# Star Trek 11 In 2007



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

_[url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408305/"]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408305/_[/url] 


_The updated date is april 2004 so Not sure how accurate or relevant it is_


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Shoot me now!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Are we _already_ miserable and the movie isn't even released yet???


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The beginning? It will be the real end of ST. Berman's trying to reinvent ST has failed, and Paramount are fools for sticking with him. I won't see it!


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

John P said:


> Shoot me now!


Take that you orion slave girl! -bang-


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

"Star Trek: Too Much Time Travel Paradox Causes Universal Implosion!"

That's a working title, BTW....

No, I feel pretty certain that, no matter what Berman may say, we won't be seeing another Trek film with Rick Berman attached to it ever again.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well I haven't heard anything through my connections about this, and I "know people." I doubt that its actually in production right now. That doesn't mean it won't be, but I think maybe Paramount realizes that the time is not right to make money off of another Trek offering.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Yup - I'm thinking 2008 or 2009, without the talents of Mr. Berman.

Huzz


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

What talents would THOSE be?


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

LOL

But true

B


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Writing credits, Berman. Oh man. Enough prequels, I want to see future Trek. With a prequel you're constrained by an existing storyline.


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

REL said:


> With a prequel you're constrained by an existing storyline.


Not if you're Berman, always been one of the least of his worries.


----------



## Andyreb3 (Nov 23, 2005)

Why not quit all the bs temporal crap and just stick to the timeline in the original & say show the Romulan War & it's cause & effect


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I am for future Trek, the past should be the past. ENTERPRISE will never be ST to me. So take off years after STNG, with new 1701, and crew.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

*Was it a mistake?*

Hi,being now that it appears Star Trek 11 is in the works,I was wondering something.Were the Star Trek movies with the Next Generation Cast a mistake.It seems like after First Contact the Next Generation movies lost steam.Also even though I love the ship was it a mistake to introduce the Enterprise E if it was only going to used in only 3 movies.I had high hopes for Nemesis when it was being made,I wanted that movie to be a grand epic,great space battles,the works.But that didn't happen though.They built all those sets for the Enterprise only to used in 3 films.I'm sure they had wanted to make more movies but its not going to happen.Guy Schlicter.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Relax guys. There isn't going to be a Trek film for a good long time no matter what this lot might say. A decent break will do the franchise the power of good.

The Ent-E shots in Nemesis were very good, though the over-reliance on CGI and the current trend to have massive starships flying around like little X-wing fighters is a big disappointment. My favourite shot is in ST2 TWOK just as they begin the last getaway before the genesis explosion. That Ent really feels like it has got some bulk to it as it makes the agonisingly slow about-turn


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

I can't wait it looks Fantastic! Wow

My idea on plot 

battle in space, a cute vulcan, and a cast member dies! Oh I forgot, Enterprise Blows up!

sound about right?

Rob


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

A Klingon Jedi Knight!

B


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

A bit of dialogue from ST VI seems appropriate. They're, of course, talking about Klingons. I think it is also suited for the ST franchise, Berman and Paramount:

Spock: Jim, they're dying

Kirk: Let them die

José


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Eleven is an odd number, and the odd numbered ST sucked, so put anything in it, and save the good stuff for Twelve.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Star Trek is looking to be like the University of Alabama football program. With Alabama football, since The Bear left, and died, fans want him back to reclaim the glory days. With us we need Gene back to bring us back to the glory days. 

Berman was picked by Paramount to keep cost down, not to replace Gene. Berman wants ST to be his, that is why the reinventions. ST will never be like it was, but if Berman stays an makes the next movie, then ST will truely be dead.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

ccbor said:


> I can't wait it looks Fantastic! Wow
> 
> My idea on plot
> 
> ...



I like it!

Just remember that the cast member should die for no reason at all, and putting the cute girl in spandex is a must :thumbsup:

Oh yeah, make sure the ships is the space battles are 12 feet apart and drop to impulse to fight.

"Wallo like a garbage scow against a warp driven starship"


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

I think we all know that Star Trek must go back to the beginning. This might work if it is done correctly. The story must be strong and characters familar. IMHO Gene did it right and current producers should take a step back and roll with it. Some of the NG was great but the movies were all flash with no substance. I will see this Star Trek Movie if it does get made. I hope It has the look and feel as TOS. 
Simple and clean... simple and clean.
The studio should look into what the fan films have put together and think of what the fans want and where our beloved show should boldly go.

Rob


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Yes Spandex is a must so long as she has the body to wear it.

Spandex is a privelage, not a right. lol


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

capt Locknar said:


> Yes Spandex is a must so long as she has the body to wear it.
> 
> Spandex is a privelage, not a right. lol


 Brings to mind a little simile I once heard:

" Large women who wear spandex is like stuffing 10 pounds of sh*t in a 5 pound bag! "


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

capt Locknar said:


> Yes Spandex is a must so long as she has the body to wear it.
> 
> Spandex is a privelage, not a right. lol


Either spandex or a mini-dress. And don't forget the high heels.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Let's not forget the cold personality and the boy haircut too....


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

And lots of Tribbles!


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

Well I hope its not going to go to the same place "dumb and dumber 2" went seeing how it is about beginnings? Cause if it does, it will come from "to boldy go where no one has gone before" to "to boldly go where only berman could take it". We all know where that went. (brrrr)


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The only even numbered Trek film that was a dissapointment was Nemis.
As for ST Enterprise there were a few decent episodes. One thing Berman should have done was to go with a better storyline that lead up to the forming of the Federation, but he chose not to and that's where he messed up Enterprise.
But things could have been worse for ST if the excutive producer,Fred Frieberger, from TOS third season had been in charge intsead of Berman.
David Gerolled wrote a book about how he came up with The Tribbles episode,and in that book he said he had written a second episode about tribbles but when he presented the stoy to Frieberger he was told that ST was a sci-fi drama not a comedy.
Frieberger was also a Excutive producer for Space 1999,The 6 Million Dollar Man and or The Bionic Woman, and for each show he was there for the shows FINAL season, not a good track record, in my opinion any way.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I'll probably piss a few people off... but I think they should actually re-cast the original crew and bring TOS to the big screen in all it's glory... some upgrading of the look but NOT a radical departure. Give us the TOS Enterprise UNCHANGED but upgraded in texture. Keep the original aesthetic, but upgrade the lighting from 60's TV to film quality stuff... and give us a good script that doesn't destroy the Enterprise or kill any of the major crew. Bring back the crewman that dies in the first 10 minutes... sure... but stop trying to rely on ... I'm ranting... TOS on the Big Screen. Yeah.


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

Good idea Im down!


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

I think they should use Capt April's design for the uniforms. I think they must! All girl crew too like Capt April's idea. Yeah, all girl crew and a some shower scenes.

Still, I hope they do better next time round. Maybe with ILM back on the spfx. I think First Contact was the last ILM did for ST?

The last movie sucked so I hope 11 will work for them but if they are going to reinvent, it might murder the serie.

B


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Here's what you do... 

The "new" captain... Say the dashingly handsome Captain Southpaw or something catchy like that.. is in an episode of Enterprise.. he wakes up and realizes it was just a dream!! We can Dallas the whole damn series!

Now we then start with him as the Captain of the Defiant.. the beautiful rendering they used in Enterpise. We are off an running with what Star Trek IS and SHOULD BE!

Crewmember B'er Mahn is the first red shirt to die!


