Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek To Return Christmas 2008
Tycoon Guy writes "Paramount today announced the new Star Trek film is scheduled for release on Christmas Day 2008. The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.' Also today, rumors are out claiming Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise will play Kirk, Spock, and Scotty, respectively."
Somehow those rumours frighten and shock me. A Kirk that isn't Shatner and a Spock that isn't Nimoy?
What about a DS9 movie?
This is going to suuuuuuuuuuuck!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Come on.
;-)
Is this Slashdot or a fscking tabloid?
Oh wait...never mind!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'
It's great that the guy charting that course is best known for a show called LOST.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I don't know if the editors decided not to RTFA, but TFA doesn't talk about Scotty at all, rather is saying that the role is for Bones.
Will dax be in it!?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The "franchise" ran its course. Everyone should let it go and make way for other science fiction series.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
NOoooooooo! Why not Brendan Gleeson? Both Him and Gary where born in 1955, so they're the same age. And Brendan looks and TALKS much more like what I would settle for a Scotty. I could see Sinise as McCoy, hell he even looks a bit like him. Ohhh wait.. submitter got it wrong. Sinise will be McCoy and James McAvoy is going to be Scotty. James McAvoy?!?!?!? He's a slight and frail little man! He's not close to passable as the boisterous and strapping chief engineer before his more plump years. He better start gorging on meat pies.
I'm a pretty big trek fan (currently watching all of it in chronological order), and these casting choices dont seem terrible. I hope the movie is better than the last two, although nemesis was kind of ok, but i think trek could use a rest. Watching/rewatching all of it has given me some perspective on all the series compared to watching them randomly in syndication on spike. So far IMHO, DS9 S4-7 > TNG S4-7 > DS9 S1-3 > TOS > TNG S1-3 > ENT S3-4 > VOY > ENT S1-2 > TAS. That may change, i may split voyager up, but im only on the first season of it/the third season of DS9 right now and i havn't seen an episode of voyager since it originally aired. General conclusions are still DS9 is the best, TNG is overrated, and ENT is very underrated. Oh, and Star Trek V still sucks.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I didn't RTFA, so i didnt catch that. So scotty is the kwisatz haderach now?
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Funny One:
http://www.videosift.com/video/George-Takei-respo
I wonder who will replace our flamboyant navigator.
They're making glue...
The Raliens have managed to clone all the original stars. In 18 years they'll be able to do Star Fleet academy with all the original actors! Next thing to tackle is a time machine so the fans don't have to wait nearly two decades for the new series. Paramount is so confident that time travel will be perfected that they have scehduled the premiere of the new series for this Fall.
Seriously.
...okay.
Quit it.
Star Trek was a fantastic series - heck, I enjoyed all of the runs, which is more than a lot of fans would claim - but if you want to bring back the brilliance and optimism of Roddenberry's world (FTA), you don't do it with a "when-they-were-young" storyline which would most assuredly contain:
1 - A necessarily predictable storyline, to the extent that we know who manages to pull through into their later years.
2 - Shameless references to the more familiar versions of the characters (e.g. A young Scotty trying unsuccessfully to fix a coffee machine and making references to a lack of available power OMGHILARIOUS.)
So yes.
Stop it.
Okay?
Damon.
illegitimii non ingravare
...and William Shatner to cameo as a futuristic Priceline.com commercial salesman, dockside
---
+1 for creative use of CAPTCHA
Just in case, set phasers to suck.
Look what they did with Lost In Space, took a classic 60's tv show and turned it into a complete Hollywood schlockfest of a film. Here's hoping there's some people involved with the creative side of the film who are die-hard Trekkies to steer it in a good direction.
*feeling a little guilty he likes the LIS film and is actually quite looking forward to a new trek film*
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
I reiterate: Shatner is Kirk.
I mean, I'm not a gargantuan star trek fan - I enjoyed 4 (who didn't?) I loved 2 and well the original series is camp fun at best.
Also TNG is good but yeah I'm not a circle jerk star trek loon (sorry guys, I know I should leave now)
honestly I don't see a need for anything to be re-made BUT - well gee wizz those 3 actors are pretty darn good for their roles.
could be interesting.
Matt Damon and Adrien Brody as Kirk and Spock I can see. But Gary Sinise as Scotty? I think someone mucked up the rumour mill there, Gary Sinise looks more like Dr. McCoy.
