I'm not too sure how to say this since I've found I do like the new Battlestar Galactica. That said, my kids aren't going to be watching it. In a separate post I mentioned reinventing as not the best way to go with classic Trek. First, there's the cheapening of the product by scraping established history (even if only established in the TV show and movies).
Second, there's the question I always keep asking myself..."Would Galactica have made it as a TV series following the same premise with a different title, ships, and character names if they'd kept exactly the same actors and scripts?"
It woulda been nice to see, wouldn't it? Sink or swim on your own without the benefit of having a name that many people were hoping to see come back? The controversy over the grittier story alone brought in crowds by the droves just to see if they had reason to loath the show.
So, in regard to Trek? If they're going to get so silly as to reinvent to the point where it just isn't Trek any more maybe they should be ballsy enough to just name it something totally different and take the appropriate blame or praise after the movie's released.
Maybe they can aim for the crowd older than me and get David Caruso to be Howdy Doody in a nice live R-rated movie where Buffalo Bill Smith ends up related to the guy in "Silence of the Lambs."
After all, if you're going to prostitute a series name for profit, why even attempt to keep it in good taste.
To Quote Part of this article:
Quote:
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last show (Enterprise) on the air and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone before."
This is exactly part of the reason this franchise continually went down hill. He states that "If the old Trekkies do not like the new movie then too bad."
The executives involved with Star Trek are famous for ignoring what the fans want, and this statement proves it!
It seems to me that they want to do with Star Trek what Ronald Moore did with Battlestar Galactica. And although I was a critic of the Reimaging at first, I am now glad they did what they did. I do not think that modle will work with this franchise.
Star Trek was always about going forward, the failure of "Enterprise" proves that people are not interested in a movie or whole series about how we got to where we are. They can do a movie or series that is grittier
without having to go back in the past. Story arcs of this nature are nice to see, but not an entire movie that may define the direction the franchise may lead in.
Sorry this was so long, but but that attitude from people in that type of position really peeves me off. Then again in their own works i guess "Too Bad"
Perhaps this news was leaked only to see the fan reaction. It can later be retracted if needed, if that is the case.
Here is what I see: A reboot will burn too many bridges if it doesn't succeed. Think about it, if you reboot trek it alienates many or even MOST of the hard core fans, so I wouldn't step on their toes. You would even have to explain it is a reboot or else they'd be looking at the screen saying, "HEY, What the F*@# is a Ferrengi doing there?" then they walk out.
Show loyalty to the fans because they are the ones who kept trek alive. They are people like me who have watched every episode they liked over and over again, recording episodes from television, possibly buying the VHS tapes, as I did, then selling those, or giving them away, as I did, and buying the DVDs.
Don't get me wrong, when I heard Matt Damon as a young Kirk, it changed my mind (I initially opposed ANY recasting of Kirk). I would accept him as Kirk easily. I just hope he practices at least SOME of the Kirkisms for the movie.
So, the movie is okay with me, though OBVIOUSLY with my screenplay I posted in Shore Leave, I would prefer some more TNG movies. But I openly opose an outright reboot, like having a Klingon serve with Kirk in Starfleet? NO!
There are PLENTY of stories to tell without running over 40 years of history. If it is good writing the true fans will come. Plus it's not like the non-fans will be pointing at the screen and saying, "HEY, I DON'T want to see ANY TOS references or I'm walking out!" That's absurd.
So, Kirk (Matt Damon) takes on a new threat in the trek "past". JJ, take us... out there... just not too far.
--------
Respect the cannon
I, like a lot of others on this board, have been around long enough to remember the anticipation of hearing that NBC was going to air an original SF show. I remember watching the first show and then waiting to see if they showed anything about next week's episode, and I also remember running to the grocery store to get the next copy of TV Guide just to see if they mentioned anything about next week's episode that wasn't shown in the previews. Those of us that were into it were way into it.
Now I hear that JJ Abrams has been charged with pulling a few more dollars out of the old idea and maybe entrancing a new generation of Trek watchers. The current discussion seems to be the question of rebooting the franchise, to take what was good and interesting,throw away everything else and maybe add somenew elements. The problem with that is that EVERYTHING about the first runs of TOS were interesting. The real problem back then was-NOBODY WAS WATCHING.
You have to remember-this was the '60's. Only three networks. No cable, no VCR, no TiVo, no Internet. We had barely learned to use transistor radios. If you got 25% of the sudience to watch a series,that was bad. Unlike today, TV series regularly received more than four or five episodes to become popular. Some even got two years-and a reprieve for three when so many people (in 1960's terms) protested.
