# Ok, here we go again



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

Well, I'm sure THIS will bring some debate among us. http://www.startrek.com/


----------



## nx-o1troubles (Jul 20, 2006)

I personally dont see why they are doing this early kirk/spock thing, especially since they need to cast new members. I'll still see it, but I dont know why they dont do an Enterprise movie or finish off what happened at the end of Nemesis.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I would like to see a new ship, and crew, based on TOS, or at least beyond STNG.
So far I am not excited by the news. I am still against ENTERPRISE, because of the Enterprise, and making the show look like STNG.

I bet this new movie will try to erase TOS, by having a new history made up.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I am still against ENTERPRISE...making the show look like STNG.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I bet this new movie will try to erase TOS, by having a new history made up.


I bet if B&B have anything to do with it!


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Why? 
That horse is so dead it's powder.
Maybe they will switch the sex of all of the main characters. That might help.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I bet this new movie will try to erase TOS, by having a new history made up.


Erase? What a crock of BS. Let me know when someone tries to break into your house to burn your TOS DVD sets. 

Even though a reboot would never "erase" TOS, this should put your mind at ease: "We're in the middle of breaking the story, and it's coming along great," Abrams said. "We have an incredible beginning of a really dramatic story, *and it very much honors the canon of Star Trek*. On the other hand, it won't be like anything you've seen before."


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The normal progression of ST, should be forward, not back. When I say erase, I mean that TOS will end being an alternate universe. The new movie will be the start of the history of Kirk and Spock, and then the sequels will be the CANON ST. 

Just like why I won't watch the new BSG. I like the cheesy original, and reimagineing it, changed what I liked. Rebooting,Reimagineing,Reinventing, and Reintroducting is another way of saying, "We ran out of new ideas!"

Of course if anyone don't like what I say, that is your right. This is how I believe it will happen. I hope I am proved wrong.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Did you guys read the article? Especially about the part where JJ Abrams says that all the "information" about what the plot will be and even that he has accepted to direct it, is all rumor and not entirely accurate."

This means anything said right now is BS and nothing to get all upset about until an announcement is actually made from Parmount.

BTW, it also said that Rick Berman is NOT involved in this project. Can I get a HOOYAH!!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Atemylunch said:


> Maybe they will switch the sex of all of the main characters. That might help.


Isn't that exactly what happened in a non-canon Trek short story? (No, I'm not thinking of the TOS ep "Turnabout Intruder.") The story title and author's name escape me. Some kind of genetic snafu changed the sexes of the entire _Enterprise_ crew, but left all their major personality traits, talents, interests, etc. intact. Kirk as a woman was gorgeous!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I am not upset, if I don't like what they do to it,I won't watch it. I have TOS DVDS, and TAS coming in November, so that is all I need.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Huge TOS fan here. 
And this doesnt interest me much.

Another way for hollywood to screw things up.

Young Kirk and Spock? jeez, I dont know anyone interested in this concept really. Sad. Those characters are linked forever with the actors that played them and the characters have been used to death. 

What this is about is that hollywood does not have enough creative juices left to come up with something new. 

Some marketing punk probably sold the concept to them.

I have no problem with a TOS era film and retro look to everything. I think that would be fun. But young Kirk and Spock? 

WHY?

I dont care about those characters until they were on Enterprise.

CAPTAIN Kirk. 

CAPTAIN. 

Thats what made the damn character worth watching. 

man. whatever. This thing sounds like a bad TV movie idea.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

To ME, its obvious why they would do a classic type of storyline, although I wouldnt be happy with the Kirk/Spock early days..Paramount has found 
that anything related to classic is almost always a HIT...no one seems
to care much for post Classic Trek, aside from thier movies, save for some
ship designs, and most of the time, most post classic storylines sucked, IMO,
and I believe judging from box office reciepts, most of the movie public shared 
my opinion..


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Yeah, I agree with some of the previous comments. I won't bother mentioning which ones.  I just hope it's not self-concious. If it's going to be done, just do it completely seriously. Sort of like the new Miami Vice movie, but with Star Trek.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I'll be curious to see what Abrams brings to Trek, after all the guy didn't do too shabby remaking The Girl From Uncle (_Alias_), Mission Impossible (_MI3_), and Gilligans Island (_Lost_).


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

CessnaDriver said:


> Huge TOS fan here.
> And this doesnt interest me much.
> 
> Another way for hollywood to screw things up.
> ...


I would just like to point out that there are a lot of folks jumping to conclusions here who aren't reading the entire article. As has already been mentioned in this thread, Mr. Abram's points out that anything in the way of rumors are just that - rumors! Don't get all bent out of shape over something that's not actually got a script written yet, let alone a "set in stone" outline.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Well I sure hope they dont. its been the buzz for some time now that is what was planned.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm holding out hope that we'll see something very good, tho I'm not terribly happy w/the idea of seeing other actors playing our dearly beloved Kirk, Spock, McCoy and others from TOS. I've no problem with a TOS story line, ala "Starship Exeter", but would rather not see a retelling of anything already estabslished. I'm pretty happy w/the fact that comments have been made about JJ Abrams and company being respectful of the original material.

Oh, and just so's ya know, I wasn't meaning to single you out specifically. Yours was just the last post along those lines so I pulled it up to quote the overall feelings folks have given on the issue. Nothing personal intended!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, here's the teaser poster they've put out...










Make of it what you will...


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Well the insignia is wrong. Should be gold foil inside it.
So off to a bad start there with me. 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_XI


Official announcement
On April 20, 2006 the Associated Press reported, citing Paramount sources, that the eleventh Star Trek movie will be produced and directed by J. J. Abrams, best known for his work on the TV series Lost and Alias and the theatrical film Mission: Impossible III. Paramount also confirmed that the movie will be written and produced by Abrams' collaborators Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman with a planned release sometime in 2008.

