This is excellent news. A great story concept combined with great writers/director. This is what Star Trek needs.
Still, as great as this sounds, I would have far preffered the Beginning script by Erik Jendersen. That script sounded perfect. The idea of setting a film at a pivitol moment in Trek history (The Romulan War), with an all new cast of characters, taking place on several ships instead of one --- it all sounded so good. I so wanted to see that movie. It's a true shame that that idea has been shelved.
This is a great consulation prize, though!!
Please, paramount, don't make this movie!
but, please, leave Abrams attached! We all love Abrams!
That is all.
Make a movie about acheiving transwarp drive. Luanch it during Thanksgiving. Make it relate to current events, security vs. liberities and freedom. Make it intelligent (bring in the Wachoviski brothers (sp?) if you need help). Make it entertaining, funny. Make sure the movie paces well. (Bring in Franks if you need help). Oh yeah, and whatever u do, DONT rehash. It has to smell fresh and new (Abrams can do this . . . don't know if he can do this with this particular idea though)
That is all.
Oh, and MARKET this one!! Advertise it like crazy. Kinda like Nemesis, but don't pull/shorten the advertising rotation two weeks before the movie is released. Instead, increase advertising as the movie date nears. Billboards, television, and more billboards.
That is really all.
Oh, and can we bring back Manny Coto for something, somewhere . . . he was really, really good for ENT in Season 4.
Ok, ok, I'm going . . . !
Geez!
-
Don't listen to the guy above --- MAKE THIS MOVIE!!!
These writers, J.J. Abrams, fresh blood, NO BERMAN, and Bennett's 'First Adventure' idea all add up to a great movie in the making --- can't wait to see it!
Well, since they are not doing Harve Bennett script, I think they will not use Shatner and Nimoy in cameo roles - at least that how I see it. Paramount is not doing this for the TOS fans. They are doing this in an attempt to relauch Trek to the mass audience out there. And I think this is a mistake.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
Quote:
Well, since they are not doing Harve Bennett script, I think they will not use Shatner and Nimoy in cameo roles - at least that how I see it. Paramount is not doing this for the TOS fans. They are doing this in an attempt to relauch Trek to the mass audience out there. And I think this is a mistake.
There are a couple of factors to consider.
First - would Shatner and Nimoy even consider such roles? They may have felt they said their good-byes long ago to these characters. I don't know what their official position is. BTW - isn't Nimoy 'retired' from acting?
Second - budget. What worth in terms of salary for these two men? They may ask (rightfully!) for a handsome price for their time. It's not that they're not worth it but show business is a business and products like STAR TREK have to be produced on a budget in order to make money.
And do we need Shatner and Nimoy as a hand-off? One of Patrick Stewarts complaints -- as I recall -- about GENERATIONS was the hand-off approach, as though TNG couldn't just segue directly to the movies. The result was a crappy death to James Kirk.
Lastly - the film industry today - the way studios generate revenue - comes primarily overseas - in terms of theater receipts. Reviewing the gross figures available of all the ST films - STAR TREK performed well in the US rather overseas. The mass audience is higher overseas rather than US - a flip that has occurred these last ten years. And I am talking about the mass audience who goes to movie theaters.
A February 2006 HOLLYWOOD REPORTER article on Paramount's new managment talked about this issue - the need for their products - their movies - to play well overseas.
Personally - I'll probably see this fracker of XI when it comes out, maybe the theaters, maybe wait 4-6 months when it's on DVD. I won't care if Shatner and Nimoy are in it or not. They're just an actors, working people like the rest of us. They created good roles in their careers. Actually - Shanter is performing the best role of his career right now - that of Denny Crane, who is a far better character than James Kirk, and it will be likely his last big acting role.
2008 will be an interesting year. BSG will be in its fourth/fifth season. LOST maybe found, the STAR WARS TV series will be supposedly premiering, and we've got Abrams STXI.
-
I understand your points. But my problem with this particular "Starfleet Academy" premise is that there are tons of factors arrayed against it before you even start writing the script - the usual problems with prequels and the continuity problems, the difficulty of finding two young actors who can match up to icons Bill Shatner and Leonard Nimoy and their particular chemistry, as I said before, and the inherent limitations of an Academy-based story about characters whose future we know for subsequent TV Series and six movies.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
Quote:
I understand your points. But my problem with this particular "Starfleet Academy" premise is that there are tons of factors arrayed against it before you even start writing the script - the usual problems with prequels and the continuity problems, the difficulty of finding two young actors who can match up to icons Bill Shatner and Leonard Nimoy and their particular chemistry, as I said before, and the inherent limitations of an Academy-based story about characters whose future we know for subsequent TV Series and six movies.
I dig in what you're saying.
It'll be fun to see what transpires over the next year in terms of script development, casting, and the other pre-production chaos that is the norm, etc.
If there's one thing this news demonstrates it's that the "knowing Paramount, it'll suck" argument has had the wind taken out of its sails.
Some of us had an early sense that Paramount was waiting out Berman's contract, but no one could know that the franchise would get a J.J. Abrams to produce and direct.
It's fairweather to admire Abrams' past and present work but heckle his unborn triumphs.
My hope is that Abrams can wield a TOS-like mastery of allegory, archetype, and ability to meld intelligent humor with drama. And a worthy villain is a must. I'd be disappointed to see a contrived "reality" opera (like Moore's BSG), as that could time-stamp the product, and make it tedious to those whose psyche doesn't resonate with today's fashionable gloom.
--------------
Limited Edition: 40th Anniversary Phaser
Please ST: Fans! these guys at paramount are killing the series. I think that if they make this movie then it will be the end. C'mon, ST:ENT failed! have we forgotten that. I have talk to numerous ST non-ST fans, and its not the past everyone wants but a new fresh view of the future. What is happening! C’mon, paramount just write a movie, a good one stop relaying on the TOS, TNG, VOY, etc to sail on though. NEW CREW, NEW MISSION, JUST WRITE A GOOD STORY! Don’t these guys want to keep this franchise afloat! Then it needs new energy. But what do I know I’m not a movie exec….. Just one little fan. I won’t see this movie.
Ok, first the good news, it has been said a couple hundred times in this thread before: this guy and his crew are AWSOME. I love Alias and Lost and, although I did not plan to, will watch MI3 just becouse of them. Paramount, which normally screws up Trek big time, really made up for their past mistakes with this one.
Now the bad news. OK, anyone under 50, raise your hands if you want to see ANOTHER TOS movie. Now those few who did, keep your hands in the air if you want to see a prequel with two 20 something and - knowing Paramount - noname, cheap, "B movie actors" playing Kirk and Spock. Not to mention a storyline messing with continuity. Ok. Now either no one in this room has hands or THIS MOVIE WILL TANK.
I'm 27 and saw the TOS movies on video when I was 12-13, and did like them - hell, it got me hooked. But I grew up with TNG which was the most watched Star Trek series EVER, with 10-13 million viewers/week for 7 years! How many people watched TOS in the 60's?! To top this, while ratings declinde, I believe DS9 was the best written, produced, most evenly high quality Trek ever with only TNG seasons 5-7 matching it.
Yes, Voyager was TNG recycled, and ENT was a lost opportunity with too little too late in s4 (Manny rocks, though, just watch 24!). But the TNG/DS9 cast is extremely talented, well known and the storyline could be logically continued (Dominion, species 8472, etc).
Additionally, remeber how difficult it was for ENT to explain why everything on that ship looked 100 years more modern than the TOS era stuff? Remember that bridge that was cooler than the Enterprise-E's? Now what are they going to have to come up with that dates 20-40 years before TOS and still looks good on screen in 2008,in a sci-fi set in the future?!
I REALLY hope they are just testing the fandom reaction with this leak. There is still hope... (Anyone in for a journey with Picard, Sisco, Kira and Riker set in a Dominion/8472/Borg war scenario on board DS9 and the Enterprise-F?)
They could give Kirk a heroic death (on the bridge, etc.) and while he's dying has flashbacks to how he met Spock at the academy... The main plot could be the death and the academy part almost secondary but could occupy much of the screentime... of course they'd need to find a way to "undo" the death in Generations... Just a thought (although not highly original). ;) What do you think?
"I wonder what Sulu would have been up to in those early days at Starfleet Academy?"
c2235- Sulu is born
c2250- Sulu develops feelings for males
c2255- Sulu enters StarFleet Academy
c2257- Sulu has relationship with male instructor
2259- Sulu survives the Kobayashi Maru
2263- Sulu is helmsman of the Enterprise
2254- Sulu promoted to Lt
2269- Sulu promoted to LtCmdr
2270- On vacation Sulu gets drunk and fathers a child
2278- Sulu meets daughter, becomes Academy instructor
2285- Sulu is exiled on Vulcan
2288- Sulu promoted to Captain
c2289- Sulu becomes a grandfather
2290- Sulu commands Excelsior
2294- Sulu comes out, Demora is taunted and attacks her captain and dies
It's somewhat odd that they'd go with Starfleet Academy since I seem to 'ave been the only one I've ever encountered that liked the SFA concept. or at least liked the version I envisioned.
