From their description it sounds like we'll get to see what happend in the 10 years between TOS and TMP.
A reimaging or not, I'm on board with any group that respects Star Trek and approaches it with excitement, talent and humility. I'm on board with anyone who sees it not as a dead franchise, but a rich mythology whose best movies could be ahead of it.
They talk about being fans of the novels though they're not counted as canon, and being able to see some origins. They also talk about a mix of old and new characters. I can't help but think of the ST Novel "Final Frontier" when they talk about that. It shows young Kirk, his father, Robert April and the launching of NCC-1701, some Romulan mythos, and old Kirk at the farm reminiscing. I've always thought it'd make a good movie...
--------
-----
"Who are you, and how did you get in here??"
"I'm a locksmith, and... I'm a locksmith".
- "Police Squad"
Count me in as someone who is relieved it's not a reboot. I'd rather a movie set around... I dunno, Janice Lester, than a reboot.
NOT a reimagining! I'm so releaved! :-) That's the best news I've heard in a long time. Thanks!
Whatever else, I would be exponentially more excited about a film that involved - even tangentially - the ST crew of TNG, than one that went way back to TOS.
I love TOS, but I love TNG more. I didn't see anything incompatible in the question and answers in the writing being framed around the time TNG took place versus TOS; and I hope that's the way it turns out to be.
While I have been a vocal, though hopefully not shrill, proponant of rebooting, a few things seem pretty clear to me from the words of Kurtzman and Orci.
1. They are real fans. Rather than just yap about how TREK is part of American mythology and be done with a sop to the fans, they really know the difference between how novels fit (or don't) into cannon and what really 'counts' as TREK. That tells me they aren't BSing about knowing and loving this lore. They love this like we do. And that if they are BSing, they've done so much research they know the minefileds, and I'm comfortable with them giving this a whack. (Could they do worse than Logan?)
2. Also, they talk about not violating what's come before, which again could be a sop to hair-trigger internet bashers, but I don't think it is. What most of this interview was about was MI3, and how they slipped into a universe they did not create and were able to integrate their ideas about character and drama and have it fit into what had come before. They gave Ethan Hunt a personal side never seen, but it worked. The result: what many (including this writer) think is by far the best MI movie yet.
3. They reference origins. There are only two main patches of undiscovered country in TREK today: the span between ENTERPRISE and TOS and between TOS era movies and TNG. I really doubt they're eager to lay their dramatic microscope on the orgins of Captain Picard. This might not be a STARFLEET ACADEMY story, but it's definately a TOS origin story. Speaking as someone who tells stories for a living, studies how they're constructed, listens to writers a lot, something in the way they answered suggests they might have Kirk and Spock, but in smaller roles than we all now suspect. I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be supporting players in service of main characters wholly created by Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci. That's just a hunch.
4. This one is most important, and hopeful, to me: They respect but are not bound by what is often misunderstood as cannon. Quite a bit of the bashing ENTERPRISE got was because it didn't comport with the origins of the Federation/Starfleet as laid down by non-cannonal sources, i.e. novels and reference books. The Encyclopedia nor Chronology count as cannon. Only what was on screen, or can reasonably inferred from being on screen, count (an item agreed upon by both the authors of the Chronology and Encyclopedia). If the inferrence as put down in those sources is later contradicted by something onscreen, out the written sources go. I'm glad to see they seem to be taking this track.
I, for one, am now very interested in coming TREK like I haven't been for a long time.
Now, if they only hadn't seemed so proud of their work on ZORRO 2...
--------
'Risk IS our business' - Kirk
I was never against the reimagining idea like some people, but I've never seen any reason for it either. There's nothing wrong with the universe we have. Huge movies like LoTR and Star Wars have proven that a complex history and mythology can be a great asset for a movie. It seems silly to get rid of one of Trek's assets.
The franchises problems rest not in the universe, but in the writing. Good writing set in a reimagined Star Trek universe will still be good writing, but good writing set against a complex backdrop makes suspension of disbelief easier. Obviously the writers could CREATE a new backdrop based on our current universe, but there's something about a universe created through five TV shows that feels more organic I think.
The disadvantage is what I like to call the Enterprise Season Four problem. Most of us agree that season four was the best season of Enterprise, but it had one major flaw that I think (as though I know anything) made sure those falling ratings continued to fall which is that it packed every episode with throw backs and references to the other shows. Obviously having something in the background is cool, but when it feels like the show is breaking the fourth wall (you know, they mention some inane piece of triva and you can almost feel the writers winking at you).
We need this movie to not be a triva movie, but that is very possible in the current universe--IMHO.
--------
"Time is a face on the water."
-Stephen King, The Dark Tower Series-
I really don't have any intrest in a prequel unless Shatner and Nimoy are involved (as Kirk and Spock) in some way or another.
If they did framing scenes at the start and end of the film that somehow suggest Kirk is alive I (and most people I know who think ST died w/Kirk)will be there.
Otherwise, I have no desire to see Star Trek 90210.
