The comment made in the news item regarding fans accepting new actors as Kirk, Spock, etc is flawed. The fan films are just meant to be fun wish-fulfillment, not canonical additions, and even with the fan films when they had a chance to get the original Chekov to appear, they took it. A big screen, canonical production with Brad Pitt as Jim Kirk or whatever would be rejected utterly, unless it was made clear that this was a reimagining and that the original 1966-2005 continuity was being retired -- and even then, I'd say it would still be rejected.
IMO Enterprise -- whether one liked the show or hated it -- proved that the Trek fanbase does not want to see prequels. And if a prequel film is made, you'll have people like me demanding that Enterprise be recognized and included in some way as well. No, better to do a Trek film set after Nemesis ... in fact way after, like 1000 years or so. That way continuity the 1966-2005 regime can be acknowledged, but the writers would have an otherwise fresh slate upon which to draw. IMO that's the only way a Trek production after 40 years is going to succeed.
And if people still want someone from TOS or TNG involved, they can always include a flashback sequence or have the brain patterns of one of the characters included in a Rimmer-style hologram, or whatever.
Al
Why do people want to see the Romulan Wars??? WAR STORIES ARE STUPID. Star Trek is all about an evolved sense of storytelling. This uber-flawed-human-blow-it-all-up-epic-space-battles-patriotic-drum-banging-ignore-real-character-development sensibility is just sickening.
Star Trek was at its best went it dealt with social commentary ("Let That Be Your Last Battlefield") and truly unique, mind-expanding concepts ("Inner Light"). Sure, the BOBW episodes were real fun, but in the end, they don't talk about the human experience, and they certainly don't communicate the human message.
If I wanted yet another war trilogy, I'd go pop Star Wars in the laserdisc player. Let's not let Star Trek go down this sad and sorry direction.
--------
TrekWeb: Because drunk Klingons are just too darned rational and nice.
It's a reboot/reimagining of TOS--a virtual-series--that I am crafting, not a prequel.
--------
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.
Especially one that tries to tell more of the backstory of the three main characters? For those of you who have read any Star Trek fiction (and before you say it's not canon, I say everything's canon, just like Kirk's line in Trek V: "Spock, you know what? Everybody's human."), you know there have been many good stories written that weave a convincing tapestry of the lives of the three main characters.
Kirk, the wide-eyed 10 year old, the 13-year old who watches thousands be slaughtered on Tarsus IV, the rebellious 16-year-old, the 23-year-old midshipman with his own "personal devil" in Finnegan, and then the youngest starship captain in Starfleet history. (From "Final Frontier," "Best Destiny," "Avenger," "Shore Leave")
Spock, the only Vulcan in Starfleet, who hasn't spoken to his father in 18 years, who dies and is brought back to life, who lost his pet sehlat at the fangs of a le-matya and who is rescued from The Forge by his older "cousin." ("The Cage," "Journey to Babel," Star Trek II and III, "Yesteryear" {TAS}, and elements of "Spock's World").
McCoy, the "country doctor" from Georgia, who had to disconnect his father's life support, who meets a young lieutenant injured on the bridge of the USS Farragut named Jim Kirk while a doctor at Starbase Seven, who has a daughter named Joanna from a failed marriage, who attended Ole Miss and later joined Starfleet to get away from his problems. ("Amok Time," Star Trek VI, "Crisis on Centaurus," the original treatment for "The Way to Eden," DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations," "Shadows On The Sun")
Those are just three examples. There have already been rich backstories written about each of the three main characters. My problem with prequels (and reboots, for that matter) is that they exist only to scratch someone's perceived itch regarding a show, and much of that rich backstory is thrown out. As has been stated earlier, James Bond made do with six different actors (Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and now Daniel Craig), and arguments could be made both ways about how new actors have helped or hurt the franchise. Why couldn't Star Trek be recast with different actors, as Ensign Ro-Your-Boat is suggesting? Why couldn't it be done aboard a new ship, with a new crew? Why couldn't it be any one of a number of things, none of them mutually exclusive?
Trek introduced the IDIC concept (infinte diversity in infinte combinations), and even though it was nothing more than a marketing gimmick to sell some cheap trinkets, the idea has stuck. Star Trek can be, and has been, all things to all people. I don't see why folks have to bicker about a reboot or a re-imagining, or a continuation, or a prequel, or more sequels, or whatever. As The Shat himself said, "It's just a TV show!" So enjoy it!