Which is alarming, because this is the second time where it appears Paramount 'ave bugged Tag HQ. *gaze left* *gaze right* *check under SFA mug*
(I "predicted" back on the BBS scene that Star Trek would eventually hire Scott Bakula as Captain (in a skit). But it was meant as sarcasm on the trend towards making Trek formulaic, warm and fuzzy!)
Now they're going for the Starfleet Academy concept. A concept which I appear to be the only one that has ever enthusiastically endorsed, so this time (in full megalomania mode - Ed) *cough* just to be safe, we shall leave no room for misunderstanding on where I stand.
Trekkies oft refer to the StarFleet Academy concept as "Star Trek 90210"
Considering recent Trek concepts under Berman & Braga, It's a potentially valid worry (of particular dubious foreboding note, the walking-breasts-in-jumpsuits on Voyager and Enterprise, smacked of
a dumbing down of Trek in order to appeal to teenage boys)
That is most certainly not what I see when I envision SFA. And from what I've read of the recent announcement, they haven't run with *my* SFA concept.
Whenever I envisioned Starfleet Academy, I saw it set in the 25th Century (100 years post TNG) future life in San Fran Earth (what will it look like? a field day for futurists and audiences) acting ensign/training missions aboard Starships, an (Bond not Continuum) Q like department on campus where new technology is incepted and developed.
In other words, *my* SFA is -all- about ***Trek's Future***.
I'm not particularly enamoured with the idea that they appear to want to set SFA in the past (no doubt in order to bring Kirk and Spock back) but I do think that the seminal Trek roles may well be able to survive re-casting.
it for example works and works excessively well on fan-produced Star Trek: New Voyages.
There is a balance that need be struck, where the #1 criteria is that it must not/cannot be handled in such a way as to offend Trekkies, but it can be done.
If I had my druthers, while I would be willing to accept the SFA movie set in Kirk and Spock's past (in order to re-energize the franchize and the fanbase by drawing in the largest possible Trek audience demographic) I would prefer a followup Starfleet Academy TV series be set in the 25th Century.
Why? introspection applied, I find setting Trek in the past defeats a great bulk of its optimism and forward momentum. The "boldly going" has at its best, always implied "..forward" (to me).
Perhaps Roddenberry spoiled us (twice) with TOS and TNG's imaginings of the future ever forward, and perhaps studio execs at Paramount are worried that they simply don't have the necessary talent to imagine a future beyond TOS & TNG's established designs, but that's why Trek needs a good Captain.
What the execs never seem to realize is that while it seems daunting and beyond their capabilities, it all starts with people like Roddenberry who open their mouths and say "we're going to design a whole new future".
After the collective gasp, the work is started, and they're off.
The SFA movie sounds good as a one-off, but if it's to lead to a new Trek _TV series_ please, for Abaddon's sake, have they learned nothing from Enterprise? do not go -back-, set it in Trek's future! the 25th Century and bring the full swing of the "boldly going" back to Trek.
And That's My View.
Michael 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.
Well, it is better than the Romulan War scenario and the "Tiberius Chase" character, but to someone of my age (I'm 35 years old) Shatner is Kirk and Kirk is Shatner and so forth. I doubt two unknown teenagers can fill the roles and be beliavable.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
Quote:
Shatner is Kirk and Kirk is Shatner and so forth. I doubt two unknown teenagers can fill the roles and be beliavable.
Other actors will portray Kirk and Spock and the audience will accept it because that's what audiences have done in the history of Mankind: their favorite actor was the first in a famous role on stage or screen and there are those who cannot believe anyone can portray that character. And guess what happens? Someone does because the audience knows these are just actors portaying a character in a story, and as long the story is entertaining the audience in general doesn't really care. For those two hours - they were entertained.
Shatner set a standard for Captain Kirk but others will come along and be Captain Kirk and borrow from Shatner and his characterizatiion while invoking something of themselves into the role. Because that's what actors do, and the audiences understands that because we've been all conditioned to accept that.
-
Sorry, but I just dont see other actors playing young versions of Kirk and Spock. It is just me. I adore Shatner and Nimoy and cant accept other versions of those worldwide icons. I want another TNG movie or a DS9 movie, and now it is clear that this will never happen, I am afraid. It will be hard for me to be editing TrekWeb and posting stories about a reboot/prequel movie that I dont wanna see - a first for me in 8 years as TrekWeb Supervising Editor. Just my two cents.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
WHO will (or can) they get to play Kirk and Spock? They won't pay anyone famous. Why do I envision a "Dumb and Dumberer"-style scenario here?
"These - arethe - voyages, ofthestarship - Enterprise..."
--------
"Let's make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise."
Jean-Luc Picard, Yesterday's Enterprise
Using TOS is understandable, Kirk and Spock are probably the richest lead characters, also the most recognizable. I'd rather see The Return or something like it, but Paramount wants a new crew to do more movies. The TOS characters and even its production design are more than capable of working today. Also, Lost is the most Trek-like show to be on tv for years, which may give Abrams a feel for the material.The concept of humans going against bigger forces had been kind of poo-pooed on trek in favor of a starfleet-knows-it-all approach in recent years; the characters on Lost are well aware that they don't know everything. That's a fitting outlook for exploring the unknown.The fact this going to be in 2008, and not a rush job for next year is a good sign. I wouldn't want a Lost clone trek, but I think we have a better chance of a thoughtful, action oriented approach with this new team. Hopefully. Keep your DVDs just in case.
Clearly the big news here is George Takeis reaction, his reaction alone will make or break the film.
With J.J. Abrams producing and directing, the musical score will likely be composed by Michael Giacchino (Lost, Alias, The Incredibles, and M:I-3).
That'd be an excellent ST:XI soundtrack.
--------------
STAR TREK 1966-2006 :: 40th Anniversary Shirt
-
I have been hoping and praying that they will get Joel Goldsmith to do the score. That way The Motion Picture theme can be used and hopefully retain its spark of excitment to the film. I would be excited for a new score (I loved Generations) but I have always looked forward to another Goldsmith. Joel was involved with FC and it was very good. I love Joel with Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis.
Jerry Goldsmith was the best and any Star Trek film will no longer be the same.
Examples: Listen to Jurassic Park 1-2 with John Williams then listen to Don Davis on JP3...great new theme, but screwed up the JP theme.
Listen to Harry Potter 1-3 and then listen to HP4. New theme is great, but the HP theme is not the same.
-
I know Giacchino will be great! He's my favourite composer around today. I just can't wait to hear him adapt the movie theme (and maybe the original TV theme), like he's done for M:I:III, into what I know will be a great score.
This is certainly an intriguing announcement but does anyone think it would be better to fix Kirk's death from Generations? The new premise seems to indicate this won't happen. Then again, the new movie could make people forget about that by going to "the beginning" (in other words, it makes people think about how it all started rather than ended). I imagine there will be a huge backstory and series of events that put Kirk and Spock together (if that's possible in canon, or out of it as some have said). Shatner and Nimoy should at least do cameos (at the beginning and/or end?) to draw fan interest.
That said, they sure did a good job keeping Berman out of the loop on this. He had no knowledge of this at all. I wonder how he'll explain it away in the next UK Trek magazine interview (the only one that seems to be giving him a voice nowadays)? I have a few ideas... ;)
-
Yes, by all means. Let's stop the franchise in its tracks and spend a whole movie fixing a bad plot point from a movie, what, 12 years old? I'm sure that'll make TREK a success again.
--------
'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.
Only thing I dont like about all of this is the story line, Ive seen read and
heard nearly 4 decades of Kirk and Spock, is this the the best we can do? cant
we come up with a new era and new characters, or just suffocating the new era
with different versions of decades old characters. If Kirk and co are the only
attractive stars in the ST universe, then I ver that it is a one dimensional
universe.
-
Sci,
I did agree with you on just this point until recently. The fact is, not many outside we core fans care about the non-TOS eras. In current continuity, we know every event from the 1960s through the 29th century. It's a web of continuity that is strangling the franchise.
I've recently realized, as counter-intuative as I once found it, the best course is to start over. I switched my opinion when I realized I wouldn't be interested in a post-TNG show,and I've been watching and loving TREK since being a boy in the 1970s.
If done wrong, it could be horrid. But from here, we can only go up, so honestly we're not risking much. If done right, it could revive TREK in the popular culture for another 40 years. Fact is, if we keep watching the clock for new crews who are essentially stand-ins for the original crew, we'll be watching TREK fade away.
--------
'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.
-
Quote:
Only thing I dont like about all of this is the story line, Ive seen read and
heard nearly 4 decades of Kirk and Spock, is this the the best we can do? cant
we come up with a new era and new characters, or just suffocating the new era
with different versions of decades old characters. If Kirk and co are the only
attractive stars in the ST universe, then I ver that it is a one dimensional
universe.
By that logic they should stop making Batman and Superman comics and movies since those have been around since, what?...the 1930's and 40's (the comics)?
Just because something has been around a long time doesn't mean it needs to be discarded.