Maybe I'm old, or too into older movies (or both). I've enjoyed Sinise in most of what I've seen, but I feel the aura of Peter Lorre every time I hear he's in something. Is that a proper character for Scotty?
"She would always treat me mean, so I took a can of gasoline (and a match) to... my... old... flame."
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
I'm not going to claim that Star Trek was the most original piece of entertainment ever conceived. (They could have called it The Forbidden Planet: Weekly) However, it was at least somewhat fresh since nobody had made a TV show quite like it before. (just movies) Some of the subsequent spinoffs managed to carve out their own niches, but the last couple (i.e. Voyager and Enterprise) were unabashedly formulaic retreads. Boldly going where no man had gone before somehow became little more than cashing in on an old idea. Safe Trek. Safe Trek became marginally profitable Trek and eventually TV ratings rat poison.
So what does the franchise need? A couple years of laying fallow after the abysmmal Nemesis? (I am one of the few nuts who dutifully went to see that flick in theaters. I wanted to like it very badly. It was an even numbered Trek episode after all! But what did they give us? Picard expounding upon the appreciation of finer things in life, such as joy-ridding through pre-contact societies in a monster truck.) Well, Nemesis did suck, but its Enterprise that really killed Trek off. Sure, maybe it got better in its third season, but who was watching after the first two seasons?
Now, I'm sure we could debate the finer points of why Enterprise lost its audience for days. However, I would contend that there was one insurmmountable problem with the show that made it a sure fire failure.
TV Series #3 aboard the freakin' Star Ship Enterprise.
The Star Trek universe is vast and filled with limitless possibilities. Why keep going back to the same bloody ship? Give us a border-patrol ship with the rejects and misfits of the acadamy instead of a bunch of the same boringly perfect people. Heck, dive into the seedier side of the Trek universe. Give us a show about the orion syndicate or privateers. Heck, even Maquis terrorists would be a change. (Voyagers crew didn't really count since they were perfectly assimilated into perfect star trek life from day #1.)
Is this against Gene Roddenberry's vision? It's against his vision for the *first* Star Trek show. However, if the fellow were alive today I'm sure he'd realize it's time to move on and open up other aspects of the Trek universe instead of retreading the Enterprise yet again. Just because the setting is less than ideal doesn't mean your characters can't tell inspirational tales. (Likewise, despite its "perfect" setting one could easily critisize Enterprise for turning the Vulcans into hypocritical pricks and relentlessly extolling superiority of mankind like aryan suprecists.)
That being said, not only are we going back to the Enterprise (If not in this movie, certainly in the sequels, profits allowing), we're retreading the same characters! It's possible J.J. could make a good movie, but frankly, be choosing to do yet another retread of the same tired old Trek he's really making things more difficult for himself.
who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'
Resuming, it'll 'embrace and extend'. I just hope the warp drive keeps compatibility with earlier versions.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
The series were successful in other time, where what they offered was novel, and wearing spandex as a uniform wasn't ridiculous.
I can't be too wrong that they will come out with a mix of references/cliches from the original series, in attempt to please the fans, and also try to modernize everything, to make it look plausible for a new audience.
The result would likely be something like the upcoming Transformers movie. Pissing off both the fans and the new audience looking for a serious movie in attempt to please both.
It doesn't matter however, since a new Star Trek movie isn't about movie making. It's about reusing a very very popular brand to sell many tickets. Even if it sucks, many people will go to see it.
Personally I'm a prequel hater. Every time I think of what I'd do if I had to produce a new ST movie, the answer is always like this:
put it a hundred years after the last episode of any ST series, throw away all commodities (holodecks, food replicators, etc), start from the point when something terrible happened that left a bunch of inhabitable planets in the entire galaxy and make the crew(s) go around to see what happened and reorganize things. Make it so they have to travel at low speed in small ships then, maybe, after a half season they discover a bigger federation spaceship that the above didaster didn't touch, etc.
Another possible plot would involve the exploration of a different galaxy, which would bring the good premises Voyager had (being alone,far from home) without the sucking technobabble, but this time life must be very rare (ie, not a new alien race every episode). Of course one could mix the two plots and make a seres about a federation fleet that reachs a distant galaxy to find that something destroyed nearly all lifeforms. The point is that if you bring a powerful spaceship filled with healthy people into a space full with developed planets, the show's scifi factor disappears and it soon becomes a fanta-politics show. That can work for 4 episodes in a year, not for 25.
