First Star Trek 2 leak

[docm]

Greg Grunberg (Lost) may play Harry Mudd

 

[mattblack]

Greg Grundberg is a good actor. And I hope the second film will be better than the first was. If anyone thinks by that comment I disliked the first new film; no -- I liked it somewhat, but many aspects of it dissapointed me. Seek out other threads about that film if anyone is curious, as I could not be bothered to retype it all now.

 

[nimbus]

The best possible advice to any movie goer before seeing any movie is to avoid critics or reviews like the plague.

 

[jim48]

Hmm. Harry Mudd. The Star Trek movie was quite good, IMO. They sure crammed a lot into two and a half hours. I'm a 50 year-old Trekkie who was mostly quite pleased with what they accomplished. They kissed my ring sufficiently then went off and did their own thing. As for the sequel I know that we'll be hearing about Harry Mudd and tribbles and Klingons and the Gorns and maybe even those guys who came from Andromeda to take over our galaxy. Lots of rumors starting to float, write your own. I did like the Star Trek movie with some minor gripes but based upon that one I can't wait to see what's coming to a theater near me in two years!

 

[ZenGalacticore]

IMO, the best scenes in the new Star Trek movie were the ones that relied on the personalities and interactions of the characters of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and McKoy. And all that was written and created by guys over 40 years ago.

And the bridge? The bridge looked like an art deco hair salon one would see on Fifth Avenue NY, Hollywood blvd, or Buckhead village in Atlanta. It was too bright, and had too much crap going on, just as I expected.

I hope they do a better job on ST 2. Screw Mudd. They should do a revamp of the 'Doomsday' machine or maybe the ''Immunity Syndrome" and develop more the interplay with Spock and Mckoy, and Spock and Scotty like in 'Immunity'.

BTW, I thought the whole Kirk thing with the 300 year-old automobile was rediculous.

 

[CommonMan]

HARRY MUD? I liked Harry, don't get me wrong but, there are so many other more dangerous and exciting plots. We need really BAD guys for a movie. Lets gey Jim48 to write a plot.

 

[StarRider1701]

The best possible advice to any movie goer before seeing any movie is to avoid critics or reviews like the plague.

Better than that nimbus, if the critics hate the movie, I go see it because its usually great!

I liked the new Star Trek movie, I thought it was fairly well done and a fun ride.

IMO, the best scenes in the new Star Trek movie were the ones that relied on the personalities and interactions of the characters of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and McKoy. And all that was written and created by guys over 40 years ago.

I must disagree. Kirk and Spock never disliked each other, these character interactions were quite new. Yes, they did give good life to the movie. Now Bones was still Bones, and I think they did a good job of keeping him the same.
One thing I didn't like about it: In TOS it is mentioned several times that James Kirk defeated the Academy scenerio in a new and unexpected way, which was now taught at the Academy. I highly doubt that they teach their Cadets to cheat!

The way this new movie ended, with the Universe changed and all, one would hope that the makers of Star Trek would come up with new enemies and new battles rather than rehashing ANY of the old episodes. I must agree that Harry Mudd is certianly NOT a villian that I would care to see again. Perhaps they could go to the planet with the time portal where Jim and Spock when back to pre-WWII Earth to rescue Bones. (I don't remember episode names.) Only this time go to a different time and place for a different reason. I would not object to rehashing old episodes as long as something new can be done with them. Thus, Doomsday Machine would not be a good one to redo in a new movie.

 

[andrew_t1000]

I'm still not sure about the new Star Trek movie, J.J. Abrams did a great job with Alias and Fringe looks great (I'm in love with Olivia!), Lost started out OK, but I Lost interest after the 2nd or 3rd season.
With the Star Trek movie the whole look of the starship "guts" was woeful!
As another poster said, the bridge looked like an art deco hair salon, engineering spaces looked like a plant room from Die Hard 1.
The idea of building a starship on the ground was a joke! Especially after showing us a great big space station in orbit.
The story was kinda OK, it has set up a whole new universe to explore, but I just hope they do something worthwhile with it.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I'm still not sure about the new Star Trek movie, J.J. Abrams did a great job with Alias and Fringe looks great (I'm in love with Olivia!), Lost started out OK, but I Lost interest after the 2nd or 3rd season.
With the Star Trek movie the whole look of the starship "guts" was woeful!
As another poster said, the bridge looked like an art deco hair salon, engineering spaces looked like a plant room from Die Hard 1.
The idea of building a starship on the ground was a joke! Especially after showing us a great big space station in orbit.
The story was kinda OK, it has set up a whole new universe to explore, but I just hope they do something worthwhile with it.