Initially, reports regarding the plot of the film suggested that Bennett's original idea of a Starfleet Academy storyline was to be retained. The proposal was said to feature a young Kirk and Spock attending Starfleet Academy and completing their first mission. [15]

However, on April 26, Abrams stated that elements of the initial report were premature: he would like to be producer and he was offered direction, but he had not confirmed whether he has accepted that offer. Abrams said that he would like to make a movie based on Original Series characters, like Kirk and Spock, but that the report that the movie would follow a "Starfleet Academy" treatment was premature. [16]

Comments in a May 23 interview with co-executive producer Bryan Burk for SCI FI Wire further downplayed "Starfleet Academy" rumors, dismissing actor Greg Grunberg's comments on May 5 (see below) as uninformed and saying, "I can tell you that that article (the Associated Press report) leaked out prematurely, so there's no formal statement made from any of us, other than we all couldn't be more excited about it." He stated that the movie's premise was, at the time of interview, being discussed only among "us" (presumably Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Burk, and Orci). In the same interview, Burk confirmed his co-executive producership of the film. [17]

There has been both support and opposition among the fan base for the movie being a prequel, with areas of concern running the gamut, from unease about recasting the iconic Kirk, Spock, and McCoy characters, to fears that a "Starfleet Academy" treatment would devolve to "Star Trek 90210" (a reference to primetime soap opera Beverly Hills 90210) to the worries of a few that longtime and highly controversial Trek producers Brannon Braga and Rick Berman would be involved; conversely, some worried that the Abrams plot was too similar to the one pushed by Berman and Jendresen. Some have even campaigned for bringing "closure" to Star Trek: Enterprise, the ratings-challenged fifth series that was cancelled after only four seasons, or somehow involving popular Enterprise Season Four co-executive producer Manny Coto or writers Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens in the development of XI. A widely expressed sentiment across the entire community, however, was gratitude for the fact that Star Trek would soon resume production.

In an interview with The Irish Times, Abrams was asked whether he had seen the online reaction to the AP story and subsequent interviews. According to interviewer Donald Clarke, he replied, "'I have been on the road since the news came out...' suddenly looking somewhat fearful. 'Is the reaction bad?' He was relieved--and happy--to hear that it was not. 'Being involved with a series that has a passionate and vocal following makes me incredibly sympathetic. They have put up with so many incarnations along the way. These fans, they are a smart bunch. They are an intelligent group. We are very respectful and we have no intention of subverting the material.'" [18] These comments have been viewed not only as a reassurance to fans fearful of being ignored by the new showrunner of Star Trek, but also as debunking widespread rumors of a Battlestar Galactica-style reboot. [19]

In May, Abrams continued to provide encouragement to canon-conscious fans with an interview in Empire Magazine, where he said, "As someone who works on a show that has a very loyal and vocal fanbase, I do understand the need to be respectful... I think we can do the fans proud." On the other hand, Abrams admitted, "To be totally honest with you, and this is going to sound horrible, I haven't even seen Nemesis... I feel like the series disconnected for me at a certain period, and though I will have to watch and see everything that was done, I want to see what not to do as much as anything." [20]

In a May 26 podcast interview with Creative Screenwriting Magazine about Mission: Impossible III, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman continued to give details about how much protection they would give to both canon and fanon. Orci claimed that the five members of Abrams' team were very familiar with the "mythology," and even the Star Trek books, which, he claimed, "aren't even counted as part of the mythology sometimes." (According to official guidelines set out by Paramount and Gene Roddenberry, the books are never counted as part of the Trek canon.) He continued, "It's a case of coming in and using the stuff you know is great and you know really works and not violating anything that's come before it." Asked whether XI would use established characters or new ones, Orci concluded, "It will be a bit of both, I think. It will be both." [21]

On July 22, StarTrek.com published the first official poster for Star Trek XI , which was first distributed at Comic-Con in San Diego. StarTrek.com also confirmed the film's producers and executive producers; as expected, the list consists of J. J. Abrams and his coterie. [22] The poster itself gives a 2008 release date for the film.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> I'm holding out hope that we'll see something very good, tho I'm not terribly happy w/the idea of seeing other actors playing our dearly beloved Kirk, Spock, McCoy and others from TOS. I've no problem with a TOS story line, ala "Starship Exeter", but would rather not see a retelling of anything already estabslished. I'm pretty happy w/the fact that comments have been made about JJ Abrams and company being respectful of the original material.
> 
> Oh, and just so's ya know, I wasn't meaning to single you out specifically. Yours was just the last post along those lines so I pulled it up to quote the overall feelings folks have given on the issue. Nothing personal intended!


No worries. Were all brothers here.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I'm with Jeffrey on this. If they have a new ship like Starship Exeter, then it might be good. Trying to get new actors to play old roles have not always worked. I like Star Trek New Voyages, but I don't believe them to be Kirk and crew. 

I respect others opinions on what they want to see in a ST movie, and I understand the mood, but I guess I will just have to wait and see.

For me, what matters first, is the look of the ships, background, sets, and so on. If they follow TOS or older, and I mean older, then it is going in the right direction, and I will give it a try.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

All of this discussion brings me back to 1987 when a new show called "Star Trek: The Next Generation" premiered on September 30th of that year. Fans were in an uproar saying "You can't replace Kirk and Spock"!!!! It is funny to see 20 years later, the same arguments going on. 

Now for my two cents which I may receive flak for ...

I grew up with TOS, and loved it, but my feeling is, give this a chance. Yes, I am skeptical too but then a re-imaging might be what the franchise needs in order to attract new blood. I enjoy the new BSG but I also loved the original. To me it is apples to oranges. They share the same name but are not the same show. This could be done with Star Trek. I also find it funny how fans keep putting down any attempt at trying to bring fresh ideas into the franchise. To me, the fans are the franchise's worst enemy. Wait to hear more word on this before passing judgement. You may find you like it like you did with TNG after seeing it for awhile.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

I agree with the "give it a chance" thing. What does it matter anyway - the film will get made one way or another, and I'll no doubt see it eventually. If it's good, great. If not, no big deal.

It's just a movie.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

With STNG, it was a new 1701, new century, and Gene was doing it. I was never against the series, because it was all new, not redueing Kirk and crew.

I will wait and see, but I can't help but worry. I know Berman is not involved, but I still worry.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

What I want is Roddenberrys vision as best can be brought to us. 

I think that vision is timeless and will always be popular. 

Humanity exploring the stars, most of our earthly problems solved, super technologies we all know we are capable of one day a reality, society evolved to yes, somewhat utopian standards but not so much we lose our edge. 

Trek should be where we want to be some day. And yes, phaser battles and hot babes too, it IS entertainment. 

Moving closer to the source material is a good move I think always for all things it is. But use that as the inspiration, dont try to recapture a lost era in entertainment with recasting old characters.

Just use another ship as my wife said,.... arent there other ships? dont they have a fleet? You could have a young kirk pass through a scene as a cameo. That is the way I might handle it. 

Good grief there is room for some great stories between TOS and STMP.
The whole look of trek changed in that area, why not show a little of both looks merging. 

