Comments on: TrekInk: Review – Star Trek Movie Adaptation #2

By: boborci

boborci — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:53:40 +0000

33. PeterP – March 19, 2010

You don’t pay for television? Adjusting them rabbit ears a lot are you?

LOL

By: Tiiwas

Tiiwas — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:35:17 +0000

A lot of talk about the new movie compared to the Prime Verse, and Star Trek in general. I understand that this is important, but this article is about the comic (fancier: graphic novel :P). What do you think about that?

The artwork looks good enough. I like it. But Mel (#10) already said it: an adaptation is a receycled story. I would rather see something new.

By: PeterP

PeterP — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:14:14 +0000

@32 “The insult of those films was paying for something that could have been run on television.”

You don’t pay for television? Adjusting them rabbit ears a lot are you? I dunno about you, but my annual cable bill is twenty times higher than my annual movie ticket bill…all so I can have seventy channels of which I regularly watch, maybe, four.

I’ve never understood the argument that says “I want a film based on the TV show I love, but I don’t want it to be like the TV show.” In my opinion a significant problem with all the Star Trek films has always been that they have to be once-in-three-years stand-alone action movie “events” rather than episodes. Too much at stake to tell a thought-provoking, maybe even quirky “what if we discovered a civilization where…?” story.

Hence, they almost always end up being “the Enterprise saves the universe” stories…over and over and over and over again.

By: Captain Sisko

Captain Sisko — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:34:11 +0000

@30 Yes VI was a great film but it should have been V. If age wasnt important, then why is it the only time comic book characters age is when they are portrayed in an alternate universe or something. Peter Parker was in high school for a while and I think he is still in college or recently got out. The original crew should have moved on a long time ago. The Next Gen crew was aging. I could not believe how long they kept Riker as Picards Number One. The insult of those films was paying for something that could have been run on television. That is how bad they were.

Anyway Star Trek became a mess after Voyager and Enterprise came on. I appreciated the 4th season of Enterprise but I despised Voyager. It was lame and they saturated it with Borg storylines to keep it interesting but it was not a good show. Next Gen should not have gone beyond All Good Things… because they had no new ideas. Riker should have been given a command. I am happy with the new Trek and I appreciate how protective Paramount is of it. Its time to move forward.

By: ryanhuyton

ryanhuyton — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:59:21 +0000

To be honest, I don’t see the new cast doing six plus movies like the original cast did. I certainly think they will do 3, maybe 4 but that is it.
I don’t think the new cast will want to be doing Star Trek for more than a decade. Most of the new actors, unlike the original cast (with the exception of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy) will have multiple projects going on and may become too “hot” and expensive for Paramount.

I’d like to see IDW do an adaptation of some of the other Star Trek movies like “First Contact” and “The Search For Spock”. Probably not going to happen since adaptations for those movies were already done by D.C Comics.

By: Paulaner

Paulaner — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:04:00 +0000

#27 “Yes, and I also remember the good film that was Star Trek VI. I care not for age.”

To be honest, in my humble opinion, the actors in Trek VI were too old and tired. Their acting was wooden and out of place in fast situations, when energy was required. McCoy trying to help Gorkon was painful to watch, and a lot of scene looked static, without dynamism. When Kirk realizes that Enterprise is firing at Kronos One, the reactions of the bridge crew are not believable, slow, without strong emotions. I don’t know who is to blame for this, the director or the actors lacking their juvenile vigor.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:53:25 +0000

To #28

Dane Cook is NOT James T. Kirk. He’ll NEVER be Kirk. Not in even in some alternate quantum flux capacitor universe ending timeline will he play Kirk.

It’s ain’t gonna happen ;-)

By: Bucky

Bucky — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:56:52 +0000

I’ve always wondered what they’re going to do when the 3 movie contract for the actors finishes, assuming the series still still profitable say, 2016-2017 when the 3rd movie would be out. Are they going to recast the roles or pull a Spider-Man 4 and reboot but without a plot-related reason? I get the feeling they’ll get everyone onboard for a 4th movie, and then a 5th movie would be a semi-recast mish-mash (Dane Cook IS James T. Kirk) and that would be it for this series.

By: Jeyl

Jeyl — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:35:01 +0000

@26: “Remember that mess called Star Trek V?”

Yes, and I also remember the good film that was Star Trek VI. I care not for age.

By: The Watcher

The Watcher — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:33:49 +0000

I pray Star Trek is a trilogy and they cut it off when these Actors reach their mid thirties. I dont want to see them trying to do this at 50. Take a page from the original Star Wars and do a trilogy while they are young. No more Fat grey haired engineers who waits until the communications officer is an old woman to hit on her instead of when she was hot and young. Remember that mess called Star Trek V?