I'm thinking were looking to Star Trek: Phase II, part 2, the second five year mission. no comment on TNG stars debunking the show. Nobody complained when they released the STAR TREK: Hellraisere Shinzon poster with "stealth" size trek logo for Nemesis. They did Enterprise TATV, too. Was that the lsdt one? And, yes, I did comment.
If you have to explain the joke ('lost' audience), it probably wasn't a very good joke.
--------
A Government in the position to know everything that you do
is in the position to control everything that you do.
I appreciate Ms. Sirtis' feelings, and I appreciate all she's given to Star Trek. And I agree with her that for a very long time Paramount didn't understand Star Trek or its audience. However, at this point in the game, going back IS going forward. The audience they are trying to (re)capture isn't just Joe Moviegoer, but in many cases, the Star Trek fan himself. All the rich layers of characters and canon that have come since 1987 are wonderful, but Star Trek has become so cluttered that the average audience doesn't know what Star Trek is anymore. In an identity crisis, you retreat to the essential-the iconic. That means Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock with the pointed ears. Everyone gets that- even Paramount.
And as I think I've written before, nothing about Star Trek XI will ever invalidate the unequaled work that TNG did for Star Trek and for genre television in their heyday. And who knows, there may yet be a place for them in some future incarnation. If they break Star Trek away from strict linear cannon, lots of possibilities arise.
I'm new to TrekWeb. Hi, everyone!! :D
Ideas like the one Ms. Sirtis' has presented in this article represent the exact mentality that has almost killed "Star Trek".
What's her ideal view of Trek? More "Next Generation" films? At least there is some life in the characters of the prequel, as allegedly proposed by JJ Abrams and crew.
As much as Ms. Sirtis would like to deny it, there is a large section of the movie-ticket-buying audience that would like to see the backstory of Kirk & Spock.
As much as she'd like to see herself starring on this type of project, the public probably won't care an iota about the backstory of, say, Troy, Riker or Worf.
Before even attempting to take Ms. Sirtis words seriously, I'd like to see her acting, writing, producing or directing credentials. Oh, SNAP! She has none of the above...
'Nuff said, and off my soapbox.
Ummmm how's that godawful purple costume going?
Sorry couldn't think of anything else to add to this I think eveyone has said bitter enough already without me saying it again... oh hang on
--------
------
During the chat, Sirtis didn't stop with the new Trek film, she also took the time out to take a swipe at the last Trek TV show "Enterprise was NOT Trek. Just had so called Vulcans thrown in for seasoning to call it Trek".
Gustavo
Oh yeah, like her comments can even be taken seriously. I have to wonder if SHE understands Star Trek at all. Oh wait, I have the answer, she doesn't. I think she's just angry because there won't be any more TNG movies and Hollywood isn't beating down her door to offer her any starring roles.
Ironically, her role on TNG was the most vague of all of them and she's lucky that they didn't write her out of the cast in the first season, so I think she should just sit tight and start practicing her lines for Star Trek XI because rumor has it that there's a salt monster in the story.
--------
To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And, at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between, plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big 'thing.' This is truth, to me.
There's a tidied version of the transcript that's easier to read, with comments from Sirtis in blue text.
Sirtis does seem bitter toward the franchise. Out of the blue, she says, "I wish I had invented Star Trek. If I'd have invented Star Trek, I'd still be on it!"
This comment is outrageous: "I think Rod may be able to buy it back once Paramount has killed it, and he'll get it cheap."
CBS Paramount is doing the right thing in taking Star Trek away from Rick Berman loyalists and snubbing Junior Roddenberry.
I hope J.J. Abrams et al can effectively drive these parasitic elements away from the franchise.
--------------
SECRET STASH SAFES - Hide Your Booty In A Clever Can
So a Grade C minus actress now comments on the future of Trek. And sadly she is correct. Although she conveniently fails to mention that the movie franchise is like a beached whale because her TNG compatriots could not draw the attention of the general moviegoing public.
Their disastrous performance at the box office is one of the main reasons the franchise is dead. And speaking of disastrous performances- her atrocious C minus acting in the films did not help.
Wake up- smell the coffee, Marina. Yeah, TOS and prequel is a bad idea. And lots of people are looking at TNG the same way right now- as a terrible step backwards.