But I dont know how the hell they are going to manage to sell a retro sixties look film. I enjoy New Voyages and Starship Exeter, but to make a multimillion dollar film with a 40 year old look (now I love that look ok) is going to take some real finesse to sell to the younger masses who most sadly view the original TOS as cheesy. It is about making money afterall.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> I dont know how the hell they are going to manage to sell a retro sixties look film.


They can't, and honestly, why would they want to? Evoking the past via subtle design cues is one thing, but I can't think of anything more wrong-headed or self-defeating than trying to replicate the look of the original. 

"M:I-III" managed to capture the spirit of the original series without going retro, and there's no reason to believe an Abrams-helmed "Trek" won't do likewise.


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

For me, a step in the right direction would be to drop a lot of the "techno babble" and concentrate on good story lines and plot twists. No one single film illustrates this more than "Wrath of Kahn". There was intrigue, suspense, emotion, excitement and bloody great big old starships tearing each other open with torpedos and phasers!
Get a good composer on the soundtrack, Star Trek fans only on the special effects and a mix of unknowns in the prime roles and stars doing cameos.
Does anyone really want any more than that? 
It's not hard Paramount - just try listening for a change!


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

Hmm. Interesting. According to Internet Movie Database, Matt Damon is slated to play Kirk. I guess I can see that. He's an excellent actor, at any rate.

Any guesses on who should play Spocko?

(They better fill that role well, or there will be riots in the streets for sure - much like the new James Bond controversy...)


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> . . . I dont know how the hell they are going to manage to sell a retro sixties look film.


They did it with _Down With Love_. That wasn't science fiction, you say? It was a re-creation of all those old comedies with Doris Day as a 35-year-old virgin! Now _that's_ science fiction!


----------



## James B. Elliott (Jan 29, 2001)

I like Kirk. I like Spock. I like the characters and the way Shatner and Nimoy played the characters (for the most part). Having said that, I like the characters more than the actors, so seeing new actors playing the characters isn't bad, in my opinion.

I'm not quite as excited about a "new origin" story as it seems like it could violate some Trek cannon, but I suppose that could be gotten around if one cared to do so.

In the end, if the story, acting and execution is good I'll be happy.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

cinc2020 said:


> Any guesses on who should play Spocko?
> 
> (They better fill that role well, or there will be riots in the streets for sure - much like the new James Bond controversy...)



I liked Tobias Menzies in HBO's Rome (Brutus). He had the right build, etc and he demonstrated that he could play stoic emotional control without coming off as a robot.

edit: I also see that he's in the upcoming Casino Royale... :lol:


----------



## James B. Elliott (Jan 29, 2001)

guartho said:


> I liked Tobias Menzies in HBO's Rome (Brutus). He had the right build, etc and he demonstrated that he could play stoic emotional control without coming off as a robot.



I've been saying that since I saw Rome (and posting it on a few boards today). So far it seems there are quite a few people who think he fits the part as well. Maybe the powers that be will see it that way too.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

James Marsters has a rather Spock-ish look about him...and I think he could pull off the stoic thing.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

James B. Elliott said:


> I've been saying that since I saw Rome (and posting it on a few boards today). So far it seems there are quite a few people who think he fits the part as well. Maybe the powers that be will see it that way too.


I saw it for the first time a week or so ago. I said "He'd make a good Spock." And my wife, whose only mistaken for a Trekkie due to proximity to my Trekkian aura, said "I was just thinking that too."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

cinc2020 said:


> Hmm. Interesting. According to Internet Movie Database, Matt Damon is slated to play Kirk. I guess I can see that. He's an excellent actor, at any rate.
> 
> Any guesses on who should play Spocko?
> 
> (They better fill that role well, or there will be riots in the streets for sure - much like the new James Bond controversy...)


IMdB is rather problematic when it comes to movies that haven't come out yet. There were at least three different entires for who was directing what eventually became "Nemesis", and none of them were Stuart Baird. *Anyone *cam post *anything *that site, and when rumors are running amok, that's what generally gets posted.

As for recasting any of the original roles, in the words of the God of Thunder, *I SAY THEE NAY!!*

It's only begging for a backlash, with a fanbase that has just about had enough with these kinds of stunts.

If they want to do something around the TOS era, even set it on the Enterprise, you don't have to focus solely on when Kirk had the ship. The Enterprise was twenty years old when he got her, how about a story about when the ship was launched?

Now, what was that captain's name again....?


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

> As for recasting any of the original roles, in the words of the God of Thunder, I SAY THEE NAY!!


I'll second that. 

At least wait until everybody has passed. 
Kirk, Spock and McCoy are such icons. Recasting them would go over like "New Coke".

I'm sorry, but noboby could play Kirk like Shatner. :lol:


----------



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

Just remember...
Who says it has to be Kirk and/or Spock? The Enterprise was out in space years before Kirk took command. And if you look closely at the web site for the other "Promotional Posters", the Command Insignia was on the Sciences Tunic when????


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Yes the poster may be a real harbinger of what is to come, just going by the inattention to the details says much. Something they quickly whipped up to show at the San Diego Comicon. Some of us have been watching this show for 35+ years off and on. Im going to notice little things like that and go hmmmm, thats not right. 

What else wont be right? It is just a poster I suppose, But if they are trying to win over the faithful, they are stumbling.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

CessnaDriver said:


> Yes the poster may be a real harbinger of what is to come, just going by the inattention to the details says much.


Can you possibly be serious? 

It is a poster, not a historical record of a uniform tunic. I don't think they "goofed" by not making it the emblem look like gold foil (although actually using gold foil would make a nice limited edition poster, now that I think of it), nor by using the command emblem along with science blue. I deal with this stuff all the time working in a physics department. You can't design a logo using an atom or anything else quasi-scientific without some poindexter coming in and objecting because "atoms don't really look like that." Another common objection will be something along the lines of "But our group studies suface-scattering of helium atoms and there's nothing in that logo about that." To the first I say, "Okay, then give me something that says "nuclear science" _to the general public_ as easily as the classic depiction of an atom and I'll use it. It's a logo, not a textbook illustration." To the second, I ask them what AT&T's logo would look like if they tried to reperesent each and everything they do.