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

How about this:

NCC-1701, launch day. Captain Robert April. Ensign Spock. A young Dr. Boyce. The grand old lady in all her glory.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Lloyd Collins said:


> The beginning? It will be the real end of ST. Berman's trying to reinvent ST has failed, and Paramount are fools for sticking with him. I won't see it!


Berman did for Star Trek what John Nathan Turner did for Dr. Who.

I read an interview wtih him in which Berman could not figure out why Nemesis was such a failure. (Heeeeello).

However, Berman does not deserve all the blame. ST has been on weak footing since TNG. Remember, Wesley Crusher was Roddenberry's creation.

ST had been a bit bankrupt for ideas for a long time. For example, I'd love to see a count of how many "The Holodeck Goes Crazy" episodes have there been? Can anyone really imagine a device as deadly as a Holodeck that can't be turned off by pulling a circuit breaker?

Not to mention the Spock to Data to Odo to The Doctor.

The fact that Nemesis was a tired retreat of previous Star Trek material was inevitable considering tat way things had been going.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Boxster said:


> I think they should use Capt April's design for the uniforms. I think they must! All girl crew too like Capt April's idea. Yeah, all girl crew and a some shower scenes.


How about let's take that idea one step further: an all nude girl crew in a broadway spectacular. 

*STAR TREK: THERE OUT!* :thumbsup:


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

terryr said:


> Eleven is an odd number, and the odd numbered ST sucked, so put anything in it, and save the good stuff for Twelve.


Can you say _Nemesis_? That was an even number ST and it blew chunks big time...


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Looks like the next one may be a Next Generation film:

http://www.trektoday.com/news/011205_01.shtml

Huzz


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Nemesis DID NOT suck! It was a Star Trek film, as good as any other, and far better than Kirk Kills God. What do you people really expect from a Star Trek movie??? This is like renting a porno and complaining that the dialogue was weak.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Its undeniable that Nemesis did poorly at the box office. Many people feel that this result was due to the movie itself and see it as a poor entry in the Trek line of films.

However, I've read a number of reviews where the respected and well known reviewer remarks to the effect that the movie is either not that bad, or he can't understand why people did not like it, and then goes on to cite the film's numerous positive features. 

Regardless of your feeling on the movie itself, it would in my view be incorrect to not assign at least some of the blame for the film's poor showing to the fact that it was competing in theatres for movie goers money against the likes of sure box-office winners Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.

Huzz


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> The "new" captain... Say the dashingly handsome Captain Southpaw or something catchy like that.. is in an episode of Enterprise.. he wakes up and realizes it was just a dream!! We can Dallas the whole damn series!


My preference is to "St. Elsewhere" Enterprise. It all happened in the head of a mentally disabled child who liked to play with a defective Akira model (its "wings" were bent upwards).

José


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Its undeniable that Nemesis did poorly at the box office. Many people feel that this result was due to the movie itself and see it as a poor entry in the Trek line of films.
> 
> However, I've read a number of reviews where the respected and well known reviewer remarks to the effect that the movie is either not that bad, or he can't understand why people did not like it, and then goes on to cite the film's numerous positive features.
> 
> ...


I find it interesting that the movie gernally got good reviews from people who were not Star Trek fans, and bad reviews from the fans.

I frankly don't understand the hostility toward the movie. It did have problems but it wasn't noticably worse than many of the other films, and considerably better than 5.

Frankly, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Star Trek's biggest enemies are its fans. There is a certain segment which doesn't watch for the stories or the characters or the themes, but looks on Trek as a giant database. When something new comes out, they break it apart, looking at each new fact and seeing how it fits in with everything that's been established up to this point. Some people keep saying Paramount needs to listen to the fans. I say if we want Trek to survive, they shouldn't give the fans what they expect.

I finally bought the first season of TOS on DVD and am watching them in production order. One thing that strikes me is how in these early episodes, it is really a different show. Kirk is an intellectual loner who is irritated that he has to deal with female crew members. Spock is not just unemotional but cold-blooded, being the first to suggest they destroy the enemy without hesitation. And the relationship between Kirk and McCoy is very antagonistic. So why in all the nitpicking and disection of the series, does this stuff seem to be ignored? Because for many fans it does not exist. If it isn't stated explicitly and quantifiable, it isn't a fact. It would be a mistake to cater to fans like this. Not if you want something that actually works as a movie or TV show.


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> How about let's take that idea one step further: an all nude girl crew in a broadway spectacular.
> 
> *STAR TREK: THERE OUT!* :thumbsup:


So, what is Paramount waiting for? I say they do this right away! There will be action and romance in the ship for us all to enjoy!

B


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> Frankly, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Star Trek's biggest enemies are its fans. There is a certain segment which doesn't watch for the stories or the characters or the themes, but looks on Trek as a giant database. When something new comes out, they break it apart, looking at each new fact and seeing how it fits in with everything that's been established up to this point. Some people keep saying Paramount needs to listen to the fans. I say if we want Trek to survive, they shouldn't give the fans what they expect.


That would be my assessment as well. Well stated. Some of us haven't lost sight of the fact that Star Trek, in whichever form, is _entertainment_ and should be enjoyed as such. It should NOT be treated as some kind of religion that humans on some planet discovered by the SG teams are practicing!

( Roddenberry was a Goa'uld?  )


----------



## Refit (Oct 24, 2005)

BEBruns said:


> I find it interesting that the movie gernally got good reviews from people who were not Star Trek fans, and bad reviews from the fans.
> 
> I frankly don't understand the hostility toward the movie. It did have problems but it wasn't noticably worse than many of the other films, and considerably better than 5.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more. The first season of the original series is _far_ better, with more complexity (in terms of storys, characters and their interrelationships) than the second, or third season, and _light-years_ ahead of the almost _painful_, seemingly forced, stilted, sickly-sweet interactions of The Next Generation cast, by comparison. Not to mention any of the films and subsequent series that came after the release of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

This is _precisely_ why _I_ feel that Star Trek The Motion Picture is, by far, the _best_ of the Star Trek films. It recaptures the original character formula, interplay and "adult" conflict, and returns to the true essence of the first season of the original series. I think the "secret" (if you want to call it that) is that "The Motion Picture" had an actual _*STORY*_ with a direction, and that story was written by a "science fiction _author"_, not a "screen writer" employed by "the studio".

And, it _*can't*_ get any better than that! Gene Roddenberry knew _instinctively_ that his creation was playing to an truly _intellectual_ audience, and that this was the only way to go (that, and the fact that Gene was _right there, *producing*_ it). During the course of the original series, Gene hired as many _science fiction_ writers as he could to write scripts for the show, because he knew that _they_ (almost exclusively) truly _understood_ what science fiction _was_ and _why_.

Big, beautiful, zooming, space ships and nock-down drag-outs with a good shoot 'em-up _are_ really "_cool"_, but these do _not_ a _good_ film, _make_.


Wayne


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

BEBruns said:


> I find it interesting that the movie gernally got good reviews from people who were not Star Trek fans, and bad reviews from the fans.
> 
> I frankly don't understand the hostility toward the movie. It did have problems but it wasn't noticably worse than many of the other films, and considerably better than 5.


Actually, Ebert hated Nemesis and he's not a fan (as far as I know. I could be wrong). But your point's well taken. Nemesis was flawed, but I still liked it. It was intended to be a TWOK for a new generation.

José


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

El Gato said:


> Nemesis was flawed, but I still liked it. It was intended to be a TWOK for a new generation.


