Re: Star Trek 12

51
From TrekMovie:
Leonard Nimoy Talks Future of Star Trek & Spock July 9, 2009

http://trekmovie.com/2009/07/09/leonard ... trackback/
Image
Dan Madsen, the founder of the former official Star Trek fan club and Star Trek Communicator Magazine, has an excellent new interview with Spock Prime himself, Leonard Nimoy. The interview covers a lot of ground, including where Nimoy sees himself in the future of the franchise.

Nimoy on Trek’s (& Spock Prime’s) Future
You should go to Starland.com to read the full interview, which covers a lot of ground from the history of Star Trek, to the new feature film and more. Here is just an excerpt on Nimoy’s view of the future of the franchise and his possible involvement.Dan Madsen: As it stands right now, what do you foresee for the future of Star Trek?

Leonard Nimoy: It is very clear that Paramount is interested in making another Star Trek movie. I think, at least a month ago, they had already authorized a script to be written and that means a financial investment and an e xp ectation that there will be at least a script to look at. My understanding is that it will be written by the same guys, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman. They are probably at work on developing a story right now. I think that there is very strong interest in the next Star Trek movie coming from audience and studio alike. Beyond another movie, who knows? The future is wide open.

DM: I assume as well that you are very open minded to appearing as Spock again should they ask you?

LN: I have no illusions on whether or not they need me. They decided that they wanted to make this film using Spock as kind of an anchor for the story, which I think worked very, very well. They don’t have to do that again. If they decide they have a role for me to play I would be very interested in talking to them about it. But I have every reason to believe that they have established a whole new set of characters and they can sail very well without me and that’s fine. Either way is good with me. I am very gratified that this has happened.
Image

More Spock for the Star Trek sequel?
More Spock Prime?
Of course as Trek fans, we always want to see more of Leonard Nimoy as Spock and he was fantastic in this year’s Star Trek. However, there are some issues with using his character in future films. Spock Prime is from the future and he is literally the man who knows too much. He is a walking Deus Ex Machina that could probably solve any crisis with some insight into the characters (lets say they are dealing with Khan again) or with some magical 24th century technology (like the ‘transwarp beaming’ tech he gave Scotty). Star Trek co-writer Roberto Orci has stated here at TrekMovie that Spock Prime will probably adhere to some kind of ‘temporal prime directive’ but if Spock Prime is on the bridge in the middle of a dilemma and the audience knows he has the solution, then you may have a problem.

So, yes it will be great for more Nimoy Spock, but they have to find a way to use him that doesn’t take the drama out of the challenges they face. This new crew needs to come up with their own clever solutions and not go running to Papa Spock every time they are in a jam.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

52
So, yes it will be great for more Nimoy Spock, but they have to find a way to use him that doesn’t take the drama out of the challenges they face. This new crew needs to come up with their own clever solutions and not go running to Papa Spock every time they are in a jam.


What I think:

So, yes it will be a great time for more Star Trek, but they have to find a way to use it that doesn't take the drama out of the challenges they face. These new writers need to come up with their own clever stories and not go running to the original Trek every time they are in a jam.

Read my lips: NO KHAN!

Re: Star Trek 12

53
From IGN, about the Trek sequel:
Trek Sequel Subspace Chatter


Orci and Kurtzman give a status update.



IGN caught up with the omnipresent Star Trek writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman last night at the Television Critics Association Fringe panel (they're executive producers on the show, don't ya know?), and of course the topic of the future adventures of Kirk and Spock were discussed. Wanna hear what they said? Then let's make it so…

"We had about a 15-minute to half-hour discussion with the whole gang and went off on our separate ways," says Orci. "We're still in the re-reading and taking it all in phase before we actually sit down and start designing [the film]."

O.K., so not surprisingly things are still in the very early stages on Star Trek 2, but the writers do acknowledge that "everything's on the table" -- even the possibility of utilizing classic Trek missions.

"We have to comb through everything and make sure that we leave no stone unturned because that was the approach that I think we were looking for on the first movie," says Kurtzman.

"And when you pitch [an idea], sometimes someone will be like, 'Well, that's like that one episode,'" adds Orci. "Even in trying to stay away from it, you can crash back into it."

Kurtzman points out the obvious -- that there's a lot of e xp ectations for the sequel. "We take nothing for granted at this point," he says. "We're only going to do it when it's really right."

The pair also addressed rumors that the second film might directly bridge into a third film.

"It was more the fact that we talked about the minute you start seeing how much Star Trek there is and how many ideas everyone is having, you realize you could have enough material for… Well, you know, there's been 43 years of material!" says Orci. "That's all that we meant by that. So, it happens to cross your mind, but we're not leaning one way or the other yet."

Image

"It's a balance," adds Kurtzman. "The approach for us on the first movie was how do we please fans and how do we please people who have no relationship to Trek. It's a question we have to keep asking ourselves constantly. It's a very tricky formula because it's hard… A lot of what makes diehard Trekkers really focused on Trek are those details that can sometimes be alienating to people that are not on the inside. So that leads us back to things of what are the big themes? Emotional ideas? That's a language that everybody speaks."

Other items of note that arose from our chat:

  • The phrase "He's dead, Jim" will likely show up in part two.
  • Frequent J.J. Abrams guest star Greg Grunberg has started a campaign to play classic Trek comedic villain Harry Mudd.
  • As previously reported, fellow Abrams collaborator (and producer on the first film) Damon Lindelof will join the writing team for the sequel. Of the writing method, Orci e xp lains, "We're going to come up with a story together, obviously in consultation with J.J. and [executive producer] Bryan [Burk]. And then we're going to write it up together, the story, us and Damon. And then Alex and I will write the script."
  • Whether or not the pair will still be around for a third film is too early to tell.
  • And no, Khan did not even come up during the conversation!
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

54
From TrekMovie:
Abrams & Orci: Star Trek Sequel To Be Modern-day Allegory

We have another update on the Star Trek sequel, this time JJ Abrams and Bob Orci talk about how they are looking to the roots of Star Trek and how it has been a way to tell modern-day allegories, possibly dealing with war and torture. Latest details come from a new LA Times, interview, excerpts below.

