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?
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.
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.
Funny One:
http://www.videosift.com/video/George-Takei-respo
I wonder who will replace our flamboyant navigator.
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, Matt..... so the Ferengi are in it too?
Lets just hope the audience doesn't just walk out screaming:
We've been Khaaaaaaaannnnnnneeeedddd!!!
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
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.
I heard the working title of it was going to be "LOST in Space"
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Mmmaaaatt Daaaamon
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
On a humorous note, imagine John Madden playing Spock:
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
This is Slashdot. You may not post "Good News" without the "Everyone".
Worst. Signature. Ever.
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.
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.
<trekkie>Actually, you'll find at least one episode in which Kirk switches bodies with a woman. That woman is Kirk, and most definitely is not played by Shatner.</trekkie>
But seriously, give the man a chance. It could be much worse -- at least they aren't trying to replace Picard. Matt Damon can laugh, I imagine he can act, and he certainly can do physical violence. All he really needs is the arrogant swagger. Because that's really what Kirk did -- swagger arrogantly, get his shirt ripped, beat up the alien, and fuck the hot alien chick -- in other words, just like Riker.
I don't like them replacing Kirk, but I don't think Matt Damon is such a bad choice.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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 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.
No - Britney Spears as Picard.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
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.
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
"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.