Confirmed – New Star Trek Movie Is A Full Reboot
Posted by John Campeaon 09. 03. 2007in News Chat
As far as I know, a year ago I was the first person to say that the only way they should be doing another Star Trek movie is if they re-imagined, or rebooted the franchise. Start from scratch. Redo the whole thing, much in line with what they did with Battlestar Galactica (best show in television history as far as I’m concerned). Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there were LOTS of people who said it before me… I just never heard them myself.
Looks in some people actually still listen to reason. In a recent interview, the two guys writing the script for the new star trek have confirmed that’s exactly what they’re doing! The good folks at IGN give us this:
While precious little has been confirmed about Paramount’s in-the-works attempt at restarting their Star Trek franchise, MTV has managed to confirm today what many fans have expected (and hoped for): that the new film will be a reboot of the franchise rather than simply a prequel.
“Orci and Kurtzman … confirmed that the film is not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise,” says MTV.com, which also adds that the plan is to simply call the film Star Trek — with no subtitles, Roman numerals, or colons anywhere in the name.
Kurtzman and Orci also said that the film will be more action-packed than any of the Treks that have preceded it, and that it’ll be the “biggest one” in terms of budget. “The economic models of the other [films] were very much based on the fans out there and their purchasing power,” says Orci. “With this one we’re going for the broad audience to bring people into Trek for the first time.”
YES!!! They’re aiming to do something they’ve needed to do for over a decade now… TRY TO ATTRACT NEW FANS… cause the old ones just weren’t there enough anymore. I’ve never understood some people’s resistance to the idea of trying to get new fans. How long do you think Ford would have stayed in business if all they ever did was sell cars to people who bought their cars before and never got a new customer??? That’s what Star Trek has been doing for years, and it’s time to shake things up.
Sci-Fi fans rejoice! This is the best news to come out about the new Star Trek! Now it actually has a chance at being decent.
This post was written by :
John Campea who has written 6783 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
Reboot = remake if I’m reading this correctly.
Relaunching the franchise with new actors playing the same characters is lazy. At least apply yourselves and create some new characters with some original actors reprising their roles to bring in the old fans.
Example: I would’ve jettisoned the whole crew of Voyager and had a show centered around Sulu as a captain with a new crew around him.
Good news indeed.
Even Bond had to start over.
Reinventing itself is the best thing Star Trek can do.
First time I’ll watch one of these then….
I think it sucks. I´d personally rather see something new and daring on the other side of the timeline. This is just unimaginative and yet another victory for hollywoods way of playing it safe for the moneys sake.
Hey David,
Playing it safe???? Jsut sticking with the same old Star Trek Universe would be “playing it safe”. To reboot and a bold move… and the correct one.
And what do you mean by “for the sake of the money”? Do you mean GETTING NEW FANS? Ok… sure. :)
As someone who grew up with the original series I am very interested to see where Abrams can take this.
BTW John, you need to post something about BSG. Since the show left New Caprica the stand alone episodes have been pedestrian and for the first time – predictable. Last episode, Maelstrom, even managed to make the death of a major character dull. BSG is limping towards its Season 3 conclusion right now.
The problem with Star Trek is that its become too intellectual and soap operaish in its more recent series and not enough about action and adventure. Thats why the old series was such a success. Thats what they need to get back to.
If Matt Damon can bring some of his Jason Bourne character to the Kirk role and that kind of action to the story that will be moving the franchise in the right direction.
I’m in Star Trek heaven, might have to pull out my trekker badge from storage.
John – you’re on record now for saying this is a good idea. When it bombs I’m going to make you have sex with a squash!
Hey Prophecy,
It IS a giid idea. Staying with th old tired formula was a GUARANTEE flop.
However, just because it’s a good idea doesn’t mean they’ll execute it right… we’ll have to wait and see.
Why is that Matt Damn just seems so perfect for this role.
I’m so pissed, because now it’s hard for me to see anybody but him playing Kirk.
Well, I could not disagree more. I always thought they cold move ahead with a new crew. No TNG. No DS9….just a new crew. Newfaces. New characters. There was, therefore, no need to “re-boot”. Not to mention the fact that I’m curious on how close this will be to Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek vision.
It does not have to be “soap opera”; there could be characters ‘in danger’ without wearing red shirts. Okay. I feel that. I’m for that.