I think your last statement is the problem. TWOK worked, in good part, because of the emotional impact of what was happening to the characters, culminating in Spock's death. The following movie had the emotional impact of the Enterprise destruction mixed with Spock coming back. The downside of that extended story is that now, when somebody dies in Trek, we expect them to come back. Not only that, but you had Data download his memory into B4, so they didn't at all try to downplay the likelihood that Data isn't really gone, robbing that significant part of the plot of its potentially powerful impact.

Don't get me wrong; I liked Nemesis (I own the original DVD and the SE DVD) and have never trashed it (and my wife and I were two of seven people in the theater on opening night — I was trying to figure out what they were thinking releasing it against guaranteed blockbusters Harry Potter and LOTR), but it didn't live up to its promise. Despite all that was happening on the screen, it still seemed somewhat hollow, somewhat formulaic. There was plenty of eye candy, but something was missing in the middle. The actors, writers and director all thought it was there, but it just didn't come out on screen.

Hal earlier brought up STV, which on some levels is just BAD. Yet I will credit that movie for one thing: It had heart. It was cheesy and campy and almost excruciating at points, but despite Shatner's flaws, it still seems like it was his vision of Trek. Nemesis just seems like Trek for Trek's sake, which doesn't ring true for me. So on the intangible level of "heart," I'd have to put STV above Nemesis, which is a better-executed movie.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

El Gato said:


> Actually, Ebert hated Nemesis and he's not a fan (as far as I know. I could be wrong). But your point's well taken. Nemesis was flawed, but I still liked it. It was intended to be a TWOK for a new generation.
> 
> José


He may not be a Trekkie, but I think he is a fan. If I remember correctly, he even gave TMP a good review when it came out. And I think Roeper gave NEMESIS a positive review. 

Of course, I did use the qualifier "generally" (or "gernally," whatever the hell that means) so individual examples don't disprove the point.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

justinleighty said:


> I think your last statement is the problem. TWOK worked, in good part, because of the emotional impact of what was happening to the characters, culminating in Spock's death. The following movie had the emotional impact of the Enterprise destruction mixed with Spock coming back. The downside of that extended story is that now, when somebody dies in Trek, we expect them to come back. Not only that, but you had Data download his memory into B4, so they didn't at all try to downplay the likelihood that Data isn't really gone, robbing that significant part of the plot of its potentially powerful impact.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I liked Nemesis (I own the original DVD and the SE DVD) and have never trashed it (and my wife and I were two of seven people in the theater on opening night — I was trying to figure out what they were thinking releasing it against guaranteed blockbusters Harry Potter and LOTR), but it didn't live up to its promise. Despite all that was happening on the screen, it still seemed somewhat hollow, somewhat formulaic. There was plenty of eye candy, but something was missing in the middle. The actors, writers and director all thought it was there, but it just didn't come out on screen.
> 
> Hal earlier brought up STV, which on some levels is just BAD. Yet I will credit that movie for one thing: It had heart. It was cheesy and campy and almost excruciating at points, but despite Shatner's flaws, it still seems like it was his vision of Trek. Nemesis just seems like Trek for Trek's sake, which doesn't ring true for me. So on the intangible level of "heart," I'd have to put STV above Nemesis, which is a better-executed movie.


I think you and I are in more agreement than you think. Nemesis was flawed in that it tried to use the same elements of TWOK (your worst possible enemy out to get you, your best friend dies at the end); but the movie was executed poorly. "Formulaic" is a term you used and I think it captured what was wrong with the director's approach for Nemesis. Still, I did like it. I thought it was the closest TNG movie worthy of cinematic release. All others felt like they could've been released for TV or straight to video.

As far as STV is concerned, I also agree with you: its heart was in the right place.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Well in my opinion i think they are just running out of good idears. So here's mine

Forget the actors all together and just give us two hours of Ships fighting and blowing up each other. I could go for 2 hours of Space Battles. More federation vs federation scenes (rogue captains), MORE ROMULAN ships, More Klingon SHips, More SHIPS period. Thats the only thing that really got me into Star trek anyway were the SHIPS.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^ I agree, but throw in a few non-speaking CGI crew members, so we know they are not on auto-pilot. TOS 1701, Galileo,Klingon, K-7, and Romulan ships really got me into ST. Oh and Tribbles!


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

So you guys just want giant screensavers?

I'm just sayin'... :tongue:

José


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

EMH's running the ships!

When the battle's all done, throw in a Genesis Device to 
clean up! It's like a trash compactor!


----------



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

Originally Posted by BEBruns
"I finally bought the first season of TOS on DVD and am watching them in production order. One thing that strikes me is how in these early episodes, it is really a different show. Kirk is an intellectual loner who is irritated that he has to deal with female crew members. Spock is not just unemotional but cold-blooded, being the first to suggest they destroy the enemy without hesitation. And the relationship between Kirk and McCoy is very antagonistic. So why in all the nitpicking and disection of the series, does this stuff seem to be ignored? Because for many fans it does not exist. If it isn't stated explicitly and quantifiable, it isn't a fact. It would be a mistake to cater to fans like this. Not if you want something that actually works as a movie or TV show."

Originally Posted by Refit
"I couldn't agree more. The first season of the original series is _far_ better, with more complexity (in terms of storys, characters and their interrelationships) than the second, or third season, and _light-years_ ahead of the almost _painful_, seemingly forced, stilted, sickly-sweet interactions of The Next Generation cast, by comparison. Not to mention any of the films and subsequent series that came after the release of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home"


I couldnt agree more. This is why, when you really look at it, DS9, I think, was really the closest to "the vision". There was conflict, complexity, & intrigue. The officers did not always agree, & sometimes they had to make decisions that went against the things they personally believed, hopefully that would work for the long term greater good. Some "villians" could do "good" things, & the "heros" had their flaws, which could cause them to not always be viewed in a positive light. Sure there were some awkward moments, but it made for compelling DRAMA, which is what Gene was ultimately going for. If TOS was his "Wagon Train" to the stars, then DS9 was "Gunsmoke". Remember, these were "Just TV shows".


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Can you say _Nemesis_? That was an even number ST and it blew chunks big time...


..and every fifth movie sucks as well.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

How about we just put Star Trek to bed entirely and move on to something new?

Someone earlier mentioned 'running out of ideas'. Amen to that. Film-making these days seems utterly repetitive and dumbed-down. Too many remakes of bad movies and too many sequels to films that have overstayed their welcome. I love a story based on events throughout history, but Troy and Alexander (which I really waited for) were horribly done and very innacurate. Mostly, film is a let down anymore...

Television is even worse (SciFi Channel, for example, is an embarrassing mess of juvenile nonsense - *except * for the brilliant Battlestar Galactica). Even the news channels, in their race to get to news first, botch it up and deliver it with Barbie and Ken dolls equiped with high-pitch, nasal voices.

Yeah, I guess I have a problem with film and television these days. Sorry.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Five TV series and ten movies - what's left? Let the thing rest. In ten years, they can make a ST movie that we can all go to for nostalgic reasons and remember that thing we liked so long ago. But for now, it's been kicked to death. Let Star Trek rest in peace.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Refit said:


> I couldn't agree more. The first season of the original series is _far_ better, with more complexity (in terms of storys, characters and their interrelationships) than the second, or third season, and _light-years_ ahead of the almost _painful_, seemingly forced, stilted, sickly-sweet interactions of The Next Generation cast, by comparison. Not to mention any of the films and subsequent series that came after the release of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
> 
> This is _precisely_ why _I_ feel that Star Trek The Motion Picture is, by far, the _best_ of the Star Trek films. It recaptures the original character formula, interplay and "adult" conflict, and returns to the true essence of the first season of the original series. I think the "secret" (if you want to call it that) is that "The Motion Picture" had an actual _*STORY*_ with a direction, and that story was written by a "science fiction _author"_, not a "screen writer" employed by "the studio".


