This is excellent news. A great story concept combined with great writers/director. This is what Star Trek needs.
Still, as great as this sounds, I would have far preffered the Beginning script by Erik Jendersen. That script sounded perfect. The idea of setting a film at a pivitol moment in Trek history (The Romulan War), with an all new cast of characters, taking place on several ships instead of one --- it all sounded so good. I so wanted to see that movie. It's a true shame that that idea has been shelved.
This is a great consulation prize, though!!
Please, paramount, don't make this movie!
but, please, leave Abrams attached! We all love Abrams!
That is all.
Make a movie about acheiving transwarp drive. Luanch it during Thanksgiving. Make it relate to current events, security vs. liberities and freedom. Make it intelligent (bring in the Wachoviski brothers (sp?) if you need help). Make it entertaining, funny. Make sure the movie paces well. (Bring in Franks if you need help). Oh yeah, and whatever u do, DONT rehash. It has to smell fresh and new (Abrams can do this . . . don't know if he can do this with this particular idea though)
That is all.
Oh, and MARKET this one!! Advertise it like crazy. Kinda like Nemesis, but don't pull/shorten the advertising rotation two weeks before the movie is released. Instead, increase advertising as the movie date nears. Billboards, television, and more billboards.
That is really all.
Oh, and can we bring back Manny Coto for something, somewhere . . . he was really, really good for ENT in Season 4.
Ok, ok, I'm going . . . !
Geez!
Well, since they are not doing Harve Bennett script, I think they will not use Shatner and Nimoy in cameo roles - at least that how I see it. Paramount is not doing this for the TOS fans. They are doing this in an attempt to relauch Trek to the mass audience out there. And I think this is a mistake.
Gustavo
If there's one thing this news demonstrates it's that the "knowing Paramount, it'll suck" argument has had the wind taken out of its sails.
Some of us had an early sense that Paramount was waiting out Berman's contract, but no one could know that the franchise would get a J.J. Abrams to produce and direct.
It's fairweather to admire Abrams' past and present work but heckle his unborn triumphs.
My hope is that Abrams can wield a TOS-like mastery of allegory, archetype, and ability to meld intelligent humor with drama. And a worthy villain is a must. I'd be disappointed to see a contrived "reality" opera (like Moore's BSG), as that could time-stamp the product, and make it tedious to those whose psyche doesn't resonate with today's fashionable gloom.
--------------
Limited Edition: 40th Anniversary Phaser
Please ST: Fans! these guys at paramount are killing the series. I think that if they make this movie then it will be the end. C'mon, ST:ENT failed! have we forgotten that. I have talk to numerous ST non-ST fans, and its not the past everyone wants but a new fresh view of the future. What is happening! C’mon, paramount just write a movie, a good one stop relaying on the TOS, TNG, VOY, etc to sail on though. NEW CREW, NEW MISSION, JUST WRITE A GOOD STORY! Don’t these guys want to keep this franchise afloat! Then it needs new energy. But what do I know I’m not a movie exec….. Just one little fan. I won’t see this movie.
Ok, first the good news, it has been said a couple hundred times in this thread before: this guy and his crew are AWSOME. I love Alias and Lost and, although I did not plan to, will watch MI3 just becouse of them. Paramount, which normally screws up Trek big time, really made up for their past mistakes with this one.
Now the bad news. OK, anyone under 50, raise your hands if you want to see ANOTHER TOS movie. Now those few who did, keep your hands in the air if you want to see a prequel with two 20 something and - knowing Paramount - noname, cheap, "B movie actors" playing Kirk and Spock. Not to mention a storyline messing with continuity. Ok. Now either no one in this room has hands or THIS MOVIE WILL TANK.
I'm 27 and saw the TOS movies on video when I was 12-13, and did like them - hell, it got me hooked. But I grew up with TNG which was the most watched Star Trek series EVER, with 10-13 million viewers/week for 7 years! How many people watched TOS in the 60's?! To top this, while ratings declinde, I believe DS9 was the best written, produced, most evenly high quality Trek ever with only TNG seasons 5-7 matching it.
Yes, Voyager was TNG recycled, and ENT was a lost opportunity with too little too late in s4 (Manny rocks, though, just watch 24!). But the TNG/DS9 cast is extremely talented, well known and the storyline could be logically continued (Dominion, species 8472, etc).
Additionally, remeber how difficult it was for ENT to explain why everything on that ship looked 100 years more modern than the TOS era stuff? Remember that bridge that was cooler than the Enterprise-E's? Now what are they going to have to come up with that dates 20-40 years before TOS and still looks good on screen in 2008,in a sci-fi set in the future?!
I REALLY hope they are just testing the fandom reaction with this leak. There is still hope... (Anyone in for a journey with Picard, Sisco, Kira and Riker set in a Dominion/8472/Borg war scenario on board DS9 and the Enterprise-F?)
They could give Kirk a heroic death (on the bridge, etc.) and while he's dying has flashbacks to how he met Spock at the academy... The main plot could be the death and the academy part almost secondary but could occupy much of the screentime... of course they'd need to find a way to "undo" the death in Generations... Just a thought (although not highly original). ;) What do you think?