But that is old news.
If JJ Abrams thinks he is going to change things around and make things different...if he thinks he is going to change premises and characters and everything else that has been reported then I say...Good!!! It is about time.
The run of TOS was a different time, a different demeanor, a different watching audience. If he can breathe new life into an old idea, if he can get us excited about "..boldly going...." again, then I say let's boldly go.
At this point in time I don't care about canon. I care that someone will make something that is actually watchable and inspiring.
We all know that Trek died after the first year of DS9, (Yes it did, too) and although there were intriguing ideas and individual episodes after that, the main reason they made them was..
1. Paramount thought they could get blood from a stone.
and...
2. Because Berman and Braga had no other talent except to convince Paramount that they knew what was best.
So I say, Boot, reboot, or whatever it is, "Go JJ! Blow us out of the water!"
(P.S. If you're worried about stepping on any toes, stop worrying. Not only do I want you to step on toes, I want you to STOMP on them!! Repeatedly!!)
--------
"With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
"This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we cant, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people-Yes We Can."
"Yeah, I don't do cowering."-Barack Obama
I'm against the BSG reboot in principle, but I understand how a show that didn't run that long can be open to interpretation. Star Trek has a 40 year history and hundreds of hours of universe to draw upon. There is no need for a "reboot"!
--------
The supervisor is Verizon!
Basically, "source" takes everything that people have been b!tching about, and says "yes, that's exactly what we're going to do."
The language is vague, and grandiose, and complete BS.
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
Personally I think the only way to successfully do a "New Kirk/New Spock" film is to reboot from scatch. BSG did it and was very successful. James Bond is about to do it with Casino Royale.
In the case of Trek, the fact is 40 years of canon has made it all but unworkable when it comes to creating entertainment for a mass audience. Look at Enterprise -- even the most critically acclaimed episodes (and yes there were a few) were lambasted because they didn't adhere to every last scrap of canon. Look at how many people wrote off Nemesis based simply upon the fact that in some obscure episode of TNG Picard was shown with hair when he was a cadet, but in the film it was decided that it would be easier for general audiences to get the picture if they made him bald.
Of course Enterprise as a whole was rejected by a lot of people simply because it was a prequel, never mind whether the show was good or bad. Imagine the response to a film that casts someone new as Kirk and Spock and features 21st Century SFX and for all we know a redesigned TOS-era Enterprise (we haven't even gotten to the ship design -- I'll be shocked if it resembles the TV version).
I'm not a fan of the TOS-era film idea. I'd rather see a continuation of Enterprise or, at the very least, a film to continue the TNG story beyond Nemesis so people can get the bad taste out of their mouths from that film. But if they're going to go back to the beginning, then a reboot is the only way this can be done. And as I stated in another thread, it will result in a lot of people abandoning Trek but to be honest how is that at all new compared to the introduction of every new Trek since TNG came on the air?
Al
-
Disagree the only reason for BSG is that the original show only was a seeason or two. And after that nothing much came out of the show. Enterprise failed not because it was a prequal, it failed because of the writing, thats why by the second season lot of people were turned away from the show. The answer to every problem with a show or movie that fails is not a reboot or reimage thats idiotic. Just be a good writer for what you are writing for. Thats my definition of a good writer, not. Oh because Star Trek has some rules to writing for it, which makes it Star Trek, they want to change it. Then if thats the case then don't take on the project take a job in some other genre in writing. It just erks me that this idea that its the only way things can be done now a days.
I don't agree with a reboot, not after 40 years of material already written. They would'nt see my money anymore for Star Trek and I would not go see the movie if it is. Anyway its not true because JJ Abrams in one of his comments already gave a hint that it wasn't going to be a reboot that he planned to follow canon or what had already been established. Plus the poster they released doesn't look like a reboot to me. All the established elements are there, the starfleet insigna for the enterprise, the uniform and there colors even the material of the shirts. Which was all established in the original series, all that would have to be redesigned for a reboot.
Elara_Bern
Older ST Fan, still here and waiting for Good ST again.
So we can mod this as troll. Really, who is this unnamed source? I call shenanagins.
I am pretty certain it is a restart. If it isn't, it is semantics. That is why JJ Abrams is keeping coy, because if this official he would have a massive uproar from the Trek Community (I suppose some don't mind). I wrote up a little piece on restarts a while back. Here is the clip on the next Star Trek.
Quote:
The Star Trek XI film sounds like a restart masquerading as a prequel. If that film succeeds financially, why wouldn’t Paramount continue to milk more from the same cast and crew? Semantics aside, it serves the same intent and role of a restart only with some creative restraints on continuity and PR to please some fans.
