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."
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.
I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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?
I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.
I hear Shatner is in negotiations.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
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.
This is Slashdot. You may not post "Good News" without the "Everyone".
Worst. Signature. Ever.
I am afraid that a DS9 movie WOULD suck. The reason that DS9 was so good, was that the characters had real developments and had to deal with problems that were not easily solved with technobabble. With 40-minute episodes, you can afford a "bad" ending, in which a major character suffers a great loss, or fucks up big time, or discovers that he or she did exactly what the enemy wanted. This happened frequently in DS9. With a movie, it has to end well in order not to alienate the general public (or so Hollywood thinks).
No - Britney Spears as Picard.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!