TMP was certainly NOT written by a science fiction writer. Alan Dean Foster did a story outline for it based on an old GR GENESIS 2 premise, but his story doesn't contain a whole lot of what goes into tmp (not that TMP works all that well anyway, though I consider it a very noble failure ... it ranks third from the top of the 10 films for me.)

Personally I'd take TOS season 2 (or last half of season 1 and first half of season 2) over just about any other trek (the only other trek I like is about half of DS9, rest of ModernTrek is mediocre to crapola) because they had the characters in order and even better filmscores and most especially because **** was there for a good hunk of the time (I'd take **** on his deathbed over GR in his HAVE GUN/CAGE prime.)

It is probably a minority view, but I think the aborted PLANET OF THE TITANS first trekfilm would have been a much better launch than TMP was, not just because of the action/adventure basis, but because the then-director, Phil Kaufmann, was interested in using trek to tell a story that would have pushed a bit into Olaf Stapledon territory. Most importanly, it'd've gotten to market much sooner than TMP. 

And from a visual standpoint, I'm sure it would have buried much of TMP (though please note I'm NOT knocking the wonderful Trumbull refit and cloud fx), as the combination of Kaufmann with production designer Ken Adam & model fx by Derek Meddings & opticals by Jordan Belson would have been pretty awesome.


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

mikephys said:


> Five TV series and ten movies - what's left? Let the thing rest. In ten years, they can make a ST movie that we can all go to for nostalgic reasons and remember that thing we liked so long ago. But for now, it's been kicked to death. Let Star Trek rest in peace.



Non Believer! Landru will hear! Lawgivers!! ... Landru he comes!

Rob


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

I just read this:

Stewart Says Next Trek In 2-3 Years 
Posted: Sunday December 4th, 2005 3:34am 
Source: Teletext 
Author: Garth Franklin 



Captain Jean-Luc Picard himself, Patrick Stewart told UK's Teletext that plans are afoot to make another "Star Trek" feature film and NOT the apparent 'prequel' we've all been told about.

According to Trekweb, he says "About four months ago at a meeting in Los Angeles the subject was raised quite seriously from a very interesting point of view. I have been saying for four years now that it's over. No fantasies about it coming back, the space suits have been hung up for good".

He continued "But there are weighty people in Hollywood who are very interested in one more run around the holodeck. There are serious plans. I was told this may happen two or three years down the road, by which time I'll be able to sit again in the captain's chair, but then again, it's not all that far away and if I'm in good shape I'd love to do it".

Thanks to 'Gustavo'. 

What you guys think? I think its better than a prequel of prequel idea. Jean Luc will be back!

B


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

Oops, I am supposed to paste this: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/051204c.php

B


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

When *STAR TREK XI * was announced by Paramount, 
the writer they hired said the movie was going to take place 
after Archer, but before Kirk.

I think they are/were going to do the story of the 
_U.S.S. ENTERPRISE NCC-1701_ when she was first 
launched under the command of Captain Robert April.

We would have seen the original on the big screen.

I think it would have been great!

At least it would have been better than "B4" returning as "Data", 
"Riker" somehow demoted to be back as First Officer, "Worf" giving 
up his ambassadorship to fire phasers.  


"Wesley's" return?!


----------



## Darkhunter (Dec 17, 2003)

Rumor has it that Brian Singer is showing interest in directing the next trek film.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> *Darkhunter* wrote:
> Rumor has it that Brian Singer is showing interest in directing the next trek film.


Who is he?

What has he done?


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

Darkhunter said:


> Rumor has it that Brian Singer is showing interest in directing the next trek film.


 Yes, well I supposed he and Stewart would be more interested in doing it since they've worked together before, and Stewart seems to like Singer, from what he's said publicly any way.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CaptFrank said:


> Who is he?
> 
> What has he done?


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001741/
(Bryan Singer)


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

In the words of Candice Bergen on "Murphy Brown" many years ago: "I heard they're going to make another Star Trek movie . . . I don't know if that's such a good idea."

That being said, a new Star Trek movie shoud be made if -- and only if -- they come up with a great script, with a great story to tell about the characters that ARE Star Trek. It sould not be made because "it's time to make a new Star Trek movie." Or, "it would be really cool to see ________ "(fill in the blank).

TWOK is the standard it will be measured by. Perhaps the best of the films (also the cheapest at about 12.5 mil) was good because it was a great story about real folks in a dramatic situation that just happen to take place on a starship. The pace was great (they cut it down to bare bone -- nothing superfluous) and the actors had some good words to say ("I'll leave you as you left me -- as you left her -- marooned for all eternity at the center of a dead planet , buried alive . . . buried alive). 

That's the good stuff. If they can do that again -- fine. If not: I'm with Murphy Brown: "I don't think that's such a good idea."

In my humble opinion.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Yup!! I think the basic criteris for success would be "a great story about real folks in a dramatic situation that just happen to take place on a starship" as Nosirrag said.

Huzz


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> Yup!! I think the basic criteris for success would be "a great story about real folks in a dramatic situation that just happen to take place on a starship" as Nosirrag said.
> 
> Huzz


except for the word 'starship' you could apply that descrip to SERENITY and yet it sure didn't work there in terms of box office (though I thought it was a fine movie.) Then again, there was no proven built-in movie audience for FF on the big screen, as there was (for a time anyway) with trekflick sequels.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

Dave Hussey said:


> Yup!! I think the basic criteris for success would be "a great story about real folks in a dramatic situation that just happen to take place on a starship" as Nosirrag said.
> 
> Huzz


I think that's what made Star Trek II and VI work so well. Neither were far-fetched trek, with II's revenge story, and VI's story of political espionage and plot.

I think that's what a good movie needs versus the series. A movie needs a firm footing on a dramatic story, whereas a series is more free to explore the "out there trek".


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Boxster said:


> I just read this:
> 
> Stewart Says Next Trek In 2-3 Years
> Posted: Sunday December 4th, 2005 3:34am
> ...


Perhaps I am just too damn cynical, but these excuses of Stewart's smacks of Leonard Nimoy's *I Am Not Spock!/I Am Spock!* flipflop.

Just like Shatner in the Saturday Night Live skit, someone has apparently shown Patrick Stewart a spreadsheet with some very enticing numbers on it.

Perhaps TNG crew's movies are a victim of the fact that production and special effects values for even *weekly* Sci-Fi shows have risen to the point that TNG era movies seem to be more like two-episodes of TNG crammed together then they resemble feature movies.

Perhaps it also had more then a little to do with Stewart's dead-pan unemotional acting, and a Nemesis plotline that gave no backstory or properly set up what should have been the most dramatic part of the movie. Perhaps by something as simple as finding an actor that actually looked like a young Patrick Stewart? Instead of having us go through convoluted flashbacks AFTER what should have been the most dramatic scene in the movie?

With the exception of most of First Contact, whose most moving plot points too me seemed to revolve around Data and the Borg Queen, TNG movie crew under Stewart seems headed nowhere.

If anyone is to continue the story of TNG, I think it would be much better served by having Riker or even the Data character take over.