Abrams and Orci, looking for an allegory
Star Trek on TV and in the feature films has famously dealt with issues of the day. And apparently Bob Orci and JJ Abrams are looking to bring some of that allegorical element to the next Trek. Firstly JJ told the LA Times:"The ambition for a sequel to ‘Star Trek’ is to make a movie that’s worthy of the audience and not just another movie, you know, just a second movie that feels tacked on. The first movie was so concerned with just setting up the characters — their meeting each and galvanizing that family — that in many ways a sequel will have a very different mission. it needs to do what [the late 'Trek' creator Gene] Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory. It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant. It also needs to tell it in a spectacular way that hides the machinery and in a primarily entertaining and hopefully moving story. There needs to be relevance, yes, and that doesn’t mean it should be pretentious. If there are simple truths — truths connected to what we live — that elevates any story — that’s true with any story."And Bob Orci added:We’ve literally had two meetings now. We haven’t decided anything but we’re starting to circle around some ideas. We got a lot of fan response from the first one and a considerable amount of critical response and one of the things we heard was, ‘Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues.’ We’re trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what’s going on today as possible. So that’s one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today.So what modern day issues? Is War and Torture in our Trek future?, Here is another excerpt:I asked Orci somewhat flippantly if that meant we might see Starfleet grappling with the ethics of torture or dealing with a rising terrorist threat or perhaps a painful, politicized war with the Klingons. "Well yeah, those are the kind of issues we’re talking about. Wow, you’re good! But seriously that’s the way we’re thinking, that’s an approach. So if you have any ideas … "Star Trek and Allegories
There are many examples of Star Trek dealing with issues of the day, some of which even evolved over time, like how the Klingons were always the stand-in for the Soviet Union during the cold-war in the 60s on Star Trek: The Original Series [see clip below] and then detente of the late 80s and 90s in The Next Generation and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Although torture is an issue of today, it was also something that was e xp lored in the season six TNG episode "Chains of Command".
Osama bin Khan? Tali-Klingons?
This talk of modern-day allegory brings back the talk of whether the film will be going back to the well and bringing back original series elements, or creating their own. Even though they may be doing a modern story, they could always use a classic baddie. Being that we are in an alternative universe, it is possible that the Star Trek team could reshape a famous Trekkie baddie to be a stand-in for the modern era. Khan could emerge in this time to be some kind of terrorist leader. Klingons, who were cut out of the Star Trek movie, could come back for the sequel as some kind of allegorical space Taliban, who knows.
All in all it is good to see Abrams and Orci looking back to the roots of Trek for inspiration. Using sci-fi and Star Trek to tell a modern story is great, and in fact this summer’s District 9 was a prime example of how well the genre can tell a nuanced and thought-provoking topical story. However, hopefully it can be done without losing the optimism that worked so well in the 2009 Star Trek movie.
I'm not exactly sure what to make of this. While it's heartening that they have (momentarily) strayed away from talk of a flat-out redo of an old story, I fear that the allegorical approach, used so well in TOS, would be handled by these guys with all the deftness of a Neanderthal wielding a club. And making Khan or the Klingons a stand-in for Osama or the Taliban? No, no, no, no, no.

For starters, let's leave Khan out of it. Tell a Klingon story if you must. Personally I think they have been over-used, but most fans can't seem to get enough of them. We've already seen the beginnings of the Federation's relationship with the Klingons in Enterprise, so I'm not sure what the new Trek movies could do. Have a big war, I suppose, since we're no long bound by continuity.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

55
Pure garbage, as usual.

First they talk about how the first movie was a vehicle to set up the characters and how they met and became a family. Huh? Are we talking about the same film? Unless by all that you mean Kirk and Spock, then fine, otherwise... shut the hell up. Aside from talking to McCoy briefly in the shuttle, and then once again on the academy grounds, there is zero development between that character and any of the others that would even hint at the depth of history that the old series had. Also, I'm sorry but quick comedic clips and lines on the Enterprise don't count because those are incidental and not the focus of what is going on. Same holds true (even moreso) for the rest of the crew. Aside from a little Scotty and even less with Uhura, there is next to no e xp osition on the backgrounds and relationships between the crew.

I get they all got thrown together by circumstance, but it hardly sets the stage for developing this 'family' further when your next movie is definitely not going to be a 'character' movie. See, here is the inherent flaw with this entire remake of Trek: the writers depart from the assumption we don't need to care about any of this because we are already intimately acquainted with the crew. However, they've gone to such lengths to establish the fact that these are alternate versions that they fail to recognize the flaw in their smug logic. Fact is, we DON'T know these people, and two or three movies is definitely not the proper medium to make us care or relate. They can't possibly hope that we will develop the same attachement for them that we did for the old crew when we only get to see them once every two years for a couple of hours, and then only when there is so much other crap going on that most of the crew are reduced to walk-on roles and a couple of lines. What a joke... even a blind man can see this.

Anyhow... sorry for the slight digression but in relation to this talk of the new movie, again it points to the lack of originality or forward thinking that these guys have consistently displayed. Allegory? Yeah, that's new. Whatever happened to breaking the mold and turning things on their head? No, let's repeat the same old formula, bring bad old villains, and retread old storylines and ideas, because doing that for nearly four decades had nothing to do with the demise of the old Trek, right? Right!?!?

The more these guys try to reinvent the wheel, the more we are coming to the conclusion that a wheel can only be round, but they are so blinded by their own enormous egos and so filled with hubris that this simple concept will forever elude them.
Last edited by Valkrist on Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

56
.............Allegory. That's wonderful. As if those things don't automatically fall into place when presenting a truly good story? Whatever happened to original material that was relevant to itself and had self-contained meaning in addition to subjective appeal... Everyone wants to jump on the social commentary bandwagon without actually making it mean anything for the work itself. I don't know about the rest of you, but I like stories (especially futuristic "progressive" sci fi) as forms of escapism from present-day, not political commentaries that do nothing but piggyback off of cliched ideas with no interesting perspective or presentation.
Last edited by Sedhal on Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-_-

Re: Star Trek 12

57
If Nero destroying the planet Vulcan isn't one of the single, greatest acts of terrorism ever portrayed in the history of Star Trek, I don't know what is. How do they hope to top that using allegory?