I wouldn't dismiss IESB too quickly. They do have connections and they do talk/interview with a lot of the top guns in the film industry.
--------
Mavericks Online
It sounds like a made up psedo-press release. The quotes sound written and not spoken.
And no exec, even nameless (knowing what he's saying will be leaked) is going to actively despariage the franchise. Internal leaks that aren't sanctioned by the companty usually get found out. And the leaker is more likelyy to be fired for soiling the brand name than actually leaking non-specific info.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
this doesn't sound like anyone who's actually involved with Paramount or the project. at best maybe it's some low level functionary. the comments aren't anything that anyone hasn't known for years so I don't really find it all that compelling one way or another.
--------
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."
J.J. Abrams and/or staff, please read:
I'm down with a reboot, but I'm hoping you'll bypass the rumored Kirk-Spock-Academy story and go for a film that takes place during the Enterprise's five-year mission from the '60s. Include all original characters, including Chapel and Rand. And give Uhura her first name, too!
Three of the sequel TV series - TNG, DS9 and ENT - featured stories that took place in the 23rd century or aboard an Enterprise-type ship. Despite the retro look, I really enjoyed seeing this "universe" propped up with new visual effects and visiting new parts of the ship. Showing the Enterprise in full battle mode, unlike we've ever seen her, would be terrific.
Good luck, whatever you decide to do.
--------
LORD EDZO
Imperious Leader - Paramount Ruler - Master and Commander
Sounds like somebody trying to stir up shit by "revealing" what we already know in an especially insulting way. Why would a professional in a postion to know Paramount's new philosophy toward the fanbase alienate a guaranteed portion of the audience by revealing it? Doesn't make much sense to me.
I saw the IESB report last night and was surprised that they had posted such a non-credible item.
Reported "knowns" are manufactured, and the unnamed source reads like a bitter gofer from the B&B era.
--------------
Klingon Bird of Prey Die-Cast REPLICA
Heh.
--------
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 really resent this attitude:
Quote:
"Trek fans were not able to keep the last show (Enterprise) on the air and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not too bad.
Once again, these people are blaming the Trek fans for not swallowing that dreck called ENT. If they are in that bad of a need of a clue, they can't be trusted to respect the source material.
--------
GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!.... You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! -- William Shatner on Saturday Night Live (1986)
Attention All:
The writer of the original article is just an Internet blog reviewer on a website, much like all of you. His opinions on the next movie are not based upon reality. He even states it's just rumor at the end of his actual article. You are getting upset and having OCP over nothing. Paramount has not decided to reboot the franchize. JJ Abrams is not about to "retcon" the universe. He would lose all of the fanbase. No need to even discuss these rumors until there is hard evidence from Paramount about it. The only facts so far are the posters, and the quotes in TV Guide, which are vague and don't really say anything about the movie.
Chimera
-
Besides....even if there WAS a reboot plan (and I don't believe the source for this story knows a damn thing), Paramount wouldn't put out a statement like this. They would be trying to spin this as exciting for fans---a new start. No one releases a statement to the press about canon, etc. They'd just say something like a bold new beginning or whatever. This press release wasn't aimed at the general media---it's not going to be discussed anywhere but Trek fan sites. Why insult the fanbase in a comment that'll only reach---the fan base? Actual people in the "know" will know how to speak to the media more intelligently than this.
This unnamed source is a liar.
--------
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!!
-
... yes, to paraphrase Mr Spock, there is 90.45% chance this is all a made up rumour with no basis in truth.
However, I think this is a good opportunity to clarify some things, give our opinions, just in case some TPTB are reading this website, doing research for the next movie.
... there is a further 1.23% chance that this is a deliberate rumour to sample fan's reaction to such a solution.
I have given my reaction :)
--------
All message content � 2003 by Stilgar sietch_tabr[-at-]bigfoot.com, permission to reprint specifically denied to Michael Wong mike@stardestroyer.net ....
"This used to be a Funhouse
But now it's full of evil clowns"
Pink, Funhouse
BELOW Abrams-Trek: "It sounded like a good idea in the begining"
...some assistant in some office somewhere near the Paramount lot that has nothing to do with Star Trek, but probably hears people who he/she thinks works for Paramount talking about stuff.
Like another poster said, this is someone's vain attempt to stir the pot. People, if you want to do something like this (i.e. post your own opinions to look like an insider said them), at least learn proper punctuation.