Stewart gave the worst Trek performance of his life in Nemesis, then proceeded to blame Trek fans for his impotence as an actor.

Nemesis was brilliant to no one but Stewart and perhaps one other airheaded cast member.

Personally I'm fed up with aloof and ungrateful Trek actors/directors who blame their poor performance on us and balk when we don't treat everything they do as if it's manna from heaven.

Stewart is boring and ungratefull.
He should step aside or those in charge should go in a completely new direction such as a "non-time-hopping" prequel such as CaptFrank described, starting with the first NCC-1701 and/or the Romulan War - NONE of which should reference the *Enterprise* series.

If Stewart thinks he is doing Trek fans a big favor by daining to grace us with another dead-pan boring performance as Captain of *any* of the Enterprises he's sadly mistaken.

He's lost any sense of depth he developed in the character during TNG series. It is really sad because I grew to like and care about TNG series and even Picard's character over time. But Nemesis showed us an actor way off his game - an actor obviously *playing a character* he used to convince us *he was*. He seemed so intent on blaming the audience for his and others' failures in Nemesis I seriously doubt he learned anything from that failure.

I'm not at all interested is spending $8 to see a Stewart led two part TNG episode spliced together and christened as a feature film.

Just my opinion...


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

Dont mince words Bones (Chuck), what do you really mean?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

NJFNick said:


> Dont mince words Bones (Chuck), what do you really mean?


"Get back a better Star Trek Script! Get it back before you become part of this collection. Before you really do grow old!" :tongue:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hey, in Stewart's defence:

1. A gig's a gig. Work is work.
2. Maybe the director had something to do with his performance in _Nemesis_? I don't know.

For me, the life was squeezed out of Trek long ago. It needs to ignore the Trek fans and produce some good drama, as it did in first & second season TOS, as others have said. By trying to please the trekkies & trekkers post-TOS, they've produced bland, predictable stuff filled with technobabble. Most of the time.  

That's my opinion ....


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

SteveR said:


> Hey, in Stewart's defence:
> 
> 1. A gig's a gig. Work is work.
> 2. Maybe the director had something to do with his performance in _Nemesis_? I don't know.
> ...



I tend to agree. As much as I love Trek, I don't want to see it beaten to death. If it's better for it to end now or come back in ten years then so be it. 

At the end of Nemesis we see some the characters moving on...like Riker getting his own ship and getting married. At least in the TOS movies we FINALLY saw Sulu get his own ship.

If we do see TNG back on the screen before they all get too old and fat, we should not see them all back on the Enterprise doing the same old thing...


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

KUROK said:


> I tend to agree. As much as I love Trek, I don't want to see it beaten to death.


You mean there's something left of it _alive_ to beat?? 

José


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Hey, in Stewart's defence:
> 
> 1. A gig's a gig. Work is work.
> 2. Maybe the director had something to do with his performance in _Nemesis_? I don't know.
> ...


I agree with you totally that the writing in the first two seasons, even most of the third, was incredibly good.

Those episodes were written by writers many of whom were used to cranking out really good dramas week after week on schedules that are much more hectic then they are today.

The writing/literary talent available today shrinks in comparison.

I also agree that "a gig is a gig" which is why I got pissed off when Stewart dumped on and blamed Trek fans for Nemesis' failure and talked about how he was no longer interested in the role. Just as Nimoy did until Paramount waved enough bucks under his nose.

As I thought and said then, just show the snobbish guy the money and suddenly he'll start changing his tune - which he is now positioning himself to do...

One day Stewart will be old(er) and withered signing autographs at some car show and wishing he had half the money he once made via Trek.

I do respectfully disagree with you, however, that B & B ever tried to read the pulse of and/or respond to Trek fandom.

Yes, some of the later trekfans tend(though not always) to be more concerned with techno stuff, but I see zero evidence that B & B ever tried to please either them or the older Trek fans who miss what Trek was originally about - humanity and how, why and whether it will survive in the future...


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

Where I always felt TNG dropped the ball was in creating characters that were too good, too noble, too diplomatic. 

What made the first season of Trek, WOK, Trek III, IV, and to a lesser extent VI, is the fact that we saw character (mostly Kirk) being motivated to action for all the wrong reasons.

Khan is a good example. Kirk gets duped by him, he takes the ship, and then Kirk, rather than take him to the nearest starfleet brig, sweeps the whole thing under the rug by dropping the guy off on a deserted planet. Kirk, mortally wounded in his pride, does not arrange for any later contacts with Khan "never checked on our progress" in the hopes that he'll never have to face the fact that some guy from 1996 got the best of him, took his ship and almost killed them all. Kirk, guard down once again, gets taken in by him again, ends up stranded on a deserted planet himself, and prevails against Khan only by some clever tricks, some "three dimensional thinking" and a fair amount of luck.

Sure, Kirk always tried to do the right thing, but he had many character flaws that got him into trouble. His heroic side comes out when he does the right thing in spite of himself. He falls for Edith Keeler, risks the future of the world, but ends up letting her die. If he hadn't loved her ("do as your heart tells you and millions will die who did not die before") then letting her die is no big deal.

And Krik can be petty, pushy, self-important, driven, and vain. He has Scotty and Spock clear the passageways when he's infected with the "The Naked Time" disease, so the crew won't see him losing it. "The captain doesn't have the luxury of letting the crew see him as anyhting but perfect--if he does they lose repect and he loses command." That is some really twisted thinking -- a combination of being driven to some unrealistic ideal of perfection, dooming yourself to failure by setting such high standards, kicking yourself for failing, and then trying to hide your weaknesses by pushing everybody out of the way when you aren't being perfect.

I never saw Picard doing that. Being good always seemed to come so easily for him. I guess his tragic flaw was that he didn't have any and he eventually became boring.
Except in First Contact where he becomes obsessed with his revenge against the Borg and kind of loses it for a while. In that movie, the characters all seemed to have a little more depth.

It all comes back to the script. Good material makes good movies -- lame material makes lame movies. 

And all to often in these kinds of movies a big budget, and the resulting "gee whiz" factor conceals the lame material until too late.

And that was the problem with Generations, Insurrection, and Nemisis -- each of those stories was about the bad guy trying to kill the good guy, but, fortuantely the good guy ends up killing the bad guy. BFD.

Having the good guy overcoming the bad guy is not drama -- having the good guy overcoming himself is.

And that, as they say, is my humble opinion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nosirrag said:


> Where I always felt TNG dropped the ball was in creating characters that were too good, too noble, too diplomatic.
> ...
> I never saw Picard doing that. Being good always seemed to come so easily for him. I guess his tragic flaw was that he didn't have any and he eventually became boring.
> Except in First Contact where he becomes obsessed with his revenge against the Borg and kind of loses it for a while. In that movie, the characters all seemed to have a little more depth.
> ...


I agree.

If one remembers when TNG came out, it was at the height of the era of "political correctness."

This was a "kinder, gentler" federation then Jim Kirk's.

It was more concerned with the letter of federation law, tera-forming, and appropriateness -the kinds of things that the general public of the 80's was brain-washed into being a slave too.

Like the general public, everyone on TNG seemed to be walking around with a stick up their butt.

Everyone was obsessed with "proper channels," whether their relationships were professionally acceptible, or even if they could have one without ruining their positions(Riker-Troi), everyone seemed to be posturing more then living.

I saw none of that in TOS.

People acted like real human beings.

Also, the key appeal to TOS Trek is that it *bucked *the national trends of the day.
In the sixties we were obsessed with and feared the constant threat of nuclear war and annilation. Literature, movies, and TV reminded us of it constantly.