Will we be given some trite and forced plotline about Starfleet occupying a planet or fighting an unpopular war, then Kirk shows up as the hero of the day and using 'cowboy' diplomacy, brokers unlikely peace?

Perhaps instead we will be treated to Khan capturing one or two of the main characters and needlessly torturing them for information or sheer cruelty in Ceti Guantanamo V while the rest mount a daring rescue and all's well that ends well?

Or better yet, the Klingon economy collapses because of bad lending practices, stock market speculation, and Praxis blowing up, and the Federation has to step in to rescue them with stimulus packages and bailouts, resulting in them owning two-thirds of interest in the Klingon Empire? Oooh, I sense war in the making there!

Brilliant, guys... keep up the good work. :huh:
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

59
[quote=""Sedhal""].............Allegory. That's wonderful. As if those things don't automatically fall into place when presenting a truly good story? Whatever happened to original material that was relevant to itself and had self-contained meaning in addition to subjective appeal... Everyone wants to jump on the social commentary bandwagon without actually making it mean anything for the work itself. I don't know about the rest of you, but I like stories (especially futuristic "progressive" sci fi) as forms of escapism from present-day, not political commentaries that do nothing but piggyback off of cliched ideas with no interesting perspective or presentation.[/quote]

I'm not inherently opposed to allegory. TOS used it extensively to promote "radical" ideas that would not have passed muster with the network censors in the 1960s US. I don't think there's an issue any more with having to sneak ideas past the censors since this is a movie, and most audiences are perceptive enough to know that an allegory is being used to make a statement on something. I though VI and all its allusions to the Soviets was pretty stale. The Soviet block had already fallen apart and the USSR itself no longer existed by the time the movie came out, so they very originally (he he) made a movie about it. Or more precisely, they made a movie about racism and mistrust, but they forced the Cold War allegory so hard the racism message seemed like an afterthought.

So, I don't think allegory is necessary any more. Just tell a good story. That shouldn't be too much to ask.

You know, if they really wanted to try to ground this new group in some semblance of TOS reality, they should have people like David Gerrold, DC Fontana, Manny Coto, or the Reeves-Stevens working on the story, not Orci and Kurzman.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

60
But what they're doing isn't really allegorical anymore. In an age when documentarian filmmaking can set out to bend facts and blatantly e xp ress their agendas, social commentaries and junk like that no longer need to be concealed in... Star Trek. Not to mention what they're doing is saying "okay let's force an allegory onto Trek to make it more academically accepted", when allegories should start with the idea of an allegory in the first place. It's backwards. It's superficial. And I don't think that's what Trek has always been about, as much as they want to make it seem that way. To me, Roddenberry was being progressive. Yeah, there were inspirations from current events. We're all products of our environment. But for the film to portray a progressive society in the future and then implicitly dwell on current events doesn't exactly amount to the goal of flying above and beyond where we are now, which I think Trek should strive for. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Trek is about imagining what can one day be possible, and they seem to be taking it backwards (quite literally on multiple levels).
-_-

Re: Star Trek 12

62
[quote=""Valkrist""]lol... you know my rants are getting old when Olorin doesn't even bother responding to them anymore! :crazy: [/quote]

Sedhal's commentary was more interesting and constructive, so I responded to it. :P :crazy:
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

65
[quote=""Valkrist""]Ouch...

ok, I'll tone it down and post more relevant stuff next time.[/quote]

Oh, don't take it to heart, but I did respond to Sedhal because I pretty much already know where you stand on the existing movie and its upcoming sequel, whereas Sedhal and I hadn't directly dialogued (is that a verb?) much about this previously as I recall.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

67
[quote=""Sedhal""]But what they're doing isn't really allegorical anymore. In an age when documentarian filmmaking can set out to bend facts and blatantly e xp ress their agendas, social commentaries and junk like that no longer need to be concealed in... Star Trek. Not to mention what they're doing is saying "okay let's force an allegory onto Trek to make it more academically accepted", when allegories should start with the idea of an allegory in the first place. It's backwards. It's superficial. And I don't think that's what Trek has always been about, as much as they want to make it seem that way. To me, Roddenberry was being progressive. Yeah, there were inspirations from current events. We're all products of our environment. But for the film to portray a progressive society in the future and then implicitly dwell on current events doesn't exactly amount to the goal of flying above and beyond where we are now, which I think Trek should strive for. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Trek is about imagining what can one day be possible, and they seem to be taking it backwards (quite literally on multiple levels).[/quote]

Thanks for articulating so well what I was thinking all along.

These guys think they are being so innovative while blatantly feeding on the corpse of past Trek, and laughing all the way to the bank in the end. TOS was a product of its time, where allegory worked and delivered a relevant message. Today's Trek needs to push a new envelope and present us with a fresh take on the future, not an introspective look at the problems that plague us today. I can go watch any number of well made documentaries if that is what I am looking for.

They bludgeoned us over the head with the hot young cast and the in-your-face action and e xp losions, and now they e xp ect us to look for serious messages under all the lens-flare and skin? Seriously?

Ok... lol... there I go again. I shut up now. :embarasse
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

73
JJ on Shatner and Nimoy being in 12, courtesy of TrekMovie:
JJ on Shatner and Nimoy in Star Trek, Fringe and MI4

Question: You have said the hardest decision for you with Star Trek was not including William Shatner in the movie, can you talk about the possibility of him being in the next one?

JJ Abrams: I am open to anything. I would love to figure out something. Given the challenge of introducing these new characters, given the burden of cast these new people, I feel like the first did some of the heavy lifting that needed to be done in order to free us going forward, maybe there is less of a burden and more of an opportunity to work with him again. We speak, we actually have a lunch date planned. I am fan, I am a friend of his, or he is at least a friend of mine–he may say otherwise on his blog today, I have no idea. I really couldn’t like him more and would love to work with him.

