New Star Trek Movie In 2009..

[Vermillion21]

Well, if the rumours are true and JJ Abrams (aka creator of LOST and Alias) is really working on the new Trek flick, you can expect a more character driven plot, and so-so action. Premise is good ... but then again, I was really let down by MI:3.

[Vermillion21]

Well, if the rumours are true and JJ Abrams (aka creator of LOST and Alias) is really working on the new Trek flick, you can expect a more character driven plot, and so-so action.  Premise is good ... but then again, I was really let down by MI:3.

410029[/snapback]

JJ is apparently trying to get Matt Damon to play a young Kirk ...

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=36682

[David Hingtgen]

Is that any more credible than the Ben Affleck rumor?

[David Hingtgen]

A little late, but I have ST 5 on DVD--I can explain!

Best Buy put all Trek movies on sale, AND all Paramount movies on sale. And both discounts applied simultaneously. It was cheaper to buy the ST 1-6 Special Edition box set, than the three I wanted (2, 3, 6).

I'll watch Shatner's commentary on 5 again, see what he says.

[big F]

If we're talking original airings, TNG, DS9, and Voyager all went seven seasons long.  So, it's not exactly the longest-running series of the whole franchise.

There's practically a whole century's worth of backstory in the Star Trek universe.  Why just dumped that whole rich tapestry?  Sure, I wouldn't mind getting rid of all the techno-babble, the alien-of-the-week mentality, and the bland re-hashed plots.  But the characters and the history?  There's still some potential in there.

409994[/snapback]

Opps for some as yet unknown reason I thought it went for 8 seasons. oh well Altzimers kicked in there for a bit.

There is a whole eighty years give or take between Archer and Kirk that we know almost nothing about as of yet. That would be a great area to explore. The creation/expansion of StarFleet, the whole Klingon empire hating everyone thing to name just two of the subjects. Hey they could even go to a pre StarFleet Zephram Cocraine era. How did we get from converted ICBM Warp capable ship to Enterprise, there must have been loads of bumps on that road.

Edited June 22, 2006 by big F

[Penguin]

A little late, but I have ST 5 on DVD--I can explain!

Best Buy put all Trek movies on sale, AND all Paramount movies on sale.  And both discounts applied simultaneously.  It was cheaper to buy the ST 1-6 Special Edition box set, than the three I wanted (2, 3, 6).

I'll watch Shatner's commentary on 5 again, see what he says.

410065[/snapback]

Y'know, I've got all the 2-disc editions, including 5 (the completionist in me won't let me exclude even the dreck), and after watching all the interviews with Shatner, I'm not sure whether he's just got a really quirky sense of humour, or there's been some head trauma in recent years.

Thinking about these reboot notions, that's essentially what they did with TNG. Sure, the original Trek was the backstory, but they moved it forward enough that the situations and relationships could be significantly different. I'd almost prefer another leap forward rather than going into the past again.

[eugimon]

A little late, but I have ST 5 on DVD--I can explain!

Best Buy put all Trek movies on sale, AND all Paramount movies on sale.  And both discounts applied simultaneously.  It was cheaper to buy the ST 1-6 Special Edition box set, than the three I wanted (2, 3, 6).

I'll watch Shatner's commentary on 5 again, see what he says.

410065[/snapback]

Y'know, I've got all the 2-disc editions, including 5 (the completionist in me won't let me exclude even the dreck), and after watching all the interviews with Shatner, I'm not sure whether he's just got a really quirky sense of humour, or there's been some head trauma in recent years.

Thinking about these reboot notions, that's essentially what they did with TNG. Sure, the original Trek was the backstory, but they moved it forward enough that the situations and relationships could be significantly different. I'd almost prefer another leap forward rather than going into the past again.

410280[/snapback]

I think one of the reasons why they're thinking of the reboot is that the writers wrote enough of the future in that fanboys are going to start the whine fest... where are the holographic displays? In epsidoe XX of DS9 they clearly mentioned holographic displays...

