A friend sent me this today

http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/pictur...ictureid=14117

Nice!

/Rep!

Do you think they actually made the recent Star Trek movie just to have affordable actor's images for Kirk & Company for games like this?
Did anyone actually see the movie? Was it any good? Could the new Kirk act?

You mean you haven't seen it?

and nobody told you how great it was by now?

It was pretty great. Better than you'd expect.

Hellboy is correct!

See the movie Tom, preferably in HD and surround sound!

Yeah I was really impressed too.

Very well cast. The new Kirk is a fairly good actor. But the new Bones and Spock are both fantastic actors! It's worth seeing for those two alone.

Ooo, pretty.

***

It's a good action movie. It's better than most Star Trek movies, really, but lacks the character depth to be truly great. Still, it's energizing, and I find myself hoping they'll build on this start and do something truly fantastic next time.

But, do see it!

In all fairness, given the subject matter and the fact that this a reboot of a decades-old (campy) franchise, "depth" is not something I was expecting to enter the conversation.

Campy? CAMPY! {insert 18 paragraphs of nerd rage}

'Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder.'

*FWUMP*

See Here


>>edit>>
I'm pretty annoyed I couldn't find a clip without ads.

Perhaps this is a good time for me to point out that I am a big fan of Star Trek?

All the same, the original series was campy, even by the standards of the day. That it evolved into something much larger is impressive nonetheless.

In short; Tom, see the new movie.

Nonsense. You can say it's campy by today's standards, and that's a little harder to deny (though I might still try if I get riled enough), but to say that it was campy by the standards of its own time is, to be frank, quite ignorant. Have you ever watched "Lost in Space?" (The old show, not the movie remake.) That came on the air a year or two before Star Trek, and that was what people considered normal for televised science fiction. Star Trek was dramatically groundbreaking, shattering everyone's preconceptions about what was possible for science fiction, and was one of the first major SF vehicles (televised or otherwise) that showed a future where mankind wasn't constantly at war with each other or some monstrous aliens, but was rather at peace, and seeking peace with its neighbors. It's easy to call a fifty-year-old show campy now, but I'm quite sure that nobody thought it was campy then.
Not to mention that it was largely responsible for paving the way for and inspiring many other sci-fi projects that came after. George Lucas was a fan of Star Trek, and attempted to secure the license for a Trek movie before he made Star Wars instead. Read about the unmade series "Star Trek: Phase II," that was planned before the first movie, and see how many famous and prestigious writers were drooling at the chance to even pitch a story to Star Trek. Note that the director of "Star Trek: the Motion Picture" was a multiple Oscar winner. There's plenty of evidence, if you care to look for it, that Star Trek was taken quite seriously at the time.

And, I daresay, the only reason some people consider it campy now is that they give too much preeminence to effects over story.

How's that for nerd rage? It's nothing person, I assure you, it's just that I love reading behind-the-scenes books about the entertainment industry, and so I've read a lot of non-fiction about Star Trek, and your remarks seem to indicate a distinct lack of historical context.

I agree that ST: TOS was revolutionary for its time, but that was an opinion that was held by an extreme minority when the show originally aired. Science Fiction was well on its way out as a genre, and ST (despite a three-year run) had difficulty finding a core audience to sustain the show.

Frankly, the average American didn't know what to do with the series and many of the morals expressed in the show's stories were lost on folk as a result.

Most of ST's influence and popularity came from the syndication of the series that occurred post-cancellation. When the show re-aired, it found an audience that was far mroe receptive to the message behind the show's flashing lights and bright costumes.

So yes, the show was viewed as "campy" during its original run by many Americans. This in no way, at least IMO, diminishes its overall impact as a socially-aware media. I just maintain that most of its influence and longevity occurred after the fact.

Again, I think you're quite mistaken. Remember that when Star Trek aired, the networks didn't have our current system of Nielsen ratings, but rather a less effective system for tabulating viewership. NBC adopted the Nielsens shortly after Star Trek was taken off the air, and discovered to their surprise that by the new system, Star Trek had been one of their very highest-rated shows. Remember that Star Trek was saved from cancellation, not once but twice (it was almost canceled after the first season as well), by a letter-writing campaign which was so big that NBC actually posted an announcement at the end of a Trek episode, saying in essence, "the show has been renewed, please stop sending us letters," because they were receiving so many. That doesn't sound like an extreme minority to me.
There's plenty more anecdotal evidence to indicate that Star Trek then was on par with maybe something like "Lost" now. Just because the network didn't think it was profitable doesn't mean it wasn't popular.

Science fiction couldn't have been on its way out as a genre, because it hadn't been in yet, certainly not on TV. And the reason it did then come in was largely because of Star Trek.

It did have a very strong core audience, especially in the 18-24 crowd, which is why the third season Friday night time slot was such a death blow. All those college kids (their established core audience) were out partying or having fun at that time, not sitting at home in front of the TV. If Star Trek then really had been a bunch of loser geeks living in their parents' basement, and not regular people with social lives, then there wouldn't have been any problem with the Friday night time slot.

I don't know from where you're drawing this assumption, but everything I've read indicates otherwise. Viewers, especially the young, "hip" viewers, responded overwhelmingly to the morals expressed on the show.

True, it did flourish in syndication, but the show went into syndication almost immediately after it was canceled, and the reruns were a tremendous ratings success just as quickly. It wasn't like the show went into hibernation for five years, and then came back when a new cultural tone made the viewers more receptive to it. The overwhelming success of the reruns (which, in some markets, were put in prime-time and got better ratings than new material), simply demonstrated the popularity the show already had, which only wasn't known because of the less effective ratings systems used while the show was on the air. The only thing that "found an audience" in syndication was the rating figures. The show's audience had been there the whole time.

And I maintain that you're making assumptions that are in ignorance of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Have you read any books on the subject? It doesn't make you less of a fan if you haven't, but just don't speak as if you're an authority on the subject, when you seem to just be making guesses based on your preconceptions.
I can't argue with you if you say that you think Star Trek is campy (although I certainly will disagree), but saying that most people thought it was campy back then is a statement of fact that is simply mistaken. It's like if someone said that the new movie wasn't real Star Trek, on the basis that the writers aren't fans of the old show. It's been well-established that the writers are fans of the show, therefore making such an accusation would only indicate a lack of awareness on the part of that poster. In essence, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't assume that other people (especially people fifty years ago) feel or felt the same.