"I wonder what Sulu would have been up to in those early days at Starfleet Academy?"
c2235- Sulu is born
c2250- Sulu develops feelings for males
c2255- Sulu enters StarFleet Academy
c2257- Sulu has relationship with male instructor
2259- Sulu survives the Kobayashi Maru
2263- Sulu is helmsman of the Enterprise
2254- Sulu promoted to Lt
2269- Sulu promoted to LtCmdr
2270- On vacation Sulu gets drunk and fathers a child
2278- Sulu meets daughter, becomes Academy instructor
2285- Sulu is exiled on Vulcan
2288- Sulu promoted to Captain
c2289- Sulu becomes a grandfather
2290- Sulu commands Excelsior
2294- Sulu comes out, Demora is taunted and attacks her captain and dies
It's somewhat odd that they'd go with Starfleet Academy since I seem to 'ave been the only one I've ever encountered that liked the SFA concept. or at least liked the version I envisioned.
Which is alarming, because this is the second time where it appears Paramount 'ave bugged Tag HQ. *gaze left* *gaze right* *check under SFA mug*
(I "predicted" back on the BBS scene that Star Trek would eventually hire Scott Bakula as Captain (in a skit). But it was meant as sarcasm on the trend towards making Trek formulaic, warm and fuzzy!)
Now they're going for the Starfleet Academy concept. A concept which I appear to be the only one that has ever enthusiastically endorsed, so this time (in full megalomania mode - Ed) *cough* just to be safe, we shall leave no room for misunderstanding on where I stand.
Trekkies oft refer to the StarFleet Academy concept as "Star Trek 90210"
Considering recent Trek concepts under Berman & Braga, It's a potentially valid worry (of particular dubious foreboding note, the walking-breasts-in-jumpsuits on Voyager and Enterprise, smacked of
a dumbing down of Trek in order to appeal to teenage boys)
That is most certainly not what I see when I envision SFA. And from what I've read of the recent announcement, they haven't run with *my* SFA concept.
Whenever I envisioned Starfleet Academy, I saw it set in the 25th Century (100 years post TNG) future life in San Fran Earth (what will it look like? a field day for futurists and audiences) acting ensign/training missions aboard Starships, an (Bond not Continuum) Q like department on campus where new technology is incepted and developed.
In other words, *my* SFA is -all- about ***Trek's Future***.
I'm not particularly enamoured with the idea that they appear to want to set SFA in the past (no doubt in order to bring Kirk and Spock back) but I do think that the seminal Trek roles may well be able to survive re-casting.
it for example works and works excessively well on fan-produced Star Trek: New Voyages.
There is a balance that need be struck, where the #1 criteria is that it must not/cannot be handled in such a way as to offend Trekkies, but it can be done.
If I had my druthers, while I would be willing to accept the SFA movie set in Kirk and Spock's past (in order to re-energize the franchize and the fanbase by drawing in the largest possible Trek audience demographic) I would prefer a followup Starfleet Academy TV series be set in the 25th Century.
Why? introspection applied, I find setting Trek in the past defeats a great bulk of its optimism and forward momentum. The "boldly going" has at its best, always implied "..forward" (to me).
Perhaps Roddenberry spoiled us (twice) with TOS and TNG's imaginings of the future ever forward, and perhaps studio execs at Paramount are worried that they simply don't have the necessary talent to imagine a future beyond TOS & TNG's established designs, but that's why Trek needs a good Captain.
What the execs never seem to realize is that while it seems daunting and beyond their capabilities, it all starts with people like Roddenberry who open their mouths and say "we're going to design a whole new future".
After the collective gasp, the work is started, and they're off.
The SFA movie sounds good as a one-off, but if it's to lead to a new Trek _TV series_ please, for Abaddon's sake, have they learned nothing from Enterprise? do not go -back-, set it in Trek's future! the 25th Century and bring the full swing of the "boldly going" back to Trek.
And That's My View.
Michael Maelstrom.
--------
--------
Michael X. Maelstrom, The Avante Guardian, Tag. 
--------
M o n t r e a l, Q u e b e c, C a n a d a, E a r t h, S o m e t i m e s.
Well, it is better than the Romulan War scenario and the "Tiberius Chase" character, but to someone of my age (I'm 35 years old) Shatner is Kirk and Kirk is Shatner and so forth. I doubt two unknown teenagers can fill the roles and be beliavable.
Gustavo
WHO will (or can) they get to play Kirk and Spock? They won't pay anyone famous. Why do I envision a "Dumb and Dumberer"-style scenario here?
"These - arethe - voyages, ofthestarship - Enterprise..."
--------
"Let's make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise."
Jean-Luc Picard, Yesterday's Enterprise
Using TOS is understandable, Kirk and Spock are probably the richest lead characters, also the most recognizable. I'd rather see The Return or something like it, but Paramount wants a new crew to do more movies. The TOS characters and even its production design are more than capable of working today. Also, Lost is the most Trek-like show to be on tv for years, which may give Abrams a feel for the material.The concept of humans going against bigger forces had been kind of poo-pooed on trek in favor of a starfleet-knows-it-all approach in recent years; the characters on Lost are well aware that they don't know everything. That's a fitting outlook for exploring the unknown.The fact this going to be in 2008, and not a rush job for next year is a good sign. I wouldn't want a Lost clone trek, but I think we have a better chance of a thoughtful, action oriented approach with this new team. Hopefully. Keep your DVDs just in case.