Are you for getting rid of your grandma because she's been around a long time? ;-)
Oh and by the way...Kirk and Spock only got three seasons (live action) on TV and six movies.
That's far less than any of the other Trek incarnations.
IM
One thing I don't understand is why bring back Kirk and Spock Granted I Love the origional Star Trek and I think TNG, DS9, not even gonna mention Voyager..Oops I mentioned it, I liked them but they were so Politocaly correct its almost horrible.
Why not do the film when the USS Enterprise NCC 1701 was on its Mayden Voyage from the planeetion Ship yards under Captain Robert April and 1st officer Christopher Pike, see where it all origionaly began.
Cause granted Captain James T. Kirk and Spock an all the others were Legends in the Star trek Universe, But Captain Christopher Pike is the one who started the Star Trek universe in the Pilot the Cage and granted it didn't go off well but in the 60's it was diffrent than it is today.
Besides William Shatner, Lenord Nimoy and the rest are the legends of their persona's putting in carbon coby's of them just seems wrong.
Coarse I always wanted a movie about Captain Sulu aboard the USS Exselsior and a run in with the Gorn or the Tholians.
The only way The Academy would work and Kirk could have run into Spock thier but more Spock giving a lecture at the acedemy while the Enterprise is called to Earth so that Pike could attend April's Coranation to Commadore or some such and it would be in Kirk's 3rd year when he reprogramed the Koybashy Maru where he would win as mentoined by McCoy in ST2 Wraith of Khan on the Genisis Planet to Lt Savvik saying your looking at the only person to ever beat the simulation.
Just my 2 cents!
-
Dude, learn to spell.
The movie I want to see made is "Final Frontier," based on the novel by Diane Duane. Synopsis: The Federation's first starship, commanded by Capt. Robert April with his first officer, Commander George Kirk, struggle to stave off interstellar war with the Romulans when a rescue mission goes horribly wrong...and the saboteurs are not who you think. Read the book. It's a great story, and it gives not only new talent a chance to shine, but also gives Bill Shatner and Len Nimoy a chance to bring some closure to their characters. (If you want to know how, read the damn book!)
Not only would it be a proper prequel, it would involve the NCC-1701 (even though...aw, go read the damn book already!), it would be a proper kickstart to something that happened 40 years ago, and it would let Shatner and Nimoy ride off into the sunset with grace and style. And it would stave off the questions about who would play the young Kirk and Spock.
Go make the damn movie already!
--------
A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
PCLinuxOS
falcon
Nothing
I've always felt both Bennet's idea and now this one were silly for one reason and that is that Kirk and Spock were not at the academy together. They couldn't have been. In The Menagerie, Spock says he served under Pike 11 years prior to the then 2 year under Kirk (I have always speculated that the first TOS season is the second year of the 5 year mission and that Where No Man Has Gone Before took place in the first year due to it's different look). Going on the speculation that Starfleet Academy is like today's college and is a 4 year institution, and that Kirk is early 30's when he takes command of Enterprise, it doesn't jibe. Add to the fact that fans never really got excited over Bennet's idea to begin with, this doesn't sound good for a reawakening for the franchise.
Do we even know that the Starfleet Academy story is gonna be used for this movie's plot? All that has been confirmed, it seems, are JJ Abram's lovely talent and the fac tthat the movie is being made. The Young Kir Schtick tis ust a strong rumor, no?
As for the news itself...
HOLY %$#@! This is the most exciting thing I've read all year!!!!!
I think that back in the 60s, a relatively-near future such as the one portrayed in TOS was great, however, I think that today the audience in interested more in the far future, such as the one portrayed in TNG, DS9, and VOY.
I truly think that if ENT was set in the 28th century for example, it would have still been on the air.
Why cover these years again?
I think that the movie will fail, but I certainly don't hope for it.
-Defiant
-
Why don't you people get it? Nobody cares about anything besides Kirk and Spock. Only people who come to these boards even know Ds9,Voyager and Enterprise were ever on tv. Nevermind naming characters from these series.
These programs are just seen as a copy of the real thing in most people's eyes.
Kirk,Spock and TOS ARE STAR TREK THE THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE.
NOBODY CARED ABOUT THE NEW VERSIONS OF STAR TREK. THE TIMELINE MADE NO DIFFERENCE. People want to see the Iconic characters Kirk and Spock back in action.
-
Oh, and by the way, I have watched all of Star Trek, from TOS to ENT, and I completely disagree that Kirk and Spock are my iconic characters. They may be yours, but they are certainly not mine.
Picard made a far better captain, and not to mention, better actor.
Sisko was great too.
Kirk was just...well...the first. But that's it.
-Defiant
-
Quote: I truly think that if ENT was set in the 28th century for example, it would have still been on the air.
Really? Even with all the bad writing, canon and continuity problems? No. People watch things that are entertaining, the time period in which it's set has something to do with how willing people are going to be to check it out in first run, but it doesn't dictate whether a show or film will succeed or fail. If it's good, people will watch it, it's that simple.
--------
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.
Kirk's old rival from his Academy days...
are we EVER EVER going to get out of classic Trek era? EVER?
--------
LET THEM DIE!!!
I remember back in the 1980s and early 1990s the hard core fans wouldn't even give TNG the time of day, and there was a huge cleft in TREK fandom between older TOS fans and mostly younger TNGers.
Thankfully, that false distinction faded. Now, another seems to be rising to replace it, and it's splattered across the boards here today. Originalists, who love and can't get past TOS as it was, and all it spawned, and rebooters, the Neo-TREKs.
So I suppose all that's left now is to name the new TREK offshoot, in which I include myself. A few suggestions: Neo-TREKs, or maybe Rebooter is a better way to go. Reformed Trekkers?
And before you wise-asses suggest idiots, morons or retards, etc. as monikers for rebooters, remember those are reserved for STAR WARS prequel fans and these waiting for a VOYAGER movie.
Yes, I said that.
--------
'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.
In Harve Bennett's screeplay an older Kirk and Spock appear at the start and finish of the film. How great would it be if Shatner and Nimoy were to make an appearance like this?
BRING BACK KIRK!!!!
The greatest and most popular characters in the history of Star Trek are on their way back to save the franchise they created.
ST needs it's greatest icons to return. Now we need Shatner and Nimoy to cameo in the film and it will have been a perfect day.
-
Quote:
The greatest and most popular characters in the history of Star Trek are on their way back to save the franchise they created.
ST needs it's greatest icons to return. Now we need Shatner and Nimoy to cameo in the film and it will have been a perfect day.
That's a great way to put it.
And, soon, the Griffith Observatory will open again after being closed for a few years for renovation. Mr. and Mrs. Nimoy donated $1,000,000.00 to that renovation, and as I recall, a part of the facility will be named after them.
It's fitting that the new Trek movie will be opening soon afterward. :) I hope there is a tie-in with the Griffith Observatory's reopening.
You can receive exact news of its opening by joining the Friends of the Griffith Observatory, by the way. I'm a member. :)
--------
THE OBSERVER
http://originalobserver.blogspot.com/
[DOUBLE POST DELETED BY ENTERPRISER.]
--------
THE OBSERVER
http://originalobserver.blogspot.com/
I can't wait to see this movie.
It's everything I would have hoped for -- a return to Kirk, Spock, and the Original Series.
--------
THE OBSERVER
http://originalobserver.blogspot.com/
i feel the name of the film should be:
Star Trek: Beginnings
and they should have scott backula as a guest role showing a young kirk and spock learning about the great captain that came before them
You all don't have to imagine my surprise when I booted up the ol' 'puter today and saw this. You experienced it yourselves. Thank the gods I took a vacation day today, 'cuz if I would have seen this at the office, my initial gleeful "squeal" would have been quite the water-cooler topic.
As I read on, I have to fess up... I'm disappointed. Not with the Abrams decision, mind you. My glee and surprise is multiplied to the Nth degree by Par's decision to pour such resources and people into the Franchise.
I'm just extremely torn about this Academy story idea. It will take me some time to even know how I truly feel about it. My gut reaction is... frankly... ugh. Nothing against prequels or reimagining... it's the Academy part that turns me off.
Regardless of how one feels about the story, the aforementioned show of immense support from the studio is the most heartening and powerful thing we've heard in quite some time. That alone is a good thing for the Franchise, and that alone is something worth celebrating.
--------
"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)
In thirty years we'll be here arguing over which actor was the best Kirk ;)
I'm very excited about this.
--------
Dig deep piles of rubble and ruins
Towering overhead both far and wide
There's unknown tools for World War III
Einstein said 'We'll use rocks on the other side'
No survivors!
The more I think about this idea, the more I hate it.
No offense to JJ Abrams; lord knows he couldn't do a worse job than Rick Berman and Brannon Braga have done. There's really nowhere to go but up for the franchise, since those two low-rent hacks drove it into the ground.
But, instead of taking these iconic characters, these fictional legends, and cast two younger actors as their youthful incarnations, why not gather some of the best young acting talents of today and start a new Star Trek saga in the present or future time? If Abrams wants to make Star Trek grittier, harder-edged, more dramatic and compelling, like Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica has proven itself to be, more power to him...but don't de-mystify the two most significant characters in all of Star Trek lore by delving into their pasts.