J.J. Abrams and his team didn't make or design that logo; it says nothing about their "inattention to details." It's a promotional image! I know perfectly well the difference between the various departmental symbols we saw on the original series -- not just command and science, but engineering and medical support as well. If I were asked to make a poster using the TOS emblem and incorporate the science and command colors into it, that is very similar to what I might design _because I understand the difference between a promo image and the actual wardrobe design for the actors._ It's not "inattention to details" -- it's choosing _one_ iconic image and not trying to throw the entire kitchen sink into one design! The only other choice -- beyond just throwing the whole thing out completely -- would be to not use a departmental logo at all, but the poster would just be lacking something if they did that. If it were me, I would have used the command icon too.


> What else wont be right? It is just a poster I suppose, But if they are trying to win over the faithful, they are stumbling.


It _is_ just a poster. I've been watching _Star Trek_ almost as long as you have (33 years, more or less) -- I am just as much "the faithful" as you are, and I don't think they've stumbled at all.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I dunno. I've lost all faith, no matter how well-intentioned, that anyone currently in Hollywood has what it takes to do Star Trek right. _Especially_ the Original Series. There are always too many people, too many paper-pushers and bean-counters, involved who don't have the love and knowldege of the series.

Argue all you want. The only thing that will _ever_ change my mind about that is to actually see it happen. I really believe that what we're in for is just more mediocrity. Maybe it will have a good story, maybe the designs will look great (as in, like they _should_ for that era) maybe the casting will be OK, maybe they won't completely obliterate what we know as canon. 

But do _all_ of it right so as to do this subject the justice it deserves?

I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

I would prefer a story about the Eugenics Wars or something along those lines. The rise of Khan and all that. According to many fans, Space Seed and ST: II were the most popular incarnations of TOS and the movies. Certainly that applies for me.

What a powerful film that would be in terms of action and drama.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah but that's such an _esoteric_ topic in Trek, almost no one would get its relationship.


And who would play Khan???? Montalban is the only one who could pull it off since its so far away from Star Trek. Long live Ricardo and Corrrrrrrinthian leather! :thumbsup:


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

Maybe, but so many spinoffs don't really refer back to the original story. It would be an excuse to stop rehashing so much material. But, your point is taken - people will go expecting 'Trekiness'.

Good question about who would play Khan. But I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find an actor to fill the role.

Another problem is that the Eugenics Wars, as I recall, took place in the late 1990s. As a director/writer, I would shift that out to the late 21st century, and canon types would go bonkers. But the neat thing would be a film about a future version of Alexander the Great, mixed with AI and all sorts of technological goodness run amok. What emerges from the ashes is the drive to the stars as a means to reawaken the human spirit - thus, eventually, the establishment of the Federation.

After such a thought exercise, you automatically begin to dump Star Trek and develop your own story. It's so much more fun dreaming when you don't have restrictions placed upon you


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

They may or may not stumble on the movie. But some of us are not impressed with their half hearted poster. 

It is flawed and imperfect,

They have made THREE errors!

The insignia is not gold foil inside.

The insignia is a patch, not shirt material.

They command symbol was never on a blue shirt.

They must execute their prime function! The poster is imperfect, sterilize!


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

CessnaDriver said:


> They have made THREE errors!
> 
> The insignia is not gold foil inside.
> 
> ...


 Aren't the first two just the same error? And I don't think your last error is really that legitimate. It's not on a blue shirt, it's on a background of blue and gold shirt material.

By the way, I was under the mistaken impression that Spock was quite a few years older than Kirk and they went to the academy at different times. But I was reading the Chronology last night and I see they were only a year or so apart. I still hope they make their plot fit with the established backgrounds of their characters. I don't mind if they stretch things a bit, but it should at least be explained in some manner, especially if they have to contradict something.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

CessnaDriver said:


> What I want is Roddenberrys vision as best can be brought to us.
> 
> I think that vision is timeless and will always be popular.
> 
> ...


 
Gene Roddenberry's "vision" drastically changed from the Original series to Next Generation, which is in my opinion, one of the main reasons it failed..without going into specifics, GR threw away the basic premise that "conflict is the essence of Drama", thats why I found TNG, and certainly Voyager, and definitely Enterprise, to be basically boring and bereft of any entertaining benefits..Gr told virtually everyone on his production staff to "Ignore any tenants from the Original series, as it wasnt really my True vision".., which was told to me directly from Bob Justman ( Star treks assistant producer from classic and TNG), in 1995.As to the point of making a show with a "sixties look" that may or may not have "mass appeal":its been done and is still being done..The DS9 episode "Trials and tribbilations" did a fantastic job with the classic Enterprise..I didnt think at all that it looked cheesy, and neither did any of the TNG fans I came across..Its an interesting point that is raised: Can a TV show with what we "thought" the future be like be appealing if we follow the look and feel of what we created back then?? I think so..Its simply another alternate version of what we thought the future would be like..another reason I thought Enterprise sucked..thier ship looked like it belonged in the future...NOT in the past before the Classic Enterprise...
If you create a reference point from back then, then in my opinion, you MUST 
follow it throughout whatever genre you created..To "throw " it away due to technological advances today, makes it unenjoyable to me, anyway..Then call it something else..not Star trek..Just my humble opinion..


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Zathros said:


> Gene Roddenberry's "vision" drastically changed from the Original series to Next Generation, which is in my opinion, one of the main reasons it failed. . . Gr told virtually everyone on his production staff to "Ignore any tenants from the Original series, as it wasnt really my True vision".., which was told to me directly from Bob Justman (Star treks assistant producer from classic and TNG), in 1995.


_ST:TNG_ "failed"? It lasted seven years and had more than twice as many episodes as the original series. One of the main reasons I never liked the show was that so many stories were weighed down with leftist utopian socialist propaganda which, for better or worse, was true to G.R.'s original vision. Now, enough about politics. . .


cinc2020 said:


> I would prefer a story about the Eugenics Wars or something along those lines. The rise of Khan and all that. According to many fans, Space Seed and ST: II were the most popular incarnations of TOS and the movies. Certainly that applies for me.


Besides changing the time frame, they'd have to update the concept to the "Genetic Engineering Wars." With today's advances in genetic science, traditional eugenics — simply breeding parents with desirable traits in the hope of producing offspring with those same traits — seems unscientific and downright quaint.


Nova Designs said:


> And who would play Khan???? Montalban is the only one who could pull it off since its so far away from Star Trek. Long live Ricardo and Corrrrrrrinthian leather! :thumbsup:


And long live Mr. Roarke and Tattoo! And long live white suits!

"Boss! De plane! De plane!"


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Zathros's view is the way I feel, 100%. 

I like TOS because of the sense of wonder, that the crew felt with a new discovery. On STNG it felt more military to me, not the explorers on TOS.