Clearly the big news here is George Takeis reaction, his reaction alone will make or break the film.
With J.J. Abrams producing and directing, the musical score will likely be composed by Michael Giacchino (Lost, Alias, The Incredibles, and M:I-3).
That'd be an excellent ST:XI soundtrack.
--------------
STAR TREK 1966-2006 :: 40th Anniversary Shirt
This is certainly an intriguing announcement but does anyone think it would be better to fix Kirk's death from Generations? The new premise seems to indicate this won't happen. Then again, the new movie could make people forget about that by going to "the beginning" (in other words, it makes people think about how it all started rather than ended). I imagine there will be a huge backstory and series of events that put Kirk and Spock together (if that's possible in canon, or out of it as some have said). Shatner and Nimoy should at least do cameos (at the beginning and/or end?) to draw fan interest.
That said, they sure did a good job keeping Berman out of the loop on this. He had no knowledge of this at all. I wonder how he'll explain it away in the next UK Trek magazine interview (the only one that seems to be giving him a voice nowadays)? I have a few ideas... ;)
Only thing I dont like about all of this is the story line, Ive seen read and
heard nearly 4 decades of Kirk and Spock, is this the the best we can do? cant
we come up with a new era and new characters, or just suffocating the new era
with different versions of decades old characters. If Kirk and co are the only
attractive stars in the ST universe, then I ver that it is a one dimensional
universe.
One thing I don't understand is why bring back Kirk and Spock Granted I Love the origional Star Trek and I think TNG, DS9, not even gonna mention Voyager..Oops I mentioned it, I liked them but they were so Politocaly correct its almost horrible.
Why not do the film when the USS Enterprise NCC 1701 was on its Mayden Voyage from the planeetion Ship yards under Captain Robert April and 1st officer Christopher Pike, see where it all origionaly began.
Cause granted Captain James T. Kirk and Spock an all the others were Legends in the Star trek Universe, But Captain Christopher Pike is the one who started the Star Trek universe in the Pilot the Cage and granted it didn't go off well but in the 60's it was diffrent than it is today.
Besides William Shatner, Lenord Nimoy and the rest are the legends of their persona's putting in carbon coby's of them just seems wrong.
Coarse I always wanted a movie about Captain Sulu aboard the USS Exselsior and a run in with the Gorn or the Tholians.
The only way The Academy would work and Kirk could have run into Spock thier but more Spock giving a lecture at the acedemy while the Enterprise is called to Earth so that Pike could attend April's Coranation to Commadore or some such and it would be in Kirk's 3rd year when he reprogramed the Koybashy Maru where he would win as mentoined by McCoy in ST2 Wraith of Khan on the Genisis Planet to Lt Savvik saying your looking at the only person to ever beat the simulation.
Just my 2 cents!
Nothing
I've always felt both Bennet's idea and now this one were silly for one reason and that is that Kirk and Spock were not at the academy together. They couldn't have been. In The Menagerie, Spock says he served under Pike 11 years prior to the then 2 year under Kirk (I have always speculated that the first TOS season is the second year of the 5 year mission and that Where No Man Has Gone Before took place in the first year due to it's different look). Going on the speculation that Starfleet Academy is like today's college and is a 4 year institution, and that Kirk is early 30's when he takes command of Enterprise, it doesn't jibe. Add to the fact that fans never really got excited over Bennet's idea to begin with, this doesn't sound good for a reawakening for the franchise.
Do we even know that the Starfleet Academy story is gonna be used for this movie's plot? All that has been confirmed, it seems, are JJ Abram's lovely talent and the fac tthat the movie is being made. The Young Kir Schtick tis ust a strong rumor, no?
As for the news itself...
HOLY %$#@! This is the most exciting thing I've read all year!!!!!
I think that back in the 60s, a relatively-near future such as the one portrayed in TOS was great, however, I think that today the audience in interested more in the far future, such as the one portrayed in TNG, DS9, and VOY.
I truly think that if ENT was set in the 28th century for example, it would have still been on the air.
Why cover these years again?
I think that the movie will fail, but I certainly don't hope for it.
-Defiant
Kirk's old rival from his Academy days...
are we EVER EVER going to get out of classic Trek era? EVER?
--------
"LET THEM DIE!!!"
I remember back in the 1980s and early 1990s the hard core fans wouldn't even give TNG the time of day, and there was a huge cleft in TREK fandom between older TOS fans and mostly younger TNGers.
Thankfully, that false distinction faded. Now, another seems to be rising to replace it, and it's splattered across the boards here today. Originalists, who love and can't get past TOS as it was, and all it spawned, and rebooters, the Neo-TREKs.
So I suppose all that's left now is to name the new TREK offshoot, in which I include myself. A few suggestions: Neo-TREKs, or maybe Rebooter is a better way to go. Reformed Trekkers?
And before you wise-asses suggest idiots, morons or retards, etc. as monikers for rebooters, remember those are reserved for STAR WARS prequel fans and these waiting for a VOYAGER movie.
Yes, I said that.
--------
'Risk IS our business' - Kirk
In Harve Bennett's screeplay an older Kirk and Spock appear at the start and finish of the film. How great would it be if Shatner and Nimoy were to make an appearance like this?
BRING BACK KIRK!!!!
The greatest and most popular characters in the history of Star Trek are on their way back to save the franchise they created.