Now, about this prequel, the only way to make it productive IMO is to throw away everything, and I mean everything, we know about ST after the first series, movies and good series (DS9) included.
If they'll start from scratch a new ST concept and will develop it further after that prequel, this could really be a good move.
I'm not holding my breath though.
I heard the working title of it was going to be "LOST in Space"
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This is an old rumor from StarTrek.com. I've known about for few months now. This article just confirms CBS' support for the fan movie.
I think any true Star Trek will be glad to see Rick Berman and Brannon Braga won't be involved in the movie. I hope JJ Abram calls in support from Majel Roddenberry if she can help out. No one knows Gene's dream better then her.
Also, check out StarTrek.com's article.
Maybe next year, CW will have some Trek marathons to advertise the new movie.
\
Mmmaaaatt Daaaamon
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It's interesting - I used to have this professor at Oxford, okay? Doctor Wickham, his name was and he was, like, this massive fat guy, you know? Huge, big guy. We used to call him - you know, well, I won't tell you what we used to call him, but he taught biomolecular kinetics and cellular dynamics. And he used to sort of scare the underclassmen with this story about how the world would eventually be eviscerated by A BAD STAR TREK FILM. You see, it was inevitable that a BAD STAR TREK FILM would be created which he referred to as the 'WORST STAR TREK FILM EVAH'. It was like an accelerated mutator or sort of, you know, like a, an unstoppable force of destructive power, that would just lay waste to everything - to buildings and parks and streets and children and ice cream parlors, you know? So whenever I see, like, A FILM COMPANY willing to spend this amount of money on a mystery STAR TREK FILM, I always assume... it's the WORST STAR TREK FILM EVAH. End-of-the-world kinda stuff, you know... But no, I don't have any idea what it is. I was just speculating.
You may as well spit on the Koran and burn the bible: there is no such thing as a non-Shatner Kirk.
Fools! The movie will flop, just like all the other remakes, and you can go back to the drawing board trying to figure out how to convince Trek fans to spend more money than they already have on a franchise you built to such geeky specificity that anything but the original is merely a misty shadow of its former glory.
Here's a hint, you gomers: the instant you mix well-known non-geek-adored actors with angsty dystopian plots into the geek-dominated positive-outlook Star Trek universe, all the geeks out there no longer empathise with the characters or feel the familiar hope that Trekkie escapism provides and you're just wasting your stupid-ass time.
Life's bleak enough without you idiots making more Blade Runner hopelessness with impossibly good-looking male actors that no geek could ever feel anything but thinly-veiled jealous contempt for.
Bah.
Adrian Brody as Spock, huh?
The plot: Kirk, Spock, and crew travel back in time to early 21st century Earth using the tried-and-true slingshot effect. They are arrested by police for their suspicious activities as they recon various historic landmarks in the United States. When a policeman removes the dew rag that Spock is wearing around his face, Kirk must convince him that Spock's appearance is due to a childhood accident in which his nose was caught in a mechanical rice picker.
They're going to worry about it being viewable by the UNINITIATED? Like, the 3 of them who will see this movie?
Guys, you've already lobbed ten of these over the fence and saturated 2nd tier television stations with reruns of the myriad TV versions. ANYBODY (okay, anybody who was older than 6 when the last one came out) who is likely to see this stinker is pretty going to have to know at least the basics about Star Trek - except perhaps for that Bedouin family that's been lost in the deserts of Cleveland since the Korean war ended 24 years ago.
Of course, they'll probably have to find a mysterious advanced technology device from the past, with a drawing of Kirk embedded in its design along side a warning. No worries, that's actually Kirk's sister. Spock's father will play a role in having deceived the Andorians into helping form the Federation, and his mother will have hidden his lost sister away behind a mysterious hatch on a jungle moon. Everything will go topsy-turvy when the Klingons take off their masks and turn out to have been from Secion 31 the whole time, and everything will end with no satisfying explanation having been given for any of this. But by that time, everybody will have forgotten why they entered the theater in the first place.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
OMG! PONIES!!!!!!!
khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
* Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
* Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
--------
Nothing can be done before the tremendous power!
RabidComics
It's a trap!!
+1 fashionably cynical
That they are found by the Galactica and Adama promptly puts them all out their misery.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
We need a different film for a different society. People no longer expect computers to be operated with fixed touch panels or consoles to explode from feedback as if 802.11n remote controls were never invented. More fundamentally, US audience would no longer accept "USS" Enterprise as total do-goders. More likely, we'll support Cardassians in their fight against ruthless and religious Bajorian terrorists.