[Penguin]

I think one of the reasons why they're thinking of the reboot is that the writers wrote enough of the future in that fanboys are going to start the whine fest... where are the holographic displays? In epsidoe XX of DS9 they clearly mentioned holographic displays...

410345[/snapback]

I was thinking of that as I typed my post... especially in Voyager, they hinted at a lot of up and coming technology. Things were really accelerating tech-wise, and that could not only cause a lot of the aforementioned fanboy whining, but with technology that can do just about anything, a lot of the adventure would be gone. However, it could still work. Go forward far enough, and who knows what twists future history (how's that for an oxymoron) might take. In Voyager's last season, we saw that holographic creations were starting to be used everywhere. Maybe there's an "AI War" or some such in the making. There are always possibilities. I wouldn't mind seeing Star Trek's technophillic idyll get knocked down a few pegs.

Edited June 23, 2006 by Penguin

[ComicKaze]

You can't keep booting stuff into the future for the reason that technology was already getting out of hand in the 24th century. The further you move out the more technobabble and fake crap they need to spout to explain things that don't exist. The more technology they have, the more deus ex machinas and technology plot devices will exist.

The further you move, the more distanced the audience feels from the future because of less ties to our modern age. Back to basics is the correct approach because the technology in the 24th century was already nigh-invincible - metaphasic shields that can allow a Starship to safely fly through a sun's corona? Why don't they just put them on everything? Federation ships with cloaking devices, machine gun like pulse phasers and quantum torpeados, warp 10... where does it end?

Of course they screwed up Enterprise because Berman is a hack and already by the 3rd episode, you had transporters where the big device of the show was supposed to be how they had to shuttle everywhere and couldn't rely on the cheap transporter to save the day. Then the prime directive came in, etc. etc. and then a quasi-holodeck plot, and then everything from the 24th century flooded back en masse and ruined the show because it just became Voyager by any other name.

The ONLY THING that could work in a future story is if you have a massive intergalactic war or calamity that destroys everything and people have to rebuild and learn science all over again. In fact, that would be great. The Dominion war shouldn't have ended.

Edited June 23, 2006 by ComicKaze

[sketchley]

Hey they could even go to a pre StarFleet Zephram Cocraine era. How did we get from converted ICBM Warp capable ship to Enterprise, there must have been loads of bumps on that road.

410255[/snapback]

I thought they covered at the very beginning of Enterprise? The road that is hinted at throughout the first few episodes of Enterprise is that the Vulkans were holding back humanity. I don't think that there could be an interesting story - beyond what later episodes of Enterprise mention/show.

The years between Enterprise and TOS would definitely be interesting. At the very least because Kirk-era diplomacy is so much more... physical (punch, punch, kick, kick) than the TNG era. That alone makes for more... uhm... dramatic conflict.

[Vermillion21]

What about that special "black ops" group within the Federation?

That would be a good show, more action, conspiracy stories, space battles, etc ....

[UN Spacy]

What about that special "black ops" group within the Federation?

That would be a good show, more action, conspiracy stories, space battles, etc ....

410434[/snapback]

Section 31?

[Vermillion21]

Section 31?

Yeah, I think that was it. They were in some of the later DS9 shows I think.

Very cool, cold war, X-Files conspiracy from within government wannabe stories ....

[mikeszekely]

I'd watch a show about Section 31. How everything seems placid on the surface, but how Section 31, the Tal Shiar, and Klingon Imperial Intelligence try to outmaneuver each other from the shadows. A new look on familiar settings.

[Sumdumgai]

That would be interesting. Especially showing all the dirty stuff that the Federation isn't supposed to be doing. Dirty, not nice stuff that goes completely against the federation but done for it to keep it running.

[Penguin]

I dunno about Section 31... I'm so sick of conspiracy theories and the assumed "coolness" of black ops units.

