Star Trek XI

1
Ok, I continue to be baffled by these continuous and conflicting reports. Can someone just plain come out and say, "yes, there will be a movie, and it will be about this," or "no, forget about it, we're done!"

The latest, which ressurrects an old plotline that I am not a fan of seeing at all:

U.S. director J.J. Abrams is set to revive the Star Trek franchise, according to industry paper Variety.

Abrams, creator of TV hits Lost, Alias and Felicity, and director of the upcoming Mission Impossible III, will bring the as-yet-untitled project to theatres in 2008.

The new project, which will be the 11th instalment of the popular film series, will reportedly return to the origins of classic Trek characters James T. Kirk and Spock, originally portrayed by William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

The movie will follow how the two characters met at Starfleet Academy and their first space assignment together.

Considered by many to be Hollywood's most enduring franchise after James Bond, Star Trek faltered recently. The last film, Star Trek: Nemesis, had a poor reception in 2002, and the most recent TV series, Enterprise, was cancelled last year because of declining ratings.

The brainchild of Gene Roddenberry, the Star Trek science fiction franchise started as a late-1960s TV show that became ingrained in pop culture. It spawned five additional TV incarnations (including an animated version), 10 feature films, numerous video games and hundreds of books, ranging from novels to technical manuals.

Re: Star Trek XI?

2
Grrrr, you beat me to the punch with this story, you and your odd schedule and different time zone! ;) I went ahead and moved your post into a new thread as this one seems worthy of its own.

I think it's a bad idea to do the Star Fleet Academy thing, because I think it's a bad idea to recast the classic roles. William Shatner IS Kirk, and vice versa. So much of what makes Kirk, Kirk, is Shatner. You can cast some young guy to play the part, and he may be able to ape Shatner's mannerisms (who can't, to an extent?), and he may even look like Shatner, but all he'll be doing is playing a part. He won't BE Kirk. That also applies to all the other roles.

After ST V flopped, Harve Bennett first floated the ST academy idea. Mass outcry from the fans scuttled it, and the old cast was brought back for VI. Are there enough fans left to do this again? Do they still care enough?

I think the best cure for Star Trek would be to let it lie fallow for ten years, then create a new TV show, with new characters and a new ship. Set it in a different time period, say the 26th Century instead of the 24th. Make it good, and if it's successful, then use that cast to launch a new movie franchise after seven seasons on TV. But would Paramount consider letting Star Trek go dormant that long? Not if they think there's as much as a nickel still to be wrung from its icy corpse.
Last edited by Olorin on Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

3
OK, here's something from the Star Trek website with a little extra info:
BREAKING NEWS: J.J. Abrams to Produce/Direct "Trek XI"

J.J. Abrams, producer of hit shows Lost and Alias, as well as director of the upcoming Paramount film "Mission: Impossible III," is slated to produce and direct the next Star Trek feature, according to today's Daily Variety and sources at Paramount Pictures. There is no title as yet for the new movie, but it will be the eleventh in the franchise. (Until a title is confirmed, we will most likely refer to the project as simply "Star Trek XI.")

Although there isn't an official Paramount press release announcing the movie, it is a confirmed project under development with a 2008 release date targeted. Word about the Abrams project surfaced this morning in the daily trade paper. He will be writing the script with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci who penned "M:i:III." STARTREK.COM will keep you up to date on all official statements as they are released.

The proposed story will focus on the early days of James T. Kirk and Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first mission in space.

Abrams' producing partners from Lost, Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, are cited as being producers on "Trek XI." This project is separate from the previously rumored script developed by Eric Jendersen and overseen by Rick Berman. The former Star Trek producer is not involved in this project.

This is exciting news, and we look forward to following developments on this project every step of the way!
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

4
Stupid, stupid idea. You're so right about no one caring. I certainly don't, and if I ever watch this movie (which my Trek-curiosity will probably demand at some point,) it will be as a DVD rental, not in theatres.

Ah well, at least Rick Berman is not involved in this. Could this be the first hint that he's been finally handed his walking papers? One could only hope, yet as is clear from these news, the Star Trek jackassery machine continues to roll even without Berman making decisions.