Reboot? Screw that.
Do you think they will redesign the Enterprise? The Klingons? Take me out of the film with Matt Damon???
Screw That.
And John…I think that the previous Trek film went south because much of the story was recycled from past episodes, and left plot holes galore. Since it s hindsight, though, you can’t GUARANTEE squash.
While I am slightly interested on JJ’s take, and I hold MTV reports wth a grain of salt, I will still see the film out of curiousity. Still, I cannot disagree more. It is a bad idea.
That’s it, the line must be drawn HERE. I say start over with an entirely new set of characters.
Darren, don’t make me ask if you have sand in your weiner.
I’m with yout Darren J Seeley.
You are correct with your analogy John. The answer isn’t ditching making cars, but making BETTER cars. The script is the engine, if the engine is crap what do you expect? High car sales?
There is a low influx of new fans because of that – a direct result of it. The TV shows you love have huge and contiuning growing fans because of good stories and great characters. With Trek we have the latter, and none of the first; movie-wise. “Generations” should’ve been an episode, not a movie. The same with the last two Trek film. I say give Manny Cotto a sack of cash (bag must have dollar sign on it) and tell him to write a grand adventure.
It pisses me off when people say reboot. NO!
Remember the 1980s’ Buck Rodgers. Gil Gerard talked to TV Guide years and years ago about the awful scripts. Asking the producers for better stories. They instead had someone redo his dresssing room. Same friggin’ logic. Take your pick of any of the bid budget flops. All that money spent on effects and not enough on the actual script. That’s the problem with Trek. A reboot isn’t needed.
But I wonder what will happen if the movie flops too. What would be cool is if Paramount held a contest for fans to write the next film. I’m certain there’s a fantastic story(s) out there. A great example is Doug’s. I would see that. Well… that and the Goats Of Odin.
Oh God, John’s on his anti-Trek soapbax AGAIN. Bear with me folks, there’s a TON of falsehoods we have to stop here.
John, you and all the other anti-Trek zealots have been desperately trying to re-write the history of Trek. “Nobody wants all the stuff that made Trek Trek, it’s old, it’s stale. THAT’S why nobody watches Trek on TV or the movies.” You hope if you repeat it enough times people will start to buy it.
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong. The history of Trek is clear. People who weren’t neccessarily Trek fans, or even sci-fi fans for that matter, tuned in to the shows when the shows were good. Battlestar Galactica is a prime example of a show with a rabid fanbase but far less appeal to general audiences. Because of what BSG is. No amount of re-imagining will EVER change that.
Stop projecting BSG’s inherent faults onto Trek. People left Trek because Trek stopped telling good stories. Not because Trek itself, or it’s trappings and cliche’s, were old or stale. If Trek is SO in need of a “reboot” then why is it the guys behind BSG had their greatest success when they were show-running Deep Space Nine and they did it without “rebooting” the series? The Dominion War story arc of the late 90′s is universally regarded as the last good Trek to come to TV and it happened because they got back to what Trek did best -tackle complex themes, have compelling dilemnas for them to solve/survive, present us with characters who attract us as well as entertain and tell an engrossing and satisfying story in a series that builds upon itself week to week.
Paramount needs to get back to (and build) on what makes Trek good in the first place, phasers and all, and tell good stories, that’s ALL that need be done. Every intellectual property needs to stay fresh and reinvent itself from time to time. And Trek did it twice under Roddenberry’s tenure (with the original movie and the Next Generation series) but always kept the very elements that you say are stale. But what happened after Roddenberry’s death put an end to that tradition and caused the slump where it is today.
For the last time John, Rick Berman and Brannon Braga raped the franchise -trying to “re-imagine” it and “reboot” it and “update” it and all the other garbage you say it needs. And Orci and Kurtzman (the two geniuses behind that universally hailed, modern sci-fi classic, The Island and the train wreck that will be Transformers) writing the script already tells me it’ll be a steaming, stinking, reeking pile of celluloid. Two heads are better than one? Not if those heads and Orci and Kurtzman.
Trek needs to be gotten back on track, not be burned to the ground.
PS Battlestar Galactica still sucks ass. Trek rules -Deal with it.
I love that the Trek fans are speaking out about what a shitty idea the much-ballyhooed (by John anyway) “reboot” is. Speak out, speak up. Phasers on kill!