Unlike the mostly dark and negative literature and popular culture of the time, TOS Trek told us just the opposite - that we were NOT going to blow ourselves to hell. That not only were we going to not kill each other but that some day we would use the very technology then used for weapons in order to one day develop, explore and spread humanity to the stars.

That was a very big reason why early Trekkers were so often and vehemently disrespected by the general public.

How dare a group of people be so positive and enthusiastic enough about mankind to think we'll one day have such a great future!?! How naive and childish of them!!! They must be ridiculed as childish dreamers who haven't grown up!!!



It is hard to explain to younger Trek fans who didn't grow up with the cold war and very real constant fear of nuclear war hanging over their head, but Trek gave us a view into a future that was impossible for us to imagine at that time.

It gave people a vision of the future in which we would not only not destroy each other, but could one day spread out and explore and inhabit other worlds.

It was the ultimate paradigm shift!


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Kirk did not sweep Khan under the rug to hide the whole 
incident.

He saw Khan's potential, and realized what a waste it would 
have been to put him and his followers in prison.

Kirk chose Ceti Alpha V because it was a savage planet that 
Khan could organize into a civilization.

Sure, it would have been Khan's Empire, but...



And they planned to go back in 100 years to see what crop had 
sprouted from the Space Seed they planted that day.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I do respectfully disagree with you, however, that B & B ever tried to read the pulse of and/or respond to Trek fandom.


Yeah, you're right -- I retract my original thought. I'm not sure what exactly led B&B to mess it up.




Nosirrag said:


> I never saw Picard doing that. Being good always seemed to come so easily for him. I guess his tragic flaw was that he didn't have any and he eventually became boring.


Yep. It would have been more interesting if his only apparent flaw, stiffness, was borne out of some great fear that haunted him and surfaced from time to time, causing him to doubt himself. Overcoming this could have been a series-long arc. Maybe.

But wasn't the focus originally supposed to be on Riker as the adventurous leader of the away team, with Picard the executive who stays on the ship?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Yeah, you're right -- I retract my original thought. I'm not sure what exactly led B&B to mess it up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps, but I always saw Picard as an attempt to be the "Spock" of the crew.

I'd like to know who came up with the brilliant idea of getting an uptight British(is that a double adjective?) actor and instruct him to play an aloof French officer.

As if the poor guy wasn't detached enough as it was, tell the British actor he needs to act more aloof and elitist!!! 

Hiring a stiff British actor and then instructing him to play an aloof French officer was a recipe for disaster.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

After reading this thread, I am left to wonder:
Does anyone like "STAR TREK"?  



At all?




Any of it?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I liked TOS, the middle years of TNG, DS9 before they went off the metaphysical deep-end, the first 2 or 3 years of Voyager had some good episodes, and Enterprise had about a dozen good episodes, 6 or so of which were great, mostly in season four after B & B had bailed out.

Most of the Trek that has been cranked out since the fourth season of Voyager/ last part of DS9 I can either do without, has been lame, or in the case of Enterprise most all of it painfully bad.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CaptFrank said:


> After reading this thread, I am left to wonder:
> Does anyone like "STAR TREK"?


I think that in general, we like the Star Trek universe, with its optimistic future, wide variety of English-speaking not-_too_-weird alien cultures and near-magical technology. 

And of course, we're nostalgic for the adventures of the old days.

Is it Sci-Fi comfort food?


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

I think what most of us here like about Star Trek was the good drama and how it spoke to the human condition. When Star Trek, any of version of it, hit those aspects it was brilliant. When it copped out and gave us gee-whiz, looks-over-substance and hid behind great SPFX to cover up the lame storywriting, that's when it was sad. Unfortunately VOY and ENT gave us a higher frequency of the cop outs than of the brilliance. 

What I'm afraid of for ST11 is that they'll crank out a movie for the sake of cranking out a movie instead of taking their time and investing in the brilliance.

José


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

El Gato said:


> I think what most of us here like about Star Trek was the good drama and how it spoke to the human condition.


This is exactly when Star Trek was great. Alien (or half-alien) characters often observed things about human beings that we have trouble noticing about ourselves. It allowed us to get outside ourselves and delve into what it might be to be a human being. Lots of fun...when done well.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well according to Cinefex's listing (and the industry sources I have talked to) there is currently no Star Trek film in production for 2006/2007. Its possible that it might be _after_ that or only in _pre_-production. But every other Trek film has been listed at Cinefex about 2 years ahead of time.

I would say that the information so far is either rumor or innaccurate as far as the schedules presented.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Cinefex has only had a functional website since late 98 or so, so it isn't as though they'd have had info 2 years in advance on any trekfilm unless it was NEMESIS. And I was the one doing the work for that part of their site up until thanksgiving of 2000, and I didn't have anything on NEM at that point, so perhaps you're thinking of another website?

Plus there isn't all that much lead time on many of these things ... TUC was greenlit less than 10 months before it hit theaters, for example.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Something to consider and get your opinions about...

The Original Series was made on a shoestring budget. The first 3 Trek movies were profitable, but Paramount had to throw money at TMP to get it done, and because of TMP the budgets were a lot tighter on TWOK and TSFS. ST IV was the one that made the most money on a modest budget and drew in more than we the faithful into the theaters, which gave Paramount the financial logic to start TNG. I think that when Paramount was sure - and I mean absolutely sure - that Star Trek could consistently make y amount of money with x amount of investment was when the tide turned. 

When was that? When TNG was up and running, Paramount sure they had gotten as much fan goodwill from Gene Roddenberry's involvement as they possibly could and put Berman fully in control? Or after TNG's Third Season? Or was it when DS9 was up and running, and they were sure that a Trek series that Gene Roddenberry didn't create would be successful? 

The TNG era movies could have been much better if they had been given the budgets that let them reach their full potential. Generations - what would that have been if they had been given the proper budget to have Captain Kirk go out on the bridge, instead of having a bridge go out on the Captain? The Starfleet/Borg Battle near Earth in First Contact should have been much longer and more dramatic, but the film's budget wouldn't allow it. Insurrection was the film where they saw that they could dump ILM and go with the local CGI guys. Nemesis could have been great had Paramount given the film the budget to make the Federation/Romulan epic it should have been, but they went for a cheap car chase sequence on an alien planet rather than spending the money where the film really needed it. 

I don't think that Nemesis didn't do that well because Trek fans deserted it and the franchise. Once the script was put on the Internet and it was apparent that the film was going to be another Paramount exercise of invest x amount into the film to get y return, a good number of fans decided that enough was enough - if Paramount wasn't going to spend the money to make a really great Trek film, they wouldn't spend their money to go see it. And that point of view spread to the book series and most of the merchandising, too. Paramount finally began to "get it" by the fourth season of Enterprise, but by then Viacom decided it was too late and pulled the plug. 

I think that this is going to be good for Star Trek and we fans in the long run. I'm sure that we wouldn't have gotten the Polar Lights Trek kits or the Art Asylum figures and ships if we hadn't begun to protest that we didn't want the same old stuff just repackaged in a box with new cover art.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Considering some of the stuff that fell prey to budget limitations on TNG flicks, I don't think it would have made much difference -- the THINKING simply wasn't feature-sized. With GEN, if they'd had money, you'd have had a new klingon ship, the E-B barrel rolling out of dock, a hand phaser fight on the wrecked hull of the e-d saucer ... nothing important. 