--------
A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
PCLinuxOS
falcon
Please, do not replace important actors. Either the original actor is available, or you write another story. And I prefer heroes that are older than me, thus they should not be kids.
I think its great that, for example Michael Dorn has played Worf for so many years. That character has followed me all my life. You cannot have someone else play Worf.
No comments to Jendresen's movie.
While I wasn't too crazy about yet another prequel concept, the tidbits given by Jendresen sounds interesting. And I take the Romulan war movie over Bennett's Starfleet Academy any day, as I really dislike the "Kirk and Spock, the early years" idea.
On the other hand I am fine with a total reboot. There was a time that I hated for that to happen to Star Trek but now I am OK with it.
--------
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
... is the general consenus here essentially this: Hey, now that I've heard STAR TREK: THE BEGINNING fleshed out, it isn't as crappy as I'd feared.
How sad is that? We're getting excited because the nightmare turns out to be not all that bad. Is this the landscape after 10 years of unadulterated Berman/Braga. How far are we from the expectation the creators in charge will BLOW US AWAY. Pretty far, it seems.
--------
'Risk IS our business' - Kirk.
This show will make your eyes bleed. And you'll be glad to be blind. Prepare to be offended.
SNOWMEN HUNTERS at Zanzibar19.
That's exactly the type of movie I've been saying Trek should make for a couple of years now! Let's just hope TPTB realize Jendresen's script is the way to go.
--------
"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 completely disagree with the idea of having a younger cast playing already established roles.
I believe there are two main types of Star Trek fans: the main fan is a trek fan who places trek above most of all television shows, classifying it as a living entity unlike any other. The second fan tends to enjoy sci-fi in many forms and tends to have many sci-fi interests, of which trek is included but not held much above the rest. Recasting of trek characters would alienate the first (main) kind of fan, while the second type of fan, though they like trek and consider themselves fans, accepts almost anything new to sci-fi, so they won't care if a new actor is playing a familar role.
(Before anyone decides to bash me or my opinion without understanding what I mean, let me explain, then you can bash: I have almost all trek seasons on DVD. I watch them regularly. I believe I would be called a hard core trek fan simply for that alone. I don't watch other sci-fi series. I'm not interested. I don't specifically like sci-fi, except maybe some movies that I think are good. I believe the main trek fan who is dedicated to trek is very similar to myself. That kind of fan takes trek seriously. A conservative fan. I don't know much about the second kind of fan other than I would classify them as a liberal fan, someone who wants something new and different. For some reason, liberal fans don't acknowledge the need for continuity as much as conservative fans.)
A prequel trek which doesn't honor already established trek history would kill the franchise, such as recasting already known characters simply to cash in on the character names. The main hard core fans would not accept it. Most hard core fans didn't accept Enterprise for the same reason, because it didn't acknowledge The Original Series 'future history' (at least not until season 4).
I KNOW that you can't please everyone, but for trek's sake, you must at least please the core fans who have been there for most of their lives.
There are still stories to be told post-Nemesis. Heck, I spent a year working on an excellent screenplay to close the TNG cast and then open up to a multi-cast storyline in two other movies. It is a trilogy, the first draft is finished on what would be Trek 11, while I've also been working on Trek 12 and 13 at the same time, throwing ideas around (though I have no idea what to do with the finished draft now that it's done.)
I thought having a completely unknown set of characters was a bad idea, but recasting already known characters is an insult to 40 years of fans.
--------
Respect the cannon
-
James Bond is at least as iconic as James Kirk, and changing actors has worked for him for 40 years. ;-)
--------
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."
-
But...but...Star Trek is different! DIFFERENT!
(you know I'm right because I typed 'different' in capital letters)
--------
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.
-
Ensign, have YOU ever TRIED not being a smartass? ;-)
And, by the way, you've been an ensign FOREVER. Shouldn't you promote yourself already?
--------
Respect the cannon
-
"Ensign, have YOU ever TRIED not being a smartass?"
I try to curb it when I'm around my mom and my boss (although it's especially hard with him). ;)
"And, by the way, you've been an ensign FOREVER. Shouldn't you promote yourself already?"
I actually tried that once. Didn't take. It just didn't sound right. Nobody remembers Ro as anything other than an Ensign. Yeah, sure, she got a promotion in her final appearance on TNG, but hell, there's a whole episode entitled "Ensign Ro". ;)
PS-- My project is a reboot/reimagining of TOS--a virtual-series--that I am crafting, not a prequel.
--------
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.