Question: [Leonard Nimoy] has said that he thought a Star Trek sequel maybe didn’t need him anymore. What is your reaction to that? Is he just being modest?

JJ Abrams: I can say that I can’t imagine a Star Trek movie not needing him. I’m sure what he’s saying is a combination of modesty and honesty. He may actually feel that way. But, the truth is, we could never have made this movie without him, and working with him again would be a joy. It is clearly too early, given that we are just now talking story, to conclude whether or not Spock Prime is in the film or not, but do I want to work with him again? Of course, 100%. I’d love to.

Question: What are your plans for [Leonard Nimoy] on Fringe, beyond this week’s episode?

JJ Abrams: In terms of his role as William Bell, none of us could believe our luck that we convinced him to say yes to bee in the show. He is wonderful in the show. And, I will say that this is not the last you will see of his character.
Read the whole interview here: http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/08/jj-abra ... eyer-more/
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

74
from TrekMovie:
Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Will Not Be ‘Remake’ – But Khan Still A Possibility November 2, 2009

Image
The Star Trek sequel continues to be in the early stages and according to JJ Abrams, the notion of bringing back Khan is still possible. In a new interview snippet at MTV, the producer and possible director of the sequel talks about the possibility of recasting Trek’s ultimate villain.


Khan 2.0?

In an interview with MTV, JJ Abrams noted one of the advantage of the new universe timeline that was set up in the first film, and notes that finding a new Khan is no different than recasting the main crew:Now that we are in a parallel existence with what fans of the original series love so much, we could introduce any number of characters, settings, references and situations that the original series introduced. Dealing with Khan would certainly be a challenge, but we had an equal challenge in finding our crew of the Enterprise.It should be noted that Abrams was not saying Khan is in the movie, just pointing out that it is still possible, he went into more detail, saying While I don’t want to approach the second film as a remake of episodes we’ve seen in the past. I don’t think any of the writers or producers are interested in just rehashing or throwing characters for the sake of it, and Khan is certainly the most obvious one in the history of the series for me, I do think that…nothing is off limits in terms of what we’re discussing. When Bob Orci and the others who know ‘Trek’ so well, when we are discussing stories, the fun of working with them is they know this universe so deeply they’re the ones who are always considering what it means to deal with the stuff in the past, so it’ll be exciting.
I'm glad they're off the idea of a remake, but I still wish they'd forget about Khan. You can say you're not doing a remake, but if you're using Khan, how can it be anything but an alternate universe version of Space Seed?
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

76
I'll shoehorn this all into this thread, tho only the comment on 12 rightly belongs here. From TrekMovie:
William Shatner Unveils Wax Figure Of Kirk – Says He Wants To Be In Star Trek Sequel

We already knew that William Shatner’s Kirk is immortal, but now Kirk has been immortalized, in wax. Today Madame Tussaud’s in Hollywood unveiled its wax figure of James T. Kirk, and William Shatner was there to help. And while he was mugging for the cameras, Bill also talked about the next Star Trek movie. See below for TrekMovie photos and video from the event.

Kirk in Wax!
William Shatner was at the Madame Tussaud’s on HollywoodBlvd to unveil the new Captain Kirk in Wax. They went with Wrath of Khan Admiral Kirk, which a source tells TrekMovie was the preference of CBS Paramount. Here is video of Shatner’s reveal.

Shatner is ready to go (again)
After the unveil and photos, Shatner talked briefly to the gaggle of reporters, when asked if he had plans to be in the next Star Trek movie, the actor stated:I have no plans, because I don’t make those plans. JJ Abrams has my fate wrapped up in his two little hands. I would love to be in the next Star Trek, if he so thought that would be good for itMore photos
And more photos from the event (click to enlarge):
Image
Image
Image
Image
Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who think's it's crass, cheeky, and patently absurd that Shatner is, however seriously or non-seriously, still campaigning to be in the next movie when he still hasn't even freakin' watched the other one!

That little annoyance aside, I must say that the wax figure is an exceptionally good likeness of Kirk circa STII.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

77
lol... no comment on the Shat's constant flip-flopping comments about these new movies.

Yes, I do agree the wax likeness looks exceptional. Generally, these things tend to creep me out and hardly ever look like whom they're supposed to represent. In the case of my hero, I'm glad they faithfully recaptured him at the height of his Star Trek career.

In fact, I think I will credit Olorin with yet another Shat-related UCF avatar change... muaahahahaha.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

80
While Abrams & Co coyly refuse to rule Khan in or out, the rumor mill continues to churn out who might play him. Here's the latest, from TrekMovie:
Rumor Control: Nestor Carbonell NOT Being Eyed For Khan In Star Trek Sequel

Image
Now that the cycle is complete and Star Trek is on home video, it is appears it is time for the next cycle start up in earnest. In the last day their have been rumors running around the interweb that the Star Trek team are not only focusing on Khan for the sequel, but they are already settling on a specific actor, Nestor Carbonell. However, TrekMovie’s sources say it just isn’t so.

Nestor Khan?
Of course discussion of the return (and recasting) of Khan Noonien Singh has been the focus for much of the talk regarding the Star Trek sequel. Khan, who appeared in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Space Seed" and the 1982 feature film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, is probably Trek’s most famous bad guy, akin to Batman’s Joker. So it makes a sort of sense for Khan to appear in the Star Trek sequel, as Joker did in The Dark Knight (sequel to Batman Begins). In fact, the film makers (JJ Abrams, Bob Orci, etc.) have gone on record saying that Khan is a possibility. Co-writer Alex Kurtzman once said chances of Khan were "50/50."

And if you listen to the commentary on the Star Trek DVD and Blu-ray, producer Damon Lindelof states that they did consider putting in one of those ‘after the credits’ scenes that would have shown the Botany Bay floating in space; something Bob Orci has also talked about here at TrekMovie.com. Bob has made it clear that even though the new film sets out a new timeline, many things from the ‘prime timeline’ are still intact, including the Botany Bay.

