But this is total bullshit - 125 yrs before Kirk IS NOT STAR TREK!
Looks like it'll be a long wait for a true come back!
About when or where its set.
All I ask is that it is obviously *looks* and *feels* like Star Trek and is a good film.
One thing we know for certain will be different is the score, Jerry Goldsmith can't do it this time (R.I.P) so I hope they bring in someone with a proven track record.
As for the director they need to get a fan.. Bryan Singer springs to mind. Surely he would rescue Trek? He even has a cameo in Nemesis.
As for Mr Rick Berman he knows he has to come up with something good because this may be his very last chance. I get the feeling he has used up 8 of his 9 lives.
At its conceptual surface, this is a classic example of Hollywood "me too!" thinking. While trying to resuscitate ENT, they looked over at the new BSG, saw what an amazing success it was, and decided to duplicate it. Which is ironic since the Original BSG was a ripoff of ST and SW.
So, they see BSG takes place in the backdrop of a war against a genocidal enemy. They've gone from laser guns back to missiles and projectile weapons. Well, in ST, it would be wierd to go to, say, DS9 and suddenly see them using projectile firing guns and wired phones, so a prequel would be an option. Hey, there's a Romulan War in pre-TOS period, and not enough folks watched ENT to matter anyway, so they chose that time period. And that war setting benefits from the concept of an enemy never seen and somewhat mysterious, too, but its out to wipe out humanity. Perfect. And so forth.
Nothing new here. But, unlike many original BSG fans, I'm willing to give it a shot anyway hoping I'm wrong and this won't be a bad idea. I'd be willing to accept a reimagining of the ST universe if it returns the series to the kind of character-centric storytelling it should have. Though I don't think the answer is in the special effects, it's the writing.
--------
-----
"Who are you, and how did you get in here??"
"I'm a locksmith, and... I'm a locksmith".
- "Police Squad"
-
Actually, if anyone watch the TOS episode which introduced the Romulans and the Romulan War, "Balance of Terror", it was established that primitive nuclear warheads were used, which in turn would more than likely have involved ballistic missles like the ones used in "Battlestar Galactica", so for once Berman has paid attention to continuity simply because the current hot scifi show of the moment is currently using this formula.
--------
"Revenge is a dish best served with pinto beans and muffins" - Ricardo Montalban as Guitierrez in "Freakzoid: The Chip, Part 2"
As far as Trek XI goes, I personally don't care what era it's at. I just want a well-written film that does service to the characters in the film and not put the plot and special effects first. Sure, let's have some space battles and some blowing up of stuff and let Paramount spend some money to make a film that LOOKS like an epic film and not a TV episode, but let it serve the characters. Make me care about the players, like in Treks 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8, and so many great episodes of TNG, TOS, and DS9.
So they're making another prequel. I'd much rather them further the stories they have in the 24th century or move onto the 25th. No more of this regression.
DS9 fleshed out all of this great political intrigue in the 24th century AQ and no series or movie since then has expoited that. As a matter of fact, they've been avoiding the 24th century, which remains to me the most interesting century of Star Trek out of the three they've based series in. Or if they really want to get away from the 24th, go into the 25th. That way there will at least be some feeling of PROGRESSION in the Star Trek universe
And as far as Jendreson's comments, what *about* DS9!? Gritty, real, epic, had a war that took two whole years to end? There was never a sterility to the action on that series. While the idea of bringing more of that into the Trek movies is good, he says it like Star Trek has never done it and that's not true. As a matter of fact, if they wanted a movie like that, DS9 would have been an excellent series to use as a springboard.
I don't know. Hiring a writer with good credentials outside of Star Trek means nothing. I don't care if he wrote "Band of Brothers" or if he was Shakespeare. As many in the business have pointed out, writing for Star Trek is very different from writing outside it. John Logan wrote the screenplay for "Gladiator"...did that make "Nemesis" a great movie? No. Jendreson may have all these nice suggestions, but as of now, it's all talk.
.
Sounds good so far, but I wonder if Paramount will actually give the producers/director the appropriate amount of money to really make a FILM and not a glorified television episode...
VoR
--------
Flavius: What do you call those?
Spock: I call them ears.
Flavius: Are you trying to be funny?
Spock: Never.
We should zoom forward to the 25th Century, not rewind back to the early days. Build on what we have! If we go back, we destroy canon guar-an-teed!
Trek has always been about looking ahead. The undiscovered country!
--------
None of us is as good as ALL of us.
This guy Jendreson uses phrases like “epic” and “mythic” to describe this prequel project. He wants “big ideas” that will give his story “a sense of timeless style”, like TOS did. He wants mythic? Timelessness? Big Ideas? How about using a resource that’s already there? Band of Brothers? I’ll give you band of brothers.
If you set the story a year after Nemesis:
- Picard and Geordi are on the Enterprise E.
- Riker and Troi are on the Titan
- Worf is Federation Ambassador to the Klingon Homeworld.
- Spock is still on Romulus.
- General Martok is Chancellor of the Empire.
- Sisko is in the Celestial Temple.
- Jake, Colonel Kira, Bashir and Dax are still on DS9.
- O’Brien and Crusher are at Starfleet Academy on Earth.
- Odo is with the Founders in the Gamma Quadrant.
- Scotty is still in that shuttle craft since ‘Relics’.
- And Kirk is still stuck in that damn Nexus.
PEOPLE! Find a reason to put these ‘Band of Brothers’ together and I’m telling you, you can’t get much more “mythic” and “epic” than that. Who’s with me?
What’s that you say? …. This won’t please the casual fan? …. Well neither will Droids or Wookies, so they thought.
PREQUELS DO NOT WORK!!! STAR TREK IS ABOUT THE FUTURE, MAN!!!
--------
"That is the exploration that awaits you: Not mapping the stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possiblities of existence." - Q, All Good Things...
I hope he decides to utilize Masao Okazaki's Starfleet Museum collection. It's comprehensive, true to TOS, and Jendressen could truly focus on the crew and their interaction at a time of interstellar war.
It's safe to say that this would be Earth's first major interstellar conflict (prior to ENT I hadn't heard of any before 2156) and hece there'd be an environment of uncertainly, intrigue, pioneering, etc.
I'm willing to wager this will range closer to Trek VI than Trek X.
--------
"I'm astounded that your organization [the MSHSAA] tries to regulate what these kids do in their free time. Would you tell them they couldn't watch Star Trek or eat potato chips?"
-Missouri State Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Joplin
I can't see Jendresen rushing this script and I am sure he will have a couple of close friends read over the script to make sure that sounds good. I am sure that he may re-write this script at least ten times before he feels good about it. So here is my prediction for Star Trek XI:
Release date will be: Late Spring 2008.
On a sobber note, depending on how well Star Trek XI does in the movie theater, will determine whether there will be a new series. If the show does well, look to see a new series come out a year or two after the movie. If the show bombs, at least according to some of the posters on this site, dont expect to see star trek to return to the small screen for at least ten years after the movie.
Quote:
"Everybody just needs to just take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith,"
Quote:
Jendresen, who says he was originally not interested in the project
Quote:
"By the end of this story, everyone isn't fine,"
Quote:
characters and take place about 160 years before 'Kirk' is born -- may borrow some of the grittiness of that miniseries.