I would rather see CBS/Paramount TV produce the movie than Paramount Pictures. If the same kind of quality we see on "The Dead Zone," "The 4400," and "Numb3rs" (all CBS/PTV productions) could be translated to Trek...we might have the resurgence we have all hoped for.
Paramount Pictures is a bunch of idiots. If they're allowed to produce the movie, we're all screwed.
--------
A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
PCLinuxOS
falcon
Just look at the wording of the quotes and how it's written. This is obviously a fake by someone trying to stir the pot. I deem it bogus.
One word: rumor.
When I looked at the language and the tone of the quote from the 'unnamed studio source', I thought "rumermonger".
Also, the article states that "What is known is that we will be seeing Kirk and Spock in their early Starfleet years. The new movie will chronologically take place before The Original Series."
Wrong, and wrong. Fact is, the Kirk & Spock early years thing has never been verified. We do NOT know that it's a prequel. All we know is what JJ Abrams has told us, and it's all right here.
Until he, or the actual studio, makes some kind of announcement, then treat everything you hear about the film as speculation.
Unless you'd like to 'continue the petty bickering' about what the film might be about. ;-)
--------
THAT is the Exploration that awaits you: not mapping stars or studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of Existence.
... even with the change of management. If the story is true that is, because it lacks serious logical consistency.
Star Trek fans are accused of being unable to keep Enterprise afloat... BUT that's because Enterprise was not really Star Trek, and secondaly because the frnachise was damaged by previous efforts. Maybe Enterprise would have survived if it was not for what came immediately before it.
Star Trek fans suffer from soem kind of Star Trek shock sydnrome. So many things have gone wrong, that we have become paranoid about the future... argue endlessly about what can go wrong, what should be done, etc. The fault is not with the fans - it is with ST in recent times.
It makes no sense that the fans can not keep ST afloat because it is implied they have gotten old and died? WTF? Not really... the old fans are still around in GREAT numbers, BUT to overcome their cynicism based on bad experience, ST needs to present something special and good in classic ST style. Enterprise WAS NOT that, and that's why it failed, NOT because ST fans can not support a show because of lack of interest and/or numbers, or because they grew out of ST as they got older, or because they are all old and there are no new fans, etc.
I'm a relatively young fan of the original series, which I picked up first from novels, and then on video and DVD during the time of TNG.
For Star Trek to keep looking for a new audience, one of the MAIN mistakes of the past 10 years, is down right MORONIC. Having learnt nothing, TPTB repeat the same mistakes. What ST need to do is to bring back the audience that has drifted away in recent history, and do it THROUGH quality of STORIES in the spirit of ST, and not through reimaging, or through a hiatus so us poor slobs are desperate for any ST crap we are fed ( NOT... it does not work that way).
This scoop, shows such a luck of understanding from TPTB, that at this point I am leaning 90% towards believing it is NOT TRUE.
--------
All message content � 2003 by Stilgar sietch_tabr[-at-]bigfoot.com, permission to reprint specifically denied to Michael Wong mike@stardestroyer.net ....
"This used to be a Funhouse
But now it's full of evil clowns"
Pink, Funhouse
BELOW Abrams-Trek: "It sounded like a good idea in the begining"
You have to agree with this position, Star Trek is a business and Paramount have clearly come to the conclusion that the only way Star Trek can succeed as a business is to re-imagine it for a 21st century audience.
Trek can no longer be sustained by its aging and dwindling core fanbase, fitting a storyline into current canon only appeases current fans, who frankly would never agree on anything anyway if talkbacks and forums are any indication.
This source is correct in stating the franchise has been in decline for at least 10 years and in the case of the movies 20, something radical must be done to stop the rot and break out to people who view films like Matrix/LOTR/SW1-3 as a benchmark for Sci-Fi motion pictures.
-
You're talking business. You're not talking "Star Trek". They are incompatible beasts by nature. Its a fine line, bringing them together. What you're suggesting is killing Trek in order to save it. Assimilating it into the worldly world. It needs to go where Roddenberry wanted it to go, and that is a very different direction than other sci-fi !
-
It may not fit Roddenberry's principals of trek, but I suspect there is also a need to make the Trek genre compatible with todays society as a form of entertainment, much the same way Trek in the 60's hit apon the formula which eventually gave it a hard core fan base.
Agree with you that Trek and 'business' are two different beasts, but also in todays reality, the business must drive big screen Trek in order for it to survive (at least as a Viacom sanctioned entity)
New Voyages may well be more in keeping with Roddenberrys 'vision' - havent seen it though, but I wonder how long it will last without enough funding to keep making episodes.
