Who wants Hot Toys Star Trek figures?

[galactiboy]

I'd prefer the main show outfits for TNG, but wouldn't be bothered if extra outfits were included.

 

[abake]

I loved the new movie and would buy happily figures made by HT!

 

[Valfar]

I'd prefer the main show outfits for TNG, but wouldn't be bothered if extra outfits were included.

Sure, just as long as they are not season one jumpsuit style as they are pretty darn ugly, i prefer the two piece(wool) uniforms later used in season three i think maybe it was, and onward.

 

[Balsquat]

I will take what we can get from Hot Toys, but we ain't get anything yet...

 

[Ironman1188]

Well said, General!!!

Nice to hear from someone else who also didn't drink the Abrams Koolaid.

No koolaid for me. The film was an OK sci-fi adventure, but... it WAS NOT TREK! It simply capitalized on existing characters and their fanbase to bring in moviegoers. The film could have stood on its own with original characters.

 

[D. Martin]

No koolaid for me. The film was an OK sci-fi adventure, but... it WAS NOT TREK! It simply capitalized on existing characters and their fanbase to bring in moviegoers. The film could have stood on its own with original characters.

You don't seem to understand the fundamentals of how franchises work. The exact same rules apply to all the feature films and television spin offs.

Abrams' Star Trek film is very much Star Trek. It even says so right at the beginning.

Let's look at some facts:

-Kirk is a womanizer

-Uhura's name is a mystery

-Pike ends up in a wheelchair

-Sulu is a fencer

-Spock used the Vulcan mind meld and the nerve pinch

-There was a green chick

-The villain was intense and uncompromising in his MobyDick quest.

-The Enterprise was the flag ship and is stunning

-all the characters personalities were left intact and the film did nothing to damage the past history.

 

[Ironman1188]

You don't seem to understand the fundamentals of how franchises work. The exact same rules apply to all the feature films and television spin offs.

Abrams' Star Trek film is very much Star Trek. It even says so right at the beginning.

Let's look at some facts:

-Kirk is a womanizer

-Uhura's name is a mystery

-Pike ends up in a wheelchair

-Sulu is a fencer

-Spock used the Vulcan mind meld and the nerve pinch

-There was a green chick

-The villain was intense and uncompromising in his MobyDick quest.

-The Enterprise was the flag ship and is stunning

-all the characters personalities were left intact and the film did nothing to damage the past history.

Soooo, because they ripped off the original it makes it Trek?

Burton's film said it was Planet of the Apes at the beginning, but that did not make it so.

Steve Martin had two films that said they were Pink Panther films, but they were not.

Reinventing/reimagining by way of pale, wannabe imitations does not make it what it set out to be.

 

[kl241]

Star Trek is Star Trek. Star Trek IS NOT Star Wars.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

No koolaid for me. The film was an OK sci-fi adventure, but... it WAS NOT TREK! It simply capitalized on existing characters and their fanbase to bring in moviegoers. The film could have stood on its own with original characters.

Such is the mark of a great franchise movie -- that it could've stood on its own without the backstory and characters brought by the franchise.

SnakeDoc

 

[D. Martin]

Star Trek is Star Trek. Star Trek IS NOT Star Wars.

Two actresses played Savaak in back to back movies, so if that can be acceptable, why not this?

 

[MaulFan]

Sure, just as long as they are not season one jumpsuit style as they are pretty darn ugly, i prefer the two piece(wool) uniforms later used in season three i think maybe it was, and onward.

Agreed, I hate the character looks in those early seasons with the uniforms, everyone looked scrawny and silly, the updated ones with the collars added after the first few seasons really gave them better looks. Everyone looked tougher and more respectable in them.

As far as TNG on, I like the late season TNG uniforms and the First Contact style uniforms, not a big fan of the DS9 style where the black was the main color and the top band was the red or yellow etc., kind of boring.

 

[Mad Old Lu]

No koolaid for me. The film was an OK sci-fi adventure, but... it WAS NOT TREK! It simply capitalized on existing characters and their fanbase to bring in moviegoers. The film could have stood on its own with original characters.

You don't seem to understand the fundamentals of how franchises work. The exact same rules apply to all the feature films and television spin offs.

Abrams' Star Trek film is very much Star Trek. It even says so right at the beginning.

Let's look at some facts:

-Kirk is a womanizer

-Uhura's name is a mystery

-Pike ends up in a wheelchair

-Sulu is a fencer

-Spock used the Vulcan mind meld and the nerve pinch

-There was a green chick

-The villain was intense and uncompromising in his MobyDick quest.