Sigh. :rolleyes:
Last edited by Valkrist on Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Star Trek XI?

5
Berman presided over some of Star Trek's best years, yet he also presided over its recent decline. After the lackluster performance of Nemesis, I think it's best that they bring in fresh blood. Hopefully, however, they'll keep at least a few people onboard from its glory days. BC is always mentioning Ira Steven Behr. He was pretty much Mr. DS9, which was my fave series, and given how dark, convoluted, and edgy (all relative to Wonderbread Star Trek, of course) DS9 was, he could be a good one to helm a revival.

I know nothing about this Abrams guy other than what was in those articles. I suspect he got picked solely on the basis of Lost's success. I've never even watched that show, but I know from your post on the topic a few weeks ago that it may be over-rated. That in itself may be a symptom of what a vast wasteland of dreck that TV is.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

9
yep, Ira Behr is the way to go... he dont look like a star trek fan, i saw him once on tv and he is a big bald headed biker looking dude with a long blue goatee.

let him write it and let jonathan frakes direct it. and dont let it be about kirk and spock in star trek academy... that should NOT be a movie in the line of movies... lets move forward in the timeline, enough with going back (Although enterprise was fantastic its last year). besides, spock/kirk at the academy just doesnt sound like a major motion picture idea... its more of a direct-to-video spin-off, or if they ever did a star trek version of the mary kate and ashley series of movies... this would be the idea.

it sounds like they want to do "star trek + the O.C."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Star Trek XI?

10
I think they have a perception that the TOS crew was the most popular crew (that's debatable, but that's a different thread...), and since their one and only goal is to make as much money as possible, they want a TOS cast. Unfortunately, DeForrest Kelley and James Doohan are dead, RIP, and the rest of the cast are older than dirt. So this is their way to try to have their cake yet it eat it too.

Coming back to Val's quandary about whether to see the movie or not, there's essentially no way I wouldn't be in the theater on opening night. I would just have to go and hope for the best, unless every critic in the country said this was the worst Star Trek movie ever.

In any case, 2008 is a long way away and a lot can happen between now and then. It may not get made, or it may get made with a totally different plot. Personally, I think it could be interesting to see a return of those little skittering parasitic aliens from TNG 1st season episode "Conspiracy." That's a story thread that was set up, yet never followed. Of course, the parasitic-alien-puppetmaster idea has been done to death in SF, and these guys would also invite comparisons to Alien, so it probably shouldn't happen.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

11
its a shame that its all about the theater take to see how much a movie is liked... i liked nemesis but i didnt see it in the theater, same with insurrection or first contact. i did see generations in the theater because it was a school feild trip to the movies. i jus dont get out to the movies as much as i would like... the last movie i saw in the theater was wedding crashers.

a non-cannocal e xp lanation of those little parasites from Conspiracy was given in the lives of dax book, which i thought was interesting, they were supposedly a parasitic form of the trill symbiont.

i wish they'd do a Titan movie :) its probably too late, but a ds9 movie would have been cool.

but i do agree with you olorin, they should take a break and pick up in the future, maybe not in the 26th century, i mean it would/could work, but i'd like to see whats going on in the "current" timeline of trek.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Star Trek XI?

12
Blah. Dumb Paramount.

So... anyone want to start taking guesses at how many continuity errors there are going to be in this movie if it gets made? Here are some of my top picks:

Uniforms - Because they no doubt want people to recognize Kirk and Spock in their old uniforms, they are probably going to show them wearing them as they did on the first season of TOS. However, any real fan knows that prior to that, they had slightly different uniforms as seen in 'The Cage' and 'Where No Man Has Gone Before.'

First Mission - This is a big one since it seems to be the plot of the movie. My memory is a bit rusty on this, but I believe that Kirk and Spock's first assignment together began as Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise. That's all fine and good... except that they were already both long-removed from their academy days by then, so unless they alude to Spock being already an officer on the Enterprise, and Kirk having been a lieutenant on the Farragut, this is going to look really stupid. In fact, due to Spock's Vulcan age being much different, I wonder if they were even contemporaries at the Academy.