I think we need to keep our minds open about how the new 'Trek' will look, if we dont like it, we will go back to our own books and accept our own canon for whatever suits our liking.
--------
Before you cross the street,
Take my hand,
Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans....
-
Well, it was already attempted to make Star Trek appeal to the masses and look what we got; Nemesis being the latest example. Insurrection that came before it. Even First Contact. These movies are different in tone from the TNG series, and not only that, they are in conflict with "Star Trek" itself. You can argue to what degree they are in conflict, but the fact is, the movies suffer because of it. They don't appeal to the masses nor do they appeal that much to the audience who upholds Roddenberry's vision. None of the movies are "great".
People think First Contact was good, but as B&B said themselves it was a very dark movie to label as Star Trek, and they "probably couldn't have made it any darker". Their own words. Yet their very attempt was an outgrowth of trying to please the masses.
The next movie needs to respect Roddenberrys vision, not from a business point of view, but for the sake and healthiness of Star Trek. Too much pollution has already poisoned Star Trek and the fans. Yes, its an illness that we're all bickering and falling apart.
I'm sure there are kids (literally or just grown up kids) who secretly want to see Star Trek and Star Wars merge in style, or merge with some other modern flick. But I absolutely disagree with those who think Roddenberrys vision of paradise has no place in the 21 century. It is "timeless". Some people have ALWAYS believed. Other people have ALWAYS relished in gladiator fights and the like, throughout history. Today they're watching those disgusting movies, playing those violent computer games, or they plan the next terrorist attack. These are the two camps, good and evil, but why shouldn't Star Trek stick to WHAT IS RIGHT?
Its just that violence sells and peace does not. That's why Star Trek is not a great business model. So? I'd rather let it die then, crushed by greed, but not lured to join the dark side - more than it already has, which is more than enough.
Well, I do believe its possible to make a reasonable Star Trek movie but I'm not convinced CBS knows how to do that. You think B&B ruined Trek? Hmm. But CBS was behind all the time, and now they've hired someone who certainly knows how to appeal to the masses, eh? They're thinking straight in terms of business, not in terms of Star Trek. That's why I'm worried. Hope is eternal. But I'd rather see them handing over Star Trek to a nobody, like Roddenberry was and nobody believed in TOS or TNG. Except a vocal minority around the world - the fans.
-
... I think ST done RIGHT will still SELL and be POPULAR... it's not that violence and gore and dark stories will sell exclusively today.
What is an ABSOLUTE requirement is a STORY driven HIGH quality movie, not SFX, violence, or pandering to some imagined section of teh market... AS IF you can predict markets like this with any sort of accuracy... most "hits" in movies are based on quality and some luck, making new markets not appealing to existing one... that's why marketing to specific sections of the populace usually produces drivel and never succeeds as much as original inspiration, doing ok at best...
--------
All message content � 2003 by Stilgar sietch_tabr[-at-]bigfoot.com, permission to reprint specifically denied to Michael Wong mike@stardestroyer.net ....
"This used to be a Funhouse
But now it's full of evil clowns"
Pink, Funhouse
BELOW Abrams-Trek: "It sounded like a good idea in the begining"
-
Well I can vividly imagine a "Star Trek: Dead mans chest" sort of movie because its the 21 century: Beef it up, more monsters, less sanity! Especially when it comes to sci-fi people think "space battles" and "laser death". That's actually Star Wars but so what. The general population think its the same. They submit to the fantasy that mankind will boldly go to CONQUER new worlds. Aye! But a beautiful movie about making peace, not war, can NEVER be sci-fi.
I think that's their plan to capture a new audience; a new generation that doesn't know right from wrong.
Too bad, people outside the trek core can't stand trek. Get lost to all of you!
-
Hello Again:
The article you are complaining about is not only fake, it is old, from last July. Enough said. Go and take some time off from the computer. See a movie that isn't related to Trek.
Chimera
-
It's amazing how they just don't get it. It wasn't the Trek fans that failed to keep Enterprise on the air.
Enterprise stunk.
That's what's so pathetic. Whoever the person commenting is, he's a real jerk who has no clue. He actually is putting the Berman and Braga failures on the fans.
Star Trek fans never rejected Star Trek. Star Trek's downturn was not a rejection of the pre-Berman era. The fact that the internet boasts of some very successful Trek productions speaks volumes of the fans keeping Trek alive.
It's amazing how stupid people are when it comes to running Trek.
Change it too much, and they will fail, just like the two buttheads before.
And one more thing--NOTICE that the guy said Trek declined in the last decade. Tends to coincide with the jackasses killing Kirk in the first place.
(2)
| 