The guy who ran both Alias and Lost into the ground inside three series?
Great....
What about Ewan McGregor? He looks and acts like a young William Shatner.
-=Zeus=And=Hades=-
No really.
It was good, well in places it was great, but not everywhere, but all they are doing is trying to get more money from a story that has been told and retold until they are inescapably trapped in a quagmire of ever repeating storylines.
Enterprise was a good example. They assembled a team of great actors, then forced them to regurgitate shit storylines until even the diehard fans started to cry out in pain. Its the only star trek where if I see its on I won't flick over to watch it.
If they left it for a decade or three that might be good. Let the dust settle, let some fresh talent tackle the story in a new way.
This Guy!
The new Trek does not have to be like the old one. As our world progresses into the future, there are new things to tell, and Star Trek is a perfect environment for it.
is Paramount going to bring back the TV franchise. Before "Enterprise" reared it's ugly head - I thought they had a sure fire winner-in-waiting with the USS Relativity. I'm a sucker for the time-travel episodes, and the appearance of what looked like a very non-temporary bridge set for the Voyager episode it appeared in (which was a hoot btw) had all the ingredients of Dr. Who and the Star Trek universe.
This is pissing in the wind of course, but I'm curious if anyone else might like to see something like this?
I mean the whole point of a good science fiction series is providing as open-ended structure as possible to hang good stories. Time travel is a godsend in this regard.
Then you went back home and got beat on by your dad because he is a mean drunk who drinks to forget the fact that his football dream never happened and that his son will probably never amount to anything either.
You mad
Screw prequels, that got us Star wars 1-3 and enterprise. All of which are inferior to the older one's. Continue after voyager. Rehire the DS9 writers that went to 4400 and continue it. I personally want a Borg invasion of the alpha quadrant but that's just me. We've seen Star Trek in peacetime, and avoiding war, so how about alliances against a common foe. Besides almost every Borg ep of all the series that had them + the movie are the best Trek episodes anyway, so just go with it. Exploration for added allies and defense technology, is a good goal to me.
OTOH, if the Enterprise crew needs a showdown debating the finer points of depression, suffering, love triangles, class struggle, and generalized angst, Adama's crew will lick 'em good.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
The real question is who will play Welshie!
Britney Spears as Uhura - it is a reboot after all, ment to appeal to the masses (the new masses - the old ones went into coma after Berman mistreated Star trek over the years)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I didn't even know that Star Trek had taken Christmas 2008. Surely that was the grinch?
"Our goal is to make a picture for everyone -- life-long fans and the uninitiated"
Whenever I read something like that, I know it's going to be crap. It's a dead giveaway that their only motivation is to catch as wide a demographic as possible. "For everyone" can be translated into "not too techie, not too geeky, not too clever, plenty of explosions, hero gets the girl" etc. In other words, an average movie for average people. Surely by now they know that any Trek production has to be written for the fans in order to be successful.
I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.
They did 3 prequels, now they are gonna go after the original 3!
I don't know what characters you guys are talking about, guess I didn't pay enough attention.
I wonder if Luke will teach Leia the force. Can't wait till '08!
Sinise. No. Mike Myers would be a much better Scotty. His accent alone qualifies him. Especially if he can find the ogre suit.
'Cmon people! Give it a Rest already; for oh, at least a Generation or so....
That which is not Dead
Can unchanging Lie
And with Strange Eons
Even Death may die.....
-H. P. Lovecraft
But... Scotty wasn't fat during the show! Maybe he plumped up for the movies (can't put that widescreen to waste!) but during the TV show he was pretty fit (he was in the military for number of years) and this movie takes place before the show, so he should be a lean, mean, engineering machine.
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
What they should do, is a movie that takes place during the dominion war. It doesn't even have to include much of DS9. They could do it from the perspective of a few different ships and crews, perhaps with some minor involvment from both Enterprise E and the Next Gen crew, and the Defiant and the DS9 crew. There's lots of potential there for some really good space battles with all new footage, as well as things like the Breen attack on earth, the loose of Bajor to the Dominion, etc. It could make an INCREDIBLE movie. Too bad they're going to do a shitty sequel instead.
Does this mean they'll be using these?