-
A while back, I think it is Ro who writes the prequel stuff(?) and posts it on here, I replied with my opinion that Kirk IS Shatner, and Shatner IS Kirk. There's no other way to describe the character and the actor. They will never be MORE defined in any other way because for 40 years the character has been there and everywhere.
Of course my computer locked up before I could post my comments to Ro's idea and I didn't feel like retyping it, lol.
But anyway, a better example would be recasting George Jefferson. Archie Bunker? The Fonze? I'm sure there are many roles that can NEVER be recast. James Bond had no defining characteristics other than being british with some cool toys. Years ago I thought, "That Remington Steel guy would be a cool James Bond." Apparently he and others thought so too. But no one ever said, "So-n-so would be a cool James Kirk."
If someone tried to be Kirk they would in essence have to be very much Shatner too.
I believe it was Shatner who said when TNG came out, "How can it be Star Trek without us?"
Eh ... I know maybe I'm taking this topic a bit seriously, but let's take a different perspective: does anyone think that such an idea wouldn't totally screw up treklore just like Enterprise kinda did?
And people would be so critical of such a movie I doubt they could enjoy it even if it were well acted and written. Take The Butterfly Effect for example. It was the best sci-fi/time travel movie I've seen in years. But do you think audiences could get past the fact that Ashton Kutcher played the main actor (I thought excellently)? It was bashed for that reason and people laughed at parts that we tragic.
Anyway ... gotta get those original trek actors back in front of the camera before they get too old. lol
Oh, and while I have your ear Steve :) what on earth would you do with an excellent Star Trek screenplay if you wrote one? If anything, is there even a contest I could enter it in?
--------
Respect the cannon
-
honestly I think Shatner's cult of personality is working retroactively here. Shatner wasn't really "Shatner" until he was pretty much done with TREK. That Shatner we know and love now was not nearly as present when he was actually playing Kirk, and I think Kirk could be played well by someone else. It doesn't take anything away from Shatner, it would be a different era in the character's life. Put another way, if they were doing a ST episode back in the day, and they wanted to show a teen or early twenties Kirk, they would have used another actor for those scenes. Just like Spock in ST3. So what's the big deal?
--------
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."
-
Eh, I suppose it wasn't so much a prequel as much as (Ro reminded me in his recent post) a reboot that bothered me about the stories Ro posts.
My original point was what does the majority trek audience want? #1 is Continuity. There is so much trek out there any new story has to logically fit in with the rest of the 700 hours or else people won't accept it. Early Enterprise for instance. #2 if we're talking movie, Nemesis proves that the name 'Star Trek' won't bring in the bucks alone. There needs to be either high profile and in demand actors playing those parts, or familiar faces with a kick ass story.
Perhaps a young Kirk, Spock and Bones is ok to some fans. But the true, hard core trekkies want Shatner back as Kirk, and they want it bad. I can't imagine them turning against something they have fought for for over ten years.
Again, going back to my original comments, there is no need to rock the boat while it's sinking.
--------
Respect the cannon
-
Bottom line is Shatner as Kirk is never gonna happen. He is almost 75. Let's face it, let the guys have some dignity.
And I don't think it's safe to presume anything about what "hardcore" TREK fans as a group would or would not accept. Furthermore, it's been proven that hardcores alone do not a success make.
--------
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 disagree, Steve. If Sylvester Stallone can play Rocky and Rambo again and if Harrison Ford will play Indiana Jones again in 2007, why not Shatner can play an older Kirk too ? Shatner is a better actor than ever and is in incredible good shape for his age, just watch Boston Legal. Patrick Stewart played an older Picard with great dignity in "All Good Things...", so I can't see why Shatner can't do the same thing in a final movie, featuring character from the various Trek series, as Stewart himself suggested. ]
Please no more prequels and no reboots. Young Kirk can work in novels and fan-films, but would never work on a mainstream Trek movie. Please Paramount, bring back the real Kirk and Spock.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
Quote:
Furthermore, it's been proven that hardcores alone do not a success make
If you're referring to Nemesis, I have never seen that movie although I'm a hardcore fan. I imagine that I'm not alone.
Its true, however, that a movie should not ONLY please the hardcore fans. But it should not step on their feelings either.
A young Kirk (younger than we've ever seen him) needs to be played by another actor, of course. Just like Jake Sisko was played by another actor in "The Visit", and Picard was played by another actor in "Second Chances".
That's okay. The question is, do we want a movie where the main characters are teenagers? Personally I don't think that's a good idea.