I echo Johnian’s idea. Let Manny Coto run Trek. He produced the final season of Enterprise and turned in some damn good stories, although it was too late to turn the series around in a single season, which was why Berman dedcided to let someone else run things. But look what Coto did, like the episode about the cliche’ green-skinned women (which was a hell of a take on their whole mythology!) and especially the last three epidsodes before the crappy finale (which was written/priduced by Berman/Braga, not Coto). Trek started to feel like Trek again.
And what Coto and company are doing with 24 is some of the best TV I’ve seen in years. Coto did a great job with Enterprise, bring him and his team back. Let somebody with some sense run Trek and you won’t need to waste your time trying to “reboot” the series.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, just get someone who knows what to do with it.
Is Sandyweineritis a contagious disease?
Who would’a thunk it?
Jaysmack,
Who’s to say that the JJ Abrahms version of Star Trek wont include all of those things that you say good Star Trek is made of? It still may be the Trek that you know and love, but with a fresh start.
Besides, I think as far as the general movie going audience is comcerned, it’s just going to be a young Kirk and Spock prequel anyway. No matter how much the internet throws around words like “reboot” or “re-imagining”, I think people are just gonna assume it’s the same characters and the same universe, but early in their careers. The young Kirk and Spock chronicles, if you will.
We do agree on one thing though,
Battlestar Galactica does suck ass.
The problem is, it was broke.
That’s why nobody went and saw the last movie and nobody watched the last series. Having a series and a movie that not even die-hard fans want anything to do with constitutes broke in my book. Regardless of who broke it or why it was broke, it was broke none-the-less.
Yes, you’re right Jay. It’s broke. But don’t trash it for a hyped up newer model. Just fix it.
To me, fixing it is what J.J. Abrahms is doing.
Look, the bottom line here is that nobody knows whether it’s gonna be good or not. If you decide to hate it before you know a single thing about it, then it has no chance what-so-ever. How do you know that J.J. Abrahms isnt planning on bringing it back to it’s core?
A reboot doesnt neccessarily mean that everything good about Star Trek is going to be trashed and thrown out. Maybe their idea of a reboot is throwing out everything that has been bad about Star Trek for the last decade and bringing it back to what made Star Trek so good in the beginning?
A reboot worked wonders for James Bond.
It took all that was shitty about the Bond franchise and flushed it down the toilet and brought it back to it’s roots. And it is the same thing. Same character and the idea is still the same but now he’s free to go in new and exciting directions. He’s still James Bond just like it’s still gonna be Star Trek. The way I look at it is it’s like the Ultimate Marvel Universe. The characters are still the same basically, but now they dont have 40+ years of continuity that they have to be slaves to. They are free to have new adventures while still being the familiar characters that we know and love.
Why is it so impossible to believe that the idea cant make Star Trek better also?
At the end of the day, I finally, after more than 10 years, have a Star Trek movie that I’m actually looking forward to. More power to ya if you wanna be pissed. I think a reboot is fantastic news.
Jay smack, I have been a true fan since the first series. I’ve liked most of what I have seen movie and tv. That being said, let JJ “Batman begins” this old dog, and show us some new tricks.
.
.
REBOOT!
Jay and Shane.
Jay: “Maybe their idea of a reboot is throwing out everything that has been bad about Star Trek for the last decade and bringing it back to what made Star Trek so good in the beginning?”
Okay, and where in there do you disagree with what I and everyone else has been saying? Berman/Braga threw out what made Trek good. Will Abrhams bring it back? If so, that doesn’t require a reboot, it simply requires a restoration. You want to use a catchphrase so much, let’s start using that one.
Shane: “let JJ “Batman begins” this old dog, and show us some new tricks.” Okay, Shane and Jay. They’re going to reboot Trek by…using it’s oldest and most cliched characters? Wow, talk about new!
Jay and Shane talk as if the Trek fans liked what happened to the series and are demanding it stay this way. Guys -listen! Trek fans are as open to an evolving franchise as anyone else. Trek created the idea of a “Next Generation” in which damn near nothing resembled the Kirk era. So where are you getting this attitude of, “You old Trek fans just don’t want anything to change” stuff from? Trek ORIGINATED franchise evolution. The way to fix Trek, is (for the millionth time) to get back to what made Trek great in the first place (see previous post above). What about that requires a reboot exactly?