Image

Botany Bay from remastered "Space Seed"

The new wrinkle this week seems to have been kicked off by ComingSoon, which stated JJ Abrams and the Star Trek team "already have a favorite" to take over the role made famous by the late Ricardo Montalban. Coming Soon says that the team are looking at Nestor Carbonell, who plays Richard Alpert on JJ Abrams’ and Damon Lindelof’s Lost. Many other sites are now running with this rumor.

Image

Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert in "Lost"


However, multiple sources have confirmed with TrekMovie that there has been no change on the decision regarding Khan. And for this week’s rumors, a trusted source tells TrekMovie that discussions of Carbonell being on some sort of short list is "total BS." Sources do confirm that Khan is still a possibility for the film, but that is not anything new.

In fact, the only name that members of the Trek ‘Supreme Court’ have discussed as a possible Khan is Javier Bardeem, the Oscar-winner from No Country for Old Men, although comments have mostly been stated in the hypothetical, as in "he would be cool", however, as noted, there are no talks yet regarding casting as there isn’t even a story, let alone a script for the Star Trek sequel.

This will not be the end of Khan rumors. If we think back to 2006 and 2007, there was a constant stream of casting rumors. Although the main crew has been locked down, we will see the same for the additional cast for the next Star Trek. As we did for the last film, TrekMovie will stick with what we can confirm.
As we've discussed before, the rumor people seem permanently wed to having a Hispanic actor play Khan, versus a South Asian, which is what his character was supposed to be.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

81
Damon Lindelhof (Trek producer) comments on ST XII:
Lindelof on Trek
  • Lindelof on 2012 release notes "we would be hard pressed to get anything on screen for 2011, if that is the case we better get to writing right now"
  • The team has "reached consensus" on the elapsed (in universe) time between Star Trek and the sequel, but they will not reveal that detail now
  • Cites time setting of Bourne Ultimatum, which takes place party during the events of the previous film Bourne Identity as something he admires, noting "one of the things we like to do as story-tellers is drop you in the middle of something and the question you are asking yourself is ‘where am I in relation to the last time I left these guys? Could this be something that pre-dated some of the adventures they had in the first movie? Does it happen five years later? Is it happening two seconds later?’ We are not going to tell you"
  • To prepare for writing Star Trek sequel he has been looking at other sequels he loves, including Aliens and Mighty Joe Young (1949 film somewhat related to 1933 King Kong)
  • Notes: "There is something people come to e xp ect from a sequel to a movie like this which is, bigger, badder, louder, more bad guys. I think the idea of saying ‘do we have to do that? Is there something else we can do that is off the beaten path?’ I don’t know if this is going to be called ‘Star Trek 2′ or ‘Star Trek colon something’…We want to give the audience an e xp erience that feels that it is not a sequel, in all the best ways"
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

82
This falls squarely into Oh my God! territory. It also falls into Not Likely territory. Harlan Ellison, author of City on the Edge of Forever, lloves Abrams and wants to write ST XII. From TrekMovie; read on:
Harlan Ellison Wants To Help Out With Star Trek Sequel

http://trekmovie.com/2009/11/24/harlan- ... trackback/
Image
Only a month after settling a lawsuit over Star Trek with CBS and Paramount, Harlan Ellison seems to want to make nice, and dive back in…as long as he gets paid, of course. In a couple of postings on his website the famously cantankerous science fiction author has said he would be interested in working with JJ Abrams on the Star Trek sequel.

Ellison Trek again?
Harlan Ellison has a long and rocky history with the Star Trek franchise. It started with the episode "City on the Edge of Forever" which is considered by many to be the best of the franchise. Ellison famously fell out with Gene Roddenberry over that episode over changes made to the script. After that they patched things up enough in the 70s for Ellison to be one of the writers to pitch an idea for the first Star Trek feature film. Most recently Ellison sued CBS and Paramount over royalties related to "City", and that suit was only recently settled.
In the last week it was suggested (and debated) by some fans on HarlanEllison.com that Harlan might want to get involved with Trek again. After some debate, the man himself weighed in with an unequivocal statement affirming that he would certainly be interested.
THE WORD FROM HARLAN DIRECTLY:

I would jump at the chance to work with the inordinately-talented J.J. Abrams on a new STAR TREK film. Yes, I would likely try to steer him toward the original film idea I was asked to pitch, by the late Gene Roddenberry and a production exec whose name I have blissfully flensed from memory (but he had been, if I recall, a hairdresser or clothing designer or ex-boyfriend of someone or other, and he kept trying to press me to include the Mayan Calendar).

If the very smart Abrams didn’t want to go that way, I would be wide-open to rethinking such a film from the git-go.
Paramount would, of course, have to pay me from the first meet git-go; but I have absolutely NO attitude that would prevent me from jumping in to work with such a clever fellah. One is NEVER too old to come up with fresh ideas, particularly if one has lived long enough, and cleverly enough, to know WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE to death, sixteen times over.

If anyone out there thinks this melding has legs, let Abrams or anyone else with the chops to get in touch with me DIRECTLY. I am without full-time film-agent representation, by choice, at the moment; so if the job presents itself, I will work for pay.
Yr. Pal, Harlan
Ellison also quickly followed up with the following, as a response to the fans on his site who didn’t seem to buy into the idea:
ALSO—–

What the hell ARE you guys…nuts?

Where’s the "downside" to getting topside the radar of J.J. Abrams? This guy ain’t Roddenberry! He also ain’t the ex-hairdresser with the jones for Mayan calendars!
He’s a writer I respect, whose work has frequently blown the lid off my box of surpriseability. But, then, he already KNOWS that. It isn’t as if I’d kept my admiration chained in the darkest cell of the basement of Bedlam.