Steve, I'm in agreement with you on prequels, more or less, but Bennett's project really isn't a prequel; it too is a re-imagining.
The young Kirk/Spock/Bones premise really has more in common with 'Smallville' and 'Batman Begins' or even 'Young Indiana Jones' and 'Young Sherlock Holmes' in that, yes, it would exist outside the established canon (beginning and building upon its own mythology), but it would still be closely based upon, and associated with, the same iconic characters (and related subject matter) that pop-culture is so familiar with...just when those characters are at an earlier point in their lives.
Kirk, Spock, Bones, the original 1701 (even the old original uniforms), etc are iconic now. Timeless. Dont get me wrong, TNG was very popular once, but it doesn't have the same 'Americana' quality. Seriously, the original Star Trek, at least to Americans anyway, is just as much a part of the pop-cultural landscape as Archie Bunker, Mickey Mouse, Bonanza, Ronald McDonald, M*A*S*H or even Santa Claus.
The comparison to comic book heroes like Superman and Batman, as well as other icons of literature and film, such as Sherlock Holmes, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, Three Musketeers, Buck Rodgers, James Bond, Doctor Who, Robin Hood etc, is very apt as well.
Doro/Star_Child came up with a great title a year or so back for Bennet's film, too: Star Trek: Three Destinies.
I can see the movie poster now: the heads of the actors playing the young Kirk, Spock and Bones painted above/among the Golden-Gate Bridge with the Starfleet Academy campus interspersed below, and a beautiful sunset bathing everything in an orange/pink light.
At the very top of the poster, in smaller letters, it reads:
"Before they became heros...they became friends"
Then the title in the font used on TOS:
"STAR TREK: THREE DESTINIES"
then at the bottom:
"This Fall, a legend is reborn"
--------
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.
-
"Three Destinies" sounds good, but does it really fit? It makes it sound like Kirk, Spock and McCoy go off to have three completely disparate futures from each other. But don't they go on to share the same destiny, or would the reboot concept mean that they DON'T go on to their voyages aboard the Enterprise together?
-
Not necessarily. Their destinies could all find them working on the ship together, but with different motivations and goals as well as outcomes from their shared experiences. McCoy could be avoiding intimacy, Spock could be rebelling against his father, and Kirk could be on a mission to leave offspring throughout the local galaxy. Sure, they have a destiny in common, but they each have their reasons for being where they are, as well as their own interpretation of events. Unless they all die together, I think they each have their own destinies.
And I know what you're probably thinking, that the movie poster is important in conveying everything about the film that must be conveyed in order to draw an audience. For anyone familiar with Star Trek, I think they'll know exactly what the idea behind three destinies is. For the uninitiated, they'll be curious, but I don't think it's a strong enough of a hook for those unfamiliar with Star Trek. The line "Three Destinies, One Mission" would probably clear up some of the confusion for those having trouble with it. But those outside of Star Trek fandom won't respond to it, and the studio needs to get the marginal fans into the theaters to see their films.
--------
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.
-
Damn Ro, you almost made me cry!
I want to see that movie made!
Despite agreeing it wouldn't have been the wisest marketing move, I found Jendresen concept potentially interesting, if well done
Having the choice between Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (Or...Three Destinies...like the title) and Beginings, I would definitely choose the former. It would work better both with non-familiar audiences and fans...
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
-
"Damn Ro, you almost made me cry! I want to see that movie made!"
As do I. :)
I'm imagining a real poignant coming of age picture. Something in the vein of TAPS, School Ties, An Officer and a Gentleman, Higher Learning and Dead Poets Society.
I'm just a big believer in the power of those three characters (regardless of whether it's Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly playing them). I look upon them the same way people do Hamlet or Superman; they're a part of our culture, and I just think more sequels (whenever they take place in Trek's fictional timeline) is misguided. Nobody, outside the hardest of the harcore Trekkies/Trekkers, gives a damn about connecting all the dots of continuity; they think to even care about such a thing is ludicrous (and I agree with them).
However, the frustrating part is the conventional wisdom among fandom; for most of us are married to a very strict notion that Trek can only continue in the form of sequels (or, at the very least, prequels, which is still the same mindset): more casts copied from the archetypes of TOS, and more embellishments to an already overstuffed and dilluted mythology that the mainstream public stopped caring about long ago.