Now, I've heard a lot of people taking the "What a bunch of whiners!" tack. "You guys wanted Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, now you're getting them in a fresh and exciting way, and you're all complaining!!!"
Well, here's the thing...
Yes, fans want more of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. They want more of the cameraderie, the friendship, and the presence these men brought to the "mythos" of Star Trek. But, can anyone in their right mind expect two or three different actors playing their younger versions to pull this off? No way!
Star Trek: TOS was in no need of a reboot/reimagining. That idea worked for Galactica because Ron Moore and his team took a campy sci-fi series, removed the schlocky FX and kids-stuff aliens, amped up the drama, allowed his characters to be flawed and complex, and took risks in the casting of those characters. Reboot/reimagining works for characters like Superman and Batman because the readers of the comics are used to those respective characters' origins being retold or updated several times, usually to better critical acclaim than the previous versions.
But, like Planet of the Apes (that re-imagining is the reason I will always disrespect Tim Burton), Star Trek's already-established history is just fine on its own. Leave the past alone.
(sorry, duplicate post)
I have no idea what this is about. I can hardly imagine an outsider (like Abrams?) will be up for the task. I hope he will at least hire a bunch of hardcore Trekkers to guide him along the way.
I think people should lay off Berman. He's the guy that really made TNG a great show. I wasn't a big fan of the other spin-offs, but even average Trek is way better than your average TV show.
Unfortunately, rather than leave Trek with dignity, he gave us Enterprise, which tried to appeal to a broader audience and ended up alienating everybody.
Why did Star Trek IV make the most money? Because it was the best Trek. Good Star Trek appeals to everyone!
It will be hard to watch two of my favorite fictional characters of all time played by other actors - so I'm voting in favor of Bennett's idea of including Shatner and Nimoy looking back at their first adventure. But if they can put a good story together that gives the fans something in return for boosting Paramount's revenues, then let the new blood boil!
-
"I think people should lay off Berman. He's the guy that really made TNG a great show. I wasn't a big fan of the other spin-offs, but even average Trek is way better than your average TV show."
I actually went to some lengths not to mention B and B by name anyway but you did so here we go.
I have read some of their interviews over the years and I saw some of what they produced; especially Voyager and Enterprise. For the record, the casual way that they dismissed continuity in Enterprise and the cavalier and disrespectful comments made about TOS in general are not easily forgiven. This attitude is, at least in part, what doomed Enterprise and at least wounded Voyager. I loved Voyager but the last couple of seasons were sad and they did not have to be.
We as fans all have to live with the legacy of how Enterprise was mishandled. I am not happy with that legacy. I am also unhappy that the actors that played the characters of Enterprise are not only out of a job, but to a certain extent are demeaned by association with Enterprise when in truth the show was sub-written and produced except for some of the last season when they were desperate to save the show. Too late.
I am afraid that Berman cannot take credit for the fact that "even average Trek is way better than your average TV show". The premise of Star Trek is a superior premise to most of what is on television. Berman did not create that premise.
"But if they can put a good story together that gives the fans something in return for boosting Paramount's revenues, then let the new blood boil."
I agree that if they can craft a good story it would be great for all concerned. I just hope that they honor the continuity of TOS as well as that of the other Star Trek sequals with the exception of Enterprise which unfortunately had little continuity to honor.
I, like you, am hoping for some good new Star Trek shows.
Amen? Amen!
-
actually it was Michael Piller that made it great. Notice the first two seasons when RB was already there. RB was never a creative force on the show, only producer.
--------
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."
-
Quote:
RB was never a creative force on the show, only producer.
And he protected Star Trek over the years so well, some people think it became stale (not me!). Now the winds of change are blowing; stormful times may be ahead
I can't believe all the negativity to this idea.
I agree w/ Steve - there are challenges like casting that they will have to meet, but man - at least its new.
I am really looking forward to it...and least it has a great chance of not feeling like the same crappy product we've gotten for the last 7 or 8 years or more. Maybe it will be a brand new crappy product. I for one am looking forward to something new to complain about.
I'm done caring about this franchise.
Maybe Speilberg can direct the one after this about the fertalization of Kirk the zygote.
I wish I could shoot anybody in the head with a shotgun that makes one more prequel of any kind of franchise I care about.
This isn't a "reimagining" of anything a la Batman Begins, because we've never seen this stuff on screen the first time.
It's just more prequel crap.
Not interested.
EDIT: Haha somebody said it was like Muppet Babies... Too true.
Goodbye Mr Berman.
Fellow fans now is the time to rally round this concept and give it our backing and support, as well as pass on our suggestions.
Lets try to put the past 7-8 years of constant whine and arguing behind us and look toward a bright future for Star Trek and the resurrection of its mass popularity.
Kirk and Spock will grace our screens once again, the actors will be new, but the story and characters will remain the same and will bring everyone who has deserted Trek back.
Be positive, the rot stops here.
Wow. I need to think about how I feel about this. A monumental opportunity for Star Trek, no doubt about it. Is it meant to add to existing cannon or is it a reimaging of Star Trek the pop icon? Will they be faithful to the characters? To Star Trek's take on the future and on humanity? No Enterprise? It's exciting to think about, but there are a lot of dangerous challenges if you ask me. But what an opportunity. Thank god they're not trying to jam it through for 07.
Oh dear. I have no interest in a young Kirk and Spock movie. Nuff said.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
-
nah it will be great. I am looking forward to new lore about Kirk and Spock etc. Much better than yet again new no-name characters.
--------
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."
...to Tyken and the naysayers.
Quote:
There is simply no room in a movie format to provide the kind of stories and development he is both so lauded for and that Trek fans like to see in the characters.
If there were no room in a movie for in depth character development, there wouldn't BE movies. Did Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redeption need 600+ hours of backstory to make the characters matter?????
No.
Sure, they matter, but who needs to cater to the hard core fanbase??? They will go see it anyway. And catrering to them exclusively has created an almost masturbatory relationship between the producers and the movie going audience in the film franchise, especially TNG...You almost HAVE to be familiar with all that backstory to see why you should care about these people.
They HAVE to start completely over...whether it be an Academy story...or a future ship scout ship in a new galaxy. Something where a person can go in pretty much cold and judge the STORY rather than feeling like they are missing something because they don't have every season on DVD.
--------
"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
-
Quote:
Something where a person can go in pretty much cold and judge the STORY rather than feeling like they are missing something because they don't have every season on DVD.
That's a failing of the writing, not the setting. Nobody had to see "Space Seed" to enjoy the well-written movie The Wrath of Khan.
Quote:
Sure, they matter, but who needs to cater to the hard core fanbase??? They will go see it anyway. And catrering to them exclusively has created an almost masturbatory relationship between the producers and the movie going audience in the film franchise, especially TNG..
When have the Trek movies ever catered to the hard core fans? From what I've seen, they've tried to calibrate their films for the Average Joe. Forgotten in this process is that a good movie will appeal to both groups of people.
--------
"A vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic, and socialistic act. ... The crusade for an income tax is the most unreasoning and un-American movement in the politics of the last quarter-century." -The New York Times describes the income tax in 1894
Is John McCain Ready to be President?
I'm surprised no one has realized what this is, in all probability. This is literally the end of the first era of TREK. It's over kids. This will reboot the franchise(Paramount surely hopes), as a JAMES BOND style movie only franchise.
Let's realize this: we have seen the last of the original era/original continuity, and I'm stunned to say this: Amen.
Every enduring character in literature/movies/plays/myth is reimagined. Every single one. While I don't totally buy into Ro's ideas (though I'm liking his reboot fantasies) he is 100-percent right about the Americana aspect of Kirk and Spock, and placing them in the Batman /Superman /Sherlock Holmes /Robbin Hood /James Bond/ Wyatt Earp class.
In college I wrote an article making the case TREK taken as a whole (this was TNG/DS9 era) would turn out to be the most vivid and enduring creation in fiction since Shakespear. Yes it's crazy, yes laugh, as I do, but the case is surprisingly there. What can I say, I liked starting aruments.
What do all enduring stories in our culture eventually face: reimagining. There is no longer a difinitive HAMLET or ROBIN HOOD, or even JESUS CHRIST. There are just better or worse takes on the core ideas. (JESUS was black? Maybe or maybe not, but he sure wasn't blond). Batman, Superman, James Bond and many other enduring characters have all gone through this. Is Brosnan's Bond really supposed to be Connery's character? I doubt it.
It's TREK's time. NEMESIS' $43 million take proves it. ENTERPRISE's bleed-out proves it. It just hurts so much for many of us fans it's hard to face. While I'm a big fan of the new BSG (and only the new one) this would have eventually faced TREK had BSG come or not. Even if this Abrams idea does not see the screen, the reimagining's tinme has come. I'm now an official convert. Every era has to reinterpret important stories to fit with their own times. How many versions of the Bible do we have?
So good-bye Shatner's Kirk, Nimoy's Spock, Picard, Sisko, Hugh, Edith Keeler, Q, Quark, Archer and everyone. Thank you Roddenberry. It's been one long, loony, enriching ride.