Dr. McCoy - Something tells me they won't be able to resist recasting Bones and bringing back the third corner of the great TOS triangle. Again this causes some problems for the scenario above because not only is McCoy at least ten years older than Kirk and therefore should not be at the Academy (unless he's part of the faculty,) he was not even the ship's doctor on the Enterprise yet when Kirk became its captain.

Those are my top three. What more can you guys add?

Re: Star Trek XI?

13
I hadn't even thought about continuity errors yet--I was still contemplating the recasting of the classic roles. You're probably right on all those. Here's another one--they won't be able to resist making the old 1701 looker cooler than it actually did. The ship interiors (and to a lesser extent, the exterior, which changed from time to time) were different in the first two eps you mentioned, with even cheesier props and gadgets than the ship had later in the show's regular run. If they recreate it exactly, it might be appreciated by the discerning fan--and ridiculed by everyone else. And since they're always aiming for a broader audience w/these movies, you can bet they won't be looking to please you or me.

According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Kirk was born 2233, while Spock was born in 2230. So they would be contemporaries, though not in the same class year, unless Spock had delayed his enrollment by 3 years. McCoy's birthdate is given by the Star Trek Chronology as 2227, which would make him 3 years older than Spock and 6 years older than Kirk. McCoy would probably have gone to medical school first, so he could still be a classmate of these guys. So at least as far as the relative ages of the characters go, I don't see a problem.

Where I do see a problem is that the story will probably be silly, with them having to save the Enterprise with some sort of Wesley Crusher-like, wet-behind-the-ears gambit. I've already seen enough Wesley Crusher to last me a lifetime, thank you very much. Another problem would be, why would they even be on the Enterprise (granted, we're only assuming they will be). In TOS somewhere, I believe Kirk said he only met Captain Pike once, perhaps at the transfer of command ceremony? So they shouldn't be having them on board the ship under Pike's command as some sort of training exercise (though it's feasible you could be on a ship and never formally meet the capt.--though you think he'd give a welcome to the cadets).

Other than the continuity problems inherent in a prequel, I could see a lot more potential for this academy idea as a TV series or miniseries than a movie. In a theatrical movie, they're going to have to try to introduce the characters and develop their motivations (and yes, we are starting from scratch here, so it would be a cheat to use the established personalities without showing their development), AND set up and resolve a plot, all in the 1:45 that Paramount typically "generously" allots a Star Trek movie.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

14
Well I certainly hope the Enterprise is not even featured in this movie. As much as I would love to see the old girl one more time, it would make absolutely no sense to have Kirk and Spock on that ship while still at the Academy, or just fresh out of it. The training scenario you mentioned would be a possibility, but it smacks too much of Wrath of Khan for me, though not that that has ever stopped Paramount from cannibalizing ideas from previous Trek movies.

If the 1701 Enterprise does get rolled out for one more adventure, you can bet the farm AND the horses that the interiors at least will be modified. Archer's NX-01 already looked drastically modern compared to the Enterprise from TOS, so you can bet they are going to update our beloved ship and make it look only vaguely similar to what we remember. Note that they were able to resist the temptation to do so with the Mirror universe Defiant on the last series, but I don't think that will hold true for this movie.

Speaking of Archer, I wonder if we will see or hear some kind of reference or nod to the Enterprise tv series in some way. Maybe they will have named some building or institution after one of the crew, or have the cadets learn the 'Archer Maneuver' as part of some test. Somehow I doubt it though. I have a feeling that they will want to distance themselves from something they view as a failure, neglecting to acknowledge the fact that they themselves were mostly responsible for that.

You're right in that this would make for a better tv mini-series than a movie. Doubtlessly, and because of Kirk's nature, they are probably going to finagle some lame love interest into the mix, further complicating the plot and taking away more screentime to develop this angle while ultimately not resolving anything. If they have someone in that kind of situation, the logical choice should be Dr. Carol Marcus, but I doubt they have the brains or creativity to even think of that.

Re: Star Trek XI?