Andrew- the 'art deco hair salon' was your facetious Zen. And I agree, the whole idea of building a starship on the ground went against the original Roddenberry concepts, TMK. IIRC, Constellation Class Starships were built in space and are not able to enter atmosphere without burning up. And of course, they don't have to because they have that, as Dr. McKoy would say: "That atom speading contraption we call the Transporter"!

 

[StarRider1701]

Anything will burn up if entering an atomosphere uncontrollably or too fast. But the Enterprise has entered several atmospheres, including Earths without harm in TOS so I don't know where you get the idea that the ship cannot do that.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that Bones and Jim went up to the ship on a shuttle, everyone was boarding shuttles to whatever ship they were assigned to? I remember seeing the Enterprise in space dock, I don't remember seeing it on the ground during the movie.

 

[nimbus]

StarRider, Kirk does ride up to the ship, on his motorcycle. Sometime after Pike gives him that pep talk following the bar brawl.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Anything will burn up if entering an atomosphere uncontrollably or too fast. But the Enterprise has entered several atmospheres, including Earths without harm in TOS so I don't know where you get the idea that the ship cannot do that.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that Bones and Jim went up to the ship on a shuttle, everyone was boarding shuttles to whatever ship they were assigned to? I remember seeing the Enterprise in space dock, I don't remember seeing it on the ground during the movie.

In only one TOS episode- 'Tomorrow is Yesterday' did they imply that the Enterprise entered atmosphere. The jet pilot in 1968 America caught glimpse of the ship while he was flying at around 40,000 feet. But that was just creative license to hold the story together. (Had the ship been in orbit, the pilot wouldn't have seen it, duh.)

Obviously, the Enterprise's shuttles were designed for atmospheric travel and re-entry.

Name another TOS episode where the Enterprise enters an atmosphere because I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Also, the ship had no landing struts. And, with its shuttles and its transporter, it has no need to ever enter atmosphere.

 

[docm]

Several Federation starship classes could land; TOS Enterprise's saucer section, Defiant and Voyager being three.

Enterprise's saucer section starboard and port gear showed on screen as the large, elongated triangles underneath the saucer. The rear gear was hidden where the saucer joined to engineering and would only be exposed after a saucer separation, which never happened before the series was canceled. These were added after the 2nd pilot.

Voyager landed in more than one episode - The 37's, Dragon's Teeth and Demon come to mind. Re-entry? Shields my boy, plus it would only burn up if it were traveling at high speeds. Slow to a crawl and turn on the antigrav and no problem.

Zoomed still below showing the TOS Enterprise starboard saucer landing gear, along with a contrast enhanced magnification at the top left....

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I stand corrected! I don't have a Federation Technical Manual, I was going on what I had heard as a kid! :lol:

I suppose it's possible that I had heard that it was the impulse engines section and the warp drive main cylinder that couldn't and, at any rate, shouldn't land. (And wouldn't need to land.)

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I stand corrected! I don't have a Federation Technical Manual, I was going on what I had heard as a kid! :lol:

I suppose it's possible that I had heard that it was the impulse engines section and the warp drive main cylinder that couldn't and, at any rate, shouldn't land. (And wouldn't need to land.)

I think you might still be right about the original series at least. I can't think of any of those episodes where they land. The closest being the atmospheric flight that you mention.

On a side note, I vote for the new Uhuru to go topless in Star Trek 2.

 

[drwayne]

TOS never landed, though they did try to burn up in decaying orbits several times.

 

[onesmallstep]

No part of TOS Enterprise ever landed or was ever intended to land.

Docm where did you get that bit of information about the saucer section landing and the landing struts coming out of the triangle thingies? In fact TOS enterprise did not come apart like it was a tinker toy...that did not come about until TNG came up with the handy dandy detachable saucer section.

The book "The Making of Star Trek", published sometime in the 1970s, said that landing a space ship on a planet every week was too costly of a special effect. For this reason alone Roddenberry came up with the transporter device which allowed our heroes to visit a planet's surface without ever having to land the ship.