Star Trek is so screwed... Chill Pill, Gritty... What the F**k
--------
TREY PARKER: And it comes from an honest belief we have, which is... George Bush doesn't know what's going on. Michael Moore does not know what's going on. And Alec Baldwin definitely does not know what's going on. Basically, this shit is gigantically complicated.
I dunno. Seems like the Treksperts are trying to follow the latest trends in the movies: gritty, dark, "real," while once again forgetting why most people love Trek in the first place. I hope the darker ending still holds a positive message about humanity, democracy, etc... if it does, then it truly could be a good film.
Curious if they'll keep similar ships in look to those from ENT, since the eras are close. I always liked that ship concept art picture that looked like a transition between ENT and TOS.
--------
"Unless we learn to live together as brothers [and sisters] we will die together as fools." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
Bring back Enterprise and save us from this proposed crap!
sounds to me like he is going to make a good faith effort i for one am more then ready to give him a chance sounds like he is not going to use the reset button either
an idea which i wholeheartedly support
If Jendresen really meant "60-odd" years, then that puts it well within the range of when the Romulan War happened. In "Balance of Terror," Spock only said that the Earth-Romulan War happened "100 years ago." At that point, Kirk was 35 years old, so even if Spock was being very precise, that puts the Romulan War (or at least the establishment of the Neutral Zone) at 65 years before Kirk's birth. Sounds like it fits to me.
--------
Never before have things been so much the way they are now.
-
I wonder if he simply got a "wire crossed" and misspoke (would 160 years before the end of Kirk's missions be more plausible?), or if perhaps he was misquoted...
i.e., "100 to 60" or "100 or 60" being poorly enunciated and being heard as "160".
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Quote:
I wonder if he simply got a "wire crossed" and misspoke (would 160 years before the end of Kirk's missions be more plausible?), or if perhaps he was misquoted...
i.e., "100 to 60" or "100 or 60" being poorly enunciated and being heard as "160".
Actually your point of being mispoken happens to often in the media world. In this case I would say that you are right about the "100 to 60", that the person interviewing him heard what he wanted to hear.
This is a good start. You can't do what TNG and the original guys did any better than they did. You have to start fresh. SURPRISE a few people. Be creative for the next, NEXT generation of Star Trek. As long as it doesn't betray the basic ideologies and principles of the Star Trek of the last 40 years, I'll give anything a chance.
I miss the das of when I looked forward for a Star trek movie so much tha thtere was little else on my mind. Now, we have people making movies about characters I don't know and could care less about.
The TOS movies were what I grew up with. I fondly miss that cast and thought they were retired way too early. The baton film, Generations, was a weak way to say goodbye to the TOS crew and hello to the TNG crew. Now, after only 4 films under their belts they are writing off the TNG crew. Why? Has their story really been told to completion? Here we have a group of actors and characters that are in their prime and yet they are being discarded. Did it occur to anyone that the failure of the last two films has had nothing to do with the cast or the setting? It has far more to do with the writing and directing than anything. The stories for the last two films were, frankly, ones that needed a few more touches before being put to film. My point is that Star Trek 11 should be about the TNG crew exploring strange new worlds.
This whole concept of a Romulan Wars movie is just flat wrong. Star Trek is not about telling war stories for Christsakes! Its about exploring the human condition. Yes, we can have lots of action and explosions, but that's all meaningless without a decent story. Sounds like Trek 11 will be, at best, the same mediocre, sub-par crap that we've become all too accustom to. I think when everyone is going to see this film I'll stay at home and watch Treks 1-6. If these bozos wanna know how to make some good films they should watch these movies and take some notes (minus 5, of course).
-
Quote:
This whole concept of a Romulan Wars movie is just flat wrong. Star Trek is not about telling war stories for Christsakes! Its about exploring the human condition. Yes, we can have lots of action and explosions, but that's all meaningless without a decent story. Sounds like Trek 11 will be, at best, the same mediocre, sub-par crap that we've become all too accustom to. I think when everyone is going to see this film I'll stay at home and watch Treks 1-6. If these bozos wanna know how to make some good films they should watch these movies and take some notes (minus 5, of course).
Bollocks. War is part of the human condition. I for one can't wait to see the Romulan wars, if indeed this is what is being planned. And, you know, as I think he is trying to say, war isn't pretty, and people not only get killed, but can suffer terribly if they survive. The harrowing fear of not being able to se the enemy due to their cloaking device, death - or worse - at any time, the prejudice born from a conflict for a people you haven't even seen, terrible destruction, and all possibly because of mistakes made by ourselves, rather than Romulan aggression. Not to mention nucelar fallout, starvation, lack of medical supplies and the sheer horror of radioactive winter for human colonists brave enough to again begin to explore the unknown...something humans haven't been able to do since the late 19th century.
You're already bashing a project that isn't yet conceived. Perhaps you lot are the problem with Star Trek.
-
While war maybe something that exists in the Star Trek universe, it was never something that Gene Roddenberry felt needed to be focused on. Thus, during Gene's time we never saw wars in Star Trek.
Regarding the drama and terror of death, destruction, blah, blah, blah, we've already seen this on Deep Space Nine. Do we really need the Star Trek version of Normandy to understand what war is like in the future? No. Do we need a war movie to have an exciting, action movie? No. The best of the Star Trek films (1-6, FC) were not about war. While there was certainly plenty of action and death in many of them (2,3,6,FC come to mind) all of these movies were about much more than the action that we saw. These movies were about the human condition. These movies had heart and class. Nothing since has come close.
A movie focused on the Romulan Wars is something that most fans could care less about. Why would I go see a Star Trek movie is there are no Star Trek characters in it? Wouldn't this be like going to see a fourth Indiana Jones movie that was strictly focused on the character of Marion without so much as a cameo from Indiana Jones? Star Trek is about people, not setting. I don't understand why Berman and Co, as well as the fans, are having such an incredibly difficult time understanding this. if there is anything that we can learn from Star Wars Eps 1 and 2 is that you can have all of the special effects, explosions, death, gunfire, etc, that you want but if you don't have fully developed characters that the audience cares about then you are wasting yours time as a storyteller, and wasting the audience's time as well.
My advice to Berman: stick to what we the audience know, but do it right.
-
I have a hard time getting excited about a Trek movie, too, that has no frame of reference to it other than it's 160 years before Kirk was born. So, basically, only a few years before or after "Enterprise" takes place.
There is a word I'm looking for ... oh yes
BOORRRING!
-
The 160 years figure has been conceded as an obvious error, as has been pointed out by the interviewer in a reply below, and multiple other times.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
I couldn't have said it better myself.
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
...I can safely say that many of the people on this board are morons. (And you know who you are.)
First of all, THE FRACKING MOVIE HASN'T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET! Can't you maintain some objectivity until we hear some more about the actual concept and plot? Geez, I bet when the new Coca-Cola (C2) came out, you all said, "This sucks!" before you even tasted it! (It does suck, but that's beside the point...at least I tasted it first.)