ST needs it's greatest icons to return. Now we need Shatner and Nimoy to cameo in the film and it will have been a perfect day.
[DOUBLE POST DELETED BY ENTERPRISER.]
--------
Visit The Enterpriser Zone
http://www.theenterpriserzone.blogspot.com
I can't wait to see this movie.
It's everything I would have hoped for -- a return to Kirk, Spock, and the Original Series.
--------
Visit The Enterpriser Zone
http://www.theenterpriserzone.blogspot.com
i feel the name of the film should be:
Star Trek: Beginnings
and they should have scott backula as a guest role showing a young kirk and spock learning about the great captain that came before them
You all don't have to imagine my surprise when I booted up the ol' 'puter today and saw this. You experienced it yourselves. Thank the gods I took a vacation day today, 'cuz if I would have seen this at the office, my initial gleeful "squeal" would have been quite the water-cooler topic.
As I read on, I have to fess up... I'm disappointed. Not with the Abrams decision, mind you. My glee and surprise is multiplied to the Nth degree by Par's decision to pour such resources and people into the Franchise.
I'm just extremely torn about this Academy story idea. It will take me some time to even know how I truly feel about it. My gut reaction is... frankly... ugh. Nothing against prequels or reimagining... it's the Academy part that turns me off.
Regardless of how one feels about the story, the aforementioned show of immense support from the studio is the most heartening and powerful thing we've heard in quite some time. That alone is a good thing for the Franchise, and that alone is something worth celebrating.
--------
All Your Base Are Belong to Us!
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
----
"But bringing back Kirk WILL SAVE STAR TREK!!!! Can't you tell I'm right because I used capital letters and four exclamation points?"
-Brikar
---
"Oh Lord.... he's made out of wood..." (Best Leela line EVER)
In thirty years we'll be here arguing over which actor was the best Kirk ;)
I'm very excited about this.
--------
"A matter of internal security: the age-old cry of the oppressor" -Captain Picard
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Captain Picard
The more I think about this idea, the more I hate it.
No offense to JJ Abrams; lord knows he couldn't do a worse job than Rick Berman and Brannon Braga have done. There's really nowhere to go but up for the franchise, since those two low-rent hacks drove it into the ground.
But, instead of taking these iconic characters, these fictional legends, and cast two younger actors as their youthful incarnations, why not gather some of the best young acting talents of today and start a new Star Trek saga in the present or future time? If Abrams wants to make Star Trek grittier, harder-edged, more dramatic and compelling, like Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica has proven itself to be, more power to him...but don't de-mystify the two most significant characters in all of Star Trek lore by delving into their pasts.
Now, I've heard a lot of people taking the "What a bunch of whiners!" tack. "You guys wanted Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, now you're getting them in a fresh and exciting way, and you're all complaining!!!"
Well, here's the thing...
Yes, fans want more of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. They want more of the cameraderie, the friendship, and the presence these men brought to the "mythos" of Star Trek. But, can anyone in their right mind expect two or three different actors playing their younger versions to pull this off? No way!
Star Trek: TOS was in no need of a reboot/reimagining. That idea worked for Galactica because Ron Moore and his team took a campy sci-fi series, removed the schlocky FX and kids-stuff aliens, amped up the drama, allowed his characters to be flawed and complex, and took risks in the casting of those characters. Reboot/reimagining works for characters like Superman and Batman because the readers of the comics are used to those respective characters' origins being retold or updated several times, usually to better critical acclaim than the previous versions.
But, like Planet of the Apes (that re-imagining is the reason I will always disrespect Tim Burton), Star Trek's already-established history is just fine on its own. Leave the past alone.
(sorry, duplicate post)
I have no idea what this is about. I can hardly imagine an outsider (like Abrams?) will be up for the task. I hope he will at least hire a bunch of hardcore Trekkers to guide him along the way.
I think people should lay off Berman. He's the guy that really made TNG a great show. I wasn't a big fan of the other spin-offs, but even average Trek is way better than your average TV show.
Unfortunately, rather than leave Trek with dignity, he gave us Enterprise, which tried to appeal to a broader audience and ended up alienating everybody.
Why did Star Trek IV make the most money? Because it was the best Trek. Good Star Trek appeals to everyone!
It will be hard to watch two of my favorite fictional characters of all time played by other actors - so I'm voting in favor of Bennett's idea of including Shatner and Nimoy looking back at their first adventure. But if they can put a good story together that gives the fans something in return for boosting Paramount's revenues, then let the new blood boil!
I can't believe all the negativity to this idea.
I agree w/ Steve - there are challenges like casting that they will have to meet, but man - at least its new.
I am really looking forward to it...and least it has a great chance of not feeling like the same crappy product we've gotten for the last 7 or 8 years or more. Maybe it will be a brand new crappy product. I for one am looking forward to something new to complain about.
I'm done caring about this franchise.
Maybe Speilberg can direct the one after this about the fertalization of Kirk the zygote.
I wish I could shoot anybody in the head with a shotgun that makes one more prequel of any kind of franchise I care about.
This isn't a "reimagining" of anything a la Batman Begins, because we've never seen this stuff on screen the first time.
It's just more prequel crap.
Not interested.
EDIT: Haha somebody said it was like Muppet Babies... Too true.
Goodbye Mr Berman.