I think we need a TOS movie about Tribbles!LOL


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

As I read this thread, I just sit and shake my head in shame. I cannot believe how anal retentive a lot of individuals can be about a subject. Am I a fan of Trek? Yes.. But I am SO glad I am not overboard like so many seem to be. The nit-picking and viewing subjects with blinders on continues to irritate me to no end.

I liked TOS, and TNG and (most of) the movies. Did not like DS9 at all, lost hope in Voyager and regard "Enterprise" as Trek-like, but not Trek. Those are my views, and I am not going to insist my views are the only correct ones and anybody who liked DS9 is a lobotomized Mugato. You are entitled to your own views.

I see the poster.. I LIKE the poster... The first thing it 'spoke' to me was "Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise" Did I notice gold foil (or lack thereof) no... did I piss and moan that the 'other' (now forgotten) department insignias were not there? NO. Never since the original series have those insignia been seen. Since TMP the insignia has been the command star, and that was for ALL of Starfleet. That is what the 'everyday' person identifies with Star Trek. They wouldn't recognize the other departmental logos unless you posted a uber-Trek geek with every poster to explain it. (Hey, that would get them out of their parents basements at least.)

Overboard crtiqueing ruins the spirt of Trek for me. If producing anything Trek was left to the "fans" who nit-pick every....single....detail... then NOTHING would ever be accomplished.

Stop worrying, stop griping and WAIT.. so much is just conjecture at this point that you'll end up having an anuerysm over nothing. I can live with a new Kirk and Spock.... I cannot live without the Enterprise. No other ship will do. Remember.. "These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise..." That is Trek, no Exeter, no DS9.. nothing but Enterprise.. I don't care who is at the helm. 

Again, that is my opinion.. feel free to hold your own, but for now I am willing to let JJ do his magic and I will see what he accomplishes with high hopes and an OPEN mind. Once I see what he has created, then I will solidify my personal opinion as to how I think he did.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

CessnaDriver said:


> They have made THREE errors!
> 
> The insignia is not gold foil inside.


They aren't errors, they're design choices ... and gold foil is difficult to simulate convincingly without the use of real foil stamping, which is very expensive.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

I couldn't agree more Ohio!

let's wait and see....granted Trek has suffered a lot since the birth of the woeful DS9...., but this new/old direction could be a real shot in the arm for the franchise. The concept is ripe with potential. 

Gold foil? ...sheesh....grow up.....

I personally am looking forward to this. 

Rich


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Clearly there are enough flavors of Trek to please all now, and each fan has developed a particular taste for certain flavors, and indeed distaste for others. 

As for picky opinionated Trek fans,
Are there any other kind? LOL Nothing shameful about it. Its a point of pride. Its fun that way, and on a modeling board where attention to detail is stressed, I would very much expect it. 

If a movies good its good, you overlook flaws, I just dont agree with young Kirk and Spock idea. I think its a bad idea. I dont see why we need to see that when there is so many bold new directions they could go in the Trek spirit, TOS era or otherwise.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Not forgotten!


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Attention to detail in modelmaking is one thing. Having a conniption because they "dare" use a fabric weave pattern instead of gold foil is another.

And I accept the 'not forgotten' POV for the insignia, perhaps I should have said "retired/superceded by Starfleet directive".


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

It's not surprising to me that a quick n' dirty merchandizing promo created specifically for ComicCon is being touted all over the internet as the official teaser one sheet for the next "Star Trek" picture. This is, after all, the same internet that assured me Ben Affleck would be the next Captain Kirk.

I'm also not surprised to find said promo being picked apart by overzealous "fans" desperate to get their two cents in. These are, after all, some of the same people who trashed the new "BS:G" before having seen it.

What does surprise me is that I still care enough about a 40-year-old TV show to become irritated by the type of cynical, premature, misinformed, close-minded ranting that ensues whenever the subject of the "Trek" reboot is raised.

J.J. Abrams may be the best thing to happen to "Star Trek" since Gene Roddenberry, and I for one am cautiously optimistic.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> J.J. Abrams may be the best thing to happen to "Star Trek" since Gene Roddenberry, and I for one am cautiously optimistic.


What, what, what?!?!  

What was Manny Cotto & the Garfield-Reeves? I mean, think about what they did for ENT, man.  

Seriously, tho, think about what they did for the 4th Season of ENT. They really turned it around, if only for me and a bunch of Trek fans that I know. I think that if they were allowed to helm the franchise that we'd see some of the "Fun Trek" that most of us would love to see, while keeping it just serious and dark enough to please some others. I'd certainly be ecstatic for those folks to take over. I'm also doing the cautiously optimistic thing w/Mr. Abrams and this possible ST:XI movie, too.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> I accept the 'not forgotten' POV for the insignia, perhaps I should have said "retired/superceded by Starfleet directive".


I'd say it's more likely the command-centric star is simply the one best remembered and therefore the most iconic, as it carried on through the TOS films.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Seriously, tho, think about what they did for the 4th Season of ENT. They really turned it around, if only for me and a bunch of Trek fans that I know.


Sorry Jeffrey, but my interest in things "Trek" begins with TOS and ends with "Undiscovered Country." "T.N.G." and its various spin-offs just never did it for me.

Fact is, I had written "Trek" off entirely until I learned of Abrams' involvement. "Alias," "Lost," and "M:I-3" have made a believer out of me.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

The symbol of the brave and mostly dead red shirts must never be forgotten.
We must remember the sacrifice of the red shirts, whatever they hell their names were, if they even had one!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Attention to detail in modelmaking is one thing. Having a conniption because they "dare" use a fabric weave pattern instead of gold foil is another.
> 
> And I accept the 'not forgotten' POV for the insignia, perhaps I should have said "retired/superceded by Starfleet directive".



Admittedly I'm having a little fun with this poster. The three errors thing was a reference to the old Nomad episode. 
I am far from having a fit. I save that for the important stuff.
Like, um..... Fabric weave on posters! Ack!


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

CessnaDriver said:


> Admittedly I'm having a little fun with this poster. The three errors thing was a reference to the old Nomad episode.
> I am far from having a fit. I save that for the important stuff.
> Like, um..... Fabric weave on posters! Ack!



Conniption was used for dramatic porpoises only  Can we at least sterilize Berman and Braga? What a world of good that would do!

I do think that some people go way overboard on things. The equivalent to me would be refusing to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because the Oompa-Loompa's weren't canon!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I like TOS because of the sense of wonder, that the crew felt with a new discovery. On STNG it felt more military to me, not the explorers on TOS.