When you say Star Trek, for 99% of the people, the first thing they think of is not Picard and Data; they dont think of Sisko and Odo or Janeway and Seven, they think of Kirk, Spock and Bones--because they ARE Star Trek. Those three characters have more appeal to movie goers/TV watchers than any new cast of characters, veiled to feel similar to them, ever will.
--------
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.
I sincerely hope that this idea gets to see the light.
It just sounds like a potentially great story, and unlike some here, I don't see any intrinsic problem with a project simply because it happens to be set at an earlier point on the timeline of a fictional universe. ('Course, all biases admitted to, I think every bit of earlier-era Trek has, on average, been better than the average of the latter-era stuff.) If it's a solid story with engaging characters, then why not?
The backdrop of the Romulan War, as it leads into the founding of the Federation, has huge potential for good storytelling. Again, it's not because of those events in and of themselves, it's because they offer an opportunity to explore some of the most basic themes--overcoming adversity and affirming Humanity, diversity, and reaching out as positive values--that have characterized Star Trek throughout its existence.
And truth be told, the last time I heard about a proposal that, at an early stage of its development, had so many things I liked in it, all at once, I got "Trek VI", my favorite Trek film.
I don't know if this will ever come to fruition, but I certainly hope so, because I think it has good cinematic potential. Go for it, Paramount!
Best,
Alex
-
If the character was really called Tiberius Chase, I sincerely hope he goes by "Ty" and tries to keep his full name secret.
A Romulan War trilogy would be great, I think, done in a true non-Trek fashion. I wish Spielberg would direct. I'd love to see a completely stand-alone story with the Romulans getting very little screen time...just Earth and it's few allies trying very hard to stem the tide of faceless invaders. A very 9/11 mood of fear and sort of a siege mentality--always being attacked by the Romulan Star Empire. I'd love the ground troops to be 100% or 99% Reman, and Remans be true monsters that kill themselves arsenic-style when captured to avoid giving up any info about Romulans. And of course the Romulans want to stay secret due to some problem with the Vulcans...like maybe the Vulans aren't helping Earth in the war but if they knew the enemy was Romulan, they would????
To clear up the slight inconsistency with TOS and the whole no-ship-to-ship-communications thing, I'd say the Romulans use some sort of jamming that prevents anything but radio.
I'd love to see a stort that's almost unrelated to Trek.
I think it'd be great, though, if the Vulcans finally recover a Reman and figure out that he's from Vulcan stock. That would be a good reason for the Vulcans to silently shift policy and join up with Earth to repel the Romulans.
They could even follow up a bit on the notion introduced in Enterprise that some of the Vulcan "aristocracy" is in the pocket of the Romulans.
I could envision a whole miniside plot where the good Vulcans oust the Romulan-friendly Vulcans and maybe reveal to the one human hero that THAT (pointing to corpse) is a Romulan. All present agree that Earth can't be told that Romulans and Vulcans are basically the same. Humans resent and mistrust Vulcans a bit and the news that Vulcans are identical to Romulans could fracture the alliance. Instead, the identity of the Romulans will be kept secret from the populace....but Starfleet and the Vulcans.
That's actually a pretty cool idea, I think.
--------
Click here to check out my band, ego tree , and the Ego Tree site at myspace. Listen to/buy the CD for $9.99! ALSO AVAILABLE ON iTUNES!!
Maybe a good move whould be to visit the "Timeship" concept that was touched upon in "Voyager". A crew from the Federation's future that investigated/repaired temporal disturbances. This would move the movies/series forward while giving the ability to go back and fill in some historical details, or nostalgic visits with different characters and situations in all the Star Trek series. It would even leave open the use of old footage from the different series/movies combined with
new footage and modern effects(like the DS9 Tribbles episode).
-
You are absolutely correct. From what I believe about Enterprise's developement, there was a toss up between a prequel series and a time travel series involving the Federation in both. Someone got the lame idea to put the 2 ~together~ which created the often bashed Enterprise 'future guy' storyline. Both ideas, a prequel series and a Trek time travel series, by themselves, are great ideas. But together ... cancellation.
When people were speculating about Series V, before anything was made public, the Relativity idea was thrown around by myself and many others. And I still believe it could be the next great Trek incarnation. Not only could it tie up all the loose ends thoughout Treklore, but it would eliminate forehead-of-the-week episodes in favor of humans interacting with humans, though from different times.
I could go on and on about it because it just has so many ... possibilities. That includes wrapping up Enterprise storylines which never got a chance to conclude.
--------
Respect the cannon
Preamble: *that should read Bring on Starfleet Academy 25th Century. Can't find delete or Edit title functions.