So go, my faithful minions. Fly! Fly! Save the Olde Geezer from croaking without a killer Third Act.
Yr. Pal, Harlan
Will it ever happen?
There can be no doubt that Harlan Ellison is a talented and creative science-fiction writer. He has picked up many awards over his decades long career including eight Hugos and three Nebulas. In his recent interview with TrekMovie, co-writer/exec producer Roberto Orci said he was currently reviewing classic science fiction novels for inspiration, so talking to a ‘legend’ of sci-fi is not out of the question. Ellison may very well have some interesting ideas, and he does understand the Star Trek characters. Also, Ellison’s praise for JJ Abrams is sincere. I interviewed him during the writers strike in 2007 and he spoke highly of the director at that time (as you can see in the video below – NOTE: Harlan uses many ‘colorful metaphors&#8217 ;) .
However, Ellison is notoriously litigious. Even in his comments above, he notes how important it is for him to be "paid." The Star Trek film makers may be concerned that they could face a lawsuit claiming they used his ideas, even if they felt they did not. If you listen to the new commentary on the recently re-releasedStar Trek First Contact on Blu-ray and DVD, Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof and I spoke about time travel Trek episodes and when ever I mentioned "City on the Edge of Forever", Lindelof joked that we owed Harlan more money. There is also another issue. As evidenced in our video interview (above) Ellison had made an enemy of the late studio negotiator Nick Counter, making many disparaging remarks about him in public. Unfortunately for Ellison, Nick Counter’s son-in-law is Star Trek co-writer/exec producer Alex Kurtzman.
But you never know.
Also make sure to watch the very amusing video of Ellison on the strike line 2 years ago. Rated NC-17 for language, I should warn!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzeZ4ReU ... r_embedded
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

84
I also wondered about his idea for STTMP. I'm reasonably confident that it would have been better than what we got, a remake of TOS "Changeling."

But yes, getting them away from Khan would be great. That would simply be the icing on the cake of having Ellison write the thing. This of course assumes he's not the world's biggest fan of Khan and just itching to take his own crack at writing him.... :crazy:
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

85
Shatner is still trying to figure out how to worm his way into the new movie. From TrekMovie:
William Shatner Wonders If He Can Be De-Aged For Star Trek Sequel Like Jeff Bridges For Tron

Leonard Nimoy may be out of the game, but his friend William Shatner has made it clear in the last few years that he is interested in another go at being Captain Kirk. New comments from Shatner reconfirm his interest in the role, and the tech used to de-age Jeff Bridges for Tron Legacy has the original Kirk intrigued.

Shatner – de-age me!
When we last heard from William Shatner at a June Trek con, he talked about how he still talks to Star Trek director/producer JJ Abrams, and how he is still wonders how they could work his Kirk into the new movies, noting he has aged since his last appearance as Kirk. Now in new comments (via Showbizspy), Shatner again talks about Trek, saying:I don’t know if they can solve the problem of how do you put the body I’m in now with the Kirk that we remember forty years ago. They just did a ‘Tron’ with Jeff Bridges and de-aged him but I don’t know how they did that. It’s going to take a lot of electronics on me!William Shatner’s last film as Kirk was Star Trek Generations in 1994, where he died. If Shatner’s Kirk were to be brought back, it could require some de-aging to approximate his Generations (or earlier appearance).
Image

William Shatner in Generations (1994) and at TCA media event last week
And of course Shatner has already been ‘de-aged’ before to play Kirk. In 2006 DirecTV used some de-aging software to put Shatner back into scenes from Star Trek VI (from 1991).
Honestly, if the only issue were a few extra wrinkles, they could clamp the skin on the back of his head to draw his face tighter, like they did for Bilbo in the prologue of LOTR. I think his weight would be more of an issue. Sure, they could digitally thin him, but something that's ok for a two-second shot is not necessarily ok for a semi-substantial role (and I'm guessing Shatner wouldn't settle for anything less than a role the size Nimoy had in the last one).

If he hadn't let them kill him off, this would be a non-issue. Kirk would still be alive somewhere, and how Shatner looks now would be how Kirk looks "now." However, he did get killed off, and dead people don't age or gain weight.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

86
Whatever it takes, just do it. :'(

My girlfriend and I just finished a Star Trek movie marathon and watched all ten movies in sequence (including Space Seed as a prologue to Wrath of Khan,) and my Shat/Kirk nostalgia is at an all-time high.

Before anyone asks, no... we didn't bother watching the new one after Nemesis.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

89
Not a chance! :P

I actually half-heartedly mentioned it after we finished watching Nemesis, what with her being far more forgiving of movies than I am, but she simply said: "Nah."

Ironically though, she emailed me from work today and asked me who became first officer of the Enterprise since Riker had left and Data had died. She felt it should have been Worf. I had to then dig out my copy of the Countdown comic (the prequel to the new Trek) which is the only official piece of published canon continuity since Nemesis and look for the answer. So, I guess the new Trek was good for one thing after all: it gave us a tiny bit more of the prime timeline. :huh:
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

90
She was probably afraid of liking it and then having to face The Wrath of Valkrist, LOL! :crazy:

In one of the deleted scenes of Nemesis, the new first officer is introduced. Riker, I believe, sets him up for a big embarrassment by telling him that Picard is very informal and by all means just call him "Jean-Luc."

So who does Countdown say is first officer? I can't find mine at the moment, and all I remember is that Data Reborn is Captain.

Of course, the prime timeline in Countdown is set 8 years or so after Nemesis, so there could have been various first officers in between.

Incidentally, Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki, says:
Countdown came about after Anthony Pascale of TrekMovie kept asking the film's writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, to create a means for the characters of The Next Generation to "pass the baton" back to the characters of Star Trek: The Original Series. Although comic co-writer Mike Johnson considers Countdown to be canon, Orci stated he was in no position to declare whether it was, though he felt it could be considered canon unless it is contradicted in a later film or TV episode. He later implied that it was not canon.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

91
She's seen it before, so there! :P

Countdown doesn't reveal who the first officer is. There's some nameless dudes standing on the bridge with Data, but they could be anybody in the crew. I'm pretty sure the Number One is not named.

The various novels after Nemesis say Worf took the post for a while, but they are not canon, of course.

Funnily enough, the regular Wikipedia on Worf mentions that Countdown is considered canon. I suppose Memory Alpha would hold more authority over the subject, but I like to consider Countdown continuity since it is a prelude to a movie they clearly hold as canon. Not sure why Orci would backpedal on that.