Funny, my feeling was exactly the opposite -- I felt that TNG wasn't military _enough_. Okay, even the TOS Starfleet was kind of laid-back for a military outfit (no saluting, no officers/enlisted personnel class distinction, no chickenstuff discipline), but it had the feel and flavor of a naval-type organization -- "Horatio Hornblower in Space" and all that. The _TNG_ version of Starfleet and the Enterprise seemed not quite military, not quite civilian -- neither fish nor fowl, as it were.


CessnaDriver said:


> The symbol of the brave and mostly dead red shirts must never be forgotten.
> We must remember the sacrifice of the red shirts, whatever they hell their names were, if they even had one!


Hear, hear! I propose that we start raising funds to build the Tomb of the Unknown Redshirt!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> Sorry Jeffrey, but my interest in things "Trek" begins with TOS and ends with "Undiscovered Country." "T.N.G." and its various spin-offs just never did it for me.


 Oh, man. You really did miss out, then. You should borrow a copy from someone and watch the 4th Season of ENT. It was actually quite good. Manny Cotto and the Garfield-Reeves really seemed to capture the feel of a lot of the old TOS episodes and brought it over to ENT w/just the right mix of 'modern day television' thrown in to the mix. 


> Fact is, I had written "Trek" off entirely until I learned of Abrams' involvement. "Alias," "Lost," and "M:I-3" have made a believer out of me.


I've still not seen "M:I-3", but I reach, brother!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> Oh, man. You really did miss out, then. You should borrow a copy from someone and watch the 4th Season of ENT. It was actually quite good. Manny Cotto and the Garfield-Reeves really seemed to capture the feel of a lot of the old TOS episodes and brought it over to ENT w/just the right mix of 'modern day television' thrown in to the mix.
> 
> I've still not seen "M:I-3", but I reach, brother!



Yes Manny gave it a good shot and did well, I was sad to see Enterprise go after his run, too bad the series did not start out more like this. As soon as the show found its way, it got cancelled.


----------



## Capt_L_Hogthrob (Apr 28, 2005)

Gold foil?........Oh for cryin' out loud! :freak:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I can not judge what ST will be like under Abram's leadership, I never watched any shows he has done. As for the 4th season of Enterprise, I could not watch it, since I could not pick up the channel. 

I can see that the fans of ST, have not learned anything from ST. The show tried to teach tolerance of other people, and races. Some of the comments here are uncalled for. I may not like what others say about TOS, but name calling is just not what I want to do about it. 

The movie is about two years away, and I don't plan to waste my time, trying to figure out what it will be like. So no more comments from me.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Oh, man. You really did miss out, then. You should borrow a copy from someone and watch the 4th Season of ENT.


I'll check it out.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Righteous! And even if you only watch two episodes, let them be "Through A Mirror, Darkly - Parts 1 & 2". Two words: Gorn & Tholians, Bay-bee! And that's one of the episodes that I think really paid tribute to TOS the best out of anything we've seen since TOS itself - even "Trials and Tribble-ations" from DS9. It is indeed a shame that Mr. Cotto and the Garfield-Reeves' weren't writing ENT from the beginning. I can only imagine what we would have gotten had that been the case. 

Not that I think that ENT was horrible. It was very disappionting for me, tho. So much potential wasted....


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

scotpens said:


> _ST:TNG_ "failed"? It lasted seven years and had more than twice as many episodes as the original series. One of the main reasons I never liked the show was that so many stories were weighed down with leftist utopian socialist propaganda which, for better or worse, was true to G.R.'s original vision. Now, enough about politics.


What I meant Scot, is that it failed for _ME.._And yes, every week we were sledgehammered with a politically correct message, and they had a better Chain of command on "the Love Boat " than on the Enterprise D..I think that most forget that Star Trek was about stories, not so much the technology..They tried very hard not to let the technology get in the way..and in classic Star Trek, it succeeded...In TNG, I must have been tempted a dozen times to throw my table lamp at the TV!.in my opinion, a 4 year old child could have written better stories.."dont get me started"!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> I do think that some people go way overboard on things. The equivalent to me would be refusing to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because the Oompa-Loompa's weren't canon!


Maybe by the time they do a third version, we'll be over all this PC stuff and the Oompa-Loompas, true to the source material, will be played by real African Pygmies! Don't know how many of them have union cards, though.


----------



## 3rdIgrafx (Apr 16, 2005)

Just to clarify something. Spock DID wear the Command Insignia, as did everyone else (yes, even in blue tunics). Check out "The Menagerie/The Cage", & "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Remember, Kirk was the third captain of the E.

We all have things we like and dislike about the franchise, that's why we have opinions about it. I think, from a total story telling and writing perspective, that DS9 was the strongest. But I know others disagree. 

Some believe humans are going to be more tolerant of others in the future that we discuss, but listen to us here. Sometimes we do get carried away with our own feelings, & lose sight of the fact that we are all here for a common purpose.

Sorry Lloyd about you're feeling that way, I understand, if you read one of the other posts about how things end up getting a little out of control. We shouldn't let a TV show & anything associated with it get us THIS crazy. We should just enjoy it for what it is, from an artistic, & creative standpoint. 

OK, enough of the tangent. Is Spock going to played by Brad Pitt, in order to bring in the "Female" element?  :tongue:


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

To me, the bottom line is that any show has to be_ Entertaining_..Its our weekly or daily or whatever schedule the show is on ,temporary escape from our own realities..The various tenants of Star Trek : I.E: Tolerance, peace, all encompassing Humanism,etc..,can be argued in many ways, and of course in many other forums, I believe..But to discuss what is _Entertaining _about the franchise is not in my opinion "going overboard"..The Original series laid the Groundwork for to me, was the essence of good entertainment, and basically every series after that one with the exception of DS9, fell horribly short, since as said before , the Producer changed the groundwork he himself set, in order to further his political/social agenda further than he ever did before, since in Syndication, he had more creative freedom then he ever did before..I think if he had called TNG something else, it would have lasted maybe one season..I will wait to see what the upcoming movie will be like, with its new producer..& judging by the "creativity" and scriptwriting of Brannon and Braga, they are probably and hopefully washing dishes in a diner, than writing any more Star Trek, and Rick Berman, is probably doing the same...I can dream, can't I ???LOL


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> and scriptwriting of Brannon and Braga....