Second, you're drawing parallels where none exist. Just because Erik Jendresen produced "Band of Brothers," and he states he wants to bring some of that "grittiness" to STAR TREK, doesn't mean it's going to be a war movie! To most of you folks already bashing the movie idea, 1+1=3. Stop making inferences where there is no real connection!
Third, you obviously don't read the entire thread before you post. The SyFy Portal guy said Jendresen's comment that the movie would take place "160 years" before Kirk's birth was a "mistake." Yet you still harp on that number. Read the entire fracking thread!
And fourth, I reiterate, THE MOVIE HASN'T BEEN PRODUCED YET! Take a deep breath (and one of Jendresen's Romulan chill pills) and wait until more information is released! Berman may not even be involved except as the bean-counter (read: executive producer).
Honestly, I think some of you post on this board just to gain some sick sort of attention. Troll somewhere else, if you please.
Now, having said that...
I personally don't believe this movie will ever be produced. Why? Berman's contract will run out eventually, perhaps even during the "production phase" of this movie. When that happens, Paramount will sh*tcan this project so fast your head will spin like Linda Blair. Trust me, this is just to keep Berman busy until his contract expires. Even though producers and a scriptwriter have been hired, that doesn't mean they'll actually produce or write anything. Hollywood is full of projects that stay in the "pre-production phase" for what seems like an eternity, until contracts expire or studio leadership changes.
Also, Paramount has a history of providing mis-information to the public. I refer again to the mid-1987 "Starlog" article about TNG, which referred to Data as "an evil Betazoid." We all know how that one turned out. When it comes to any sort of "behind-the-scenes" information from that studio, take it all with a huge lump of salt (unless it comes in the form of a press release, and even then be somewhat skeptical).
In short...CHILL OUT! Quit complaining about vaporware!
(And Scorned, before you get on your soapbox...no, I won't leave the boards, because frankly, it's morons like you that provide me with some of the best entertainment I've had in quite a while. Like Data said (and someone uses in their sig line): "Could you continue the petty bickering? I find it most interesting.")
--------
A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
PCLinuxOS
falcon
-
doesn't mean people can't see a crap storyline when they read one.
It's not hard to pinpoint the least sucessful Trek series of all time is it? Enterprise, the prequil series, so after that fails what are they propsing as the next movie? Another prequil!
The idea is weak, smacks of a rip-off of BSG and firefly but rebranded as Trek.
Regardless of wether or not a script has been produced, this is a very poor idea and one that will not grab the attention of the public at large.
I can see the Trek movie franchise turning into direct to video films as they seem to be about the same poor standard.
Sounds like this is a re-boot of Enterprise and by going the 'gritty' route comparisons to the new Galactica will be inevitable.
"We didn't get it right the first time so maybe this is what we should have done int he first place!"
Seems like it has potential but I'm just not sure who would show up to see this thing.
What the shit!? Do these Trek producers really think we are going to eat everthing they give us?!? Another prequal movie however without the cast of ENTERPRISE but totally new characters? Really crappy! "Oh, it is going to be great because it is 150 years before Kirk!" Well so it is ENTERPRISE! And you said the same thing when it started and now you cancelled it. So how stupid can someone be and do the same shit again that failed? You know what: concentrate on getting ENTERPRISE back with a gig bang so you can use the series for a feature. But please not another Trek crew!!!!! This socks!!!
Well, Jendresen is basically just saying, he will try to write a superb story about something, and he won't rely on special effects to make the film a hit... Good... That was to be expected.
I don't really "get" this concept yet.
Humans will be allowed to be mean. Technobabbly won't solve everything, replicators won't feed everyone, some drama maybe? Looking forward to it already.
--------
Vulcan's stayed to help Humans 90 years ago. We're still there.
--T'Pol
Hey, everyone ...
Erik just messaged me and let me know that 160 years was an incorrect number (obviously), hehehehe!!
So, don't let that fuel speculation that is might be a WWIII movie or anything like that. :)
Sorry!
--------
Michael Hinman
www.SyFyPortal.com
-
Quote from Michael Hinman:
Erik just messaged me and let me know that 160 years was an incorrect number (obviously), hehehehe!!
Jendresen was willing to give a specific timeframe in his first public statement, so why not ask him to set the record straight with an accurate number?
--------------
Star Trek vets surmise the franchise
-
before reading your post and thought, "That's just about ten years after First Contact! Kind of early isn't it?" If it's 60 years, that would be around 2170 right? But that's a sorta big 'if'.
--------
"Outer Space: The Last Frontier.
These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."
Patrick Stewart--SNL, Stardate 9402.05
Quote:"will involve no existing characters and take place about 160 years before 'Kirk' is born -- may borrow some of the grittiness of that miniseries.
I thought ENT was about a 100 years before Kirk. So that means this dumb movie takes place before ENT? This whole idea sounds like it sucks. It is very clear that Star Trek is just going more and more backwards. It seems to me that Eric is not a fan of Trek nor has he been paying attention to it. The idea of Star Trek prequels has been a failure. Why waste a movie and a budget of $50 million on another prequel that no one is interetsed in?
By the way what "miniseries" is he talking about? Does he mean TOS? That was NOT a mini series. If he thinks that then once again another non Trek fan is doing Trek having no business doing so.
Quote:"There's an old tradition in space films, if you think about it, where war and conflict are very sterile," Jendresen said. "Death doesn't hurt, it's not really ugly. You can get killed by a phaser and just... disintegrate.
He hates Trek.
Quote:""We're going 160-odd years before Kirk is born. It's an earlier time, and I think it would be really refreshing to feel something in the course of telling this tale, instead of being wowed by special effects, or presenting another crew in jeopardy where, in the end, the captain does something brilliant, and all's right with the world.
So that means they are going to completely forget about ENT? More prequel crap.
Quote:""Everybody just needs to just take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith," he says, reflecting on the negativity surrounding STAR TREK in recent years.
Hahahah they are speaking to Trekman: The kid who doesn't know jack about Trek. hahaha
Quote:" "Everything that has gone down over the last few years has not been lost on the gentlemen involved in this effort. I think it would be wonderful to bring a whole new generation into this world."
What does this mean? "Lost on the gentlemen involved? Does he mean that Trek's decline has nothing to do with Rick Berman being invovled? If that is what he is implying then Erik can go F himself. He is nothing more than a Berman bitch.
Quote:"Jendresen, who says he was originally not interested in the project, signed on only when studio brass assured him it would be entirely different from all previous STAR TREK endeavors.
Do us a favour and bow out anyways.
Quote:""By the end of this story, everyone isn't fine," Jendresen said. "I can safely say as a storyteller with certain standards - my intention is literally as a writer, as a storyteller, as a filmmaker, to go boldly where no one has gone before.
Oh how original! Folks....Wake up. This next movie is going to suck! A movie with no familiar characters. A movie that is yet another STUPID prequel. A movie made by a man who was NOT interested in do it. A man who seemed to kiss up to Berman. Save your money folks! This is going to be 3 shit Trek films in a row!
Why did Trek have to die this way?
-
Scorned, look, and I mean this as a friend--there are plenty of brand's on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
--------
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.