Thank you, and see you on the other side.
--------
'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.
-
Honestly you guys are really silly.
1) I haven't heard this kind of backlash about the guys playing Kirk, Spock etc in the fan films.
2) Shatner and Nimoy etc couldn't play 18-24 yr old versions of their characters even in 1966!!
This has nothing to do with REBOOTING the franchise. Forgive me but I dont recall any existing ST adventure featuring this time in the characters' lives.
This is just the opposite of a reboot. It's filling in the first part of the lives of our heroes, where we've only ever seen their midlife-forward.
--------
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."
-
Steve,
Yes, technically you're right. Technically, we don't know a that this is a reboot. Everything you say is factually true. I have to admit writing a bit to... provoke.
That being said, it's my half-educated guess, half industry bread hunch this is a reboot. If you were to reboot the series in a big way, by spending Abrams money and snagging him at the top of his heat, would you start from scratch and take the label STAR TREK? Or would you BSG it, by taking characters/ships/settings/etc. and reform them so they are both familiar and new? Would you simply start over in the same place, or would you look for unexplored territory that would snag the interest both of causal and hardcore fans?
I think you'd go with the latter choice, and when you read the Variety article, what do you see? Exactly. Same iconic characters at a time, and with a clean slate, we've never seen before.
That being said, love your site. It's the only genre site I post to. And time will bear me out.
For anyone who cares, as way of my bona fides, here's my review of NEMESIS from a bit back.
--------
'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.
...to Tyken and the naysayers.
Quote:
There is simply no room in a movie format to provide the kind of stories and development he is both so lauded for and that Trek fans like to see in the characters.
If there were no room in a movie for in depth character development, there wouldn't BE movies. Did Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redeption need 600+ hours of backstory to make the characters matter?????
No.
Sure, they matter, but who needs to cater to the hard core fanbase??? They will go see it anyway. And catrering to them exclusively has created an almost masturbatory relationship between the producers and the movie going audience in the film franchise, especially TNG...You almost HAVE to be familiar with all that backstory to see why you should care about these people.
They HAVE to start completely over...whether it be an Academy story...or a future ship scout ship in a new galaxy. Something where a person can go in pretty much cold and judge the STORY rather than feeling like they are missing something because they don't have every season on DVD.
--------
"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
Yes, J. J. Abrams is the current golden boy of teledrama, but no matter how popular he is, Trek fans cannot overlook the present plot idea in favor of heralding a movie directed by him. There is simply no room in a movie format to provide the kind of stories and development he is both so lauded for and that Trek fans like to see in the characters.
Coupled with the failure of Enterprise and the (at least to me) painfully unwatchable Star Trek: New Voyages, going back into the past again is just not what the franchise needs.
When you set something in the past, continuity becomes sketchy -- and like it or not, continuity is a vital part of the Trek universe and is important to many fans. However, in a future setting, lengthy and detailed backstories can be fleshed out, historical events can be chronicled, and it's just generally easier to create new content without having to toe the continuity line.
Like many others, I'd love to see a new series two or three years from now, set beyond the time of TNG/DS9/VOY, perhaps 200-300 years beyond. That span of time would provide plenty of room for expounding on the characters' backgrounds, galactic politics, and changes in the vast cultures with which we've become so familiar. New uniforms, new ships, etc., but with the ever-present familiarity of the past.
I'd much rather see J. J. Abrams helm a series like this than a one-time feature film, something that would cater more to the strengths that've garnered him such popularity.
"Penciled on a napkin?"
Shit man! Harve BENNETT came up with this LAME ASS idea YEARS AGO. It sucked hard then and sucks even harder NOW!!! I have always HATED...I repeat HATED...the Starfleet Academy idea!
It's the Trek equivalent of "Muppet Babies"(remember that? :-))! For one...this whole concept is RIDICULOUS! Kirk, Spock and McCoy NEVER went to the Academy together. This is established in TOS!!!! If you are a continuity pornographer...this is a continuity pornographers NIGHTMARE! I'm not a continuity pornographer...but this is like having FRODO find the ring in Lord of the Rings instead of BILBO!
It's revisionist BS crap! And it will bomb!
Let me count the ways:
1.) McCoy is OLDER than Kirk! Too old to have been in the Academy when Kirk was!
2.) Spock is MUCH older than either Kirk or McCoy -- in Vulcan years. It was stated in The Menagerie that Spock served with Captain Pike for, I think, what? Eleven years? So, he was probably IN THE ACADEMY WAY BEFORE Kirk!
This is a stupid idea...and I'll never go see it. I would go see a reimagined Trek film with someone playing Kirk & Co. on the NCC-1701 -- but I am not wasting my time or money on this crapola!
Hell, I thought the TNG "Academy" action figures were bad too!
Mark my words...listen to me now and believe me later...whatever. This is going to be the final nail in the franchise's coffin if it gets made -- which I still doubt.
IM
-
I agree with you about the "Muppet Babies" criticism of the "Academy" concept. If they were going to do this sort of prequel (and if they insisted on having more than one TOS character, as opposed to just having a pre-1701 Spock story or Kirk story), I'd much rather they start it at the beginning of Kirk's command of Enterprise. But I do disagree on some of your specific continuity criticism:
Quote:
1.) McCoy is OLDER than Kirk! Too old to have been in the Academy when Kirk was!
I agree here. McCoy shouldn't be in the movie.
Quote:
2.) Spock is MUCH older than either Kirk or McCoy -- in Vulcan years. It was stated in The Menagerie that Spock served with Captain Pike for, I think, what? Eleven years? So, he was probably IN THE ACADEMY WAY BEFORE Kirk!
Here's where I think you're wrong. IIRC, Spock served with Pike for about 11.5 years, and probably had served with Kirk for another 2 or 3 years by that episode, for a total of about 15 years max. Kirk's character was supposed to be 34 or 35 years old, and if Spock were about the same age (say 34-38 years old, if their Academy careers overlapped at all), that would put him beginning his service with Pike between ages 19 and 23. Spock was clearly a very young officer in the "Menagerie" flashbacks, so it would all be perfectly consistent with him beginning his Enterprise service right after graduating from the Academy at age ~22.
--------
Never before have things been so much the way they are now.
-
Quote:
I agree with you about the "Muppet Babies" criticism of the "Academy" concept. If they were going to do this sort of prequel (and if they insisted on having more than one TOS character, as opposed to just having a pre-1701 Spock story or Kirk story), I'd much rather they start it at the beginning of Kirk's command of Enterprise. But I do disagree on some of your specific continuity criticism:
Yeah, admittedly the Spock/Kirk thing could be worked around. But that's still 11.5 years that Kirk and Spock didn't "hang out together" and never were there any references to these guys being in the Academy together. If so, Kirk probably would have said in Shore Leave "Spock! You know that Finnegan dude we hated so much in the Academy? HE was down there on that planet! They pulled him from my memory..and that's...a memory I wanted to forget."
Anyway, there is nothing established that these guys knew each other prior to serving on the Enterprise together.
I'm with you...if it was a "First Mission" film then I could live with that. In fact, I would probably look forward to that.
But I can't get behind this Academy thing...Ugh. It just won't go away.
IM
-
Although I agree that this is an idiotic idea, Spock and Kirk are the same age, so at least that part is at least possible, albeit implausible.
-
:GASPS: Wow. That is actually what I was thinking, similar thoughts, but I decided I REALLY had to calm down when I posted my comments.
But you are right. This could be the end.
--------
Respect the cannon
I LOVE the fact that Abrams and his team are coming on board the Trek franchise. Any project that has a coveted, high-profile talent like Abrams attached will certainly get people buzzing. It shows a serious commitment by Paramount to revitalize the Trek franchise, since I assume that Abrams doesn't come cheap.
That said, I HATE the early-TOS concept. I have no interest whatsoever in seeing the early adventures of Kirk and Spock. Not even the presence of Abrams will convince me that this isn't a gawd-awful idea.
-
It could turn out that the Kirk and Spock part of the reboot, is just to pull in the Trek fans... they would only be a small part of the story....the majority of the story could follow as completely new cast and crew. Kirk and Spock would be there, but just as gravey for the fans. Kirk and Spock wouldn't even have to know each other yet, but the new cast could interact with them separately without screwing up continuity.
This has always been a bad idea...
Sad to see Star Trek following instead of leading - joining up again with the aging and cliched remake and prequel phase that every studio is cashing in on and will hopefully calm down one of these days.
I hope it is a remake (I could say reimagining, but I don't like fakey terms like "reimagining" and "pre-owned car")instead of some sort of attempted shoehorn into an already crowded and broken continuity, but it's too bad they're not going for something more original and exciting.
At this point it's all about money. There will be more Star Trek not because they have a great storytelling or character idea, but because it's too potentially valuable a property for the studio to leave alone for more than a few years at a time.
Barring some announcement that actually generates some enthusiasm for me (future scenes with Shatner?), I'll treat this one like I did Nemesis - skip it in the theater, get around to it when I feel like it on video or TV.