15
Valkrist wrote:Well I certainly hope the Enterprise is not even featured in this movie. As much as I would love to see the old girl one more time, it would make absolutely no sense to have Kirk and Spock on that ship while still at the Academy, or just fresh out of it. The training scenario you mentioned would be a possibility, but it smacks too much of Wrath of Khan for me, though not that that has ever stopped Paramount from cannibalizing ideas from previous Trek movies.

I also thought of Wrath of Khan. Just imagine if Scotty's nephew, instead of getting killed, saves the ship....
Valkrist wrote:If the 1701 Enterprise does get rolled out for one more adventure, you can bet the farm AND the horses that the interiors at least will be modified. Archer's NX-01 already looked drastically modern compared to the Enterprise from TOS, so you can bet they are going to update our beloved ship and make it look only vaguely similar to what we remember. Note that they were able to resist the temptation to do so with the Mirror universe Defiant on the last series, but I don't think that will hold true for this movie.

They consciously made the NX-01 more modern looking than the 1701. They knew it was a continuity error, but thought it would be worse to make it look more primitive than our current technology. That's how much technology has changed since Star Trek debuted 40 years ago. I was much more accepting of that than the fact that the ship looked NOTHING like it did in the painting of it on the rec deck in ST:TMP (and the director's cut of that movie missed a great opportunity to digitally replace that image with the NX-01, a very small and cheap fix compared to the other work they did on that flick). And with a previously unseen ship, they could do that. However, to meddle with the beloved 1701 (still THE Enterprise, to all of us who grew up watching TOS)--that would be a different thing altogether.
Valkrist wrote:Speaking of Archer, I wonder if we will see or hear some kind of reference or nod to the Enterprise tv series in some way. Maybe they will have named some building or institution after one of the crew, or have the cadets learn the 'Archer Maneuver' as part of some test. Somehow I doubt it though. I have a feeling that they will want to distance themselves from something they view as a failure, neglecting to acknowledge the fact that they themselves were mostly responsible for that.

I would hope they would refer to him, even if it's something little like classes being canceled for the Archer birthday holiday. As to distancing themselves from Enterprise, I would really hope they wouldn't do that. It was ultimately a great show, and its failure probably had at least as much to do with the way UPN handled it as to the show's own merits or lack thereof. Plus, given the relative proximity of this timeline to Archer's time, everyone will be e xp ecting a reference and would be disappointed if it did not happen. My prediction: a taped message from Archer will be shown to the cadets, much as the taped message from Zephram Cochrane was shown to the assemblage at the launch of the NX-01 in "Broken Bow."
Valkrist wrote: Doubtlessly, and because of Kirk's nature, they are probably going to finagle some lame love interest into the mix, further complicating the plot and taking away more screentime to develop this angle while ultimately not resolving anything. If they have someone in that kind of situation, the logical choice should be Dr. Carol Marcus, but I doubt they have the brains or creativity to even think of that.

Oh Lord, I hadn't even thought of that. Yes, you're right, they will have to bow to the image of the almighty Casanova. I'd also opt for Carol Marcus. Not only would it give continuity and tie some things together, but it would also keep them from sacrificing yet another babe of the week at the altar of the legend and legacy of Kirk's se xp loits. Enough already! However, my prediction: heretofore unseen/unheard-of babe of the week. Sigh....
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

16
Olorin1 wrote:However, my prediction: heretofore unseen/unheard-of babe of the week. Sigh....


LOL!!! I'm too tired to reply to everything you said as I'm going to bed now, but let me just say I won't be one bit surprised if this babe of the week shows up wearing a red uniform... :buck2:

One last thing... if they cast Lindsay Lohan in that role, I swear I'm going to puke.
Last edited by Valkrist on Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Star Trek XI?

17
Valkrist wrote:One last thing... if they cast Lindsay Lohan in that role, I swear I'm going to puke.
You have an unparalleled ability to imagine the worst possibility--and an appropriate response to it! :laugh2:
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

18
Valkrist wrote:I won't be one bit surprised if this babe of the week shows up wearing a red uniform... :buck2:
Thinking more about the uniforms, I'm guessing they'll be neither the TOS gold/blue/red velour, nor the gold mock-turtles they wore in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before. Given the movies' propensity for blowing bucks on new costumes apparently to renew visual interest (ST:TMP, ST II, DS9, ST:FC), I'm guessing they will be something different. Perhaps a cross between the NX-01 uniform and the "Cage" uniform? Two-piece, but blue or some other color like that, with red/blue/gold accents to denote department?
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

19
There's a LOT of debate over on the message boards at startrek.com, as one might well imagine. Most people loathe the idea, some like it, some would prefer an Enterprise movie, most loathe the TNG cast (***???), etc. The only thing there's close to universal agreement on is that it's a good thing that Rick Berman is out.