Fellow fans now is the time to rally round this concept and give it our backing and support, as well as pass on our suggestions.
Lets try to put the past 7-8 years of constant whine and arguing behind us and look toward a bright future for Star Trek and the resurrection of its mass popularity.
Kirk and Spock will grace our screens once again, the actors will be new, but the story and characters will remain the same and will bring everyone who has deserted Trek back.
Be positive, the rot stops here.
Wow. I need to think about how I feel about this. A monumental opportunity for Star Trek, no doubt about it. Is it meant to add to existing cannon or is it a reimaging of Star Trek the pop icon? Will they be faithful to the characters? To Star Trek's take on the future and on humanity? No Enterprise? It's exciting to think about, but there are a lot of dangerous challenges if you ask me. But what an opportunity. Thank god they're not trying to jam it through for 07.
Oh dear. I have no interest in a young Kirk and Spock movie. Nuff said.
Gustavo
...to Tyken and the naysayers.
Quote:
There is simply no room in a movie format to provide the kind of stories and development he is both so lauded for and that Trek fans like to see in the characters.
If there were no room in a movie for in depth character development, there wouldn't BE movies. Did Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redeption need 600+ hours of backstory to make the characters matter?????
No.
Sure, they matter, but who needs to cater to the hard core fanbase??? They will go see it anyway. And catrering to them exclusively has created an almost masturbatory relationship between the producers and the movie going audience in the film franchise, especially TNG...You almost HAVE to be familiar with all that backstory to see why you should care about these people.
They HAVE to start completely over...whether it be an Academy story...or a future ship scout ship in a new galaxy. Something where a person can go in pretty much cold and judge the STORY rather than feeling like they are missing something because they don't have every season on DVD.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
I'm surprised no one has realized what this is, in all probability. This is literally the end of the first era of TREK. It's over kids. This will reboot the franchise(Paramount surely hopes), as a JAMES BOND style movie only franchise.
Let's realize this: we have seen the last of the original era/original continuity, and I'm stunned to say this: Amen.
Every enduring character in literature/movies/plays/myth is reimagined. Every single one. While I don't totally buy into Ro's ideas (though I'm liking his reboot fantasies) he is 100-percent right about the Americana aspect of Kirk and Spock, and placing them in the Batman /Superman /Sherlock Holmes /Robbin Hood /James Bond/ Wyatt Earp class.
In college I wrote an article making the case TREK taken as a whole (this was TNG/DS9 era) would turn out to be the most vivid and enduring creation in fiction since Shakespear. Yes it's crazy, yes laugh, as I do, but the case is surprisingly there. What can I say, I liked starting aruments.
What do all enduring stories in our culture eventually face: reimagining. There is no longer a difinitive HAMLET or ROBIN HOOD, or even JESUS CHRIST. There are just better or worse takes on the core ideas. (JESUS was black? Maybe or maybe not, but he sure wasn't blond). Batman, Superman, James Bond and many other enduring characters have all gone through this. Is Brosnan's Bond really supposed to be Connery's character? I doubt it.
It's TREK's time. NEMESIS' $43 million take proves it. ENTERPRISE's bleed-out proves it. It just hurts so much for many of us fans it's hard to face. While I'm a big fan of the new BSG (and only the new one) this would have eventually faced TREK had BSG come or not. Even if this Abrams idea does not see the screen, the reimagining's tinme has come. I'm now an official convert. Every era has to reinterpret important stories to fit with their own times. How many versions of the Bible do we have?
So good-bye Shatner's Kirk, Nimoy's Spock, Picard, Sisko, Hugh, Edith Keeler, Q, Quark, Archer and everyone. Thank you Roddenberry. It's been one long, loony, enriching ride.
Thank you, and see you on the other side.
--------
'Risk IS our business' - Kirk
...to Tyken and the naysayers.
Quote:
There is simply no room in a movie format to provide the kind of stories and development he is both so lauded for and that Trek fans like to see in the characters.
If there were no room in a movie for in depth character development, there wouldn't BE movies. Did Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redeption need 600+ hours of backstory to make the characters matter?????
No.
Sure, they matter, but who needs to cater to the hard core fanbase??? They will go see it anyway. And catrering to them exclusively has created an almost masturbatory relationship between the producers and the movie going audience in the film franchise, especially TNG...You almost HAVE to be familiar with all that backstory to see why you should care about these people.
They HAVE to start completely over...whether it be an Academy story...or a future ship scout ship in a new galaxy. Something where a person can go in pretty much cold and judge the STORY rather than feeling like they are missing something because they don't have every season on DVD.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
Yes, J. J. Abrams is the current golden boy of teledrama, but no matter how popular he is, Trek fans cannot overlook the present plot idea in favor of heralding a movie directed by him. There is simply no room in a movie format to provide the kind of stories and development he is both so lauded for and that Trek fans like to see in the characters.
Coupled with the failure of Enterprise and the (at least to me) painfully unwatchable Star Trek: New Voyages, going back into the past again is just not what the franchise needs.
When you set something in the past, continuity becomes sketchy -- and like it or not, continuity is a vital part of the Trek universe and is important to many fans. However, in a future setting, lengthy and detailed backstories can be fleshed out, historical events can be chronicled, and it's just generally easier to create new content without having to toe the continuity line.