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
we like metaphasic torpedoes and ablative armour etc etc. not silly old warp 7 and photons we learned that no one cares about a grappler and a few laser cannons... PLEASE for the life of god pick up the next gen or a later series.. we need new enemys from a different quadrent and cover the death of the federation - like andromeda was supposed to do - but never did cause it was not trek
After seeing the rumored casting the first though that came to mind was:
"Won't someone think of the children!"
This post shocked me at first. It states "Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise will play Kirk, Spock, and Scotty, respectively." Gary Sinise as Scotty?! I just couldn't fathom that - he looks nothing like him. Accent could be faked, but still - Sinise?
I went and checked the 'source' which clarifies that Sinise is thought to be playing Leonard "Bones" McCoy, not Scotty. The original author wrote, "Recent rumours have also suggested that Scottish actor James McAvoy might be in talks to play engineer Montgomery Scott..." Which makes a bit more sense.
Sometimes I wonder how closely the media pays attention to the source when they are writing their stories. Obviously in this article, not very much.
How could you say no to that site design!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You are a huge nerd *comic dog robot voice*
Matt Damon as Kirk might be interesting. I could see Sinise as McCoy (not Scotty!). But there is no way on earth Brody is going to play Spock. It ain't gonna happen.
The thing is, what sets Star Trek apart from other sci-fi shows is exactly that it isn't gritty and believable. It is sci-fi in a near-perfect universe. The ships are clean inside and out, and the uniforms are pressed immaculately (unless the bridge is already on fire). When an entire starship blows up, the crew of the Enterprise take it stoically. Whole wars go on, yet the main characters are mostly unaffected either physically or emotionally. Poverty is eliminated. Medical science can cure almost anything.
Compare and contrast with any of the other major future/space sci-fi series in recent years, from Babylon 5 to Battlestar Galactica. Consider the obvious plot device of killing off a character...
[[[Warning: Spoilers for early Star Trek films, early TNG series, Voyager finale, Babylon 5 season 4 and early reimagined BSG series follow]]]
In the TNG episode Thine Own Self, Troi is training to become a command officer, and is faced with a dilemma of sending a friend to his death to save the ship in a simulated test. In the Babylon 5 episode The Long Night, Sheridan sends a whole group of Ranger ships to certain death for real, with no guarantee that his plan will even work. He asks the captain of the lead ship whether he's married, after he's given the order. The episode later watches Sheridan sitting in his office listening to the radio chatter as they all die.
In the final episodes of Voyager, we see an alternate Janeway sacrifice herself for the good of her ship. It's brief, and then we're back to celebrating. In B5, Sheridan is told long before leaving for the Shadow homeworld that if he goes there he will die, and deliberately chooses to go anyway. The story arc of the consequences of that decision runs right up to the final episode, Sleeping in Light, set 20 years after the main story. That last episode contains one of very few TV moments that still brings a tear to my eye.
In one of the early Star Trek movies, Kirk's son is killed by a Klingon. Kirk swears and makes a pained expression. In BSG, Adama's son is killed in an accident, caused by the negligence of someone very dear to him, and we see the consequences and how they both have to live with it.
[[[End of spoilers]]]
You can look at many other issues from the series the same way. In Star Trek, we have hints of underclasses. In B5, we have the area of "down below", which features prominently in several episodes, where real people suffer real problems because of real mistakes. In Star Trek, when a shuttle is in trouble we bounce it off an atmosphere and tractor beam it home. In BSG, it crashes or explodes, killing or stranding whoever was on board, even if there are major characters involved. In Star Trek, admirals are good guys or traitors. In BSG, we have the whole Pegasus story arc, where very bad stuff happens because two good people have different perspectives.
Basically, the thing that makes the Star Trek franchise different from everything else is the fact that their universe is clean and tidy and full of good people Doing The Right Thing(TM) and with a happy ending to each episode. Many other series have done Gritty Realism(TM) already, probably better than anyone in the ST world ever will. They should not go there.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
He can do the swagger, he can do the arrogance and has similar acting ability/range. What's not to like?
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
I've heard there are plans to make that into a movie....my understanding is that it also does not "end well".
Then again...they could do the "Count of Monte Cristo" treatment to it.
For that matter, the original Count of Monte Cristo did not end well, nor does Casablanca....but those are "old movies", so perhaps you have a point.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
According to this article http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/767/767783p1.htm l Daniel Dae Kim ("Jin Kwon" on Lost and also had minor parts in both Enterprise and Voyager) is in early talks to play Sulu.