I wonder what this does to proposed fourth trilogy of Shatnerverse books supposedly set in the same time frame?
--------
"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" - Justice Scalia
I'm sorry, but I have to be the skeptical one here. This would be about the 5th time a so-called Star Trek script has been green lighted. I think this is nothing more than just a few guys getting together in a bar and writing down some ideas on a napkin.
In a few months, the idea will have been dropped. We'll find out that the comments were taken out of context (by the one and only Rickey Bermey)... and that another Star Trek movie won't likely happen for about 10 more years.
The end.
--------
"We're starfleet officers....weird is part of the job!"
This is like if they announced William Shakespeare was going to write a play about a dude taking a crap.
Not sure how to feel about it.
Fantastic helmer, but the idea blows chunks, and unless something happens between now and release I doubt I'll see it.
Huge Abrams fan, really totally not a fan of young Kirk and Spock.
"Oooh look who's that funny Scottish 'sergeant' that always bosses us around? Hope I never see him again" *wink* *nudge* *puke*
It's nothing at all like Batman begins, and if I have to explain why then it's not worth explaining.
It may end up being a great business decision but it's nothing I am as a gut reaction excited about at all.
Hopefully Speilberg will direct Star Trek 12 about the history of the Federation starring a young Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.
-
Quote:
This is like if they announced William Shakespeare was going to write a play about a dude taking a crap.
Not sure how to feel about it.
Fantastic helmer, but the idea blows chunks, and unless something happens between now and release I doubt I'll see it.
Huge Abrams fan, really totally not a fan of young Kirk and Spock.
"Oooh look who's that funny Scottish 'sergeant' that always bosses us around? Hope I never see him again" *wink* *nudge* *puke*
It's nothing at all like Batman begins, and if I have to explain why then it's not worth explaining.
It may end up being a great business decision but it's nothing I am as a gut reaction excited about at all.
Hopefully Speilberg will direct Star Trek 12 about the history of the Federation starring a young Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.
Oh MAN that is a true and funny post!!!
Any one of us who post here on this site could come up with a better script/premise than this Academy turd...and worst of all, it's a turd that just refuses to flush down the toilet.
Starfleet Academy is a big stinky floater that won't go down!
IM
I must've been channeling Counselor Troi last week when I advocated this idea in a rare blog about the Jendresen script.
As others have said, this is the best thing to happen behind the scenes with Star Trek since the cancellation of Enterprise (or, wait, I said "best" thing? haha). Totally fresh, new blood. Also A-list talent. I'm not all that familiar with Abrams -- the couple eps of Alias or Lost I've seen didn't pique my interest -- but at least the studio is bringing in the big guns.
What really rocks is the idea. To bring back TREK after nearly a decade of mediocre box office attempts and the debacle that was Enterprise, they really had to do something unique. ENT's prequel with new forgettable characters didnt get the job done and neither would a post-TNG movie that relies too much on fan lore. Picard and Sisko just never captured the public interest like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, let's face it.
To get the average person interested, this is one of the best ideas. Take the original, iconic, well-known and loved characters and reimagine them. If it's anything like Batman Begins it's going to totally kick ass.
And hurrah! TrekWeb has some real meat to report for the first time in the last year! Great for our ten year anniversary! Now we've got at least two years to look forward to of movie rumors, script leaks, casting, illicit set photos, interviews, rants, bashing, praising, new music, new costumes, new sets, new ships, new everything to look forward to!!
--------
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 have to disagree, Steve.
This is the worst news about the future of Trek, and I believe it will finally seal the tomb if this film is made.
It's NOT fresh.
It's NOT new, uncharted territory.
It's a film that the studio refused to make... twice, and it's being trotted out as a desperate filler to keep the franchise alive because no one CAN come up with anything fresh and new.
The "fresh blood" of a new cast is worthless if all they're doing is recreating known characters better loved when played by other actors.
Unlike Jendresen's idea (which at least had the benefit of entirely new characters), this film is Paramount's final confession that Trek is now no longer a fresh spring of new material.
Just a silent well they can dip into time and again.
I want a new film SO badly, and this has zero interest for me.
This is what will put the final nail in the coffin. It's a real shame.
--------
"Aha! Advancing on me only brings you closer to the cold wrath that is my spork!" - Bucky the Katt
-
Newsflash: new characters failed to capture enormous public interest THREE times. DS9, VOY, ENT. All hugely diminishing returns no matter their quality.
I for one am eager to see a story about characters I actually care about like Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Watched ST2 the other day and the crispness of those characters is just amazing. Yes they better cast it right, but I say go for it.
At this point ST needs bold ideas, and recasting a young Kirk, Spock and McCoy is about as bold as it gets. It may fall flat, but the idea on its own is not without merit or potential.
--------
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 have to echo the sentiment that the TNG characters did indeed get the public's attention - just look at all the spoofs on different shows of these characters, which wouldn't happen if nobody knew who they were. That's the litmus test of public perception: that people make fun of you. How many BSG spoofs have you seen?
Plus, as further evidence, First Contact did well at the box office. Of the three TNG-only movies, it was the only one without a sucky script or plot idea. Like Star Trek 5, it proved you needed good scripts to go with the characters.
That said, I'll wait and see how this movie turns out before panning it - I like the New Voyages episodes and would have preferred that approach, and I do get the impression that Kirk and Spock didn't know each other well until after Kirk became the Enterprise's captain - though it's not canon if you go by just the films and TV series. I don't want them to forget that Spock served apart from Kirk before Kirk came to the Enterprise. But continuity was spotty in TOS, so I'll cut them some slack. We'll see how it goes.
--------
-----
"Who are you, and how did you get in here??"
"I'm a locksmith, and... I'm a locksmith".
- "Police Squad"
-
Quote:
Newsflash: new characters failed to capture enormous public interest THREE times. DS9, VOY, ENT. All hugely diminishing returns no matter their quality.
DS9 had to compete with TNG and VOY, as well as with Paramount's own apathy. So I don't think you can blame "new characters" for its ratings performance.
News flash: The Next Generation did have new characters, and it was a success.
EDIT: Also, not to be pedantic, but TOS featured brand new characters as well. :P
--------
"A vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic, and socialistic act. ... The crusade for an income tax is the most unreasoning and un-American movement in the politics of the last quarter-century." -The New York Times describes the income tax in 1894
Is John McCain Ready to be President?
The premise of the film is the one area I wanted Paramount to steer clear of like the Ebola virus—the early days of the Original Series characters. The idea of going back in time to look at the beloved characters' early lives works well on paper but in the movies, the premise rarely ever works. I fear that a young Kirk and Spock will merely play as parodies of the real thing.
Still, I can't help but be shocked and elated that Paramount is making such creative and inspired choices in its effort to patch the holes in what is admittedly one of my life's foremost addictions.
That long time producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga will not be involved is the single best thing I could have read this morning, even better than J.J.'s addition.
If they REALLY want to spice it up, hire old producer Ron Moore! Though, I'd hate to see his influence and creative genius anyway diminished on the brilliant BSG.
-
Quote:
The premise of the film is the one area I wanted Paramount to steer clear of like the Ebola virus—the early days of the Original Series characters.
HAHAHA!!! So true, so true! Love that metaphor! Ebola...
I think if they go through with this Academy thing...it's going be about as popular as Ebola at the box office.
It's going to tank and take Trek out for next 50 years! Cos it will be about that long before anybody wants to do Trek again after this abomination.
The same talent working on a "First Voyage" film with the classic characters might work -- Academy has zip, zero, nada chance of being successful.
Hate to sound pessimistic, but this thing presumably wouldn't even have the Enterprise in it.
I wanted to rejoice when Berman got the boot instead I applaud Paramount for having the courage to hire some REAL talent -- but that talent will be SQUANDERED on a Starfleet Academy film.
I went to see Star Trek V, Insurrection and even Nemesis. Again, I won't go see Starfleet Academy.
I hate that premise so much I doubt I would even RENT the damned thing! :-(
IM
So... Berman's out and Abrams is in!!!! OMG!!! I think Abrams taking over the Trek franchaise is probably the best thing next to having Nick Meyer return (who am I kidding... he'll probably be better than Meyer). And it also solves a question I've been wondering- who will replace the late great Jerry Goldsmith as composer- the answer being the genius that is Michael Giacchino (who has scored everything that Abrams has done- Alias, Lost, M:I:III). this is going to be so awesome!!!!!
just thought of this... this will actually give us one more chance for shat to be kirk! Harve Bennet said in his script that the film starts w/ kirk adressing an academy class...
you've got to think that JJ will use a similar idea.. the Paramount marketing dept. would love to have Shat and Nimoy in the movie to appeal to the fans, while having some A-List young talent play the roles for the rest of the movie...
this may actually give us another few scenes w/ Shatner and Nimoy! and without any awkward "Kirk recincarnated by Borg Nanites", etc.
If anybody's near Philly -0 Wrath of Khan on the big screen tonight and tomorrow! www.brynmawrfilm.org
STAR TREK LIVES AGAIN!
omfg!