I know I've mentioned it before, but this comic only shows what a glorious opportunity that was completely wasted in not giving us the last farewell of the Next Gen crew, while introducing the new timeline original crew. They could have done away with a ton of the extraneous fluff in the new movie, and incorporated Countdown into the first forty-five minutes. Then lengthen the movie by about half an hour, and include all the relevant stuff out of what we were given with the new crew. We would have had a movie in the tradition of Generations, which would have had a far more cohesive plot, given old Spock a better part, e xp lained events much more clearly, and give us old fans a chance to see our heroes once again and say goodbye to their universe properly. Sadly, it was too much all about the new kids and no one gave a crap about the universe left behind. Oh, and let's not forget about Nero-who?

In case you're wondering what fluff I'm talking about:

- stupid Kirk kid driving cars off cliffs
- inane bar fights that are cliche throughout hundreds of movies
- Kobayashi Maru scene that was about as lame as it gets
- Kirk-Orion girl - juvenile attempt to show the womanizing side of the character
- Spock-Uhura lovey-dovey crap - I'm still incredulous as to how much that breaks character for both
- pointless attack on the drilling platform that accomplished this much = zero
- exiling Kirk to Hoth, wait... Delta Vega, wait... not the real Delta Vega, wait... one of Vulcan's moons, wait... Vulcan has no moons... huh? hold on a sec...?!?!
- ah heck.. who needs to go on... :angry:
Last edited by Valkrist on Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

92
Jimmy Doohan once lamented about Generations that he thought the fist half of the story should have been the old crew, with the second half being the new crew. However, the producers wanted it to be essentially a NG movie, with just a TOS prologue to pass the baton. Personally, I thought the whole baton passing exercise was unnecessary. The movie was not going to bring in die-hard TOS-only Trekkers to see the old cast just for 15 minutes and then be stuck with "Trek-lite" for the rest of it. Plus, what was supposed to be a cameo for the whole TOS cast turned into just Kirk, Scott, and Chekov. After Nimoy and Kelley turned them down, feeling that they had already said goodbye to their characters in VI, they didn't even bother to ask Nichols or Takei. So the baton passing wasn't even as good as it was intended to be.

Relative to the new movie and what-ifs about including Countdown as half of it, I doubt there was any way they were going to pay Patrick Stewart to be in it...not and still be able to spend as much on effects and sets as they ultimately did. But more than that, I think there was a perception after the failure of Insurrection and the colossal failure of Nemesis that the TNG cast was poison. Finally, Abrams was all about TOS-only (to the extent he even knew/cared that much about TOS itself). He wanted to pass the baton from the original TOS cast, in the person of Nimoy, back to the new TOS cast. So as was the case with Generations, there was only going to be a minimal role for the old guard, and the movie was going to be essentially just the new crew.

But even if they had incorporated Countdown, we would still have been left with the new movie's biggest problem, the one compared to which the "fluff" issues you cite are small potatoes. That is, of course, the completely unnecessary creation of an alternate timeline. They did this because they were a combination of too lazy and unimaginative, and too poorly versed in Trek lore, to create a prequel that did not violate established canon. They could have pulled in half a dozen people from Star Trek conventions to vet their story and point out any continuity flaws or canon violations. But they took an easy way out...they cheated.

However, nothing I can say or think or do can undo the timeline change. I've made my peace with it, just as I did the egregious stupidities that plagued V and VI. I can watch it and enjoy it as just an effects actioner, much as I do with the Star Wars prequels. This is Star Trek now, and until Abrams stumbles enough that Paramount takes it away from him, or CBS creates a new TV show (admittedly a pipe dream), this is what we have, ours to take or leave. I'll see the new movie, my e xp ectations suitably altered knowing what the lay of the land now is, and if I don't like it, I can always say "it's not real" because of the alternate timeline.

Back to that pipe dream...I doubt CBS will do a new series, as they are so e xp ensive to make, and with the dismal ratings that Voyager and Enterprise had, no major network is going to spend money on somethingg as effects-heavy as Star Trek when they can continue cranking out the same old cops-and-robbers and hospital pablum that they've been giving us for 60 years. However, if there were to be a new series, I think the post-Romulus prime timeline (ie, the turf of the ST online game) would be the most "fascinating" series setting they could do now.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

93
Trust me, old friend, that when I say Countdown should have been made part of the new movie, that it is really nothing more than a fan's 'pipe-dream,' as you put it. I'm not deluded enough to think there was ever a snowflake's chance in hell that something like that would ever happen.

It does pain me to see however, how a couple of comic-book writers who obviously care about Star Trek and know their stuff, can whip up a story that with a minor bit of polish, would have made for a very interesting half of a movie, issues with the TNG cast and perception thereof notwithstanding. It just really drove home the point to me as to how badly the writers of the new movie cheated and botched it all up in their incredible laziness, all the while disguising it as cleverness. But you know all this and said as much.

Yes, nothing I can say or do will ever alter what Star Trek has become, but I won't conform to liking it simply because I have to somehow accept it. I can watch it for the action, but I will never call it 'Star Trek.' Whatever Paramount, Abrams, and the rest of his untalented cronies want to call it, Trek ended with Enterprise and Nemesis.

P.S. Any idiot who perceives that Insurrection and Nemesis were garbage because the cast was 'poison' can only be rightly called that: an idiot. Those movies failed because of uninteresting storylines, poor scripts, and most glaringly in the case of Nemesis, a director that didn't give a crap about Star Trek. To put the blame on the shoulders of the cast and say the movies failed because of them is overly simplistic and erroneous at best, an insult to those actors at worst.
Last edited by Valkrist on Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

94
Re: Insurrection and Nemesis, right on! Insurrection presented an intriguing moral dilemma...uproot a few hundred for the good of billions...but moral dilemmas were always more the province of small screen Trek than big screen. I always felt that the movies, be they I-VI, 7-10, or 2009, dumbed Star Trek down from what it was on TV. The movies always had to be either big action, or a threat to Earth. Berman et al acknowledged that in the supplements to Generations. It's hard to get the mass audience to invest in the story line when it hinges on the destruction of an unknown planet with unseen aliens. Even Insurrection, with its beautiful planet and beautiful human-looking aliens, wasn't enough of an emotional connection to make a moral dilemma story work on the big screen.