-
Quote:
I thought ENT was about a 100 years before Kirk. So that means this dumb movie takes place before ENT?
It could just be a miscalculation. This guy isn't a big Trek fan, you know. But if the movie is actually going to be 160 years before Kirk is born, then it would be set around the 2070's. I've stated many times before that a Star Trek series set around that time would be a great idea.
Quote:
This whole idea sounds like it sucks.
WHAT IDEA?! All you know is the possible setting of the movie! You have NO idea what this movie is going to be about! I swear, your whinning complaint keeps getting worse everyday. Your arguments are based on NOTHING!!!
Quote:
It seems to me that Eric is not a fan of Trek nor has he been paying attention to it.
So? Meyer wasn't a fan when he did TWOK!
Quote:
The idea of Star Trek prequels has been a failure.
Have you even seen season 4? And don't tell me that it's a failure just because of low ratings. It's only low because people like you who left Enterprise due to the first two season are too stubborn to see that Enterprise has become a great Trek.
There are just as many bad sequels than there are bad prequels. Prequels are just sequels set before the original movie, nothing more.
Quote:
By the way what "miniseries" is he talking about?
This show's how stupid you really are.
The BAND OF BROTHERS scribe suggests that the eleventh franchise film -- which he confirmed will involve no existing characters and take place about 160 years before 'Kirk' is born -- may borrow some of the grittiness of that miniseries.
He's talking about Band of Brothers, you idiot! Learn to read.
Quote:
He hates Trek.
Please tell me how you got that from how he was discussing war in sci-fi in GENERAL. He just wants to make a sci-fi war movie that feels real.
Quote:
Hahahah they are speaking to Trekman: The kid who doesn't know jack about Trek. hahaha
No. They're speaking to YOU!
"Everybody just needs to just take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith," he says, reflecting on the negativity surrounding STAR TREK in recent years.
You're the one who's being negative about recent Star Trek. Take a Romulan chill pill and have some god damn faith in this movie!
Quote:
A movie with no familiar characters.
The last time I check, week after week people go to see movies with no familiar characters in them.
Quote:
A movie made by a man who was NOT interested in do it.
He wasn't interested at first. He wouldn't ha signed on if he wasn't interested.
Your complaints are full of holes, Scorned. Give it up! Star Trek XI will be a hit whether you like it or not.
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
-
With Berman involved, I have my doubts it will be successful. From the sounds of it, he's going to make it "Band of Brothers" in space, and that isn't Star Trek.
Oh, and Band of Brothers is the miniseries he was referring to by the way.
Anyway, Band of Brothers worked because it was a series depicting World War II. This movie obviously takes place after Enterprise (ignore the 160 year comment because that was an error) and we've already seen the nice clean and polished starship Enterprise NX-01. So how you can go from that to a gritty intense war film is beyond me. Also, Star Trek is NOT a war show like Band of Brothers. If you've seen the HBO miniseries, you'll understand. Band of Brothers was dark, sometimes really gritty and emotional, and full of intense combat sequences and often gruesome consequences to those sequences. That's not Star Trek. DS9 came as close as we could come to a war-time Star Trek, and some people thought it was too far. Imagine a Star Trek film where the captain gets his face blown off by a random phaser grenade or something flying at him.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... a movie is the WRONG ROUTE to go right now. Enterprise brought in maybe 3 million viewers a week. Where does Paramount get the idea that more than that will go see a Star Trek film in the theatres where they have to spend $10 or more to see it? Now, if they were doing a miniseries, much like Band of Brothers, based in this era, showing the Romulan Wars, and how it affected Federation officers during that time... THAT would be cool. We could have the Enterprise, the Columbia, and other ships by then, and the series could go from ship to ship (much like Band of Brothers went from character to character) and show how this war affected people, and how realistic it could be.
One thing many people need to remember is, Eric Jendrensen (I might have spelled it wrong but you know who I mean) was one of like 9 different producers for Band of Brothers. Two of the others were Tom Hanks and Steven Speilberg. Now he's on his own. Band of Brothers was a major group effort, with HBO and a lot of big names behind it. Star Trek XI has Berman and Paramount. I'm not looking at this combo as such a great thing. He may write a cool script, and Berman will walk in and water it down. Also, there's the thought that about a billion spec scripts written never get produced. This could be one of them.
I'm not sold on the whole Star Trek War Movie idea because I don't think it'll work. A new crew, half of whom (from the sounds of it) get killed, with no real attachment to any of them, and such a drastic difference from previous films, it's going to flop. This idea would work as a miniseries, where you've got weeks to develop an attachment to the different characters, and flesh out the era and the events. But a two hour film, it won't work. We'll have to wait and see I suppose, but I have serious doubts right now.
Quote:
What does this mean? "Lost on the gentlemen involved? Does he mean that Trek's decline has nothing to do with Rick Berman being invovled?
He's saying that Berman, Braga and others (the gentlemen involved as he puts it) are aware of the fact people aren't happy with where Star Trek has been going. However, I think they'll be even less happy with a Star Trek War Movie where the captain gets his legs blown off by a phaser blast or some such thing. Berman has no idea where to take this franchise (and I think you'll agree with me on that Scorned) and he's decided to take it to a pure war film idea. That's going to bomb worse than Nemesis did.
It would work as a 10 or 13 episode miniseries, where you've got those hours to develop brand new characters, show the whole events leading to the war and so on, and then have some of those characters bite the dust here and there as the war goes on. Star Trek isn't a war show, and Berman has no concept of reality if he thinks fans will go to see that. Imagine a character like Spock, lying there on the deck, his arm blown off, green blood everywhere, he's twitching and writhing in pain, and the ship is crumbling around him. Does that sound like Star Trek to you? Doesn't to me. Star Trek isn't about the horrific consequences of war. DS9 did that, and they came as close as I think many fans would want to see Star Trek go. Star Trek is about the future, where humanity has passed the wars and so on. Post-Nemesis is where we should be going. That's just what I think. If I want to see war, I'll fire up my Band of Brothers DVDs and watch them. When I watch Star Trek I want to see something about how humanity can overcome that stuff, how we're going to be better in the future. Not us mired in some interstellar war with the Romulans where characters I've met 45 minutes ago are getting vaporized in phaser blasts. That's not Star Trek. That's Starship Troopers.
Get Rick Berman out of that office PLEASE. Get someone with some vision in there. This idea has some merit, but not as a movie. A 10 or 13 week miniseries would work, but not a movie. But Berman can't think that big, and he's driven Star Trek to the ground to the point where Paramount wouldn't support a 13 week series. Berman is grasping at straws. Anything to try and get fans to watch his latest Star Trek production. He's washed up. Time to go out to pasture Berman. Here's your pension. Bye bye old man. Please Paramount, do one good thing this year and don't green light this project, and move Berman off the Star Trek franchise. If you want to see any profit from this franchise, that's what you'll do.
-
I don't think that just because he mentions that in the Trek future, death in combat looks sterile, means he's going to produce a 2 hour carnage mill.