Lt. Dan as Scotty?? Heh...
I didn't know it was missing.
Where is it now?
Do we want it returned?
"Star Trek XII:The Search for Ben"
Why not get the answer from Shatner himself?
Sorry about the split video and bad quality, my camera has a small SD card and I didn't expect the question to be asked. A fan had asked Shatner if Matt Damon was playing Kirk the day after I showed him this at the dinner party.
Matt Damon as Kirk, ok
Adrien Brody as Spock, ok
I can see this. But, Gary Sinise as Scotty? Don't really think that'll work well. He looks more like a Bones to me.
It's inevitable, just as night follows day, sure as eggs is eggs, just like every odd-numbered Star Trek movie is shit...
[All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
Kirk, Spock, and Bones is a good place to start, but it takes more than 3 to fly the enterprise.
Any suggestions for the rest of the crew?
He said he wasnt signed from what i could hear. Doesnt say anything definitive about Matt Damon not being able to play the next Kirk still.
Star Trek isn't a dead franchise, TV has changed since TOS, or even TNG, Star Trek needs to be edgier and more realistic to appeal to today's audiences, Enterprise was getting there right before it was canceled. Captain Archer got cool for a few episodes and just about the time I felt like my religiously watching the show was going to pay off, they canceled it. The writers need to quit looking at the past Star Treks as a template for new ones. They should look to the books, William Shatner writes a compelling version of the Federation and Starfleet where it's powerful, but it's not totally indestructible as the shows and movies depict it. They need to do a show where The Federation is in jeopardy, facing a complete breakdown of the entire infrastructure. Show a captain who doesn't do everything by Starfleet regulations, TV shows should never be held back by bureaucracy. Thats what made TOS great, you had a captain who loved the Federation and Starfleet, but did what he thought was right, regardless if it was at odds at what Starfleet thought was right. It made for a compelling character. And make the episodes compelling, where you really wonder what the hell is going on, one of my favorite Trek Episodes is 'Frame Of Mind' Where Riker starts out in a mental institution and doesn't know whats real and whats not. They should try to confuse the viewer in each episode like that, without using cheap tricks to do it so you have a chance to figure things out. Have a serialized story line where not everything is wrapped up in a nice package at the end of 40 minutes. All these things with some really great writing and actors, keeping the original moral undertones and modern day allegory that Star Trek is famous for in tact. And I guarantee another great star trek with good ratings could be made. But until the mesh the best of the old Star Treks with modern television storytelling, they won't have anything but another 'Enterprise' or 'Voyager'
planned spinoffs include
Dancing with Spock
Federation Idol
Transparent Aluminum Chef (with shatner)
Richard Simons Kilingon Workout
More?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Obviously you haven't watched enough Star Trek because even I know that your argument is a completely wrong. All of those issues were dealt with in DS9 and is probably the main reason why I can't watch BSG because plot wise they are essentially the same. Substitute the Cylons with shapeshifters and you essentially have the same plot points and issues for good reasons.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Since JJ Abrams is doing this I'll make a prediction and say that he'll use the exact same plot element he's used in almost everything he's ever done. He'll start the movie by showing you the ending and then the entire rest of the movie will be a whole series of flashbacks or one big one if we're lucky. Oh, someone will get tortured too.
You, Klingon. What's today?
nuq?
What's to-day, my fine turtle head fellow?
To-day? Why, It is a good day to die sir!
A good day to die, I haven't missed it. Do you know the Targ merchant on the next street, at the corner?
p'tahk! Of course I do!
An intelegent Klingon! Do you know if they've sold the prize Targ that was hanging up there?
Dor-sho-gha! Of course it is!
Go and buy it.
flinging poop since 1969
and now they're making a movie "Kirk beginnings"... That sucks. Seriously.
What I found fun to watch were those "Alternate Universe" episodes, including the fake propaganda against the Voyager crew. Using borgs as weapons, destroying anyone who dared annoy Janeway, etc.
Since there's much less "history" already told by only a bunch of episodes (of almost every series), it would be easier to came up with a story that didn't mess with the original Star Trek history.
I lost track - is this an even or odd StarTrek movie?
[Insert pithy quote here]
Instead of Will Smith, get Samuel L. Jackson.
"Fire the GOD DAMN PHASERS AT THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS."
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Looking at how well Baywatch did, and soap operas do,
just set the next whole star trek tv show on
Risa .