One HUGE continuity problem that has been pointed out over there comes back to the Kirk/Spock age thing. The Encyclopedia gives Spock's age as being only 3 years older than Kirk, and that's apparently based on canonical sources. However, Spock was Science Officer on Pike's Enterprise 13 years before Kirk took command. I think this e xp oses a continuity error in the canon itself, unless the Encyclopedia got those ages wrong. Let's see: Spock born 2230, first year of TOS 2264--Spock is 34 years old. 13 years prior he would have been 21 and could conceivably been on Pike's ship. I guess Kirk and Spock could still have met at the academy and then gone their separate ways, only to reunite aboard the Enterprise. So, no continuity error in the canon, anyway....we'll have to see what they do with the movie.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

21
Another update. Sounds like they're a little gun-shy for some reason now. Think maybe initial negative reaction to the news had something to do with it? One can only hope, but judge for yourself.

Empire Online caught up with director J.J. Abrams this week who talked with them about his involvement with the next "Star Trek" film.

Abrams refuted some of the talk that cropped up, such as him helming - "People learned that I was producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear rumours of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is not entirely accurate".

What about the story, will it be a Kirk/Spock prequel? "We've made a pact not to discuss any specifics" said the "Lost" creator, though he is a big fan of the original era series - "Those characters are so spectacular. I just think that... you know, they could live again".

Re: Star Trek XI?

22
That was intriguing. Promising, but scant enough on hard facts to leave it in the category of frustratingly titillating.

I can well understand they don't want to give away the plot this far ahead. They never do, so that's nothing unusual. It sounded like he wanted to downplay the Academy idea, but left the door open on the characters.

I guess we'll know in a year and a half! :rolleye:
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

23
My take on it is that the fact that he is such a fan of the original series might give us a little hope that he make an attempt to be faithful to the nature of the characters and do them justice, and also perhaps address some of those continuity concerns people like ourselves might be having.

Re: Star Trek XI?

24
Perhaps, if we're lucky. On the other hand, John Logan, who wrote Nemesis, was supposedly just about encycopedic in his knowledge of ST, yet still turned in a script that dissatisfied most fans.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

25
Well, problem with Nemesis wasn't so much that it dismissed previously established Trek lore, but mainly that it was so derivative and just plain sucky in many respects. I don't think Logan was out of touch with Star Trek, he just turned in a forgettable movie.

Re: Star Trek XI?

26
Not news about Star Trek, but the Iron Man movie instead. Yet look for the relevant paragraph at the end. If anything, it lends even more credence to everything we've heard thus far:

Jon Favreau has been selected to develop and direct the big-screen adaptation of "Iron Man" for Marvel Studios. Favreau will develop the script with scribes Arthur Marcum and Matt Holloway ("Convoy") reports the trades.

In the
comic, Iron Man's real identity is that of billionaire industrialist Tony Stark, who develops an armored suit that lets him fly and shoot "repulsor rays". The comic debuted in the 1960s, and Iron Man's origin involved Stark being a prisoner of the Viet Cong. The comic evolved into Stark fighting spies, both political and industrial, while also battling alcoholism.

The project originally was set up at New Line with Nick Cassavetes directing. Favreau is optimistic that he'll begin filming early next year now that his "John Carter of Mars" project at Paramount has apparently been put on hold due to the relaunch of that studios "Star Trek" franchise.

Re: Star Trek XI?

27
John Carter of Mars...sigh. I LOVED those Edgar Rice Burroughs books as a kid. I'm assuming this is actually a retitling of the first book, "A Princess of Mars," and not the 11th and final book, "John Carter of Mars," whose actual authorship was disputed. It wouldn't make much sense to make the last movie first, at least with a series like this, since these books' published order and internal chronological order are the same.