But if you wanna complain about how we can't, or wouldn't want to, have ugly deaths in Trek... again, need I remind people of how grotesque the deaths of the engineers (even in Scotty's arms) was in TWOK? How about Spock's lingering death from radiation poisoning?
I think people are too quick to apply a Band of Brothers template to this one. Which is a pretty silly reflex to have, when you think about it. I mean was the next big thing Spielberg did after Jaws a watered down version of Jaws? Hardly.
But I can esily imagine a scenario where you could have a realistic but not overdone amount of "grit" even if we assume (from some rumors) this takes place during the Romulan war. And let's assume that the rumor about SF Academy is also true.
Maybe a crew of cadets is on a training mission and they get ambushed by the Romulans, at the start of the war. They get hit by a nuke, but survive. However their ship is badly crippled, and many of the crew are dead or dying of radiation poisoning. Perhaps their attacker was crippled in the attack as well, and perhaps the crew has to overcome this and try to finish off their attacker before their attacker gets their systems back online to finish the job, or return home with intel.
You don't need to dwell on the carnage, and it's nothing Trek fans (let alone the common public) really have trouble with, if ticket sales are any indication. But if someone is hurt, you don't just need to have them go *poof* like they tend to in TNG and on (look at how painful the deaths in the TOS movies were, via disruptor fire, for an example). That's really as far as I would read this.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
...can you just shut the f*ck up and wait, for once?
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
-
The miniseries he's refering to is Band of Brothers, you moron. And if this guy's responsible for ANYTHING in that fine piece of work, well you can bet that the 160 year thing is a slip-up in the middle of an interview. It's the Romulan War. It's gonna be awesome, and you need to seek anger management counseling.
Why? They're just...jesus. I cannot IMAGINE more incompetence than this.
They complain about problems--Franchise fatigue, nobody liked the concept of Enterprise...and then they do the same FUCKING THINGS!
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
ERROR! ERROR!
*explodes*
--------
"Worlds may change, galaxies may disintegrate, but a woman always remains a woman."
--James Kirk, "The Conscience of the King"
"Vulcan children are never late with their sehlats' dinner."
--T'Pol, "The Forge"
They're going backwards again! I will keep an open mind however, and now for a translation
"It's an earlier time, and I think it would be really refreshing to feel something in the course of telling this tale, instead of being wowed by special effects, or presenting another crew in jeopardy where, in the end, the captain does something brilliant, and all's right with the world."
Translation: After Nemesis, Paaramount cut the budget by more than half. We have no money left...
--------
Hoshi: I was hoping you'd put up a fight.
T'Pol: I'm surprised you're not exhausted from all the beds, you've jumped into, recently.
"In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"
I met him a couple weeks back. He is a really good guy. I think he has a rocking story. Don't worry, he is aware that the timeline may not work exactly right. I gave him some ideas on that, here are my choices, which do you like:
1) The Temporal Cold War messed up when Romulans/Humans found each other. Now instead of pre-warp romulans, it is pre-warp humans with earth attacked by Romulans. Cool Huh? Unless the captain can resolve the temporal cold war issues with Daniels, then Archer will never exist!
2) It follows the story of Captain William Adama as he travels from Caprica to Earth.
3) It is the mirror universe Vulcans attacking Cochrane after the first flight
4) At the end of the movie, (I think he might go with this idea), it turns out Wesley Crusher was just playing an holo-RPG of an alternate timeline on the holodeck.
-Brannon
Stay tuned for Threshold!
--------
-
Thanks Bra! Can I call you Bra?
Anyway, I knew we could count on you, great ideas there!
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
You bring up an excellent point- this movie is a prequel to a series that is being cancelled! What in the world???? Nobody watched this show, and guess what? It had a "clean slate" concept too.. no 24th century, all new actors, new stories.. and look what happened?
So let me get this right.. their solution is to do the EXACT SAME THING.. but set it farther back in the past. Okay... that really makes sense.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
Give the prequel band-wagon a rest. Enterpise the so-called 'Reincarantion of star trek' has been a total disaster. Majority of the fans never wanted a prequel, never accpeted enterprise as a prequel and never really will want another prequel and heaven forbid a prequel to enterprise. The rating disaster, the erosion of fans in massive number from the season finale of voyager to the current season and no to forget the lowest rated and watched series premier of any trek series should be more than ample proof.
Quit while star trek have some sembelance of hope of revival on small-screen at some point in time. A prequel movie with unknown cast could spell epic disaster for the beloved trek franchise and could be the last nail in the coffin.
Let star trek rest in peace until we have talent that can once again take trek boldly where it has never gone before not to boldly revisit revision history yet again.
-
Something like 12-13 million people tuned in to catch the premier of Enterprise. It wasn't the premise that turned people off, it was the execution of it. Piss poor characterization, flagrant revision of history, stories that were retreads of retreads, and that went against the premise by having technology and species that had no place in the place or era -- stories that could have just as easily been in the 24th as the 22nd century.
If it's a good movie and it's marketed with any shred of competence, it'll do well. Who knew the cast and crew of TPM before seeing it? Even Vader and Palpatine were so far from their "estbalished" characters they had almost nothing in common with them. For that matter, name all the box office successes that had "already known" characters. They're pretty few in comparison to the movies where people were introduced to the characters for the first time with the movie they were seeing at that moment... and yet, the movies did well. Being "unknown" really doesn't mean anything.
Trek doesn't need such crutches to succeed. They might make things easier, granted, but their absence is nothing like an omen of certain doom.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Well if you look through the web or trekweb archives you will find evidence that enteprise series premier was the lowest rated and watched primeir of any trek series bar TOS. I grew up watching TNG first run and i also hated the prequel concept. We want star trek to move forward not backward. Star wars prequel revolved around well known characters set in the sequels not some unknown chracters that we never heard off. Regardless the series premier showed to begin with that lots of fans have not even bothered to tune in to watch the lamented prequel. After that the rest is history. Prequel have very limited demand and big portion of the fan-base wants to move forward not keep going backward because TPTB are lazy and have run out of creative juices. I had a ID on trekweb called 'GrandAdmiralThrawn' years ago and i wrote somewhere on this site when series V was annouced as prequel that it will be the first trek series to get cancelled before its time since TOS and would bury star trek. This is exacltly what happened. Miracles can always happen, maybe this prequel with unknown cast, unheard of character in trek lore and a time-era no one really knows about or cares about may set the box office on fire or maybe would scuttle the trek ship for good once and for all. Chances of latter are more likely IMO.
-
It did premiere pretty low compared to previous premieres, but that can be said of any post-TNG series. Not sure how much of that can be attributed to the premise, or how much can be attributed to people getting tired of Trek or, in the case of casual fans, having certain expectations (TNG II) and just not giving it a chance. A lot of people actually are that fickle.
UPN also has a limited reach.
But Broken Bow got many more viewers than any of the big eps of the previous few seasons of Voyager on the same network so clearly the idea garnered some renewed interest.
And making a movie that's a prequel is a lot easier than making a series that's a prequel... at least without having so many chances to run amok against continuity, etc. You're also going to tend to get penned into making "fanboy" stories like "This is how we met the first [x] or this is how we did the first [y]"... doing them not because you can make a good story with those things as an element, but rather, doing them in order to perform that "prequelish" sort of service. Doing it because you're "supposed" to.