And on FC, the bigger you make the opening battle, the smaller the rest of the film looks by comparison. Better to have them duck out DURING the battle, then come back and finish it AFTER the time travel stuff. Or if they were going to spend money on FC, do a shuttle overflight of ruined earth in the 21st century, one of my big complaints (one of many) about FC, that the postnuclear environment is feeble. FC could have used the storyboarded BIG spacesuit hull battle instead of the little one, but considering how badly they staged the Peter Pan aspect, it would have been like flying monkeys in the WIZARD OF OZ with a cast of dozens, so more money would have been more unintentional hilarity. 

On INS, they had too much money and spent it on the foam town. On NEM, they didn't even realize they needed to paint out the tires on the go-cart to futurize it, something SERENITY was certainly smart enough to do on a MUCH smaller budget (a budget that goes further than most larger trek ones.)

No,it ain't about being able to spend more money. Not unless you've got a feature sized story (and I'd say TMP, TWOK, TFF and TUC are the only features that have that, though some episodes also do.)


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

trevanian said:


> Considering some of the stuff that fell prey to budget limitations on TNG flicks, I don't think it would have made much difference -- the THINKING simply wasn't feature-sized. With GEN, if they'd had money, you'd have had a new klingon ship, the E-B barrel rolling out of dock, a hand phaser fight on the wrecked hull of the e-d saucer ... nothing important.
> 
> And on FC, the bigger you make the opening battle, the smaller the rest of the film looks by comparison. Better to have them duck out DURING the battle, then come back and finish it AFTER the time travel stuff. Or if they were going to spend money on FC, do a shuttle overflight of ruined earth in the 21st century, one of my big complaints (one of many) about FC, that the postnuclear environment is feeble. FC could have used the storyboarded BIG spacesuit hull battle instead of the little one, but considering how badly they staged the Peter Pan aspect, it would have been like flying monkeys in the WIZARD OF OZ with a cast of dozens, so more money would have been more unintentional hilarity.
> 
> ...


You make some really good points here! I think that the opening battle in FC should have been longer, showing more of the Defiant (which was supposed to be the "Borg Buster") in battle against the Borg ship - the sequence would have been more dramatic and had a bigger payoff when the Enterprise - E swept in to tractor the Defiant to safety and save Worf. But I can see your point about pacing the film. I always wanted to know why the E-E spacesuits didn't have any ship's logo or crew patch on them - or at least the wearer's name under the faceplate of the helmet in homage to the EVA suits from TOS. 

Anyway, you summarized the point I was trying to make better than I did. I remember reading an interview with Ron Moore, and how he and Mr. Braga knew that the films would get modest budgets, so they wrote them with that fact in mind - and so the films were essentially were being creatively hampered from the start. Without a doubt the script for INS was never feature film material - looks like the powers that be chose to ignore how similiar the plot of INS was to "The Omega Glory" from TOS and greenlighted the film anyway.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

spacecraft guy said:


> Anyway, you summarized the point I was trying to make better than I did. I remember reading an interview with Ron Moore, and how he and Mr. Braga knew that the films would get modest budgets, so they wrote them with that fact in mind - and so the films were essentially were being creatively hampered from the start. Without a doubt the script for INS was never feature film material - looks like the powers that be chose to ignore how similiar the plot of INS was to "The Omega Glory" from TOS and greenlighted the film anyway.


I think the biggest creative hampering with INS and NEM was probably Braga rather then the budget.

Trek needs a totally new man at the helm. The guy responsible for most of season 4 of Enterprise gets my vote(though I'll admit I can't even remember his name at the moment due to my coffee deprived early morning brain).


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Manny Coto.

Huzz


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I think the biggest creative hampering with INS and NEM was probably Braga rather then the budget.


You mean Berman, right? Braga had absolutely nothing to do with INS (at least a few of the people I interviewed would have confirmed his involvement, even on a non-official level) and I'm reasonably sure he had absolutely nothing to do with NEM, either, except maybe passing some notes on to Berman about Logan's 'writing.'

Biggest creative hampering on the last couple was Stewart and Spiner directing the focus of the storylines instead of just taking a check and reading their lines. I think Stewart really ruined INS with the way he rejected Piller's earlier darker versions, and the story for NEM should have simply been rejected, instead of being spearheaded by Spiner for his bud Logan. 

It slays me that Logan has an oscar, especially given that supposedly he hadn't worked on a draft of AVIATOR since the late 90s, and the final film has got precious little in common with his work (and on GLADIATOR, he only wrote the bad guy's stuff, which probably qualifies him to write BATMAN if they bring Schumacher back.)


----------



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

Many good points here. I think we all got tired of Paramount just putting "product" out for "products" sake. And what's scary is that TVH was the highest grossing film, starring.... " a pair of whales named George & Gracie". 
It's about "the story" that should matter most. It IS time to reinvent the franchise somewhat. Taking the basic concepts & canons of Genes original vision. Remember in "The Cage" Capt. Pike was a cross between early Picard, somewhat aloof, a little insensitive, very sure of himself to most under his command, but very stressed, & early Kirk, emotional, loyal maybe to a fault that almost got him killed, and dare I say it a little naive. The Enterprise was run a little more like TNG, but apparently a little more militaristc also. 
Enterprise may have had the right idea, but it was executed VERY poorly, until Manny got on board & tried to right the ship, as it were. Any attempt at reinvigorating the franchise has to start somewhere, whether in the past or future, as going directly to TOS time would cause people to complain (again). Going too far in the future will cause the "time travel" factor to rear it's head as far as changing the course of history, just as going back again will undoubtedly lead to the "it was established in episode so and so..." when something is a little amis. Either way it's a hard sell to all parties. Everyone needs to approach this with a open eye for the good of the future that things will have to change if there is to be a "future" at all.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

3rdIgrafx said:


> Many good points here. I think we all got tired of Paramount just putting "product" out for "products" sake. And what's scary is that TVH was the highest grossing film, starring ... "a pair of whales named George & Gracie".
> It's about "the story" that should matter most.


Yeah, but don't forget, that was an attempt to put our problems of today in the context of the Star Trek universe, which is what many people think was one of the best facets of TOS. STIV dealt with extinction of species (serving as a warning that we need to shape up or a giant space paper-towel roll is gonna come wipe us out! :tongue: ) and touched on nuclear waste, medicine and various other issues. It allowed us to see an outsider's look at our society of the time, and that worked very well many times in TOS (think "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield").

Your points were well-put-forth, though. It SHOULD be about a good quality story that's framed and supported by spectacle, not about spectacle that's propped up by an afterthought of a story. I think Coto did a good job with both the stories and the spectacle in the final season of Enterprise. A bit fan-boyish? Sure, but not just enamored of the gizmos, which many fanboys seem to be. He and the Reeves-Stevenses put weight on story and on what Star Trek was AND what it's grown to be.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

justinleighty said:


> I think Coto did a good job with both the stories and the spectacle in the final season of Enterprise. A bit fan-boyish? Sure, but not just enamored of the gizmos, which many fanboys seem to be. He and the Reeves-Stevenses put weight on story and on what Star Trek was AND what it's grown to be.


I don't know from Coto, but wasn't impressed with the couple of season 4s I tried watching. But the Reeves-Stevenses know how to write trek based on their earlier novels, and they know how to write for film/tv as well, based on previous work. Why Berman didn't turn these folks loose in the early to mid 90s on trek (when he was most definitely aware of their existence, having been interviewed by them for MAKING OF DS9 and probably knowing they had been picked by GR to write the ill-fated trek stage opera) is just another case of how wrong his thinking was.