Back in the early 90s, Disney was going to try to make this movie, with--you guessed it--Tom Cruise as John Carter. It got scrapped for whatever reason. It's just as well, even beyond whatever a person may think about Tommy Boy. There's no way the effects techology existed then to convincingly portray the many fantastical Martian creatures.

Effects-wise, the movie could certainly be done now. The question is, would they screw up the story and taint a happy memory from my childhood? These are the first books I ever read involving swords. That, and waking up in a dungeon with your hair caked with your own dried blood.

But back to Star Trek....
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

30
Yeah, where have you been?

As far as reviving, I think the more accurate term would have to be resurrecting. It remains to be seen whether they'll be able to do either. Esp. when you consider the last ST movie that did well was First Contact, and that was 10 years ago.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

33
Lord Rahl wrote:I was probably one of the few people that enjoyed Nemesis, and I am probably one of the few people that actualy thinks the franchise still has a lot of potential.
I quite enjoyed Nemesis. I am not a Trekkie although I would consider my family to be, especially since my aunt writes science fiction novels. If you put all of the outside stuff from the series, the novels, the hardcore fans, and everything else and you look at the movie by itself, you will see a fantastic movie.

Part of the problem, at least what I would consider it to be a problem, is the fact that you need to have seen the series or one of the other movies to understand what is happening or at least have a better understanding of it. That doesn't bold well for a new audience. I think thats the problem with creating anything else with the name of Star Trek unfortunately. While that is not necessarily a problem, if you are looking to gain new audiences, then you are going to have to drop everything and start something new... not continue onto the story. I've gone all over the place here... but hopefully you understood what i'm trying to get at.

I'll say more another time :crazy2:
Valar morghulis

Re: Star Trek XI?

34
Lord Rahl wrote:I am probably one of the few people that actualy thinks the franchise still has a lot of potential.
In theory, the franchise's potential is as limitless as the galaxy. The key is finding the people that can unlock that potential and make it reality. That's where the franchise has faltered in recent years.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

35
i've liked all the star trek movies.... even V, tho its not a big favorite, it kind of grows on you after a couple of times, has a lot of funny moments and although the tag for the movie in a tv guide would be something like this "in this exciting adventure, the starship enterprise is hijacked by a renegade vulcan in search of god!!!"... the deep storyline, a man or vulcan, so devout in his belief that he would do anything do seek it out and the utter shame he feels after being disproven is quite a story.


if i've said it once, i've said it about 27 million times, they need to can berman off of a a new movie, dont get a new writer, get Ira Behr to write it, continue the "current" storyline, no prequels. theres a universe full of une xp lored space. i am telling you all, these Titan books are great, full of ideas for new movies. i would love a Titan movie, too bad its well too late to do the DS9 movie (well, too late as in years past, not because the actors are too busy with other things, i think Rene Auberjonois, aka Odo is the only one with a steady job, Avery Brooks narrates Walking for Dinosaurs movies)... or my dream TNG/DS9/Voy 3-part crossover movie :)
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Star Trek XI?

36
I've never read any of the Titan novels, but prior to about 10 years ago, I'd read a lot of the ST novels existing at that time. Some of them were very lame, some indifferent, and some really good. What was usually a hallmark of the good ones was that the story, often esp. the sci fi elements of it, were better than 99% of the actual movies and episodes! If they could have somebody like J. M. Dillard (whom I've met and who is really cool, and who now goes under her married name, Jeanne Kalogridis), Diane Duane, or the Reeves-Stevens, write the movie, it would have a good story, honor the characters, and show us something we haven't seen before.

Similarly, Lucas should have had Tim Zahn write the SW prequels....
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

38
i told my mom about the kirk and spock in starfleet academy prequel idea and she said "well that sounds like it would be good" and i say "they werent in the academy together" and she goes "we arent supposed to remember that" which is exactly how the star trek bigwhigs treat people... like we are too stupid to remember and they can screw with the timeline.

and then i tell her... "i dont think that would be the greatest movie they could come up with to rejuvinate trek"


other than that, i kinda like the star trek + west wing tv show idea... shows the political side of trek instead of space e xp loration... can get new fans interested, if they can get past the "star trek" name.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Star Trek XI?