And as you'll recall, spoilers were already coming out to dampen enthusiasm. "Akiraprise", for one. If such stupid decisions can be avoided this time around, and if we have some real new blood, the movie can do well.
I don't see anything here worth going on a warpath "on principle" over; I see some reason to be mildly optimistic due to the bringing in of genuinely talented fresh blood, but I'll reserve further judgement until we know something solid about the story. I don't see any reason to go unhinged based on preconceived notions of what a few words "have" to mean.
Even though, if I had my druthers, I would give the whole franchise a rest for a few years. Mainly just to make sure Berman'd finally be forced to find new work by then.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Quote:
It did premiere pretty low compared to previous premieres, but that can be said of any post-TNG series. Not sure how much of that can be attributed to the premise, or how much can be attributed to people getting tired of Trek or, in the case of casual fans, having certain expectations (TNG II) and just not giving it a chance. A lot of people actually are that fickle.
Well actually DS9 improved over the series premier ratings as well as number of people watching if my memory is not failing me over TNG. Ds9 actually outdid TNG series premeir which was stellar in 1987 anyway. Voyager premier was lower than both but still above 10 million...i think it was around 11-13 million watching while enterprise was 9 million. So clearly the content and setup of the series does matter as Ds9 premier proved that. The show was never able to match TNG overall weekly rating but still was far ahead than both voyager and enterprise(both of which were mostly horrible series). Ds9 was actually the best trek since TNG and its number shows. Enterprise and voyager were among the worst and their numbers shows too. So subject matter does make a difference and this prequel of a prequel movie is a real bad step.
-
Well first of all, as has been said over and over again, this movie is not going to be a prequel of a prequel. It's not happening before ENT's time. Mental math error on Jendresen's part.
OK, that said...
I have gone back and looked, and DS9 did manage to premiere with higher ratings than TNG did, by 3 ratings points, or about a 20% gain. However, TNG has been basically gaining in viewership and popularity throughout its run, so you would expect for there to be a "Good feeling" about any new Trek. And in fact, DS9's premiere barely improved over the finale of TNG -- only a little over 1 rating point.
Now, for comparison, VOY premiered to a little better than 30% more than the ratings of the highest rated DS9 ep running in the same season.
And ENT had nearly 30% higher ratings than VOY's finale.
So really, it's not really fair or accurate to say that the prequel concept was stillborn among the fans. The promise of a new Trek series has always managed to draw in fresh viewers. Even viewers who were disenchanted by the previous run. Of course for a lot of reasons I think the patience of the fanbase has run thin, as some of the comments here suggest, and as I think the numbers also indicate. It's the fool-me-twice rule.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
While it's waaaaaaaaay too early to determine anything, it at least seems as though Jendresen has the soul of Star Trek in mind and heart. As I read the SyFy Portal interview, I was struck by how he was focused on not just TOS, but on the key elements that made up TOS. In other words, he seems to have done his homework.
I, for one, am preparing myself to become an optimist again.
Does anyone have any facts on the extent of Berman's involvement?
LLaP
--------
THAT is the Exploration that awaits you: not mapping stars or studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of Existence.
-
Quote from NX-47:
While it's waaaaaaaaay too early to determine anything, it at least seems as though Jendresen has the soul of Star Trek in mind and heart. As I read the SyFy Portal interview, I was struck by how he was focused on not just TOS, but on the key elements that made up TOS.
I too was "struck" by Jendresen's comments, to the point where I'm now suspicious. As few as his statements are, they're loaded with buzzwords. In addition to his lavished praise of TOS, Jendresen uses "storytelling" or "storyteller" no less than four times, so I'd guess he lurks on these message boards. ;-)
You know what they say, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Jendresen's soundbite PR reminds me of another Berman frontman: Manny Coto. The result of Coto's lip service is an ENT season of TOS name-dropping glued onto feeble storytelling (I can only guess that Reeves-Stevens contributions got lost in the translation [hacking] by B&B+C).
I still have doubts about the realization of ST:XI under Berman. Just a few days ago, Michael Westmore spoke of the movie as though it were barely more than rumor ("All of us that are in these different departments know what each other's doing, and there's nothing else going on outside of probably the stage with Rick Berman and the writers.") So, after all this time, it hasn't gone much further than hiring Jendresen.
After the NEMESIS and ENT bombs, ST:XI, such as it is, may just be Paramount throwing Berman a bone to chew on while they plan his removal from the franchise over the next year or so.
Of course, this is just my spidey-sense tingling. ;-)
--------------
Star Trek vets surmise the franchise
-
well the fact that they have brought two completely new producers onto the project clearly speaks to some sort of demotion for Berman on TREK XI. Berman is one-third of this Jordan Kerner/Kerry McCluggage endeavor and I wonder if when Berman's development deal runs out next year much of his involvement with the project might be done as well.
--------
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."
-
Yeah, I hear you... I'm still skeptical... but I'm also keenly aware of all of the negativity lately, so I'm trying to keep my opinions balanced on this until I know more. I tend toward the optimistic anyway, as I'd rather look at the positive side of things instead of look for the negative... uplift rather than tear down, you know.
That said, it's perhaps the first pitch in a double header, so we have a looooong time to wait.
LLaP
--------
THAT is the Exploration that awaits you: not mapping stars or studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of Existence.
Saving Private Riker!
Awesome. That's going to be great. I hope tom sizemore will be in it.. that is if he can get out of jail by then.
Pre Enterprise? WWII type story. Does any of this actually have anything to do with "Star Trek"? Oh, excuse me, I'll sit down now. The heavy hitters are playing now.
-
TWOK was a space combat story written by people who had virtually no experience with Trek before signing on and who fubared having Khan recognize Chekov, who wasn't even on the Enterprise in Space Seed. It was a tale of revenge and bloodlust and death. Tell me what that has to do with the retconned theory of Gene's all-pervasive vision of no violence, no grit, no suffering. For that matter I'd like those same people that whine about "Gene's vision" of utter harmonious monotony (including Gene himself) being violated to go back and watch TOS. There were fistfights and killings in practically every episode.
I think we can cut a person some slack for possibly being poor at mental arithmetic while giving an interview. And in the grand scheme of things, if the movie is a great story, then much like TWOK and any other lauded Trek product, minor timeline/continuity/canon infractions will be pretty irrelevant and be no detraction from the enjoyment in the least.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Star Trek II was about death and rebirth from beginning to end; that was the main theme as stated by the director. It was not solely a space combat movie and that isn't what Trek is about. If that's all this movie is about, well, I'm not going to judge the writer. It just doesn't look that good. Take a look at STII again, there's a lot more there, although, for my money, if you take Genesis out it would fall apart as Trek and/or science fiction.
-
I wouldn't say that what he says precludes the possibilities of deeper meanings. And even without Genesis, it's not as if that deeper them of rebirth couldn't have happened in other ways, and it's not as if hard sci-fi has a monopoly on such a theme.
