Comments on: Lindelof Defends Star Trek Secrecy

By: Leonel

Leonel — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:24:54 +0000

*sigh* ;)

*opening mouth, inserting foot*

So, now I feel sheepish about what I said back in #93. Forgot about the news posted January 9th about Paramount’s plans to launch a site dedicated to the movie. Still, here’s hoping for some juicy tidbits on that site, other than the trailer, about what we’ll seen December!

By: CaptainRickover

CaptainRickover — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:39:59 +0000

BTW:

“Not your daddy’s Star Trek” (Lindelof)

What mean’s that?

1.) It’s completly different, it’s only called Star Trek.

2.) It’s bigger, it’s louder, it’s faster, it’s full with SFX and VFX. But it’s still Star Trek.

If it means that, I prefer the second one.

By: CaptainRickover

CaptainRickover — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:35:09 +0000

I cannot agree with Mr. Lindelof.

A bit official informations didn’t ruin Star Wars Episode 1 or the other 2, nor ruined it the LOTR movies, nor ruined it King Kong, nor will it ruin Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull. We knew many things of that movies before they were released (except vor Indy). Seeing the design of the Naboo fighter or the ringwraiths or Hobbiton, or the V-Rex before the films show up in cinema, made myself more exiting about them and I was not disappointed (with the exception of Episode 1).

I understand why many don’t want to know anything before the releasdate, but on the other hand, the disappointment afterwards might be bigger than ever (what ever your Star Trek taste prefers).

And I can’t see how uniform designs or set design should ruin a movie, when it’s done with passion and intelligence (well, the Big E exterior might be something different in that case).

By: Eric Windelkin

Eric Windelkin — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:54:07 +0000

I’d like to throw in that the “not your father’s trek” is a loose quote of the 80’s tv commercials featuring none other than Shatner and Nimoy along with their real-life kids, saying this is “not your father’s Oldsmobile”. The sad part was, they were right. In the 80s, Olds sucked! Is that what we can expect from “not your father’s Star Trek”?

By: StarTrekRockerGirl

StarTrekRockerGirl — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:28:41 +0000

I equate the spoilers almost the same as having read the book before seeing the movie. Chances are usually the movie is not as good as the book, and you walk away from the movie being hugely disappointed that it didn’t live up to the expectations that your imagination had already conceived.

By: Leonel

Leonel — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:36:33 +0000

Haven’t read through all the posts. And I seem to remember someone else said something like this in another article.

OK: so yes, I think they’re being a little over-the-top on the secrecy. What would I know. They should still be able to find a reasonable balance.

I mean, come on:
- If Star Wars could do it, why can’t Star Trek?
- Have the suits behind Trek not been influenced by Star Wars in the past?
- Is it really Abram’s direction to be so secret or is it Paramount?

Anyone know how George Lucas (who essentially controls the entire Star Wars franchise) allowed fans access to different levels of movie / production information based on the type of membership (free vs. premium) on the Star Wars web site?

Oh that’s right: Paramount doesn’t have a Star Trek web site. (am I correct?)

I can’t be the only one who thinks there is a financial opportunity here for Paramount..

*sigh* OK, my rant is over.. :-)

By: DJT

DJT — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:30:59 +0000

Ahhh. My peoples. We reach.

Only one more week until the teaser trailer.

Can you dig it?

By: Iowagirl

Iowagirl — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:18:05 +0000

#73
Maybe you should become less mini and more Kirk before speaking again.

By: Gary Seven

Gary Seven — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:01:22 +0000

#73 Writes:

“Speaking as a member of mainstream socioty who happens to have nerdish tendancies”
and:
” Seriously, keep the preachy to yourselfs.”

“Socioty?” “tendancies?” “yourselfs?”

New can mean improved, but not necessarily, as per my post in #14. Sometimes new can mean a lack of concern with what is thoughtful and tested by time. The above is a case in point.

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:47:30 +0000

#86: And there is an awesome trailer that shows “old” Iron Man and new are faithful to the comic, and that Black Sabbath still matters. No-brainer and high-fives all around for that one. Iron Man fans are on the edges of seats for this one.

For some reason, Trek fans are not worthy enough to be exposed to such preliminary coolness. Yet.