Star Trek works best when it exults the strengths of humanity, overcoming their darker sides and not swimming in them. I'd get behind stories in a darker setting, where characters have to make greater sacrifices and more difficult moral calls and doing "the right thing" has more cost than in the happy placid Federation universe we so often see.

Section 31 was explicitly depicted as a group that mindfully did "the wrong thing", supposedly in service of a greater ideal. A Section 31 series would just be a spy story in a sci-fi setting, devoid of the core themes that differentiate Star Trek from other franchises, unless someone really took the time to delve into the thinking behind such people (e.g. Do the ends justify the means? Is a "decent" organization like the UFP valid if it is upheld by indecency? etc.), and that could get preachy and/or repetitive really fast.

[Sumdumgai]

The section 31 thing appeals to me because I got sick of the good guy type stuff that they usually try to do. That's one reason that Mal from Firefly/Serenity really appeals to me. He is a good guy, but he won't hesitate to do things that most starfleet officers and most heroes wouldn't do (like unmessed with Han Solo).

But I do see your point Penguin. If you don't have the right people working on it, you get processed crap.

[the white drew carey]

Mikeszeleky brings forth an interesting concept. A show about Section 31 or, possibly, Starfleet's intelligence service, and their adversaries, would be interesting. But it would have to be done right.

Imagine this:

We have a show which showcases The intelligence service, and all of the things they do. The main part of the show would be brainy dudes sitting around figuring stuff out and watching their decisions unfold. The side-stories in the show would be about the black ops units, the starships and other parts of Starfleet which are basically pawns in the intelligence unit's game.

Think of the dismal E-Ring done right. But with long ranging and overlapping story arcs.

Within the intelligence unit, you could have a mixture of idealistic officers as well as those who think the end justifies the means (and of course those who are aiming to put the Federation on top, sometimes by devious manipulations).

I think a show like this owuld work because Star Trek fans, in general, are fairly intelligent. They want more than a "story of the week", and a show like this could cover all bases. Offer enough incentive, and you could have almost all of the biggies from TNG, DS9 and Voyager show up on occassion as they are sent on missions dictated by the higher ups.

[the white drew carey]

Addendum: hell, Kelsey Grammer is always up for gigs, you could have him show up in the new Bozeman!!! Hah!

[Vermillion21]

Mikeszeleky brings forth an interesting concept. A show about Section 31 or, possibly, Starfleet's intelligence service, and their adversaries, would be interesting. But it would have to be done right.

Imagine this:

We have a show which showcases The intelligence service, and all of the things they do. The main part of the show would be brainy dudes sitting around figuring stuff out and watching their decisions unfold. The side-stories in the show would be about the black ops units, the starships and other parts of Starfleet which are basically pawns in the intelligence unit's game.

Think of the dismal E-Ring done right. But with long ranging and overlapping story arcs.

Within the intelligence unit, you could have a mixture of idealistic officers as well as those who think the end justifies the means (and of course those who are aiming to put the Federation on top, sometimes by devious manipulations).

I think a show like this owuld work because Star Trek fans, in general, are fairly intelligent. They want more than a "story of the week", and a show like this could cover all bases. Offer enough incentive, and you could have almost all of the biggies from TNG, DS9 and Voyager show up on occassion as they are sent on missions dictated by the higher ups.

410706[/snapback]

Sounds good to me!

[mikeszekely]

I dunno about Section 31... I'm so sick of conspiracy theories and the assumed "coolness" of black ops units.

Star Trek works best when it exults the strengths of humanity, overcoming their darker sides and not swimming in them. I'd get behind stories in a darker setting, where characters have to make greater sacrifices and more difficult moral calls and doing "the right thing" has more cost than in the happy placid Federation universe we so often see.