"Themes" can happen anywhere, in anything. The degree of literality vs. metaphor and the mechanics are usually what change. i.e., do we literally kill this person and have him be reborn? do we just make him go through a bad experience and then have an epiphany? if we do kill him and bring him back to life, do we use the genesis device, a fairy wand, or the holy grail?
And the rebirth theme didn't really truly arise until ST:III, as far as the average viewer was concerned (even the Genesis device and its ability to restore dead worlds was basically just "something neat to imagine"). Rebirth in the literal human sense was only even hinted at in a living form by the last few minutes of the movie. What really had most people hooked up till that point was that it was a good story. It had lots of action which pretty much anyone can enjoy, but it had deep friendship, humor, ruminations on aging, self sacrifice, vengeance, life changes, struggles for redemption, and the dangers of your chickens coming home to roost. The Genesis device and photon torpedoes were ultimtately just cosmetic details of a story that at its heart everyone could undestand and feel deeply. Much like most of TOS -- at its heart, it was about the people. People you really cared about, and who felt real. And in a "brave new world" what sort of challenges would they face? How would they react? How should they (we) react?
People too often think that a movie with confllict in it is some brain dead dreck full of pretty lights and loud noises with no substance. They don't have to be, at all. Anyone with a clue would scoff at equating, say, Starship Troopers to TWOK, even though if you used a really simple tagline focused on the militaristic aspect, you might think they're the same. A common trait doesn't mean equivalence. Anymore than a movie where two complete strangers meet and have a one night stand at *some point* in the movie equates to a porno. When the conventions of a genre become the story, and substitute for actual plotting and characterization, that's when you have problems.
But a good story is a good story, regardless of what clothes you put on it.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
Quote:
And the rebirth theme didn't really truly arise until ST:III. It was only even hinted at in a living form by the last few minutes of the movie. What really had most people hooked up till that point was that it was a good story. It had lots of action which pretty much anyone can enjoy, but it had deep friendship, humor, ruminations on aging, self sacrifice, vengeance, and the dangers of your chickens coming home to roost.
No, I think it was more prevalent than that; it involved being reborn through your children or your work as well. Spock with his cadets (particularly Saavik, virtually his "child"), Kirk with David, Carol with Genesis. It's about reaching acceptance with aging, and finding life in a new generation or in your legacy. This is where Khan failed; his legacy was nothing but vengeance. And keep in mind Kirk's last bit of dialogue--"I feel young."
--------
"Worlds may change, galaxies may disintegrate, but a woman always remains a woman."
--James Kirk, "The Conscience of the King"
"Vulcan children are never late with their sehlats' dinner."
--T'Pol, "The Forge"
-
You caught me in the middle of an edit. Sorry.
"Rebirth" in a literal sense only really became obvious to the average person at the end. All that other stuff, unless you're *trying* to boil it down to a common theme/abstraction, most people will think of as separate issues, with separate names. A lot of people would first think of that as coming to grips with changes in your life, or with, as you yourself put it, creating a legacy or, in effect, trying to live forever.
Which is not to say that those were not (or were not deliberately meant as) manifestations of the rebirth theme -- you can put many facets on the same crystal, after all. But to the average viewer, those aren't going to integrate as abstractions from a common subtext until they've had a chance to ruminate on it quite a lot, or have the suggestion put into their head.
--------
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
-
It's NOT an WWII type story, it's a War theme type story.
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
-
"I have a bad feeling about this..."
I don't know what to think, 160 years before Kirk? That would make it before Enterprise right? But I thought it was going to have the Rommies. If this guy can't even get the facts about the movie right how is he gonna right it?!?! I wish Paramount would call me up for some ideas, I could bring Trek out of this crap hole it's in. LOL
--------
"You played Macgyver for 7 years and you can't get us out of this mess? We've got a beltbuckle, shoe lases and a stick of gum! Make a nuclear reactor!"-Amanda Tapping Blooper from Stargate SG-1
The problem I have seen from reading some of the negative feedback in this thread is that no matter what script is created, whether 160 years in the past, 25 years after Nemesis, there is always going to be one person who is going to complain. The same will happen when looking at the person to script a movie. While there is a good percentage that like Manny Coto, there is still that 10% that dont care much for him, classifying him a puppet of B&B. At this point I am willing to give Jendresen the benefit of the dout and wait and see what happens. I have found that most critics that give a thumbs up or down on a movie, at times just dont know what they are talking about. Personally I think that a person needs to see the movie and decide for himself or herself what they think of a movie. I personally think that Jendresen may create a movie that may surprise all of us. As for Paramount/Viacom/CBS, all these people really understand is the Almighty Dollar, I trully dont think they understand what the fanbase is really wanting. Do they care, unless you can read their minds, and I cant, I dont think we will ever trully know. Of course we can alway speculate by how the franchise does.
Could be a great story as much as it could suck...
Don't know if it'll be a Romulan Wars story, I would like so but the chronology is a little off...We know it doesn't mean anything...
About a WWIII story, don't think it would be worth to call it "Star Trek" then, I'm not that interested by pre-Enterprise stuff.
My best guess is for a Romulan War thing. Now, they can do a shitty job, but then it will just put the last nail in the coffin. I hope the prequel idea was decided because they realized they had good possibilities that they couldn't do anymore with Enterprise being cancelled.
Of course, I hope they won't mess up too much with the "continuity" they just established with Enterprise, even if it was at the expanse of other Trek series...Or will they ignore Enterprise? Hmmm...
Let's sit down and wait to judge. When the movie is to be released anyway, late 2006? 2007?
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
You'd think "prequel" would be a dirty word with Paramount after ENT, but they obviously still haven't learned their lesson. If most fans were interested in seeing a prequel, ENT wouldn't have divided the fanbase the way it did. I don't doubt that Jendresen is a talented writer, but this project is doomed to failure by its very concept.
-
Quote:
You'd think "prequel" would be a dirty word with Paramount after ENT, but they obviously still haven't learned their lesson. If most fans were interested in seeing a prequel, ENT wouldn't have divided the fanbase the way it did. I don't doubt that Jendresen is a talented writer, but this project is doomed to failure by its very concept.
The fact that it was a prequel was not the source of Enterprise's downfall. It was crappy storytelling. I was intrigued by the chance to actually see things that were merely mentioned or implied in other Star Trek shows described in detail. Truthfully I didn't have much of a problem with Enterprise and I think that this movie has the potential to actually get other people interested in Star Trek that normally wouldn't have given it a second thought. Imagine a critically acclaimed war movie that happens to be Star Trek.
I am not yet impressed. I will keep my eyes and ears open, but I feel skeptical.
--------
None of us is as good as ALL of us.
well it all seems clear now. They want to make a WW2-style movie in the Trek universe (probably WW III)
...but will this really be a "Trek Movie". But is the pre-Enterprise time really 'Trek'. That is more backstory to the Trek universe.
Roddenberry's Trek is about a time when man has united and put aside war and hunger (at least on Earth). It sounds like this is a time before that vision of the future
-
Well, if the movie is actually set 160 years before Kirk was born, then the movie would be set around the 2070's. That's only ten years after First Contact and it was established that it took humanity 50 years after FC to end war, poverty, and disease on Earth.
