Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Love Writing | Speaking of the Writers' Strik... »

Monday, January 21, 2008

This Is Why They Make Adult Diapers

posted by on January 21 at 12:14 PM

I almost crapped my pants when I saw this before Cloverfield last night.

But then, I read this on the website:

…featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before.

Attention, J. J. Abrams: When it comes to this franchise, the fans DON’T FUCK AROUND! Starting a whole new crew is risky motherfucking business.

RSS icon Comments


They finally got rid of that pesky split infinitive?

Posted by bma | January 21, 2008 12:25 PM

You didn't know this was happening? Where have you been?

Posted by Michael | January 21, 2008 12:25 PM

I am the rarest of all Star Trek nerds: One who doesn't spend hours on the internet reading about Star Trek.

Posted by Ari Spool | January 21, 2008 12:28 PM

I'm working under the assumption that if someone says to you, "You should see Cloverfield." It's because they hate you.

Posted by Anonymous | January 21, 2008 12:31 PM

Sounds like someone lives under a rock. I'm looking forward to this, but then again, I like TNG a whole lot more than I ever liked the original series. So even if they do fuck it up, it might be for the better, IMO.

Posted by T | January 21, 2008 12:32 PM

It's a prequel to the original series. The "young, new crew" is Kirk, Spock, et al, cast with younger actors.

Posted by Ivan Cockrum | January 21, 2008 12:32 PM

To do it with the any of the old crew you'd have to tear off the Enterprise's engine pods and convert it into an orbiting nursing home.


Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 12:33 PM

Simon Pegg is Scotty! A guaranteed bit of awesomeness.

Posted by JC | January 21, 2008 12:35 PM

Look, with my authority as a giant Star Trek nerd I want to say it's fine to give a different wording and cadence to the familiar line. It's a prequel; things are supposed to be rougher and slightly different. Think of how David Arnold incorporated little rough nuggets of the James Bond theme into the score for Casino Royale. Not until the very end of the movie does the whole, complete theme come into being. It's the musical equivalent of "this is where we came in."

And @1: Split infinitives are problematic only to old fogies who put too much emphasis on Latin grammar. This is English, not Latin, and "to boldly go" is clearly a stronger, more musical choice than the stumbling "to go boldly."

Posted by Greg | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM

All I want is a little Patrick Stewart. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by Ari Spool | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM

7, of course you are right. ari, what were you thinking? they were going to continue the series with the original crew all the way to the grave, hitting dementia, adult diapers and hemi-facial paralysis along the way?

Posted by ellarosa | January 21, 2008 12:42 PM

Cloverfield should have been called Save Beth.

And it sucked.

That is all.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 21, 2008 12:47 PM

Yeah, I am a Trekkie (NOT a Treker) and I am worried about this movie. Recasting Kirk, Spock and McCoy? I am really worried and doubt it will work. But then I think Star Trek died with Roddenberry and they should have let it die gracefully with him. Instead they have pimped it out like a cheap whore on Aurora Avenue on a Saturday night pulling tricks for crack.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 21, 2008 12:48 PM

They pretty much have to bring in a whole new cast.

The original Star Trek started in 1966, over 40 years ago. William Shatner is 76 years old. Leonard Nimoy is also 76. DeForest Kelley (Bones) died in 1999, almost 10 years ago. Nichelle Nichols (the always awesome Uhura) is 75. James Doohan (Scotty) died in 2005. George Takei is 70. Walter Koenig is 71. In other words, all of these people are either way too old to be flitting around in space, or dead.

So, yeah, a new cast seems like a good idea. I don't know much about the rest of them, but casting Simon Peg as Scottie seems like an inspired choice.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | January 21, 2008 1:00 PM

At least its impossible for it to be worse that the recent Star Wars movies.

Posted by Pastey Boy | January 21, 2008 1:04 PM

@14, my dream series was to have Uhura command a ship of her own. She would be sexy (even for an older lady) and hard core cut throat! (remember what she did to the alternate universe Sulu or her line in Star Trek III to that guy she held the phaser on?), okay I need to get out of this geek think I am on.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 21, 2008 1:13 PM
Posted by Jason Josephes | January 21, 2008 1:19 PM

People, where have you all been? Being nothing but a Star Trek dilettante, I still stumbled in to these fan-produced webisodes which even occasionally feature original cast members. They have to be seen to be believed, I'll say no more:

Posted by Erica T | January 21, 2008 1:27 PM

It's not a new crew. It's the old crew with new actors. It'll be a smash success, so long as it concentrates on characters and stories, and special effects are only used in the service of those two things.

Posted by Gitai | January 21, 2008 1:29 PM
Posted by The Queen of Space | January 21, 2008 1:34 PM

My bro was on the cast of "Enterprise" and I gotta tell ya--now that Rick Berman is out of the picture there may be hope.

Given the awesomeness that is B-Star Galactica there is (small) chance that JJ Abrams may be able to break out of the creative straight jacket that Star Trek has become.

But only if fans give em a break and have an open mind towards injecting new blood into the Star Trek universe.

Posted by Westside forever | January 21, 2008 1:55 PM

hey westside, is your brother john billingsley?

Posted by scary tyler moore | January 21, 2008 2:09 PM

Non other than Trip Tucker III.

Posted by Westside forever | January 21, 2008 2:11 PM

awesome++. can't be worse than the first movie, featuring VGER.

Posted by wbrproductions | January 21, 2008 2:26 PM

bound to disappoint.

even batman begins was fucking cheeseball.

the enterprise is hand built? bullshit.

Posted by max solomon | January 21, 2008 2:30 PM

@25, you are right! God made the Enterprise from a clot of blood and some dust. PRAISE THE LORD!!!

Posted by Mike Huckabee | January 21, 2008 2:33 PM

Slightly OT but...

Why the hell are they building the Enterprise BY HAND and WELDING it no less. Shouldn't they have some kind of more advanced metallurgic process? Or shit, you know, ROBOTS?

Posted by w7ngman | January 21, 2008 2:35 PM

Fucking commies...

Posted by w7ngman | January 21, 2008 2:36 PM

Didn't you see the disclaimer at the beginning of the trailer? Apparently, robots are bad.

Posted by Gully Foyle | January 21, 2008 2:46 PM

Maybe the robots had the day off.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 2:51 PM

Robots are stupid. Unless they're from an 80's movie. Then they rule.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 21, 2008 2:54 PM

Like Short Circuit.

Posted by Greg | January 21, 2008 3:03 PM

Or Batteries Not Included.

Or do those count as aliens?

Posted by Jessica | January 21, 2008 3:20 PM

Maybe somewhere far in the science-fiction future, the unions got their balls back and outlawed robots?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 4:49 PM

Ok, yeah, Marxist revolution and all that good stuff, but seriously.... WELDING?!

Posted by w7ngman | January 21, 2008 9:16 PM

It's a good thing you didn't see the rivets holding the Enterprise's boilers together, then.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 10:33 PM

@4's quote. "I'm working under the assumption that if someone says to you, "You should see Cloverfield." It's because they hate you."

uh oh...

Posted by NoWeKnow | January 22, 2008 1:17 AM

@36: That would be [this Enterprise][1], then?


Posted by Michael Hanscom | January 22, 2008 10:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).