41
Yeah, I know they put it back afterward, but I think the whole move was stupid to begin with. They either did it to appease fans, or in a bid to try and increase the popularity of the show by trying to appeal to fans that were refusing to watch it.

Re: Star Trek XI?

42
its a little off topic from star trek XI, but oh well :) , but i say a lot had to do with the fact that the channel it came on sucked... i didnt even get to watch the first 3 season... only in the 4th when it was reran on cbs
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Star Trek XI?

44
ok, i think its time for star trek fans to go on strike... lets skip a prequel movie and move on with the trek storyline. i mean it could be a good movie, but come on... its gonna be like captain kirk as zack morris from saved by the bell, and spock is going to be the friend that cant understand why kirk wants to get with all the girls.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Star Trek XI?

45
As dubious as I am about them doing a prequel, I am even moreso with the thought of casting well-known actors in these roles. It ruins the believability of the character when somebody like Matt Damon is playing the part. You don't see the character--you see Matt Damon. On the other hand, I can accept that they probably feel like the movie would be doomed if they cast it with unknowns.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

46
Olorin1 wrote:As dubious as I am about them doing a prequel, I am even moreso with the thought of casting well-known actors in these roles. It ruins the believability of the character when somebody like Matt Damon is playing the part. You don't see the character--you see Matt Damon. On the other hand, I can accept that they probably feel like the movie would be doomed if they cast it with unknowns.
While I would tend to agree with you on that, I think that lesser known actors are actually better. Look at Christian Bale. I had not heard about him until I saw Equilibrium and even then he was some what unknown to me. He played the perfect Batman. Same with Viggo Mortenson and LoTR. Not as well known but a great actor.

If they want to go ahead with some kind of Star Trek movie... they are going to have to bring in quality lesser known actors... or up an coming ones. They need to contribute their own styles and impact on the film like the originals did. I think they could make an entirely new movie, in the current time frame but with a whole new story and cast... although perhaps with a few appearances from some of the tv series.

It is space... there is pretty much an unlimited amount of ideas and ways they could take it. What they really need is a brand new fresh idea... something that would shock people. :)
Valar morghulis

Re: Star Trek XI?

47
I didn't mean to imply that I thought unknowns would be bad--look at LOTR, after all. Hardly a hotbed of big names. I just meant that big names do draw people in, and Paramount would want to go after what it felt would be its best bet.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI?

48
For sure. I think what they fail to see is that the whole Star Trek idea is looked down upon by the majority of todays society. Not every where of course and typically in the younger generations as it would seem, as I have noticed, one who watches Star Trek or related is classified as a nerd and then put down, beaten up, and basically exiled from any kind of friendship in cooler groups. Ultimately, being cool is what everyone wants, so naturally kids stay away from that.

What I am really trying to say is that if they are trying to target a younger audience and draw in new fans, they aren't going to have much luck. Some may venture out and see it, but I highly doubt that.

However, there is still a strong following and all they have to do is get it right and they will keep those fans interested in the idea of Star Trek. I have to admit that I have stayed away from Star Trek, or actually kept the fact that my family loves the series out of my life at school and away from home. I do not want to feel persecuted and put down for something like that... as sad as that sounds. They have to get it right this time and they have to make sure it is one to remember otherwise a lot of interest will be lost.
Valar morghulis

Re: Star Trek XI?

50
i hope by dramatic script it is like ds9-dominion war type drama not the o.c. teenie bopper high school love drama.

the only thing that worries me about this jj abrams guy is the fact that he said he wasnt into ds9...HOW COULD YOU NOT BE INTO DS9!?!?! DS9 was great :)

on a side-note they mentioned brannon braga and threshold... i am still irked by them cancelling that show midseason... too bad it got the shaft because it had "low" ratings for cbs when compared to CSI and survivor, but it would have been a knock-down blockbuster for another network
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Return to “Star Trek & Star Wars”