The only Star Fleet people you see are the ones who land.
Interesting relationships and backstory development.
A pleasure planet, full of eye candy.
Who wouldn't watch that every week!?
RODDENBERRY: "Hi, I'm Gene Roddenberry, and I want to introduce to you my vision of the future. It's one where humanity evolves into a higher form than it is now -- no, I don't mean we grow wings or turn purple! I mean where humanity's consciousness evolves. Where we rise up against our petty differences and create future of tolerance, happiness, and --"
::hacks Gregory to death with the scimitar::
JIHADIST: "Jihad!"
RODDENBERRY: "I'm sorry, I wasn't done speaking about the glorious future that I see for us."
JIHADIST: "In your future, does Allah rule the world?"
RODDENBERRY: "No, everyone's an atheist essentially -- like me -- huh, huh, huh -- but --"
JIHADIST: "Then my mission is clear: I must kill you to please Allah and get my 72 virgins in Paradise!"
RODDENBERRY: "Kill me?! Why? Don't you see that in my future everyone will enjoy free love and there will be no jealousy and -- put that sword down!"
JIHADIST: "You disagree with Allah! Allah be praised! Die, infidel, die! And by the way: it's a scimitar, not a sword, wuld ilgahba!"
RODDENBERRY: "'Infidel'? Isn't that somewhat extreme?! I embrace all creeds and cultures -- except certain Christians who don't believe me when I tell them about the glorious future I envision. But I have lots of friends who aren't atheists! Buddhist friends, Muslim friends --"
JIHADIST: "Muslim?! Like who?"
RODDENBERRY: "Well, my assistant, Gregory Ali, for one!"
JIHADIST: "Ma tunfukhhumlish! I don't believe you!"
RODDENBERRY: "Well, I'll call him. Greg?"
GREGORY: "Yo! What's up?"
RODDENBERRY: "Well, this scimitar-wielding gentleman doesn't agree with my vision of the future and --"
JIHADIST: "Are you a Muslim, Gregory?"
GREGORY: "Well, yeah...!"
RODDENBERRY: "And you support this man in his ravings?!"
GREGORY: "I work for him if that's what you mean, but --"
JIHADIST: "Then die!"
RODDENBERRY: "Gregory! My vision of the future! My carpet!"
JIHADIST: "We will now recreate your Satannic series based on the premise of the return of the 12th Imam. He rules the world and kills all Jews. After that, we go to space and kill all Jews -- or aliens -- whatever. If you try to stop me, I will convene a press conference to label you a religious bigot and then slaughter all of your wives."
RODDENBERRY: "I-- I only have one wife...."
JIHADIST: "You passed up on Uhura? You are not only a pig but an idiot!"
RODDENBERRY: "But... what about peace and tolerance?"
JIHADIST: "That comes after all of you infidels are dead! Are you never satisfied?!"
Thank God. I thought we'd never get Christmas 2008 back after I heard they'd taken it.
I can't wait for the Star Trek Xmas Special. They could broadcast it back-to-back with the Star Wars Xmas special.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Kirk: Spock, what is your analysis of that space anomaly that is about to assimilate this ship?
Spock: Whoa!
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
If they're going to continue a series, it should be Firefly. That is all.
NT
What would be great is a story line that bridges
the total collapse of civilization, then the rise of
the Augments, ending the show with Khan, and his crew,
being driven to escape the planet in that submarine space ship thing.
The Great Wars , genocide, economic collapse, biological warfare, dictators, fragments of society scraping by to survive, then finally meeting the Vulcans on a fluke test flight.
First Contact came late, after Khan.
This time period is untouched, (in the movies and TV show anyway) - are the decades between the fall and First Contact.
A rich vein of Drama to mine, if there ever be one!
I mean, look at him on Heroes, as Sylar.
Now that's your Spock, right there.
VOTE!
But on the flip side, I think the whole Star Trek franchise has been pretty much beaten dead. Is ANY producer/director capable of revitalizing Trek? I probably wouldn't even let Spielberg or Lucas have a go at this thing! On second thought, if George Lucas were to do Trek, that might actually end up worse than anything Brannon or Braga would come up with,... ;-)
The best thing to do would be to move the series forward into post-Voyager time and start fresh. And by fresh I mean "totally different outlook". Just like TOS, TNG, and DS9 represented a lot of the values and goings-on of the 60s and then 80s/90s, a fitting show now in the Star Trek universe would ditch the "ship show" concept and move into something totally different. And thus, a great idea would be a show following people in Starfleet Intelligence. The advantages of this are:
Also, this may be off the wall, but I would love to see more of Earth in the late 2300s. Maybe set it in New York, or London, or anywhere other than San Francisco or Paris for a change!