Sometimes good. Sometimes bad. Depends on if it's 'Brannon' or 'Braga' doin' the writin'...right? 

And Berman...

( Funny linguistic slips not withstanding; it was _Berman_ and _Braga_...  )


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I'm still hoping they do a movie about "Captain April" taking the 
brand new _*U.S.S. ENTERPRISE*_ out of Drydock 
for the first time! :thumbsup: 


No matter what is eventually produced, this could bode well for 
us modelers: some new kits might be produced. Of something...


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

One of the things that's immediately apparent when you talk about Trek is that a lot of the fans are BIG fans of TOS, not much else. They might have liked TNG a fair amount, but they don't really love it, and they might not have even watched the other series. You get this with the casual industry fans too. You find out when they say they're "big fans" of Trek that what they mean is they watched the reruns during college, and probably caught quite a few episodes of TNG, as it was a fairly popular show, but not much else. As a fan of ALL the shows (I like some a lot more than others, but I liked it all) this makes me nervous. That said, frankly, I'd be MORE nervous if some of the people here were in charge of the movie.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I think everyone should remember that STAR TREK was saved in the early '80s by Nicholas Meyer, someone who was not a fan and wasn't even that familiar with the show. Someone whose grasp of the TREK universe was so shaky that years later he wanted to end THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY with Kirk turning the Enterprise over to Captain Picard. 

I think there are two main problem with fans (and not just TREK fans):

1) Many of them don't seem to understand what makes a good story. If you left it to many of the TREK fans, the next movie would look like the last episode of THE X-FILES, where Mulder spent a good chunk of it explaining how all the seperate elements from the previous years fit together.

2) Many fans don't make a distinction between intrinsic elements and incidental detail. Look at "The Cage." Although it has retro-actively been set in the show's past, this is what the show was originally intended to be. When the second pilot was made and then again when the show went into production, many elements were changed, but it is the same show. STAR TREK was a about a spaceship exploring space, finding things that paralleled contemporary concerns. The Captain was a young, dashing, intelligent man of action with a strong humanistic streak. Whether his name was Kirk, or Pike, or April is an incidental detail. The ship is manned by a multi-national, multi-ethnic crew. Whether the helmsman was Hispanic or Asian is an incidental detail. The first officer was a coldly-logical, unemotional counterpoint to the Captain's humanism. Whether the officer was a human female or an alien male was an incidental detail.

Another thing to remember is that there are not enough Star Trek fans to make a movie a hit. It needs to appeal to a larger audience, which means it needs something the non-fan can hook onto. Which means no esoteric stories about Captain April and the first voyage of the Enterprise, or what really happened during the Eugenic Wars. That means forget the '60's version of the future look. The general audience doesn't get alternate universes.

What we need to remember is that what the movie is about is not as important as what it is really about. For instance, what was WRATH OF KAHN about? A mad supervillain steals a doomsday device and the Starship Enterprise must stop him. In other words, the lowest form of pulpy, comic book escapism. What is it really about? A middle-aged man is having doubts about the direction his life has taken. He confronts the ghosts of his past and finds a new purpose to his life. That is why the movie was as successful as it was. That's why it was popular with the wider audience.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

BEBruns said:


> I think everyone should remember that STAR TREK was saved in the early '80s by Nicholas Meyer, someone who was not a fan and wasn't even that familiar with the show. Someone whose grasp of the TREK universe was so shaky that years later he wanted to end THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY with Kirk turning the Enterprise over to Captain Picard.


This is a bit misleading. Meyer only directed ST II, and while he did do a fantastic job, don't discount that Roddenberry and Harve Bennett wrote the story and Bennett produced. There was a healthy influence of veteran TOS creators and fans involved in that movie.


Same thing with Star Trek VI. Meyer was director and helped with the screenplay, but Nimoy wrote and produced. So it wasn't all on Meyer.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Khan

Khan!

*Khan!!!* 


Can't _anybody_ spell it right?!!




STAR TREK II The Wrath of Khan was a good movie not because 
a middle-aged man found a new purpose in life. It is a story about
all-consuming revenge, and how it will destroy you.

It is "Moby Dick". Nick meyer said so.
Everyone said so.

James Kirk is Khan's white whale.
He spent years plotting his revenge, and when Khan got his chance 
he threw everything away to achieve his goal: kill Kirk for marooning 
him and causing the death of his wife.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> Khan
> 
> Khan!
> 
> ...


Oops. Should have checked the spelling.

As for the revenge story, it's the same point. The reason the movie worked and was popular with the wider audience is because it had a deeper resonance (is that spelled correctly?) than the surface action plot. Unfortunately, a lot of fans don't seem to recognize that and get stuck on the surface details and overall plot.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> It is "Moby Dick". Nick meyer said so.
> Everyone said so.


Well, that and the fact Khan quotes and paraphases huge chunks of Melville.....


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Meyer only directed ST II


Not so. Although uncredited, Meyer wrote several drafts of the screenplay, including the shooting script. 

Nick Meyer is one of the most well respected screenwriters in Hollywood, not to mention one of the most sought after and highly paid script doctors. Roddenberry and Bennett came up with great characters and a teriffic concept, but when it came to structuring the story and writing the dialogue, Meyer did the heavy lifting.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I think we should also point out that Meyer was directly involved in what are generally considered the best original cast movies, 2 & 6 as director, 4 as screenwriter.

On the other hand, Roddenberry had direct control over the 1st one, and Captain Kirk himself directed THE FINAL FRONTIER.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Meyer did get the movie series back on track by concentrating on the human drama of Kirk facing his mid life crisis, and including the Kirk/Spock/McCoy interplay that TMP sorely lacked. But not all the changes he made to the movie series were good. 

He stated that he wanted to get every nautical inference he could into TWOK, and so we got the new red uniform tunics with all the pips, bars and shoulder straps and fruit salad he could manage to get to stick to them. When the Enterprise went in to battle, we had the crew heaving up the plates (the equivalent of rolling out the guns) before going into the Mutara Nebula. The Enterprise got changed into a spaceborne submarine - started in TWOK and continued into TUC with the scratched up and worn galley. Imagine you get to be the crewmember who went to Starfleet Academy and got mashed potatoes duty in the galley. 

When I watched the Meyer influenced movies, I always remembered the passages where Roddenberry mentioned believability and why some changes from the 1st season to the second season were made. Yes, I remember that the series took a lot from the Horatio Hornblower novels, and the obvious use of naval terminology imply a naval heritage, but the original series always considered the Enterprise as first and formost a space vessel, not a US submarine transplanted into space. 