Section 31 was explicitly depicted as a group that mindfully did "the wrong thing", supposedly in service of a greater ideal. A Section 31 series would just be a spy story in a sci-fi setting, devoid of the core themes that differentiate Star Trek from other franchises, unless someone really took the time to delve into the thinking behind such people (e.g. Do the ends justify the means? Is a "decent" organization like the UFP valid if it is upheld by indecency? etc.), and that could get preachy and/or repetitive really fast.

410636[/snapback]

While Roddenberry's idealism underpined the original series and TNG, I don't think it's fair to say that that idealism is defining for Star Trek... it's simply a reflection of the values of the audience at the time, and by extention, a certain atmosphere to particular series within Star Trek. TOS reflected the ideals of world peace and space exploration that were prevalent during the 60's, and the crew was the brave leader and his family, the rest of the crew. In the 80's, shuttle flights were regular, as often as twice a year, and we see some of that in TNG as the crew of the Enterprise did a lot less exploring and a lot more diplomatic missions and what not. There's also more of an emphasis on teamwork.

I think, as the 90's wound down, audiences became a bit more cynical. The idealism that permeated TOS and TNG seems noble, but impractical. There's a certain fascination with flawed heroes... and let's face it, the DS9 crew was, in some ways, a collection of misfits. And the Dominion War brought out the worst in them, and made them all the more interesting for it. In fact, I think one my favorite DS9 episodes... I can't remember the title exactly, but in it Sisko works with Garrak to create some kind of false evidence to convince the Romulans that the Dominion was a threat to them so that they'd join the war on the Federation side. There's no doubt in my mind then that while the nobility of mankind worked before, that tarnishing that perfect image of the Federation makes it that much more believable.

In any case, I think a story that has good people doing evil for a greater good can work without being preachy. Take The Boondock Saints, for example. The movie simply told the story, and then let the viewers draw their own conclusions about right and wrong at the end.

[Mog]

Ah yes, In the Pale Moonlight. Arguably, the best DS9 and one of the best Trek episodes ever.

I agree that DS9 showed a lot of much-needed tarnish on the Federation's pristine image. But at its core, DS9 still has that Star Trek idealism and that hope for a better future. The personal growth that many of the characters go through over the course of the series shows this optimism the best.

For example, Kira goes from being a Cardie-hatin' ex-terrorist to a person willing to liberate the very enemies she once swore to kill. And just as important, DS9 showed all the difficulty, missteps, and hardships that happened along the way for her, without ever destroying or neutering that "inner core" of Kira's character.

So to summarize, I still think the Star Trek idealism should be present in whatever series, reboot () , or movie comes out. But it absolutely has to be balanced out by the characters struggling with that idealism.

[David Hingtgen]

DS9 went in-depth enough that the third-tier characters were better fleshed out than most series' main cast. Heck, even *Morn* got an ep.

Also, I'm always impressed that when they got the Defiant, it remained DS9, and not "ST: Defiant" (with pit stops at DS9). Defiant was used as necessary (mainly battle scenes), but DS9 was always the center.

Final point: DS9's battles showed something that is rarely portrayed----most stuff in war is not top of the line. Yes, there were a few Defiant and Akira class, but the vast majority was Miranda and Excelsior (and they didn't last long), with a few Galaxy tossed in as command ships. (true that's mainly due to what the studio had, but it is probably very close to what the Federation fleet's true makeup is).

Edited June 24, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[mikeszekely]

Ah yes, In the Pale Moonlight.  Arguably, the best DS9 and one of the best Trek episodes ever.

I agree that DS9 showed a lot of much-needed tarnish on the Federation's pristine image.  But at its core, DS9 still has that Star Trek idealism and that hope for a better future.  The personal growth that many of the characters go through over the course of the series shows this optimism the best.

For example, Kira goes from being a Cardie-hatin' ex-terrorist to a person willing to liberate the very enemies she once swore to kill.  And just as important, DS9 showed all the difficulty, missteps, and hardships that happened along the way for her, without ever destroying or neutering that "inner core" of Kira's character.