Like many others, I'd love to see a new series two or three years from now, set beyond the time of TNG/DS9/VOY, perhaps 200-300 years beyond. That span of time would provide plenty of room for expounding on the characters' backgrounds, galactic politics, and changes in the vast cultures with which we've become so familiar. New uniforms, new ships, etc., but with the ever-present familiarity of the past.
I'd much rather see J. J. Abrams helm a series like this than a one-time feature film, something that would cater more to the strengths that've garnered him such popularity.
"Penciled on a napkin?"
Shit man! Harve BENNETT came up with this LAME ASS idea YEARS AGO. It sucked hard then and sucks even harder NOW!!! I have always HATED...I repeat HATED...the Starfleet Academy idea!
It's the Trek equivalent of "Muppet Babies"(remember that? :-))! For one...this whole concept is RIDICULOUS! Kirk, Spock and McCoy NEVER went to the Academy together. This is established in TOS!!!! If you are a continuity pornographer...this is a continuity pornographers NIGHTMARE! I'm not a continuity pornographer...but this is like having FRODO find the ring in Lord of the Rings instead of BILBO!
It's revisionist BS crap! And it will bomb!
Let me count the ways:
1.) McCoy is OLDER than Kirk! Too old to have been in the Academy when Kirk was!
2.) Spock is MUCH older than either Kirk or McCoy -- in Vulcan years. It was stated in The Menagerie that Spock served with Captain Pike for, I think, what? Eleven years? So, he was probably IN THE ACADEMY WAY BEFORE Kirk!
This is a stupid idea...and I'll never go see it. I would go see a reimagined Trek film with someone playing Kirk & Co. on the NCC-1701 -- but I am not wasting my time or money on this crapola!
Hell, I thought the TNG "Academy" action figures were bad too!
Mark my words...listen to me now and believe me later...whatever. This is going to be the final nail in the franchise's coffin if it gets made -- which I still doubt.
IM
I LOVE the fact that Abrams and his team are coming on board the Trek franchise. Any project that has a coveted, high-profile talent like Abrams attached will certainly get people buzzing. It shows a serious commitment by Paramount to revitalize the Trek franchise, since I assume that Abrams doesn't come cheap.
That said, I HATE the early-TOS concept. I have no interest whatsoever in seeing the early adventures of Kirk and Spock. Not even the presence of Abrams will convince me that this isn't a gawd-awful idea.
This has always been a bad idea...
Sad to see Star Trek following instead of leading - joining up again with the aging and cliched remake and prequel phase that every studio is cashing in on and will hopefully calm down one of these days.
I hope it is a remake (I could say reimagining, but I don't like fakey terms like "reimagining" and "pre-owned car")instead of some sort of attempted shoehorn into an already crowded and broken continuity, but it's too bad they're not going for something more original and exciting.
At this point it's all about money. There will be more Star Trek not because they have a great storytelling or character idea, but because it's too potentially valuable a property for the studio to leave alone for more than a few years at a time.
Barring some announcement that actually generates some enthusiasm for me (future scenes with Shatner?), I'll treat this one like I did Nemesis - skip it in the theater, get around to it when I feel like it on video or TV.
I wonder what this does to proposed fourth trilogy of Shatnerverse books supposedly set in the same time frame?
--------
"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" - Justice Scalia
I'm sorry, but I have to be the skeptical one here. This would be about the 5th time a so-called Star Trek script has been green lighted. I think this is nothing more than just a few guys getting together in a bar and writing down some ideas on a napkin.
In a few months, the idea will have been dropped. We'll find out that the comments were taken out of context (by the one and only Rickey Bermey)... and that another Star Trek movie won't likely happen for about 10 more years.
The end.
--------
"We're starfleet officers....weird is part of the job!"
This is like if they announced William Shakespeare was going to write a play about a dude taking a crap.
Not sure how to feel about it.
Fantastic helmer, but the idea blows chunks, and unless something happens between now and release I doubt I'll see it.
Huge Abrams fan, really totally not a fan of young Kirk and Spock.
"Oooh look who's that funny Scottish 'sergeant' that always bosses us around? Hope I never see him again" *wink* *nudge* *puke*
It's nothing at all like Batman begins, and if I have to explain why then it's not worth explaining.
It may end up being a great business decision but it's nothing I am as a gut reaction excited about at all.
Hopefully Speilberg will direct Star Trek 12 about the history of the Federation starring a young Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.
I must've been channeling Counselor Troi last week when I advocated this idea in a rare blog about the Jendresen script.
As others have said, this is the best thing to happen behind the scenes with Star Trek since the cancellation of Enterprise (or, wait, I said "best" thing? haha). Totally fresh, new blood. Also A-list talent. I'm not all that familiar with Abrams -- the couple eps of Alias or Lost I've seen didn't pique my interest -- but at least the studio is bringing in the big guns.
What really rocks is the idea. To bring back TREK after nearly a decade of mediocre box office attempts and the debacle that was Enterprise, they really had to do something unique. ENT's prequel with new forgettable characters didnt get the job done and neither would a post-TNG movie that relies too much on fan lore. Picard and Sisko just never captured the public interest like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, let's face it.
To get the average person interested, this is one of the best ideas. Take the original, iconic, well-known and loved characters and reimagine them. If it's anything like Batman Begins it's going to totally kick ass.
