of these iconic legends. I'm sorry Chris Pine, you may be a fine actor, but you, sir, are no Captain James Tiberius Kirk. Only one man can ever be the real Kirk. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing Trek fade off into history or perhaps a "follow-up" series somewhere down the line - but a complete re-boot (though it's not technically a complete re-boot as it's an alaternate universe and blah blah...) of the series with other actors in the roles seems a bit pointless to me (as, honestly, most remakes seem to me - I just don't get the point) other than for a way for a studio to cash in on an established franchise for extra "given" cash available. Ultimately, my 700+ hours of Trek I have on my DVD's are not going anywhere - between that and my few hundred Pocket Book Trek novels I have enough Trek to do me for life. More in an "alternate existence" with different characters attempting to be the characters I've grown up with and know and love - even if relatively well done with some honor given to we old fans - it's just not for me. When the new Trek 2 (Re-Trek 2?) comes out I'll give it a chance on Netflix sometime (I don't go to theatres except for an extremely rare event) but don't foresee giving it above a 3/5 no matter how "great" the film may be - because it will always be a shadow of the real thing. In essence: It's like seeing someone else do a cover of (my musical hero) a Waylon Jennings song. The musician may be excellent and do a fine job - but, good sir, you'll never be Waylon no matter how great you do it. j.p.