I read an interview with Gene Roddenberry back around 1990 where he had the best line about the different look between TOS Klingons and movie/TNG Klingons: "they always looked the way they do now (bumpy-headed)- we just didn't have the budget in 1966!"
They actually addressed this in Enterprise before. I believe there was a whole arc about it. The Klingons stole the eugenics technology from the humans and tried to synthesize it for Klingons. Instead it altered their genetics and eliminated the ridges on their heads for a couple generations.
I think Warf also mentions it in passing during that DS9 episode when they go back in time to the original Enterprise. Well by "mention" I mean he says "I don't want to talk about it".
There was an old Star Trek roleplaying game that theorized that the Klingons make Klingon-Human fusions and Klingon-Romulan fusions to man the areas along the neutral zones to keep their true appearance and biology secret.
Warf's response, mentioned above, was the best way to handle it IMHO.
With the exception of the final mirror arc there wasn't a lot about that stupid show that was good.
Sounds like I missed out? I didn't watch a whole lot of the final season. I actually didn't mind the show. But also it was meh enough for me to not bother with much of the final season.
Sounds like I missed out? I didn't watch a whole lot of the final season. I actually didn't mind the show. But also it was meh enough for me to not bother with much of the final season.
I guess I enjoyed them because every character acted like a villain with the exception of the Vulcan chick whatever her name was.
It was also cool that they used the Star Trek original sets and uniforms as they gleefully killed everyone.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Some might say they took a huge risk by changing elements of the previous movies that would likely piss off the hardcore Trek fans.
Totally intentional I think, given that the last Star Trek movie (Nemesis) opened second to Maid in Manhattan and grossed $67 million, where the first reboot Star Trek made more than that on its opening!
By intentional I mean changing things regardless what hardcore Trek fans feel, in order to actually make money
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Totally intentional I think, given that the last Star Trek movie (Nemesis) opened second to Maid in Manhattan and grossed $67 million, where the first reboot Star Trek made more than that on its opening!
By intentional I mean changing things regardless what hardcore Trek fans feel, in order to actually make money
Nemesis didn't make money because it was a bad movie. Top to bottom, it was a poorly done mess of a star trek movie. In fact, not adjusting for inflation, in terms of actual dollars, nemesis is the lowest grossing star trek ever.
Prior to the 2009 reboot, do you know what the highest grossing star trek was? Again, without adjusting for inflation, it's Star Trek 4. Yep, the one with no Enterprise, a weird time travel plot and humpback whales. It was the only pre-JJ movie to make $100,000,000 (109.7m actually).
We all accepted that old trek wasn't a viable option for a massive summer blockbuster. This movie is a pandering incoherent mess that coldly exploits preestablished star trek without grasping what the intent of the original source material was.
Also, some one tell me what kirk's arc is in this movie. And how it's any different from his arc in the first one. Ditto Spock. What about khan? Why does it even matter that he's khan? Because as far as I can tell, the only reason he's khan is because everyone knows him as the most famous star trek villain.
make a new movie with new ideas. Don't make a superficial emotionless imitation that lacks any heart or consequence. The lens flares were cool.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
We all accepted that old trek wasn't a viable option for a massive summer blockbuster. This movie is a pandering incoherent mess that coldly exploits preestablished star trek without grasping what the intent of the original source material was.
But you can't make money by grasping what the original source material was about.
Or rather you probably can make money, but you can't make enough money, because it seems the studio doesn't care if a movie turns a profit.. it's not comparing a movie's income to its costs, it's comparing a movie's income to some theoretical line that's defined by what other movies have made enough money.
That's why I like that io9's article's comment that Star Trek does best on TV, because even the definition of success on TV is different (small subset of dedicated viewers vs. having to draw a significant portion of everyone for blockbuster movies).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
make a new movie with new ideas. Don't make a superficial emotionless imitation that lacks any heart or consequence. The lens flares were cool.
If they went lower budget and got good writers, that'd be awesome.
Or farm it out to a smaller studio that cares less about hitting a certain percentage of profit to justify making a Star Trek movie vs. making some other generic blockbuster movie and cares more about making a great movie and if they make some $$ even better. Embrace the smaller audience.
I hope they go TV and get some talent on board. I want Trek on TV that makes me like it like I liked BSG.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