And hurrah! TrekWeb has some real meat to report for the first time in the last year! Great for our ten year anniversary! Now we've got at least two years to look forward to of movie rumors, script leaks, casting, illicit set photos, interviews, rants, bashing, praising, new music, new costumes, new sets, new ships, new everything to look forward to!!
--------
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies / This is the dawning of the rest of our lives / on HOLIDAY...
Green Day. "Holiday."
It's a rip-off. / We're stepped on, and cheated! / We're flat, stone-cold lied to / But we're not defeated / No!
Halen. "The Dream is Over."
The premise of the film is the one area I wanted Paramount to steer clear of like the Ebola virus—the early days of the Original Series characters. The idea of going back in time to look at the beloved characters' early lives works well on paper but in the movies, the premise rarely ever works. I fear that a young Kirk and Spock will merely play as parodies of the real thing.
Still, I can't help but be shocked and elated that Paramount is making such creative and inspired choices in its effort to patch the holes in what is admittedly one of my life's foremost addictions.
That long time producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga will not be involved is the single best thing I could have read this morning, even better than J.J.'s addition.
If they REALLY want to spice it up, hire old producer Ron Moore! Though, I'd hate to see his influence and creative genius anyway diminished on the brilliant BSG.
So... Berman's out and Abrams is in!!!! OMG!!! I think Abrams taking over the Trek franchaise is probably the best thing next to having Nick Meyer return (who am I kidding... he'll probably be better than Meyer). And it also solves a question I've been wondering- who will replace the late great Jerry Goldsmith as composer- the answer being the genius that is Michael Giacchino (who has scored everything that Abrams has done- Alias, Lost, M:I:III). this is going to be so awesome!!!!!
just thought of this... this will actually give us one more chance for shat to be kirk! Harve Bennet said in his script that the film starts w/ kirk adressing an academy class...
you've got to think that JJ will use a similar idea.. the Paramount marketing dept. would love to have Shat and Nimoy in the movie to appeal to the fans, while having some A-List young talent play the roles for the rest of the movie...
this may actually give us another few scenes w/ Shatner and Nimoy! and without any awkward "Kirk recincarnated by Borg Nanites", etc.
If anybody's near Philly -0 Wrath of Khan on the big screen tonight and tomorrow! www.brynmawrfilm.org
STAR TREK LIVES AGAIN!
omfg!
Guys - this is the best thing to happen to Trek since Manny Cotto - and probably, really, since Ira Behr.
JJ is one of the hottest talents in the business right now. He's part of the core group that has revitlaized the hour long drama on TV (Joss Whedon, David Milch and a few others along w/ him).
The writers from his writers rooms are working on a lot of the hottest shows on TV, along w/ Trek writers, like 24, Lost, Alias (not so hot anymore, but you know...)
Read Aint it Cool News's review of MI:3 - it looks so much better than the first two...
JJ's gonna blow up big - this is really the best "A-List" talent treatment Trek has gotten since the Motion Picture.
Bottom line: Berman's out. Paramount giving Trek to JJ shows they want to make it a tentpole franchise again.
JJ knows how to *take risks* - apparently he tears apart Ethan Hunt in MI:3 - watch the first episode of Alias or Lost... the guy knows how to put characters in a hard place and he knows how to create *drama*, basically, I think this movie will have more cajones than probably any Trek movie... especially the TNG movies...
Do I have reservations:
A few maybe... no Shat as Kirk? (and even harder to replace, let's face it, no Nimoy as Spock?)
But in terms of style, story, drama and flair, this is going to be *so* different from the *safe* TNG movies w/ their episodic bent...
Fingers are crossed. Suddenly, I'm exicted about Trek again. Now, in 2010, let's do the next TV show w/ Manny at the helm...
Really, the only thing that would have me more exicted would be a DS9 movie, but I understand the suits just dn't think it'd make money, and they're probably right... if only they had done Trek X as a crossover... sigh.
This is great news for some people. Not me. Why? Every movie needs a target audience. Who are they targetting? Most fans of TOS want to see Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock. That is why they watch the same 40 year old episodes over and over again. So, I don't see Shatner-as-Kirk fans going to see this. And I believe most younger fans, the ones who go to theaters, don't give two pointed ears about Kirk and Spock as teens.
Continuity is a huge issue with everything that happened on Enterprise. I see most fans being so skeptical of a prequel (or reimagining, or whatever this is called) no one will want to go see it.
When this movie fails the execs at Paramount will see it as Trek being truly dead.
Yes, all good things must come to an end.
What about Spock and Kirk's age differences? That's the first problem that pops in my mind when I think of this idea. We've seen Spock as a science officer under Chris Pike, eleven years before the original five year mission and guess what? He looks the same. Kirk would have been 20 or 21 years of age during that time. How are we to account for this? And what about bones? Isn't he supposed to be at least 15 years older than Kirk? How are these characters going to be portrayed?
Big fan of what J.J. Abrams can do. Looking forward to a fresh take on Trek.
We have hundreds of hours of the old stuff to keep us company. If you can't handle someone else messing w/ Kirk and Spock, watch the old stuff.
I'm not sure how I feel about the idea. I just hope it doesn't completely disregard the series and movies that have come before it.
I don't think Star trek needs a rest. I think it needs new blood with a love and respect for the continuity. The last season of Enterprise was what I had hoped the series was going to be like when it was announced. Instead, they tried to be totally separate and it wasn't very good.