Trek could have done a lot worse (and DID) than just altering & adapting the Reeves-Stevenses' PRIME DIRECTIVE or MEMORY PRIME or FEDERATION or even one of their ShatnerVerse novels. 

I am NOT a fan of their nonfiction work ... their ART OF STAR TREK book was a p.o.s. compared to what should have been done, and there are lots of errors in their ds9 and PHASE II books as well, but as trek novelists, they get put up there with early Diane Duane, as in, as good as it gets.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

_*STAR TREK STAGE OPERA?!!*_


----------



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

justinleighty said:


> Yeah, but don't forget, that was an attempt to put our problems of today in the context of the Star Trek universe, which is what many people think was one of the best facets of TOS. STIV dealt with extinction of species (serving as a warning that we need to shape up or a giant space paper-towel roll is gonna come wipe us out! :tongue: ) and touched on nuclear waste, medicine and various other issues. It allowed us to see an outsider's look at our society of the time, and that worked very well many times in TOS (think "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield").
> 
> I couldn't agree more. That's the reason it was scary, other than maybe, TUC, it was the only true "socially conscious" story of the entire film run. The main reason TOS evolved the way it did, was that NBC wanted more action, & less cerebral interaction. But, the honchos still don't where the true strength of the franchise lies. There has to be a mix of both, but without a good thematic basis, it's doomed to bore. TVH was the higest grossing film because of the story, not in spite of it. No rock em sock fights, no epic final battle. Just a thought provking story centered around a real problem, that takes people working TOGETHER to solve, in spite of many conflicts, be them ethical, moral, or physical.
> That's why I still don't understand why DS9 was not more appreciated. Some people argue that the dominion war arc was not what ST was about. But TWOK was a battle movie. The first TOS season had many war orientated, bigotry tales ("Balance of Terror", "The Corbomite Manouver") that everyone calls classics. They had action, but they were good STORIES. Sisko & company did many things that were not very morally or ethically correct ("In the Pale Moonlight" was one of the best at showing how a "needs of the many...." scenario can be a morally questionable choice).
> Anyway, sorry about the ramble, I was just hoping that the whole franchise would go out with a bang, not a whimper, but Que Sera, sera.


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

Been reading a lot of the comments here, and it seems like most people want a two-hour long battle between the Enterprise, the Borg, and the Romulans, with a gigantic phaser battle on the hull of the Enterprise. The movie will be enormous in scope and intensely dramatic, oh and when it's released in theaters, everyone except the fanboys in their costumes will walk out after the first ten minutes. This is why TVH was such a highly grossing film: it had broad appeal, a plot, and was not laden down with unnecessary and lengthy battle scenes just there to please Trekkies. It was about the characters and how they interact, as Trek has been about from its inception. If you want ginormous space battles, watch Star Wars.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Well said ProfK. I would also enjoy something a bit more cerebral...I love some of the so called boring speech bits in STTMP toward the end, in the cloud..there is some good Roddenberry stuff in there...

Bit of useless trivia while we are on the films. Many similarities have been discussed between The Wrath of Khan and STNemesis. I have found another. In England we used to have a sportscar brand, called Reliant.....and guess what one of their models was...well, it was the Scimitar! 

For those who are in the UK, I think we should wonder if the next film will have a USS Robin in it?


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

ProfKSergeev said:


> This is why TVH was such a highly grossing film: it had broad appeal, a plot, and was not laden down with unnecessary and lengthy battle scenes just there to please Trekkies. It was about the characters and how they interact, as Trek has been about from its inception. If you want ginormous space battles, watch Star Wars.


It had the most boring act one imaginable and much (not all mind you) of the rest was pretty damned lowbrow. Sounds like a lowest common denominator success to me, not a quality one. Other reasons?

Fish out of water, plus video at home for the previous couple films, equals lots of foot traffic. The home video aspect is especially important; look at FIRST BLOOD's box office, then look (if you must) at RAMBO, which cleaned up in large part due to folks discovering the first film on cable and vhs. 

Character interaction was okay, but I'll take the campfire scene in TFF over ANY exchange in TVH. 

Personally, I'd like good space battles on a big screen that were edited to take advantage of the dramatic aspect of nosoundinspace, along with some nice non-cg visuals. In other words, I am set to remain disappointed.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

ProfKSergeev said:


> Been reading a lot of the comments here, and it seems like most people want a two-hour long battle between the Enterprise, the Borg, and the Romulans, with a gigantic phaser battle on the hull of the Enterprise. The movie will be enormous in scope and intensely dramatic, oh and when it's released in theaters, everyone except the fanboys in their costumes will walk out after the first ten minutes. This is why TVH was such a highly grossing film: it had broad appeal, a plot, and was not laden down with unnecessary and lengthy battle scenes just there to please Trekkies. It was about the characters and how they interact, as Trek has been about from its inception. If you want ginormous space battles, watch Star Wars.


 I like TVH more for the good memories that it brings back - I got to hang with the SFX crew for a while. Held the "swimming Gracie" in my hands. But Trevanian has a point about the first act, Spock as comic relief was used a bit too much, and the film should have been tightened up dramatically in the last act. My opinion. 

Bear in mind the effect that TVH had with the Paramount suits and TFF. They thought funny = money and hence the directive got passed down to Shatner to be sure that there were plenty of comedic scenes, and we get to see Scotty knock himself unconcious walking into on an overhead pipe. 

I don't think it's an 2 hour Enterprise slug fest with the Federation's enemies that what we want to see, but when battle scenes are part of the plot, they should be executed well so they add to the pacing, flow and dramatic impact of the film. I don't think that any of the Trek films (yet) managed to recapture all the aspects that made the TOS great and present them in a 2 hour film. Each may have gotten one aspect right, but getting them all in the correct balance hasn't happened (yet).


----------



## hell_fighter_8 (Oct 4, 2005)

Whats missing is Gene Roddenberry. He was the essence of star trek and a good part of that is missing. They need to look good and hard at some of the original stuff and figure what that is.

None of the TNG movies made any sense. Gene told a good story that was both inspiring and believable. That has been missing from at least the last 4 movies. Nothing in those movies related to current events or topics that effect us as humans. Which not only makes a point but tells a good story. Downfall of USSR and the klingons in VI or us destroying the planet in IV. 

One of his goals with TNG was to make believable to the point that it wasn't a set but it was real. Too much time travel (which was way too easy in first contact) and too many things that just didn't make sense (nexus, B4).


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

B&B suck. PERIOD! They *ruined* ST and it will never make a comeback.


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

Agreed Nelson, but did Star Trek REALLY have much potential to go on any further? I mean they did just about all the episodes that one can imagine. I guess I'm just saying they just need some time to think, WITHOUT Berman. Braga's gone anyways right?


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

*Star Trek 11: Mirror Universe?*

*http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22021*


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

It aint cool....

For me, the beauty of Trek was that there was so once much to discover in that universe. Now it has been done to death - a weekly soap opera; we know more about the 24th century than our own! No, I'm afraid it is a dead duck until everyone forgets about it for a while. And people do have very short memories out there... as long as they never tamper with Kirk again, I will actually be happy, for than can only do more harm than good if they go there....


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

I doubt the Ain't It Cool News article is true... but if it were it just illustrates the "make a Star Trek movie for the sake of making a Star Trek movie" mentality... which unfortunately many fanboys are waaaay toeager to embrace.

José


----------