---
No more backtreading, _now_ may we put the boldly-going back into Trek?
Despite the boisterous naysayers that I've seen about the net, I would expostulate that The Starfleet Academy idea is _the_ most compelling concept*
*of those heretountofor proffered by the studio.
But move it -forward- 100 years, not back.
Do not, for the love of Roddenberry, move the bloody thing back again.
It kills Trek's imperative and impetus.
Nostalgia may be enjoyable from time to time, but it can be crippling in excess, and the public are not fools, the publicly stated rationale is irrelevant, they will see any move to a "back" Trek as a sign of creative weakness and will be predisposed to an negative view before having even seen one ep.
Instead, move Trek FORWARD.
With a little tweaking, this can be accomplished with Starfleet Academy.
I can envision training mission episodes, ensign stints aboard Starships eps, life in San Fran and elsewhere on Earth in the future (future Arcades, Clubs, Malls? these things would be a creative persons field-day, and the public would be intrigued and glued, just as we were with TOS and then TNG's fresh looks at the future); locally I can see a "Q"'esque (Bond not Continuum) lab on Campus, where new Trek technology is incepted and developed.
All of these things would be interesting to the public (and to Trekkies) to see on Trek (again).
Nominally I would prefer a new Trek series set 100 years after TNG and onboard the Enterprise, with an new future designed and portrayed
but as I've outlined above, I believe it can work nicely with Starfleet Academy too.
The advantage of SFA (as I see it) is that the connection to youth and adventure is built into the Academy premise and will if handled properly drawn and intrigue a new generation of viewers.
But that is not enough in itself, do not set it in the past (where it will bore viewers as a concept) Trek MUST MOVE FORWARD IN TIME, or it will continually fail to interest the gen pop, who were twice spoiled by Roddenberry (TOS & TNG) and his offering fresh, intriguing, and compelling visions of the future to us.
And That's My View.
regards,
Michael Xavier 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.
-
See Titular Discrepancy.
Attempted to change the title in the above post, and added a remark _into_ the original post re the title, but the edited-in (SFA 25 not 24th Century) remark in the above msg seems to have disappeared.
At least when I load up this page, only the original unedited version appears.
Something must be wrong with my settings, Trekweb registers me as logged in but it will now no longer allow me to edit the above msg.
The Edit-msg icon doesn't even appear under the post anymore.
So, let's try it this way: that ought read "Bring on Starfleet Academy 25th Century".
regards,
Michael Xavier 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.
Quote from Steve Krutzler:
I say this with one caveat: if they want to do a prequel, use Harve Bennett's idea of an actual young Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at the Academy. That just could be the only hook to make going "back to the future" appealing to both fans and casual moviegoers alike. After all, many fans have already embraced the surrogates for the classic characters in fan films.
Agreed.
I'd prefer to actually see Jendresen's script before passing a hard-line judgement, but the harder to swallow brass-tacks of this particular XI project is that it comes under Rick Berman's watch. That alone flags a futile white elephant.
Tough shit if creatively-bankrupt Berman, Braga, Coto et al now have no Old Boy leverage among Paramount executives. The studio correctly canned the deadbeat Enterprise, and appears to be waiting out Berman's contract.
The franchise desperately needs to get back to the Gene Roddenberry (i.e. pre-Berman) Star Trek which prevails as the soul of a timeless pop-cult phenomenon. Harve Bennett is among the few with appropriate credentials.
--------------
Soldiers of the Empire WORF Action Figure
This one cuts close to my heart. I believe BAND OF BROTHERS is the best expression of dramatic television I've seen, so Jendresen has a lot of running room with me for whatever he wants to attempt. That being said, the impulse to look back to the past by both TREK creators and TREK lovers has reached nearly pathological levels.
Yes, we all loved TOS, and yes it was vital in ways all following TREKs increasingly failed to achieve, but it has become the never-to-be-relived glory days of the franchise. Looking back in prequels (ENTERPRISE) prequel-sequels (STAR TREK: THE BEGINNING) is a blindness which keeps us from seeing a clear future. It produced Berman/Braga's worst missteps (yes, there are a lot of contenders for that honor), ranging from the slow whittling down of the Borg on VOYAGER as they tried to relive THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS glory, to nearly the entire run of ENTERPRISE.
Now, it's a hell of a lot like the 35-year-old car salesman who can't stop talking about or trying to recapture high school days as the star quarterback.