And Nemesis, well it's de rigueur to hate it in fanboydom. I don't certainly don't hate it. There are parts of it that were well down, and overall I will always cherish it as our last visit with the TNG cast. However, it was plagued by something worse than an indifferent or outright hostile director. It made the colossally bad decision to do a retread of the Trek movies' most popular installment--TWOK--and do it in a half-assed way.

But all those failings should not, as you point out, reflect on the cast. It was always great to see our beloved characters again, and see them relate to each other in character while knowing that they are all very good friends in real life as a result of having done 7 years of the TV show together. And although First Contact is undeniably the high point of the TNG movies, there are many great moments in the final two movies where the cast shines.

I think the best contrast of movie helmer and the movie he produced is not to compare the new movie to any of the TNG movies, but rather to TWOK. Nick Meyer came into Star Trek knowing nothing about it except that it was about that guy with the pointed ears, so he sat down and watched all 79 TOS episodes. He then zeroed in on the character of Khan and made what is most people's favorite Trek movie. Abrams, on the other hand, is a self-proclaimed TOS fan that watched it way back when it was on TV or in the early years of repeats, yet didn't really get what makes it tick. Or at least as far as one can tell from this first movie, he didn't get it. Or I should say, his writers didn't get it. They wrote one scene that was golden, the Kirk hologram scene, yet couldn't recognize that.

However, I think the enormous praise that was heaped on them by critics for dumbing Star Trek down and abandoning canon validates (in their eyes) what they did and ensures they probably won't deviate too far from the new formula.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

95
No Khan in the new Trek or are these clowns just jerking us around as usual? You decide...

Star Trek 2
"Star Trek" scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have hinted that they may introduce a new villain in the upcoming sequel.
The duo tell Trekmovie that "the trick is not to do something that's been seen before just because you think it will be a short cut to liveability".
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek 12

96
I haven't posted too much about the sequel here, partly because there hasn't been much to post and partly because there's a greater or lesser measure of antipathy between each of us and this movie. However, here's a bit of small news: it may be delayed past next summer. Paramount has not officially commented on this yet, and it still has a release date next summer, but the studio is lining up other movies to fill in the summer.

Writing it is taking longer than e xp ected. The Abrams crew has said their focus is on writing a good movie, not on writing a movie that will be ready on a certain day. (That's encouraging, insofar as we trust their judgment of "good.") Anyway, here's a blurb from TrekMovie about signposts pointing to a delay.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/07/01/report- ... uel-delay/
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

97
Here's a blurb from Abrams, courtesy of TrekMovie:
Speaking to NBC, Star Trek sequel producer (and possible director) JJ Abrams gave a brief update on progress:I’m excited. We’re working hard. We’re very close and I hope to have something to talk about concretely soon. I do feel like if ‘Trek’ happens as we hope that it will, it will be a fun return to that group of people, because it’s an amazing group.Abrams also talked about the idea of being involved in a possible Star Trek TV series saying:"I don’t know,” he muses, appearing to give the notion thought for the very first time. “It’s never really come up, frankly, but depending on what that would sort of be and how it would be done I’d be open to the idea of it. Right now we’re just sort of focusing on making a movie that’s worth people’s time."For now JJ Abrams Bad Robot productions is contracted with Warner Brothers to develop TV series (including the upcoming Persons of Interest on CBS and Alcatraz on FOX) so it is unclear if he would be able to also work with CBS to develop any possible Trek on TV. In the past other members of Trek’s "supreme court" have talked about Trek as well. Damon Lindelof recently said he wouldn’t be interested because while he enjoys working in pre-developed franchises for film (like Star Trek and Alien), he is only interested in doing original work for television. However, the writing/producing team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have told TrekMovie they would be interested in creating and executive producing a possible Star Trek live-action TV series, however they wouldn’t be interested in being show-runners on a day to day basis. And of course Orci and Kurtzman have already started to look into the possibility of doing a Star Trek animated series set in the new movie
universe (although that is only in the earliest of discussions at this point).

New Star Trek TV show?
There have been some reports in the media about a possible new Star Trek TV series in development. TrekMovie will have an update on this proposed project, but bear in mind that there are no reports of discussions about such a project at CBS, who are the ultimate deciders on when (or if) Star Trek returns to TV. TrekMovie will have more on this in a future update so stay tuned.
Personally, I think the idea of a new Star Trek series at this point in time is a bad idea. Star Trek is currently enjoying somewhat of a rebirth; whether we liked the 2009 movie or not, we must admit that. To jump right into a TV series just to milk this thing would signal to people that it was being done solely for the purpose of milking the franchise. Whether the series would be good, bad, or indifferent, I don't know if there's a sufficient base of support for it, and for a new series to fail would bode very ill for the franchise as a whole. And an animated series? Why? I mean, really, why?

I think there will come a time for Star Trek on TV again, but just not yet. I also think that when it does happen, it should not be done by Abrams' crew. That's not even necessarily saying I think their work is bad, but just that it would be better to have different people working on it. Part of the cause of death of Star Trek a few years ago was that the same people were doing everything, and it needed fresh blood. So, any new Star Trek TV would probably benefit by not being tied to the movie people.

If there were a series, I think far and away the most interesting concept would be to examine the galactopolitical fallout of the destruction of Romulus. This is the turf of Star Trek Online, and the history summaries they posted of the time leading up to the start of the game were fascinating.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek 12

98
PLEASE if there is a new TV series... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let it be set in the Prime Universe and like Olorin pointed out, lets pick up around the destruction of Romulus, we don't need to really go 1 or 2 generations into the future to have more novel technology... I really loved the TNG era.

I know it was a plot point, but not only did JJ Abrams make a "parallel universe" we have to deal with, but before he did that, he destroyed an integral planet in the Star Trek canon and we dont even get to e xp lore it!

Thats why I think a new series should be set sometime after than, not immediately, but sometime after with all the ramifications from it. I did read a little bit about what STO said about it, but again its not canon, but it was really good.
Post Reply

Return to “Star Trek & Star Wars”