--------
psp1
Star Trek has always been about heading to the future, not the past. Enterprise showed this and was not successful, and for Star Trek XI to be a prequeal shows Trek is out of ideas. Star Trek has evolved beyond Kirk and Spock and to go back to them after 6 TOS films and 4 TNG films shows that Trek is dying, or can't come up with nothing original without relying on past character espeically on TOS
I am disappointed that Marina Sirtis has chosen a path of negativity. It matters not, however. Her role in the TNG episode, ‘Face of the Enemy’ absolves her of any criticism. : )
'nuff said.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that goes for Marina too. I can't say I really understand the current fixation on TOS either. Star Trek is so much more than TOS. Everyone knows it. Yet everyone is talking about TOS right now. But alright. Its not a big deal to me. I can accept it for now. In 10 years, it will be the next generation of Trekkers who relish in TNG nostalgia. And in 40 years, people will talk about the glory of ENT. Who knows.
No, Marina is exactly right. Abrams has not convinced me that he knows enough about Trek to safely tell a story of Kirk and Spock's origins (which is a REALLY stupid idea, in my opinion, if this movie is to bring in new fans).
Worst of ALL, is that Abram's shows have had a tendency (or even pattern) of glorifying and justifying torture. This is NOT acceptable in Trek and would be a serious departure from Gene's vision of our "enlightened future".
I want some assurances from the producers that this will NOT happen and that Abrams will honor the vision of Trek before I will see this. And if lifelong fans like myself won't go, then this project is doomed, in my opinion.
PhAZe
wow...bitter much?
nice swipe at ENT, didnt stop you from taking their cash though
she also failed to mention how the last film she was in was the first Trek film to not make a profit.
JJ Abrams seems to know Trek pretty well...I bet you a billion dollars that she would be singing a dif tune if she got a call from the execs she says are 'killing Trek'
unless she is so deluded to think that anything without her in it is 'killing Trek',
I loved TNG, but the concept of a psychologist on board just felt like lame 80s touchy feely BS to me
--------
visit Star Trek XI: the blog for the latest news, downloads and info on Star Trek XI
Despite the blatantly hypocritical statements, and allowing for the fact that she sure knew Roddenberry a lot better than me, which was not at all.....
Gene's comments about 'going forward' that I've read (and I wish I could find and/or post my half-remembered evidence) always seemed to me about moving forward creatively. Exploring new ideas in science and social fiction, and taking advantage of new techniques in visualization.
I didn't realize that he literally suggested having to move into the future of the universe he created. That to me seems very, weird, actually.
I don't know. That's my kind of pointless opinion, anyway.
I know of Marina's special relationship with Gene and Majel-- but didn't Gene, Jr also have a special relationship with his parents? Why doesn't he know of his dad's desire only to move forward with Trek projects.
And if he does know that- why is he a consulting producer for New Voyages? Surely the Roddenberry's don't need cash-- and even if they did, you don't make any money off of New Voyages-- it is only for the glorification of Trek.
I feel like Norman trying to resolve the paradox. Gene said not to do stories of the past, yet Gene Jr, carrying his torch, is a producer of New Voyages. Does not compute!
--------
Well, sounds like Marina's not too big a fan of Lost. If it were anyone but J.J. Abrams in charge of this new movie, I doubt I'd disagree with Marina. As a rule, I oppose prequels. I agree that ST should move forward. I hope the next TV show does go post-Nemesis by 4 or 5 years (our real time) and shake up the existing TNG universe. (I have strong ideas about how I'D do it, but I'm not tellin'!)
I think J.J. Abrams understands Trek better than anyone since Star Trek 6.
--------
Click here to check out my band, ego tree , and the Ego Tree site at myspace. Listen to/buy the CD for $9.99!
...but....but did you forget your role in the last...WORST Trek episode ever made??? On ENT no less???
If it's such swill (and, for the most part it was) why humiliate yourself?? Doesn't that kinda, sorta make you an "artistic whore??"
--------
"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.
"We, in this country, do not want for stupid people. Go outside, touch every third person, and you're gonna find an idiot."--- Judge Judith Sheindlin
"I’m tired of it year after year after year, having to chose between the lesser of who cares? Of trying to get myself excited about a candidate who can speak in complete sentences. Of setting the bar so low I can hardly look at it."--- Leo McGarry, The West Wing
waaaa waaaa waaaaa
--------
Tony, who split from his wife Georgina after he replaced their fridge with a "warp coil"
"OH MY" - George Takei
(1)