It's gotten to the point where creators try to get us excited on little riffs on the past continuity (Gaze with awe at the spectacle that is THE ROMULAN WARS! Gasp in wonder at the first meeting with the Andorians! Marvel at the first phaser!) and totally abandon attempts at interesting, fun storytelling.
I'm sorry, but we are never going to recapture the sweet, cool feeling of watching Kirk, Spock and Bones do their thing. So please, stop trying.
And please, I'm begging you, stop trying to pull some chunk of continuity out and wrapping a story around it. I really don't care about the Romulan Wars. I don't care about why Klingons went from bumps to no bumps on their heads. I want to see characters get ripped up inside. Kirk mourning Keeler. Picard recovering from Locutus. Bones mourning Spock and going katra-crazy. Sisko wrestling with losing a war, and watching what he's going to do about it. That's the TREK I love, and that's the trek I haven't seen since DS9 left the air.
For my money, aside from Ro's great reboot idea, the best thing would be to let the franchise rest for a few years, get a totally new creative staff, then do a TNG era jump to something that takes place centuries after the TNG era.
Sorry this is so long, but why say in 50 words what you can say in 420?
--------
'Risk IS our business' - Kirk.
This show will make your eyes bleed. And you'll be glad to be blind. Prepare to be offended.
SNOWMEN HUNTERS at Zanzibar19.
-
"...aside from Ro's great reboot idea..."
Wow. Thanx. :)
--------
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.
-
Could not have said it better myself!
The point of Star Trek is to examine the human condition through the prism of sci-fi.
I know this may sound obvious, but the history of the future is not real. It simply doesnt have the resonance that real history does. Case in point- the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is beloved by fans around the world. But what percentage of people really care about The Silmarillion(sp?).
Tiberius Chase is a good name, and it hints toward a good idea behind the story. I'm intrigued. I like this idea much more than doing a story about young Kirk and his buddies. I want to see some real Star Trek stuff, not the simplistic scaling back of time in order to do a prequel stuff, like what we saw on ENT. Remove Starfleet from importance in the storyline, make Tiberius Chase the head of a small "unofficial" group of operatives sent to rescue someone or something and gather intelligence, that intelligence being information on the coming Romulan wars, and that's part one of the trilogy right there.
In no way, shape, or form do I want to see young Jimmy Kirk in high school, dealing with his teenage problems and trying to fix Spock up with a Deltan woman on a blind date. Star Trek always does poorly when trying to be a kiddie show. Just look at EVERY episode or film passage that involves kids. It's a proven loser... hail, hail, fire and snow, and all that.
--------
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.
No prequels. There's wide open space waiting to be explored where we left off with Nemesis. Whether we follow an established crew or not, I don't know. Maybe you do both somehow. At any rate, they have to face the challenge head on and plow through uncultivated wilderness where it's exciting and new, not return to the neutral zone where it's safe and where you can't throw a rock without hitting a continuity problem.
I'm glad it was abandoned because it was not only a bad idea but it would have been another Bomb for Paramount. Move forward in the universe either with Next Gen or some of the other Trek characters but have none of them be from Enterprise or before or after that Series. It didnt do well for a reason and people dont want to see that again.
Curious as to why there is color commentary in the article.
Paramount- here is an idea.
Go look up Star Trek New Voyages on the internet.
Call Jim Crawley.
See if they can do a show a month for $500k per episode to deliver 10 episodes a year. Stay the hell out of it, and let them figure out what they are going to do as stories.
My guess is that they would be able to charm Manny, Ron, Ira, and the classic writers into doing scripts.
Put it on SciFi or USA, and get the rake out to take in the money. Sell the seasons at $40 each.
--------
"I say this with one caveat: if they want to do a prequel, use Harve Bennett's idea of an actual young Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at the Academy. That just could be the only hook to make going "back to the future" appealing to both fans and casual moviegoers alike. After all, many fans have already embraced the surrogates for the classic characters in fan films."
A man of vision you are, Steve. ;)
--------
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.
-
Look, in my opinion, Enterprise was not such a bad show... However it did mess up the Trek timeline beyond repair - so I say leave it be - prequels just create to many errors - move on to the future.
The future has so much opportunity - we have the new Star Fleet badge, new uniforms and an array of ships that could be explored (just look all over the net for a multitude of ideas)
It seems that fans know more about Star Trek than the people who actually create it!!! We know what we want and we don't want OR need a prequel. WE don't need time travel!!!!! We also don't need new people playing a young Kirk or Spock or Picard - this is just cheesy cinema. The past Trek timeline has been polluted - the future is still relatively clean.
