YOU WROTE--
I agree with you that perhaps "timeless" characters can be reworked - to some degree. But also notice that every one of the examples you listed were ones that have had a far longer history (literary, films, even as a comic strip and tv series) than has ST. I mention that only because I think that not enough time has passed since TOS for many to think of Kirk and Spock as other than Shatner and Nimoy.
The MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movies, the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, THE UNTOUCHABLES movie, BATMAN BEGINS (compared to Tim Burtons' BATMAN--only 16 years apart), The X-MEN movies, come to mind as contemporary examples of shorter history successes. TOS began around 40 years ago. I think that is plenty of time. Don't think we have to wait 'til Shatner or Nimoy die (joke!). As I said before, the hard core fans will complain, just as hardcore Battlestar Galactica fans still are, but I don't think that will significantly effect the new venture's success. The millions of "minor" fans who have left TREK won't care. They just want a good movie.
YOU WROTE--
Beyond that, I still think that doing a new film set in the TOS time represents a step backward.
I agree it's a step backward, just not a misstep. I feel the TREK phenomena is over and when and if it ever returns to its glory days--if it ever does, I have a hunch it will return as TOS. I'm going out on a limb with this, but as the decades pass and as TREK futher diminishes, DS9, TNG, VOYAGER will all become foot notes in TREK history. TOS will be first noted as STAR TREK. Despite the obvious success of the followup TREK series, people around the world will identify STAR TREK with TOS.
YOU WROTE--
...despite the analysis of what's so far been put out from the Abrams camp, we might indeed be still seeing a next generation film. Nothing's been definitely said really one way or the other. Any representative has carefully avoided any real direct answer to that question. It's been inferred that TOS is the time setting - but from what's actually been said to this time, it could just as easily turn out to be the TNG,DS9 or Voyager period.
True, we don't ACTUALLY know if TOS will be the focus, but my gut sense and those of a lot of people say it will be TOS. When the term "STAR TREK" is mentioned, at least for me, TOS still comes first to mind as I think it still does for the majority of people, but you could be right.
YOU WROTE--
Also, I think one can always say that making any film is risky - and, naturally, a ST film might be risky as well (but, I also think a ST film might be somewhat less of a risk than any arbitrary film that's made might be - as whatever success or failure ST has had of late, there's still obviously an audience - and so the risks have to be less than for a totally new venture unrelated to ST or anything else).
True. For these reasons studios and producers love sequels! Given sci-fi is not hot at the movies right now, given the expense factor of making these kind of films and given that TREK films never made the kind of money other pop franchises have: LOTR, SW, 007, BATMAN, etc.--especially internationally--its much less a sure thing than it seems. It's a big gamble no matter how you look at it.
YOU WROTE--
As I said originally, I don't think an apparently new exploration of the TOS time is going to be nearly as attractive to audiences as one embracing the TNG time - and also that it will have far less of an opportunity to go further either.
Agree in part. For this very reason I hate prequels! As I said earIier, I too wish the film would concentrate on the TNG-DS9 era, but I'm speaking and looking at it from the perspective of a serious DS9 fan. Most general audiences probably won't care. I just feel the opposite in which is more attractive: a redone TOS film seems more attractive and will make for more excitement and buzz than a new TNG film.
YOU WROTE--
I also think that the mindset of TOS is far more anchored in the 1960s than is TNG in the 1990s.... It's a great deal easier to envisage TNG in any new time set than it is TOS.
Agree with the first part, but disagree with the second. The 60's "look" of the series, anchors the show to the 60's, yes, but TOS was far more open, universal and allegorical in it's storytelling approach; stylistic and symbolic story presentation; universal characterizations; and plotting. It has achieved legendary and mythological heights TNG and the other TREK series never came close to reaching. This makes TOS far more open to new and future time frames and adaptations than TNG.
YOU WROTE--
The very technology involved in the TOS time period has limitations which don't exist in the TNG time as technology there could be viewed as constantly expanding, whereas though technology in the TOS time might be expanding, there are more obvious limits on what has or hasn't been developed - compared to what one knows has happened by the TNG time. And trying to use some tech in a TOS world might only cause consistency problems. (Not that I view the technology used in a film as anything that in itself makes a film better or worse. It's rather than the problems that might be raised by tech issues of time development in a TOS film might simple be one of those unfortunate distractions that takes away from whatever other good points such a film might have)
I slightly agree with some of what you are saying here. I still say TOS film offers the best chance of commercial success, despite my love of DS9 and appreciation of TNG. TOS created such a full, rich universe, that I think it has enough to expand upon, fill in the blanks, clarify, etc., to make an exciting movie/movie series. It's the foundation of TREK. A new film will probably contain re-imagined, reworked, new and contradictory elements and this will no doubt piss-off some of the fans boys, but that's life. Bringing back TNG just doesn't seem special enough to warrant a big budget, new, expensive feature or feature series. That's just the way I see it.
As I said above, I somewhat see your point about the 60's look and feel of TOS, however, I don't see this as an obstacle. In a way, it makes my point of updating because the 60's is such a distance time period, TOS can and should be upgraded. Updating is always an issue with bringing back ANY movie, novel, comic book, TV series, characters or set of characters from the past. It's just not as difficult to do as I think your stating. As Spock once said, change is the essential process of the universe! The past gives way to the future. The too serious fans will have to adapt. TREK is not so special that a different or special set of rules apply to it. A new TOS venture can have a new tone, look, feel, redesign, etc. and still be TREK and still work as long as it is done well!!! I just don't see a "too soon" time frame, technology, the original 60's look/feel as great issues here. On the contrary, they work for redoing it.
YOU WROTE--
We disagree more on the worth and progression of things from the TNG time period than I think we do elsewhere - that and the fact that I think a film set in the TOS period has little place to go for any ST future. TOS has been done so much now, that I don't see that spending more time in that period will do anything but rehash. ...
Actually, we don't differ that much. I like the new era, but am writing from a point of view as to which TREK TV series has the best chance of artistic and commercial success with an updated, multi-million dollar movie and I just feel TOS works the best!
Also, do you really think TOS has done that much? There were only 79 episodes and 6 movies. Less stories than any TREK series. If any TREK series needs more representation, it's TOS!
YOU WROTE--
So - while I agree with several of your points and I think you've made some excellent ones re DS9 and the situation generally, I really think you've given TNG extremely short shrift and that it deserves a great deal more credit, not just for how it stood during the original time it aired, but how it is and has evolved more generally.
In closing, our greatest difference, as you correctly state, regards TNG. I wish I could say for myself that TNG was totally revolutionary or was a great model series, but I just don't see it. In my opinion THE X FILES, BABYLON 5, DS9, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, and the new BSG, have all surpassed it in terms of quality. It certainly evolved the TREK universe and gave us a look at TREK in the future. Season 3 through 6 told some great stories, but it just doesn't resonate with me as well as the before-mentioned series. I think it was a mistake for Roddenberry to create too perfect characters and universe. This really took away the drama. Didn't destroy it, but took away from it. Most shows create drama among it's principals characters AND the guest of the week. TNG did this beautifully with the alien of the week, but failed among the principals. To me character and drama is everything. Great drama is about conflict. This hurt the series for me. Also, I thought the conclusions of many of the episodes relied on too much technobabble and the show failed at doing humor. I'm going to stop here on what I thought were it's shortcoming because I do like the series. It's number 3 on my list of TREK series. I do respect your right to enjoy and exalt it.
Thanks.
| 