...and do what you want with everyone else.
stopped watching Enterprise in the second season. It was an excellent show in the third and fourth seasons.
+++ATH0
had a full head of hair back in the day.
+++ATH0
I just kept thinking that the franchise has messed up the whole notion of 'what' makes a true Vulcan.
I think it deepened the concept that "Vulcans have emotions, they just repress their expression, at first, and then seek to abolish them entirely." Not everyone is going to be perfect at that process.
+++ATH0
God, that was hysterical. That man is a genius.
+++ATH0
From the suggestion at El Reg, I recommend that there be a write in campaign for Nathan Fillion as James Tiberius Kirk in the new movie. Matt Damon would not be a my favourite choice.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
...as Christopher Pike? If there was a Star Trek role he was born to play after Geoffrey Hunter's demise, surely that's it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Why are all the fan productions so, so awful? Many of us really COULD do a better job. Can't they, you know, hold a casting call and see if they can't find someone better?
That said, George Takei is going to be in ST:NV in the next episode, which is pretty awesome all by itself. But yeah. Why do they have to be so uniformly terrible?
+++ATH0
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
Triumph robot dog voice: You have read this deeply into an article about the casting of a Star Trek movie.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
..When DS9 was out.
I said it when Voyager was making a mockery of Trek.
I said it after saying Enterprise would get cancelled, before Enterprise got cancelled.
KLINGON.
TREK.
SHOW.
Everyone knows the only real value DS9 had were the Klingon episodes. And everyone's tired of Starfleet values saving the day.
Give us a show about a Klingon ship, with a Klingon crew.
I rather suspect that you were the guy in the Klingon uniform, and you're now fantasizing, wishing that you hadn't been the pathetic prick that you were. The real sad part is that you're still a pathetic prick.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I always thought, based off old video, Gary Sinise looked alot like a young DeForest Kelley. So, I really think he'd be a better Dr. McCoy, but maybe he isn't in the movie.
-Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
OK, Matt Damon may not be bad as Kirk, but Gary Senise was born to reprise the role of McCoy, not Scotty. And Adrien Brody - fuggeddaboutit. We need a crew of scenery chewers, dammit, not this slate of pretty boys. This is Star Trek, for pity's sake!
Here's my picks for a recast of TOS "The Academy Years"
Kirk: Seann William Scott
McCoy: Gary Senise
Spock: Jason Schwartzmann (although, he will need to stand on a box, but this time Kirk won't)
Scotty: Billy Boyd
Commander, Star Fleet Academy: Kurtwood Smith
Harry Mudd: Samuel L. "Mother Fucking" Jackson
Edith Keeler Must Die
The 24th century was left wide open in the trek universe. DS9 was left open ended and so was TNG. Even though Nemesis was not the best movie ever it was still left open ended. They have enough open endedness in the 24th century to make an awesome sequel before they go backwards. A movie including the return of Sisco, Riker on the Titan, the return of Odo, a peace treaty with the Romulans and Data being resurrected through the memory transfer with the B4 unit would all make a great movie even if Patrick Steward thinks he's too big for Picard's britches. There need not be any Enterprise involvement if we had all this in a movie. That is unless we're going to be given a Star Trek:Titan TV show. Now I'd watch that.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
Wasn't that a Shatner quote from TOG? :-)
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
rumors are out claiming Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise will play Kirk, Spock, and Scotty, respectively
No no no nonononooooooooooooooooooo!
Sacrilege! Nobody else is to play these characters, ever! Especially not Matt Damon!
Let's say you like a movie. It doesn't make any money. You would have liked to see another one but since there wasn't enough money made there won't be another one. This impacts your future potential enjoyment.
You see a lot of people seem to feel this way about Serenity..
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Which one is it?
All they need to do is add Ben Affleck, and hand it all over to Kevin Smith.
Here's a good working title:
"Jay & Silent Bob Trash the Star Fleet Academy"
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
... as he knows more than anyone about the characters.
But you must admit Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was much better than Star Trek the Movie. Hence the potential for greater entertainment does exist.
Sometimes my arms bend back.