I think the only way of saving Star Trek is to get the fans on board, if we are not happy then the film will flop and Paramount will loose money – pretty simple notion!!!!
So in my opinion: The future IS the future of Star Trek!!!!!
Leave the past to the imagination of the fans
-
Steve and I both prefer a reboot of TOS. I'm in agreement with you on prequels more or less, but Bennett's project really isn't a prequel. It too is a re-imagining. It has more in common with the intent of 'Smallvile' actually; a 'pre-boot' if you will.
And, in addition to 'Smallville', the young Kirk/Spock/Bones premise really has more in common with 'Batman Begins' or even 'Young Indiana Jones' and 'Young Sherlock Holmes' in that, yes, it would exist outside the established canon (beginning and building upon its own), but it would still be based upon, and associated with, the same iconic characters (and related subject matter) that pop-culture is so familiar with...just when those characters are at an earlier point in their lives.
Kirk, Spock, Bones, the original 1701 (even the old original uniforms), etc are iconic now. Timeless. Dont get me wrong, TNG was very popular once, but it doesn't have the same 'Americana' quality. Seriously, the original Star Trek, at least to Americans, is just as much a part of the pop-cultural landscape as Archie Bunker, Mickey Mouse, Bonanza, Ronald McDonald, M*A*S*H or even Santa Claus.
The comparison to comic book heroes like Superman and Batman, as well as other icons of literature and film, such as Sherlock Holmes, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, Three Musketeers, Buck Rodgers, James Bond, Doctor Who, Robin Hood etc, is very apt as well.
Doro/Star_Child came up with a great title a year or so back, too: Star Trek: Three Destinies.
I can see the movie poster now: the heads of the actors playing the young Kirk, Spock and Bones painted above/among the Golden-Gate Bridge with the Starfleet Academy campus interspersed below, and a beautiful sunset bathing everything in an orange/pink light.
At the very top of the poster, in smaller letters, it reads:
"Before they became heros...they became friends"
Then the title in the font used on TOS:
"STAR TREK: THREE DESTINIES"
then at the bottom:
"This Fall, a legend is reborn"
--------
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.
-
Ro, I am sorry but I disagree with you and Steve. I dont think Bennett's Starfleet Academy would have worked on the big screen. I dont think a reboot for the TOS franchise would have worked in 1991 or now. I am a big fan of The Undiscovered Country and I am glad Paramount turned down Bennett's idea.For the future, I rather see a final movie with the TNG cast because there was nothing "final" with Nemesis. Just my two cents.
Gustavo
PS - Ro, I may not like Bennett's idea, but as you know I am a big fan of your virtual reboot project.
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
It's cool. No worries. We cant agree on everything. ;)
--------
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.
-
Thanks, dude. I have no problems with reboots (I am a big fan of the Galactica remake and I am also a big fan of the original Galactica series) but I think it is time for a final TNG movie, possible with the return of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. And please, no Rick Berman.
I am not an industry expert, but I think a big screen adaptation of the Shatner/Reeves-Stevens THE RETURN, featuring Kirk and Spock together again, plus Picard and his crew together one last time, fighting the Borg and the Romulans, would be a huge sucess at the box office, and maybe the best Trek movie since The Undiscovered Country. I would LOVE to see Shatner, Nimoy and Stewart together on the big screen !
As I said before, in my opinion THE RETURN is one of the best Trek books ever, and it could be turned into one of the bext Trek movies ever.
Glad the Jendresen script was cancelled. Enough of this prequel crap.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
Quote:
Glad the Jendresen script was cancelled. Enough of this prequel crap.
It certianly sounded a hell of a lot more interesting then doing the worst thing anyone can do for an OFFICIAL movie... bring back characters that should remain as they are and be REMEMBERED not re-cast and re-written.
The whole romulan wars things is, I think... I could be wrong, far more capable of offering the epic scope we have come to expect from Trek films. Then again, I have yet to read the book you mentioned so I will not comment on that.
It has been my experience that the Trek books are all so cheesy and pathetic that it makes me long for the worst of Michael Crichton imitators DAN BROWN.
Believe me... the general public will see any resurrection of Kirk for what it is... fan-boy shite. They already fucked up his death, leave the character in peace and go and makes some new ones up.
Flynn 19
--------
'Rose, you were fantastic. And you know what? So was I.'
-The Doctor, Doctor Who (2005)
(1)
| 