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
-
Well I guess I should be happy that they arent putting it in the 24th century and just ignoring major characters- they arent as stupid as I thought they were. Hard to believe, I know.
But one of the things that bothers me about every single movie since First Contact is that each one has had a gimmick. Insurrection was the "funny lighthearted one" that was supposed to capture the essence of Star Trek 4, and Nemesis was a blatant attempt to copy Star Trek 2. Just THINKING about that movie makes me upset... finally getting to see the Romulan homeworld and what do we get? A matte painting and a tiny dark circular room with a bird painted on the floor. whoopie.
This.. is another gimmick. Even in trying to do things differently, they are following the pattern. What do you want to bet they will employ the "shaky camera" technique to demonstrate the horrors of war? Whatever.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
God Speed, Erik Jendresen!
I KNEW IT!!! IT KNEW IT!!! Star Trek XI will be a dark and gritty Romulan War movie that is in the spirit of a World War II movie. I've said it time and time again, and people either just ignore me or critize me, but I, I have the last laugh. I swear on my mother's grave that this movie won't be a dud, but a hit, Star Trek's greatest movie that could rival even Khan himself.
And to all the bashers who doubt:
In the words of Jendresen, "Take a Romulan chill pill!"
VIVA LA STAR TREK!!!!!!! VIVA LA ROMULAN WARS!!!!!
This has made my day.
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
I am interested in hearing more, and think it does have potential, but as far as the timelines go, some things don't make sense.
Forgive, I don't have the Trek chronology in front of me. But some quick math
Original Series = 2265
Kirk was 35.
Kirk born in Iowa = 2265 - 35 = 2230
160 Years before Kirk's birth
2230 - 160 = 2070
So this story is going to take place within a dozen years of Cochrane's flight and First Contact?
There is a lot of story here to be sure, but a prequel to Enterprise? And first contact or the war with Romulans to take place in the 21st century?
Now if is more like 2050 and an examination and exploration of WWIII or the replaced Eugenics Wars, I am definately interested.
--------
-
I agree - WWIII and/or the Eugenics Wars would be an awesome idea for a movie, particularly since there's been very little (or almost no) indication in the TV or film series how these 2 events happened. (I know there's a novel series dealing with the Eugenics Wars, but I haven't read it and wouldn't mind seeing a different big-screen perspective.)
I'm of the opinion that this can't be the Romulan War, if Jendresen is quoted correctly. The figure "160 years" is too precise to be a ballpark estimate on his part, and it ends up being almost 100 years off. Now, if he really said "60 years" instead of "160", then it's got to be the Romulan War.
--------
Never before have things been so much the way they are now.
-
If it's the Romulan Wars, it could just be a miss calculation on his part. I don't think he's a fan like Coto, Sussman, or even Logan. That's why I think this movie is going to rock because Meyer wasn't a fan when he wrote Khan.
If the movie is set in thr 2070's, then is cannot be about the Romulan Wars, and believe it or not, I'm okay with that. I would be excited that the next movie would be similar to my First Contact: New Frontiers series set in the 2070's where Earth is still struggling to become the Earth of the 22nd Century and beyond.
If it turns out to be actually a World War III movie, that's cool with me too. Because he's writing the way I would write Star Trek, dark.
--------
"Take a Romulan chill pill and have some faith!"
-Erik Jendresen, writer of Star Trek: The Beginning
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-General George S. Patton Jr.
"I am NOT Scorned."
-Scorned as Gage/Gage_2
-
Quote from TREKMAN: The MAN Who Knows His TREK:
If it's the Romulan Wars, it could just be a miss calculation on his part. I don't think he's a fan like Coto, Sussman, or even Logan.
Jendresen says his story takes place 160 years before Kirk's birth. B&B's legacy has conditioned fans to automatically assume that the creative team are too clueless to know what they're talking about.
Around the same time that Variety first mentioned Jendresen, early February, another TREK-related news article mentioned that this next movie (XI) focuses on Starfleet Academy.
--------------
Star Trek vets surmise the franchise
-
You do realise it was probably a typo by the person that reported the chat.
I mean we all make them.
What is it with bashers and jumping to conclusions anyway?
Flynn 19
--------
'Rose, you were fantastic. And you know what? So was I.'
-The Doctor, Doctor Who (2005)
-
Quote from Flynn 19:
What is it with bashers and jumping to conclusions anyway?
How was taking Jendresen at his word "jumping to conclusions"?
He's the guy who's in the thick of writing the story, for big bucks.
Yes, we all make mistakes, but Berman has a knack for surrounding himself with uncommon incompetence.
--------------
Star Trek vets surmise the franchise
-
Well Jendresen never offered a hard estimate. He said "160-odd" years and I translated that even in my summary "Jendresen's rough estimate." My guess is they're still in the story development process and haven't finalized many items, including the date in STAR TREK history.
--------
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."
From what I read above I am hoping that it is true and Jendresen is able to pull off a miracle. But the only problem I see is that Mr. Berman is going to stick his nose in what Jendresen is doing and make his usual changes, then again if the studio is smart they will tell Berman you will have no true control over the story line.
-
I share the same concerns. And we should all keep in mind that film is a director's medium, not a writer's. Jendresen could write the most amazing script in the world, but if his writing gets handed over to a director who decides to make the film into a two hour rock video, well, the results certainly wouldn't be Trek, to say the least. But it's too early to turn hyper-negative on this movie, based on what little we know of it.
"Amen."
--------
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."
-
I wonder how people like Scorned are going to react if it turns out to be a good movie. Warp-core overload? One can only hope.
Yes, Scorned, I've only just now joined. But I've been reading your crap for years, and I think you're a prime example of why STAR TREK fans don't join in these discussions.
I've got an idea: why don't you go play on the bulletin boards for "Desperate Housewives" or "Wife-Swap"? At least there you could bitch and bitch and bitch to your heart's content, and actually be RIGHT!
Color me a gusher, if you must. I love STAR TREK. And I disagree with pretty much everything you have to say about it.
Oooh, I'm about to get my first flaming. I'm soooo scared. Maybe this time, Scorned will even attempt to spell correctly. That'd be a surprise.
Go ahead, big boy. You don't scare me.
--------
You will. I won't. That's the difference between a savage and a recovering barbarian.
-
I am hopeful, too. Keep Berman and Braga out of this and we'll see something new, fresh, and interesting...all in the Star Trek universe.
-
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY'VE SCREWED TREK FOR GOOD!!!!! sings"Dream another Dream, this drean is over"-Van Halen-For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.
WWIII???That is nothing to do with trek other than the fact it happened.
If its a romulan wars movie-that means when they engage in surface battle-"primitive atomic weapons" will be used to kill both sides in each battle-Unless they violate the rule"neither side has seen the other".
--------
"First they take our Bat'leths, now they don't allow head butting or Bloodwine? These airlines are without Honor" - A Klingon on a Plane.
SHA-KA-REE: What does Shatner need with a starship?
-
Yeah, sounds interesting. I am not a fan of the idea of a prequel movie, but lets hope this is better than the previous Berman-made TNG movies...there is still hope for Star Trek.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
(1)
| 