So to summarize, I still think the Star Trek idealism should be present in whatever series, reboot  () , or movie comes out.  But it absolutely has to be balanced out by the characters struggling with that idealism.

410858[/snapback]

Oh, I agree with you there. I just think that, in the interest of making a character believable, it's okay for them to do the wrong thing some of the time, even with the best intention, instead of always being a pillar of good, like Picard.

[ComicKaze]

What happened is that Roddenberry's vision turned more and more utopian and pacifist as he got older. His original vision for Star Trek back in the 60s (as quoted by him) was "Horatio Hornblower in Space"...

Horatio Hornblower is a swashbuckling high-seas adventure about a daring young officer rising in the ranks of the British Navy during years of colonial exploration and constant warfare with france. That's the perfect Kirk if you ask me and what any future Star Trek series Captain needs to embody. A modern day/future Horatio Hornblower.

Even "The Cage" which people most often cite as his early works being more cerebral (literlally) and pacifist is bristling with weapons and technology and dark, dark sci-fi material (colony ship crashes killing all but one girl, horribly put back together frankenstein style by Aliens that don't know what they are doing).

Edited June 24, 2006 by ComicKaze

[Vermillion21]

I wonder what the die-hard TREK fans think on the ST website forums ....

[Graham]

My casting choices for young Kirk & Spock: -

Ben Assfleck & Matt Damon.

Graham (who does not take this stuff seriously)

394064[/snapback]

Hah, am I clairvoyant or what?!

Matt Damon to be cast as young Kirk?

Sorry, but after Team America, I just can't take Matt Damon seriously at all.

Graham

[big F]

Interesting points made DS9 was by far my favotite of the series. Probably because of the flawed character images and the diversification of characters and stories. The start of the whole series was a usual ST fest of nice people doing nice things, interspaced with afew characters who did sort of naughty stuff ( anybody Ferengi for instance) By the end of the Last series you had Characters with depth people who were main characters had died or moved on and the series had not sufered. You had more than the occasional rule bending and peoples flaws were very evident. Every episode was full of looking the other way while someone did something that the Federation law makers would frown at.

Voyager started out all lets do thie right thing and by the end of it they had kinda lied and cheated their way back to the Delta Quadrant. Im not sying thats all they did but by the end of it Jayneway was more able to look the wrong way while someone threw the the Federation rule book out the airlock. It made it a bit more believable, even if they did at times use the modify the defector beam to .... line too much.

A Section 31 series would be Star Trek with the lights turned down low with the viewers wearing night vision gogles watching all the sneaky goings on.

[UN Spacy]

Put THIS in your cap and smoke it.

[lechuck]

God, not another prequel again. Star Wars, Star Trek and Macross I really hate it...

Can we go back to the 24th century please, because this is were I "grew up".

I want my starships to be state of the art, clean and capable of taking on enemys.

Well as a fan I can at least be happy that Star Trek is still alive.

[mikeszekely]

And so, no-talent hacks will be cast to play legendary characters ingrained in pop culture by the original actors, and once again childhoods will be raped.

[Flaming Guantlet]

Put THIS in your cap and smoke it.

418773[/snapback]

Uh-oh... ...and I like trek too.

[Noriko Takaya]

Question is, will this new Kirk bang everything on two legs, shoot phasers first without asking, and keep his biatches in line by pimp slapping them when they start going crazy, like my man Shatner did in the original series? Or will this Kirk be a modernized, pussified, pacifist metrosexual like John Luck Pickard?

[Vermillion21]

So does this poster mean that Paramount is officially making a Trek 11 flick? Or is this just some ST marketing campaign?!?

[UN Spacy]

So does this poster mean that Paramount is officially making a Trek 11 flick?  Or is this just some ST marketing campaign?!?

419090[/snapback]

Nope it's legit. Paramount gave J.J Abrams a three picture deal. It also helps that MI:III was somewhat of a success for them.