Guys - this is the best thing to happen to Trek since Manny Cotto - and probably, really, since Ira Behr.
JJ is one of the hottest talents in the business right now. He's part of the core group that has revitlaized the hour long drama on TV (Joss Whedon, David Milch and a few others along w/ him).
The writers from his writers rooms are working on a lot of the hottest shows on TV, along w/ Trek writers, like 24, Lost, Alias (not so hot anymore, but you know...)
Read Aint it Cool News's review of MI:3 - it looks so much better than the first two...
JJ's gonna blow up big - this is really the best "A-List" talent treatment Trek has gotten since the Motion Picture.
Bottom line: Berman's out. Paramount giving Trek to JJ shows they want to make it a tentpole franchise again.
JJ knows how to *take risks* - apparently he tears apart Ethan Hunt in MI:3 - watch the first episode of Alias or Lost... the guy knows how to put characters in a hard place and he knows how to create *drama*, basically, I think this movie will have more cajones than probably any Trek movie... especially the TNG movies...
Do I have reservations:
A few maybe... no Shat as Kirk? (and even harder to replace, let's face it, no Nimoy as Spock?)
But in terms of style, story, drama and flair, this is going to be *so* different from the *safe* TNG movies w/ their episodic bent...
Fingers are crossed. Suddenly, I'm exicted about Trek again. Now, in 2010, let's do the next TV show w/ Manny at the helm...
Really, the only thing that would have me more exicted would be a DS9 movie, but I understand the suits just dn't think it'd make money, and they're probably right... if only they had done Trek X as a crossover... sigh.
This is great news for some people. Not me. Why? Every movie needs a target audience. Who are they targetting? Most fans of TOS want to see Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock. That is why they watch the same 40 year old episodes over and over again. So, I don't see Shatner-as-Kirk fans going to see this. And I believe most younger fans, the ones who go to theaters, don't give two pointed ears about Kirk and Spock as teens.
Continuity is a huge issue with everything that happened on Enterprise. I see most fans being so skeptical of a prequel (or reimagining, or whatever this is called) no one will want to go see it.
When this movie fails the execs at Paramount will see it as Trek being truly dead.
Yes, all good things must come to an end.
--------
Respect the cannon
What about Spock and Kirk's age differences? That's the first problem that pops in my mind when I think of this idea. We've seen Spock as a science officer under Chris Pike, eleven years before the original five year mission and guess what? He looks the same. Kirk would have been 20 or 21 years of age during that time. How are we to account for this? And what about bones? Isn't he supposed to be at least 15 years older than Kirk? How are these characters going to be portrayed?
-
Spock's age was never given in the series or movies, and he's half-Vulcan, so you can fudge things. He'd been in Starfleet for 18 years as of "The Enterprise Incident," almost 11.5 of which were spent with Pike and 3 with Kirk. That leaves about 3.5 years, during which Spock would have attended the Academy ... let's say 2251.
As of "The Corbomite Maneuver," Kirk's been in Starfleet about 11 years, based on McCoy's observation that Kirk was a lot like Bailey at Bailey's age. So Kirk's been in Starfleet at least since 2256. But for Kirk to have been so green in 2256, it means he probably attended the Academy at least four years earlier, or 2252.
So you see, we have some wiggle room for Kirk and Spock to have been at the Academy at the same time, during which they may have had at least one adventure together.
(Although not canon, Roddenberry wrote that McCoy joined Starfleet after a divorce, so he was probably older than your average Academy cadet. Although the Abrams project makes no mention of McCoy being around, the good doctor seems to have known Kirk at some time during Kirk's Academy tenure.)
--------
LORD EDZO
Imperious Leader - Paramount Ruler - Master and Commander
Big fan of what J.J. Abrams can do. Looking forward to a fresh take on Trek.
We have hundreds of hours of the old stuff to keep us company. If you can't handle someone else messing w/ Kirk and Spock, watch the old stuff.
I'm not sure how I feel about the idea. I just hope it doesn't completely disregard the series and movies that have come before it.
I don't think Star trek needs a rest. I think it needs new blood with a love and respect for the continuity. The last season of Enterprise was what I had hoped the series was going to be like when it was announced. Instead, they tried to be totally separate and it wasn't very good.
--------
breakin' it down
It's great that Rick Berman is gone but let's hope Abrams don't mess up Star Trek like he was going to Superman, It seems like when he gets put on a classic he likes to totally recreate and ignore what's happened in the past.
To Terry212:
I'm not making up anything. It's intuitive that this isn't a literal prequel (just like Smallville isn't a literal prequel to the first Superman movie, or Batman Begins isn't a literal prequel to the 1989 Burton film).
And this whole 'moving forward' thing is a meaningless slogan. This is fictional entertainment, not a government, or a religion. There's a reason the original Star Trek has no subtitle...because it (and only it) is "Star Trek". Everything else has merely been a sequel, nothing more.
--------
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.
(no message)
--------
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.
It's a little late for April Fools.
Harve Bennett? Geez. How long do you think he's been waiting for this? And didn't he say that any idea of this was baloney not that long ago?
How would you even cast such a thing. Would you get dead on comparisons/imitations, or would you open it up a little or go in a completely different direction?
(Lets make Kirk a blond woman!)
--------
Visit My Blog
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. -- the eminent conservative rag, National Review
-
Quote from Bondo:
Harve Bennett? Geez. How long do you think he's been waiting for this? And didn't he say that any idea of this was baloney not that long ago?
Perhaps you're thinking of his interview with Trek Nation, earlier this year? Bennett is still gung-ho for The Academy...
Trek Nation: Is that back in play now? There are rumors about it, it seems, every six months.
Harve Bennett: I'll tell you how recently it was. Before Sherry Lansing left [Paramount Pictures] last year, we had a meeting, about two years ago, in which I proposed that now was the time to do Starfleet Academy. And she loved it. We would have made it. But then she said the television department had asked her not to do it, because Enterprise was being produced and they thought that should be the prequel. Therefore, we did not do that. Could we make it now? If somebody wants to, I'm there. Technically, I'm retired, and non-technically but actually, I'm writing my own book. I'm considerably happy not to go into downtown Los Angeles every day.
Trek Nation: So you aren't actively pursuing the Starfleet Academy idea right now.
Harve Bennett: No, but I love it. Some of the steam went out of it when my dear DeForest Kelley died. He was going to be in it along with Bill and Leonard, those were the only two regulars, and they were involved in a flashback. That's how we incorporated the three main characters into the prequel: it was a memory. Kirk comes to the Academy to address the classmates and remembers his time, when they were 17.
--------------
Limited Edition: 40th Anniversary Phaser
-
Yes. That's it. Thank you. Harve made some good movies, and that's much more than we've gotten the last couple of outtings.
I wish them luck.
--------
Visit My Blog
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. -- the eminent conservative rag, National Review
The past...again?!?
As much as it intrigues me to see J.J. Abrams and his MI:3 compatriots at the helm of this new TREK feature, I really don't like their idea. Why do we need to see Kirk and Spock in their Academy days? I'd be so much more excited if we were going to see Abrams' take on the current, or future, Trek universe.
All this is going to accomplish is more pointless continuity arguments, like the kind we had going on here all through Enterprise's run.
Also, I can't help but believe Paramount will dig their claws into this and remove whatever true drama and actual character development Abrams and his team will try to put into the franchise, in favor of flashy FX and aimless plot devices.
-
Agreed. I do not think the Starfeet Academy idea will gain the new audience that Trek needs to move forward.
To me, it would be a Smokey and the Bandit movie with a black Trans Am, Starsky and Hutch without the "Striped Tomatoe", Bullitt without the Mustang.
It's all about the Enterprise. For people to love Trek, we have to fall in love with the Enterprise. I am not saying that characters and stories are not important; they have to be compelling and keep the or else we will end up with another ST:VOY or ST:ENT. But the ship is very important as well.
I realize that DS9 pokes a hole in my theory but I think DS9 was special. DS9 was a great character study and Trek was displayed in a differnet light.
I have doubts that DS9 would have been as successful had it been in the puritanical TOS/TNG form.
-
This project really isn't a prequel. It's a re-imagining. It has more in common with the intent of 'Smallvile' actually.
The young Kirk/Spock/Bones premise really compares more to '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.
-
Quote:
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.
Yes, they are iconic...isn't that the biggest reason NOT to re-imagine them? JJ Abrams and his gang intend to take these beloved characters and recreate them for a new breed of Star Trek fans, without taking into account that the old-time Star Trek fans are happy with the characters as they were established, and don't need to have their histories de-mystified. The more I think about this idea, the more I'm coming to really hate it. Sure, I'll go see it when it arrives in theatres (I'm not that big an idiot), but this really disappoints me.
It was different with Batman Begins, and even with Smallville. The origins of Batman and Superman, respectively, have been retold and re-imagined again and again in comics. Fans of those characters are used to seeing their backstories updated with the times, and those retellings keeps the characters and their motivations fresh in the readers' minds.