-The Enterprise was the flag ship and is stunning

-all the characters personalities were left intact and the film did nothing to damage the past history.

Soooo, because they ripped off the original it makes it Trek?

Burton's film said it was Planet of the Apes at the beginning, but that did not make it so.

Steve Martin had two films that said they were Pink Panther films, but they were not.

Reinventing/reimagining by way of pale, wannabe imitations does not make it what it set out to be.

I have more of an issue with the TNG movies than with Abram's ST. The TNG movies really pooped all over what made TNG such a great show. What I always loved about it was that is was almost the antithesis of TOS ST. TNG crew ran with efficiency and protocol and rules. Everyone of the crew were the best at what they did and you could count on everyone doing their job. Picard used logic and sense to out-think their opponents. In the movies, Picard became a shoot-from-the-hip cowboy like Kirk, and the main character's/crew's duties varied to suit the movie's need.

I think Abram's ST stayed true to the characters and the spirit of the show.

Anyway, I would want Star Trek II characters done. They have good possibilities for uniforms and accessories. I'd also like to see them maybe tackle ST:TMP with the tan coats from the end of the movie.

 

[Ironman1188]

Such is the mark of a great franchise movie -- that it could've stood on its own without the backstory and characters brought by the franchise.

SnakeDoc

To me thats contradictory. If it could stand on its own without the TOS characters and their backstory then it should NOT have been Trek.

Two actresses played Savaak in back to back movies, so if that can be acceptable, why not this?

The difference, as I see it, is that the character of Saavik, much like Dr. Who, didn't change, just the actor that plays the part. This was a total reinventing of those characters that Trek fans have come to know and love.

 

[DPrime]

Wah, wah, wah, it was a good movie, just enjoy it.

Let's not pretend this was anything like the SW prequels here.

Sure, just as long as they are not season one jumpsuit style as they are pretty darn ugly, i prefer the two piece(wool) uniforms later used in season three i think maybe it was, and onward.

Agreed, that would be the best to use, imo. Plus, I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather have a bearded Riker and Security Chief Worf.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

To me thats contradictory. If it could stand on its own without the TOS characters and their backstory then it should NOT have been Trek.

Casino Royale could've been a standalone. Die Hard With a Vengeance could've been a standalone. To some extent The Dark Knight could've as well.

Franchise movies are better when the franchise history adds to an already strong movie.

SnakeDoc

 

[D. Martin]

To me thats contradictory. If it could stand on its own without the TOS characters and their backstory then it should NOT have been Trek.

I'd never enjoy film that lacked a great story. Star Trek five anyone? Characters and back story don't make good Star Trek movies alone. They need good stories too.

Any "original cast purist" needs to pay very close attention to what they are defending...

Row, row, row your boat indeed.

The difference, as I see it, is that the character of Saavik, much like Dr. Who, didn't change, just the actor that plays the part. This was a total reinventing of those characters that Trek fans have come to know and love.

You must have seen a different movie than me then. The characters were the same, and the actors and the director did a fine job of honouring the characters. But I love how you can say that Saavik was the same character between the films. In TWOK she was a very emotionless Vulcan and in TSFS she was very maternal and waaaay more human.

 

[Protozaius]

All of this trivial Saavik talk doesn't change the fact that JJ Abrams' Star Trek was the most overrated film of last year.

And as an "original cast purist"... I'd like to go on record as saying I've never been truly satisfied ANY of the Star Trek movies... even Wrath of Khan where Kirk fights Khan and the members of Duran Duran.

I feel that the concept of Star Trek is better served as a TV series (OTS, Next Gen, DS9) where there is plenty of time to explore those strange new worlds and give us some great Sci-Fi stories... not as an Action event picture to be released every two to three years.

Besides the boring ST-TMP, can any of the Star Trek movies really be called Sci-Fi?

 

[kl241]

Star Trek is Star Trek. Star Trek IS NOT Star Wars.

Two actresses played Savaak in back to back movies, so if that can be acceptable, why not this?

WTF does that have to do with Star Wars?

 

[D. Martin]

If you weren't making a reference to how the prequels had different actors playing the same characters, then what was you point?

 

[kl241]

If you weren't making a reference to how the prequels had different actors playing the same characters, then what was you point?

My point was Abrams tried to make Star Trek more like Star Wars. And I'm not even talking about the Prequels.