New Star Trek Movie In 2009..

[ComicKaze]

Put THIS in your cap and smoke it.

418773[/snapback]

The yellow means Kirk and blue means Spock!

barf!

[The Shade]

Now, you have to wonder if whoever will be playing Kirk will speak in some... strange... patern... broken up... sentences.

[Sumdumgai]

Maybe they'll get Shatner and digitally de-age him like in X-men 3.

[The Shade]

I just had either a horrible thought, or a very funny one. If this movie were to be a reboot/reimagined film a la Battlestar Galactica, would they follow their lead and change the gender of some of the characters? Can you imagine Kirk as a woman?

[capt.actionjackson]

Maybe the reboot would be better served by taking it back to Christopher Pike's time as captain of the Enterprise? That way we don't have to watch somebody try...to channel...Kirk...

[Roy Focker]

Seems to be a focus on Kirk and Spock.

I'll bet there's going to take a broke back mountain approach. You know Spock get's his seven year itch again but there's no women around. Kirt helps his friend

[eugimon]

Maybe they'll get Shatner and digitally de-age him like in X-men 3.

419185[/snapback]

and use up all the SFX budget on his digital liposuction? Nah, digital capt kirk I say, like gollum... "we hates trixie klingons... kirk... kirk!"

[capt.actionjackson]

Maybe the easisest thing to do is to go completely animated, Pixar style. The budget would be reasonable (no costly special FX) and you could have an animated younger version of Kirk and Spock, voice by Shatner and Nimoy. Everybody wins!

[mikeszekely]

Maybe the easisest thing to do is to go completely animated, Pixar style.  The budget would be reasonable (no costly special FX) and you could have an animated younger version of Kirk and Spock, voice by Shatner and Nimoy.  Everybody wins! 

419293[/snapback]

Or they could make a new Trek movie about someone other than Kirk, Spock, and Bones. Everyone still wins, and we can actually have live-action actors.

[capt.actionjackson]

Or they could make a new Trek movie about someone other than Kirk, Spock, and Bones. Everyone still wins, and we can actually have live-action actors

Nah, I don't think Paramount is capable of that. They'd rather go in for the killing stroke and destroy Trek-fandom completely with a weak reboot.

[big F]

I just had either a horrible thought, or a very funny one.  If this movie were to be a reboot/reimagined film a la Battlestar Galactica, would they follow their lead and change the gender of some of the characters?  Can you imagine Kirk as a woman?

419210[/snapback]

Yeah but Kirk would still bang everything on two legs, shot first and disobey orders. she could just blame it on PMT thats all.

[Uxi]

Didn't I read something crazy somewhere that TOS was no longer canon in ST? Anyone heard anything like that?

I really don't want to see other actors in the TOS roles, but I imagine that's what they're likely to do... Most likely it will be a horrible raping of childhoods.

[mikeszekely]

I hadn't heard that all of TOS was removed from canon, but Star Trek V was.

[Vermillion21]

So JJ Abrams is working on the new Trek flick?

Hrrmm.

LOST is an amazing show, but MI:3 was pretty lame - not enough action and way to much characterization ... guess the same will happen for ST. A shame.

[Mog]

2008 is still a bit of a ways away.....

I really do hope they take their time to come up with a good script.

But I ain't exactly gettin' my hopes up.

Regarding that Paramount poster, you know, Bones wore blue too.

[areaseven]

The yellow means Kirk and blue means Spock!

barf!

419167[/snapback]

Well, if you don't like it, why did you quote it?

[sketchley]

(...)  MI:3 was pretty lame - not enough action and way to much characterization ... guess the same will happen for ST.  A shame.

419580[/snapback]

Interesting... that's exactly why movies are good (in general,) and especially recently, why I want to see movies.

Also, isn't that the formulae that the ST series are based off of? After all, action (aka special effects) costs money. Actors standing in front of a camera doing their thing costs much, much less (most of the time.)

[USMCBebop]

Didn't I read something crazy somewhere that TOS was no longer canon in ST?  Anyone heard anything like that?

If that's true, that's pretty f***ing lame of Paramount or the TPTB heading ST to do that! Edited July 26, 2006 by USMCBebop

[Vermillion21]

(...)  MI:3 was pretty lame - not enough action and way to much characterization ... guess the same will happen for ST.  A shame.

419580[/snapback]

Interesting... that's exactly why movies are good (in general,) and especially recently, why I want to see movies.

Also, isn't that the formulae that the ST series are based off of? After all, action (aka special effects) costs money. Actors standing in front of a camera doing their thing costs much, much less (most of the time.)

419723[/snapback]

If I wanted to see characterization in a movie, then I would pick an appropriate move, like Forrest Gump. BUT, I paid to see MI:3 which implies action.

[UN Spacy]

Shooting for a December 2008 release?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070228/e...e8_f8f599de18e3

[Warmaker]

So it's a revamp of TOS main players? We'll see how that goes.

[eugimon]

meh, restarts are all the rage now thanks to batman begins, there's talk of restarting spiderman and x-men as well if you can believe it.

Anyways, I don't think the problem with trek was how TOS was presented, it was fine for the time.. the problem with trek is the crap they've been putting out with voyager and onward.

[Warmaker]

That's the big problem. Trek has been real lackluster with its shows for years. The last good Star Trek movie was... a long time ago.

[big F]

I though the fan made series stuff was good (five year mission) Once you got used to the characters new looks they were alright. Bear in mind these are fan made and better than some big production Co stuff. Keeping it real and in the old spirit of the TOS. Not too cheesy and no OTT FX. If the film can capture that then it will be O.K

Edited March 4, 2007 by big F

[UN Spacy]

Legit concept art?

[Dobber]

If so, I like it.

Chris

Edited April 1, 2007 by Dobber

[David Hingtgen]

Sure looks like John Eaves' work, who designed the Ent-E, and modified the Excelsior into the Ent-B. Check the rear of the secondary hull, with the shuttlebay door--almost exactly like the Ent-E.

Of course, altering the *original Enterprise* is utter sacrilege to most fans...

[Necron_99]

Something about it looks kinda...odd.

[chrono]

UN Spacy,

Looks more like a horrible kit-bash rather then a thoughtful design. Trekkies have pretty much exhausted the semi-descent possibilities and I see several of fan influences immediately.

But I'm not expecting anything from the movie, especially with Jennifer Garner being hinted at being in the film.

[big F]

It has gun turrets ont the Saucer Section. nice design I just think the turrets should make like the Dodo.

[Sumdumgai]

Looks too advanced and complicated for what turns into the original Enterprise. I like those battleship turrets though.

Either that or happy April's fools.

[terry the lone wolf]

I don't think I have problem if the new Trek might be a reboot. The whole series could use a overhaul.

[Hikuro]

Well, I don't have a single problem with this version of the Enterprise...but I could honestly give less of a crap about the franchise in general anymore.

[Warmaker]

The drawing for the Enterprise? Gotta be April Fool's joke. Looks just as ugly as the "Akiraprise." It looks like a closer derivative of the much later TNG / Dominion Wars era than early Federation stuff. And if it is a TNG era ship, it looks far too primitive.

I mean... turrets? This isn't supposed to be Space Cruiser Yamato or Macross!

[Kyp Durron]

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/TrekXI-Ent.jpg

APRIL FOOLS!!!

-Kyp