Trek fans (at least from what I've seen on these boards) are much more fickle. I saw nothing but bickering and ill will towards Enterprise for all the continuity alterations it spawned. Why couldn't the same rationale you're trying to attach to THIS idea have been tied to Enterprise? Long story short, it wasn't, and it won't connect for most people when it comes to this one.
And, if they really are priming people for a TOS re-imagining, a la Battlestar Galactica, shame on them. Shame for trying to ride on that success's coattails, and for assuming that if it worked for one series, it'll work for another.
-
Ro...where are you getting that it's a reimagining and that its not supposed to link up with the TOS universe?? I think you're making that up.
I really like JJ Abrams (or at least I like Lost). I'll certainly see any Trek movie that comes out, but I do have to say that I'm very distressed to see us moving backward again. Nothing will interest me so much as post-Nemesis adventures.
--------
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!!
I was just talking about how Bennett's young Kirk & Spock concept (just seven news items down in fact) is the best move the franchise could make. ;)
link
I've been a proponent of this project for years, and took all kinds of static that usually began with "this will NEVER happen". Well...the majority of Trek fans were wrong (again). :)
--------
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.
Well, this guy worked with Cruise, and I have to wonder if there is a Scientology connection here. If J.J. Abrams is personally connected to Scientology in any way, I for one will not see the film.
Anyone who supports this cult of bilking idiots does not deserve my money at the box office. It would be better if Star Trek disappeared permanently than for any of L. Ron Hubbard's poison to seep into Trek-dom.
Otherwise, he seems to be quite capable of doing justice to the idea of Star Trek.
But Tom Cruise and all of Scientology needs to vanish from the face of the earth. If anyone wonders why I hate this (so called) religion so much, I suggest doing a little research.
The only reason I mention this is because when Enterprise wrapped, the soundstage was used for some MI3 scenes, and it's already bad enough that Mission Impossible has been co-opted by the LRH foundation, let's not let that happen to Star Trek. The Hubbard zombies might earn some credibility if they do.
--------
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.
Wow. This certainly came out of left field. That it's Variety seems pretty legit. I wonder how long it'll be before Paramount announces it? I also wonder how much of it is contingent on how well M:I-3 does this summer?
I certainly enjoyed the pilot episode of Lost that J.J. Abrams directed. The style and approach was unique.
I can't say that I'm crazy about Kirk & Spock: The Early Years. Simply unnecessary. I think I'd rather see this team put its creativity into a new Trek television series set post-TNG.
However, I'm also more intrigued by this than by the last two Trek films.Good luck and all.
I'll be curious to see how many now suddenly overlook the prequel concept simply because B&B are not involved.
This is really amazing news.
J.J. Abrams has created some of the most fun and interesting TV in years, I'm sure he'll be able to brreathe new life into the Trek franchise. Who knows, maybe he'll even head up a new tv series :D
--------
"Ich habe es satt allein aufzustehn // als Erster zu sehn // Dass ich noch leb"
"I'm fed up with getting up alone // To be the first to see // That I'm still alive"
- Rosenstolz, "Ich will mich verlieben"
I feel blessed to be one of the first people to comment online concerning the most significant and long awaited announcements concerning the Star Trek community in the last decade.
I am gratified as I am sure are many other Star Trek enthusiats to learn that The Powere That Be at Paramount finally took the fans of Star Trek seriously and took the reins of the Star Trek legend away from people who took that legend less than seriously.
Despite the somewhat santimouious comments of Star Trek's former management, this proves that Paramount will no longer take Star Trek fans for granted. I think that it is safe to say that TPTB decided to read some of the Star Trek online blogs and websites.
Thank You Paramount. We look forward to the legend of Star Trek being revitalized.
-
I think people should lay off Berman. He's the guy that really made TNG a great show. I wasn't a big fan of the other spin-offs, but even average Trek is way better than your average TV show.
Unfortunately, rather than leave Trek with dignity, he gave us Enterprise, which tried to appeal to a broader audience and ended up alienating everybody.
Why did Star Trek IV make the most money? Because it was the best Trek. Good Star Trek appeals to everyone!
It will be hard to watch two of my favorite fictional characters of all time played by other actors - so I'm voting in favor of Bennett's idea of including Shatner and Nimoy looking back at their first adventure. But if they can put a good story together that gives the fans something in return for boosting Paramount's revenues, then let the new blood boil.
-
I think people should lay off Berman. He's the guy that really made TNG a great show. I wasn't a big fan of the other spin-offs, but even average Trek is way better than your average TV show.
I actually went to some lengths not to mention B and B by name anyway but you did so here we go.
I have read some of their interviews over the years and I saw some of what they produced; especially Voyager and Enterprise. For the record, the casual way that they dismissed continuity in Enterprise and the cavalier and disrespectful comments made about TOS in general are not easily forgiven. This attitude is, at least in part, what doomed Enterprise and at least wounded Voyager. I loved Voyager but the last couple of seasons were sad and they did not have to be.
We as fans all have to live with the legacy of how Enterprise was mishandled. I am not happy with that legacy. I am also unhappy that the actors that played the characters of Enterprise are not only out of a job, but to a certain extent are demeaned by association with Enterprise when in truth the show was sub-written and produced except for some of the last season when they were desperate to save the show. Too late.
I am afraid that Berman cannot take credit for the fact that "even average Trek is way better than your average TV show". The premise of Star Trek is a superior premise to most of what is on television. Berman did not create that premise.
But if they can put a good story together that gives the fans something in return for boosting Paramount's revenues, then let the new blood boil.
I agree that if they can craft a good story it would be great for all concerned. I just hope that they honor the continuity of TOS as well as that of the other Star Trek sequals with the exception of Enterprise which unfortunately had little continuity to honor.
I, like you, am hoping for some good new Star Trek shows.
Amen? Amen!
-
I think people should lay off Berman. He's the guy that really made TNG a great show. I wasn't a big fan of the other spin-offs, but even average Trek is way better than your average TV show.
I actually went to some lengths not to mention B and B by name anyway but you did so here we go.
I have read some of their interviews over the years and I saw some of what they produced; especially Voyager and Enterprise. For the record, the casual way that they dismissed Star Trek continuity in Enterprise and the cavalier and disrespectful comments made about TOS in general are not easily forgiven. This attitude is, at least in part, what doomed Enterprise and at least wounded Voyager. I loved Voyager but the last couple of seasons were sad and they did not have to be.
We as fans all have to live with the legacy of how Enterprise was mishandled. I am not happy with that legacy. I am also unhappy that the actors that played the characters of Enterprise are not only out of a job, but to a certain extent are demeaned by association with Enterprise when in truth the show was sub-written and produced except for some of the last season when they were desperate to save the show. Too late.
I am afraid that Berman cannot take credit for the fact that "even average Trek is way better than your average TV show". The premise of Star Trek is a superior premise to most of what is on television. Berman did not create that premise.
But if they can put a good story together that gives the fans something in return for boosting Paramount's revenues, then let the new blood boil.
I agree that if they can craft a good story it would be great for all concerned. I just hope that they honor the continuity of TOS as well as that of the other Star Trek sequals with the exception of Enterprise which unfortunately had little continuity to honor.
I, like you, am hoping for some good new Star Trek shows.
Amen? Amen!
As much as I HATE, HATE, HATE the young Kirk/Spock/McCoy idea, seeing these guys do Trek is too good a thing to pass up.
--------
The supervisor is Verizon!
-
I don't know. Could go either way. I personally buy that these guys met on the job, on the ship, not that they were pals since the Academy. It was obvious that Kirk and Spock were really uncomfortable allies in the pilot and that the death of Mitchell lead the way for them to become close friends. At least it isn't some new crew, but I dread the thought of the TOS crew being made "cool for kids."
-
Not actually thrilled with the premise, like many others it would seem, but I think a new creative team. Especially with credentials like JJ should do the franchise the world of good.
I'd much rather see the more recent Trek time that finished with Voyager. You could have a few cameos but focus on a new ship and crew and maybe to a 3 film arc like they did with Trek's 2,3 and 4.
--------
Space - It's big and it's out there.
-
Not actually thrilled with the premise, like many others it would seem, but I think a new creative team. Especially with credentials like JJ should do the franchise the world of good.
I'd much rather see the more recent Trek time that finished with Voyager. You could have a few cameos but focus on a new ship and crew and maybe to a 3 film arc like they did with Trek's 2,3 and 4.
--------
Space - It's big and it's out there.
-
I'm with you, Meglo. Love the team, that the idea. And if the movie is a success...what do we get? A young Kirk series? Like...the Farragut? I mean...if Kirk were the young lieutenant star, but other new characters were equally prominent (sort of like Ally McBeal was the main character in an ensemble show), I guess I could live with that. But how are we supposed to get as excited about 21-year-old Kirk as we were about CAPTAIN Kirk????
One thing I hope Trek starts to do is go back to a WILD universe populated by WEIRD creatures and ALIEN concepts like TOS, which is something Berman moved away from. Everyone was essentially human, and they were only as alien as, say, foreign countries on present-day Earth. TOS explored STRANGE NEW worlds, not remarkably similar ones. With CGI, they could really do that concept proud.
--------
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!!
(1)
| 