It's great that Rick Berman is gone but let's hope Abrams don't mess up Star Trek like he was going to Superman, It seems like when he gets put on a classic he likes to totally recreate and ignore what's happened in the past.
To Terry212:
I'm not making up anything. It's intuitive that this isn't a literal prequel (just like Smallville isn't a literal prequel to the first Superman movie, or Batman Begins isn't a literal prequel to the 1989 Burton film).
And this whole 'moving forward' thing is a meaningless slogan. This is fictional entertainment, not a government, or a religion. There's a reason the original Star Trek has no subtitle...because it (and only it) is "Star Trek". Everything else has merely been a sequel, nothing more.
--------
In the Harsh Light of Fate
A Tear in the Veil
Just a Simple Country Doctor
(no message)
--------
In the Harsh Light of Fate
A Tear in the Veil
Just a Simple Country Doctor
It's a little late for April Fools.
Harve Bennett? Geez. How long do you think he's been waiting for this? And didn't he say that any idea of this was baloney not that long ago?
How would you even cast such a thing. Would you get dead on comparisons/imitations, or would you open it up a little or go in a completely different direction?
(Lets make Kirk a blond woman!)
--------
I distill blogging into its purest form (and give a Rabbi the finger) At My Blog!
"We shouldn't be mad at Chef for leaving us. We should be mad at that fruity little club for scrambling his brains." - Kyle Broflovski
RE: Ha.
by TRexx @ 06:21:41 on Apr 21
RE: Ha.
by Bondo @ 15:15:43 on Apr 21
The past...again?!?
As much as it intrigues me to see J.J. Abrams and his MI:3 compatriots at the helm of this new TREK feature, I really don't like their idea. Why do we need to see Kirk and Spock in their Academy days? I'd be so much more excited if we were going to see Abrams' take on the current, or future, Trek universe.
All this is going to accomplish is more pointless continuity arguments, like the kind we had going on here all through Enterprise's run.
Also, I can't help but believe Paramount will dig their claws into this and remove whatever true drama and actual character development Abrams and his team will try to put into the franchise, in favor of flashy FX and aimless plot devices.
I was just talking about how Bennett's young Kirk & Spock concept (just seven news items down in fact) is the best move the franchise could make. ;)
link
I've been a proponent of this project for years, and took all kinds of static that usually began with "this will NEVER happen". Well...the majority of Trek fans were wrong (again). :)
--------
In the Harsh Light of Fate
A Tear in the Veil
Just a Simple Country Doctor
Well, this guy worked with Cruise, and I have to wonder if there is a Scientology connection here. If J.J. Abrams is personally connected to Scientology in any way, I for one will not see the film.
Anyone who supports this cult of bilking idiots does not deserve my money at the box office. It would be better if Star Trek disappeared permanently than for any of L. Ron Hubbard's poison to seep into Trek-dom.
Otherwise, he seems to be quite capable of doing justice to the idea of Star Trek.
But Tom Cruise and all of Scientology needs to vanish from the face of the earth. If anyone wonders why I hate this (so called) religion so much, I suggest doing a little research.
The only reason I mention this is because when Enterprise wrapped, the soundstage was used for some MI3 scenes, and it's already bad enough that Mission Impossible has been co-opted by the LRH foundation, let's not let that happen to Star Trek. The Hubbard zombies might earn some credibility if they do.
Wow. This certainly came out of left field. That it's Variety seems pretty legit. I wonder how long it'll be before Paramount announces it? I also wonder how much of it is contingent on how well M:I-3 does this summer?
I certainly enjoyed the pilot episode of Lost that J.J. Abrams directed. The style and approach was unique.
I can't say that I'm crazy about Kirk & Spock: The Early Years. Simply unnecessary. I think I'd rather see this team put its creativity into a new Trek television series set post-TNG.
However, I'm also more intrigued by this than by the last two Trek films.Good luck and all.
I'll be curious to see how many now suddenly overlook the prequel concept simply because B&B are not involved.
This is really amazing news.
J.J. Abrams has created some of the most fun and interesting TV in years, I'm sure he'll be able to brreathe new life into the Trek franchise. Who knows, maybe he'll even head up a new tv series :D
--------
"Ich habe es satt allein aufzustehn // als Erster zu sehn // Dass ich noch leb"
"I'm fed up with getting up alone // To be the first to see // That I'm still alive"
- Rosenstolz, "Ich will mich verlieben"
I feel blessed to be one of the first people to comment online concerning the most significant and long awaited announcements concerning the Star Trek community in the last decade.
I am gratified as I am sure are many other Star Trek enthusiats to learn that The Powere That Be at Paramount finally took the fans of Star Trek seriously and took the reins of the Star Trek legend away from people who took that legend less than seriously.
Despite the somewhat santimouious comments of Star Trek's former management, this proves that Paramount will no longer take Star Trek fans for granted. I think that it is safe to say that TPTB decided to read some of the Star Trek online blogs and websites.
Thank You Paramount. We look forward to the legend of Star Trek being revitalized.
As much as I HATE, HATE, HATE the young Kirk/Spock/McCoy idea, seeing these guys do Trek is too good a thing to pass up.
--------
The supervisor is Verizon!
(2)