Without a doubt, story is everything, If you read the best Trek scripts and novels and had never seen the shows or movies, it wouldn't matter which version of the Enterprise the crew was on - the stories would just as compelling whatever version it was. 

But Star Trek is a product of a visual medium - with a long visual history. What you see on screen affects the believeability of the story they are trying to tell. Having a crew of a starship wear heavy, layered wool naval bridge coats festooned with endless amounts of insignia is ridiculous. The Navy doesn't do it today with duty uniforms, NASA astronauts wear casual shirts and pants when they are in orbit, the Original series had a simple tunic and pants. ST:TMP had jumpsuits that looked like something between a clean room bunny suit and something your dentist would wear, but it made sense for a spacecraft. Roddenberry recognized this - he never liked what he called the "chocolate soldier" uniforms of the movies after ST:TMP. I got over the uniforms eventually, but I always thought that the movies really could have benefitted from just a simple updating of the TOS uniforms instead of the ones we eventually got, and I'm heartened that the new teaser poster for the new movie "gets it."


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> _*BEBruns* wondered:_
> resonance (is that spelled correctly?)


  I think so!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

spacecraft guy said:


> When I watched the Meyer influenced movies, I always remembered the passages where Roddenberry mentioned believability and why some changes from the 1st season to the second season were made. Yes, I remember that the series took a lot from the Horatio Hornblower novels, and the obvious use of naval terminology imply a naval heritage, but the original series always considered the Enterprise as first and formost a space vessel, not a US submarine transplanted into space.


The issue of believability would no doubt have been of greater concern to G. Roddenberry than N. Meyer.

In 1966 the subject of interstellar exploration was pretty “out there” as far as mainstream audiences were concerned. Certainly it was not an easy sell to the networks (God bless you, Lucy). By 1982 this was no longer the case. Thanks to the moon landing, “2001,” the space shuttle, “Star Wars,” and the deluge of sci-fi films and TV series inspired by Lucas and Spielberg, audiences had become familiar with genre conventions, and thus were more willing to suspend their disbelief -- particularly in the midst of a dramatically compelling story. 

More so than Roddenberry, Meyer had a degree of breathing room in which to exercise artistic license. One may disagree with his aesthetic choices, (which in some cases I do) but following the awkward, straight-jacketed stuffiness of the first “Trek” film I think he was wise to play things a little broader.

It ain't called Space Opera for nuthin.'


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> More so than Roddenberry, Meyer had a degree of breathing room in which to exercise artistic license. One may disagree with his aesthetic choices, (which in some cases I do) but following the awkward, straight-jacketed stuffiness of the first “Trek” film I think he was wise to play things a little broader.
> 
> It ain't called Space Opera for nuthin.'


And according to many who have documented the era of post TOS to TMP, Roddenberry was his own worst enemy as far as reviving Star Trek went. Combine that with the greed of Paramount wanting to cash in on the success of Star Wars and TMP ended up as a movie that had way too many "cooks in the kitchen." 

As long as TWOK didn't cost the fortune (at the time) that ST:TMP did, turned a profit and kept the merchandising going, Paramount was happy. Same story for the Berman/Braga era on the Series. I don't think any of the TOS crew movies managed to capture the entire "essence" of TOS. Each did well with an aspect of it, but none got the whole package right - and Mr. Meyer had the most influence on the films - what he set in motion on TWOK carried on through to the rest. One of the factors that has hurt all the Trek movies is that once Meyer got TWOK done on a reasonably low budget and made a good return on the investment, Paramount decided all the films would done the same way - the budget dictated the story, not the story dictating the budget. The pendulum swung from one end of the arc where Paramount had to throw money at the TMP production to get the movie done in time for it's December '79 release date to the other end where getting TWOK done cheaply was an important goal to the studio.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

spacecraft guy said:


> And according to many who have documented the era of post TOS to TMP, Roddenberry was his own worst enemy as far as reviving Star Trek went.


Without a doubt. 

Producing TOS was by all accounts a draining (albeit rewarding) job, and I suspect a part of Roddenberry was anxious to move on to new non-"Trek" related creative challenges. Alas, producing a major motion picture was an opportunity he couldn't pass up. It some ways, it was a task he was not ideally suited for.



spacecraft guy said:


> One of the factors that has hurt all the Trek movies is that once Meyer got TWOK done on a reasonably low budget and made a good return on the investment, Paramount decided all the films would done the same way - the budget dictated the story, not the story dictating the budget.


Quite right. Paramount borrowed a page from 2Oth Century Fox's "Planet of the Apes" playbook, i.e. produce a series of fairly cheap B-movie sequels and milk the franchise until the audience loses interest. Following the over-budget excesses of the first "Trek" feature, and taking into account the commercial and artistic success of "T.W.O.K." it's easy enough to understand Paramount's mind-set. It's the same basic logic Hitchcock used when he decided to shoot "Psycho" quick-n-dirty on the Universal backlot with a TV crew; sometimes less is more. 

Then again, sometimes it isn't.

One thing is certain; with the Abram's reboot "Trek" will be getting the high priority, all-hands-on-deck, A-level Event Movie treatment for the first time since "S.T.:T.M.P." Some question whether "Trek" can still connect with contemporary audiences. Time will tell, but my money's on Abrams.


----------



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

It will have to reinforce and make believable something that TOS did - i.e. that man will not destroy himself and will instead learn to use technology to spread the best of what humanity stands for.

That we won't kill each other. That the times we live in are a momentary blip on the dawn of an new era where we evolve past our differences.

These days that story line is a very hard one to sell. No amount of Sfx can make us believe it as TOS did in the 60's. TOS introduced a new way of thinking about the future during a very dark time.

I wonder if it is not that there aren't enough people out there that might become new Trek fans, but rather that there aren't enough people who aren't too jaded to become Trek fans.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It will have to reinforce and make believable something that TOS did - i.e. that man will not destroy himself.
> SNIP
> TOS introduced a new way of thinking about the future during a very dark time.
> SNIP
> I wonder if it is not that there aren't enough people out there that might become new Trek fans, but rather that there aren't enough people who aren't too jaded to become Trek fans.


Great points, and good question.

We live in dark times ourselves, and I don't believe 60's audiences hold the monopoly on optimism. The theme that humankind is "all in it together" is as timely today as it was forty years ago (if not more so), and it's a theme "Star Trek" is in a good position to explore -- in an entertaining, non-preachy way of course.


----------

