Comments on: 10 Things Mission: Impossible: III Can Teach Us About JJ Abrams Star Trek

By: chris pike should be played by chris pine lol

chris pike should be played by chris pine lol — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:16:48 +0000

Martok kills fan interest in film and in thread due to pessimistic comment

By: Martok

Martok — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:44:44 +0000

JJ Abrams kills the franchise.

By: chris pike should be played by chris pine lol

chris pike should be played by chris pine lol — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:10:34 +0000

this film definitely has potential, although one thing im very disappointed in is who jj got to score the film..although giacchino has composed some amazing scores, honestly i’d hoped this new film would bypass the concept of a score entirely save for the familiar trek theme and selected transitionary scoring in favor of actual songs…that would help ground the film in reality, making it more believable as well as providing an identifiable musical anchor to attract mtv-type audiences whilst not compromising star treks core values, messages or canonical integrity…as for the concept of a new series…i’m thinking paramount should get alfred gough and james millar, who are the geniuses behind one tree hill, but proving they could do scifi as well, are also the ones behind superman prequel series smallville…trust me, these guys are the ones we should want to make a new star trek series…:)

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:42:45 +0000

#109—I understand what you’re saying regarding TOS, but it is no longer 1968, and there are alot more historically relevant events which have taken place in realtime since, as well as canon “fictional” history which has since been established. I don’t think that historical references beyond pre-1968 Earth would characterize the film as outside of the true spirit of Star Trek. This film needs to be relevant to today’s audiences in order to secure a future for Trek on the big screen, which in turn should generate enough interest beyond us old fans to justify any future television series. I realize your post is probably sarcastic in its intent, but it resonates with the old guard fan a little too much, IMO.

The whole question of honoring TOS too much is a tricky one. It should, IMO, pay some homage to the original series (and perhaps even to the spinoffs), but the future of Trek fandom is not with me, but my kids and their peers. Whatever gets the message about the vision of a better future for mankind across to a new and broader audience is fine with me. If that means a revision within an “alternate timeline”, utilizing the iconic original characters and the Big E as a vehicle for relevant social commentary, so be it. As long as it’s good worthy entertainment, then I am ready to embrace it. Bring it on, JJ.

By: Dom

Dom — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:41:17 +0000

GaryP (109) It’s also possible that an era scarred by devastating nuclear wars is something people are conditioned not to talk about!

By: GaryP

GaryP — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:06:48 +0000

As long the script mentions ‘20th Century Earth History’ over and over again, it will stay true to the spirit of the show. Kirk and Spock took great interest in Earth History, especially when it took place before 1968. They must have fallen asleep during classes on the 21st and 22nd century.

By: Jerry Seward

Jerry Seward — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:23:35 +0000

#104-I think they can bring Jim Phelps back. That guy in MI:1 may have had the same name but there was no way he was the classic James Phelps from the original series and the later ’80s series. I remember reading the original plan was for the team at the beginning to be made up of original cast members and so Phelps would have killed off his old teammates! Thankfully, none of the original cast wanted anything to do with the film. For that alone, MI:3 is the best of the three IMO and not the first film.

By: star trackie

star trackie — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:46:13 +0000

#105 “directing by shakey camera…couldn’t tell where the actions was set”

Shaky cam=bad. I hope JJ doesn’t go handheld until a scene or mood calls for it. TOS used hand held cameras all the time, and did so effectively, because they were used primarily for action scenes. That juttery, uneasyness works perfect when Kirk is mixing it up with Tracy in a fight to the death. But when two characters are just talkin, I hope JJ’s camera isn’t “peeking” through any plants on the table or moving up-down-over-up down…I just want to watch the actors act, not get seasick!

By: James Heaney - Wowbagger

James Heaney - Wowbagger — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:39:51 +0000

Great article, Anthony.

MI:III was sexy. Shame that Tom Cruise had to be the star. Ah, well. Still a good flick.

By: Stewart Kerr Brown

Stewart Kerr Brown — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:02:26 +0000

Oh dear…if MI:III is what we have to gone then Star Trek is dead. MI:III was terrible….directing by shakey camera…couldn’t tell where the actions was set….Tom Cruise’s ego running rampant…poor CGI….awful….