What’s he going to do that you’re so excited about anyway? Will he introduce some sort of new alien adversary? Trek was based on that idea -you remember the whole “seek out new life and new civilizations” thing, don’t you? Will he have some sort of virus or war break out? Trek originated that concept in sci-fi. Maybe they’ll have political corruption at the highest levels of Starfleet? The first and second seasons of ST:TNG revolved around that storyline, as did DS9′s The Dominion War. So what’s he going to do that “requires” a reboot? Nothing.
This rabid “Trek needs to be overhauled” nonsense smacks of classic Trek haters. And what’s the first sign someone hates Trek? When they deny it.
Otherwise they would be agreeing with the rest of us and not trying to hide behind rhetoric about “Trek needs new fans.” As if “new fans” are so dumb that all it takes is a new coat of paint to get people who ignored Trek before to suddenly take to it. Trek’s problem isn’t loyalty to “old” fans, it’s that for most of the last 15-plus years they haven’t told any stories worth seeing. Until that’s changed no amount of “rebooting” “or “rebuilding from the ground up” will work -no matter how radical the changes or enthusiastic you feel about the dismantling of Trek.
If you want Trek to be re-imagined from the ground up, why not save yourselves the needless effort of rehabilitating an ailing franchise and instead make a new one -like the Matrix did.
Better yet, take a POS show like BSG and “reboot” it. We all see how great THAT’S turned out.
Restore Trek, don’t Reboot it.
PS And having Orci and Kurtzman writing the script is the first sign a project’s in trouble.
John: Its playing its safe because the last few Trek shows and films have been financial dissapointments. They clearly hope to follow Batman Begins or King Kongs example by beefing up a good story with fresh visual effects and a sort of new feel to it. I just think its unoriginal and coward behaviour by the license holders. For the sake of money. Also, I always thought remaking is rather nasty, its like saying: “Your movie isnt goog enough, we can make it better”.
If it’s a remake, I will be utterly disappointed. As a rabid trekkie (well at least of the original series) NO ONE can be Kirk, Spock, Bones, or Scotty except the originals. If it is a remake, it will be just as disastrous as War of the Worlds, which was a pathetic attempt to market Tom Cruise with a lot of flash-bang special effects and exactly zero depth. That was two hours of my life I will never have back and am still pissed about.
Jaysmack,
You say I’m focusing on a catchphrase, like you’re not.
You act as if “re-boot” is a guaranteed bad thing. You act as if “re-boot” can only mean a complete re-imagining (yet another catchphrase) or a total rebuild from the ground up. Maybe “re-boot” is just a way of saying going back to telling good stories. Because you admit yourself that that is something that Star Trek hasnt done in quite a while. Maybe restoration is what they plan on doing.
You keep bringing up Battlestar Galactica as that’s the only example of a reboot. As if that’s the only model that anyone else can follow. A complete overhaul of a franchise that changes basically everything.
Why cant “re-boot” mean something simpler in this case. They might just be using that phrase because it’s the “hot” word to use right now. Since It’s been a while since Trek was about just telling good stories, why cant that phrase simply mean we’re going back to doing just that? No one is saying that Spock is going to be a girl. I dont think this “overhaul” that you so desperately expect this to be is going to be that drastic.
I’ll go back to my James Bond analogy.
The James Bond in Casino Royale was still Jame Bond. He was just taken back to his roots. All the fat, all the excess, and all the nonsense that had burdened him down for so long was stripped away and the character from the source (the books) was brought back into the limelight. That was a reboot, or restart, to the franchise and it worked wonders. Getting rid of all that was wrong with the property and focusing on what was right. It wasnt a complete overhaul or reimagining of the character, but it was a re-boot.
Maybe Star Trek needs to be re-booted in order to get back to what used to make it so good. Great characters, compelling stories, grand adventure. That’s pretty far removed from the Trek of the last decade or so, wouldnt you say?
My point is, I dont disagree with the core of what you’re saying.
I dont disagree that Trek needs to get back to telling good stories, but since it hasnt done that in quite some time, I think it needs to be stripped down and taken back to the beginning and restarted. Get rid of all the excess that has weighted it down for so long and give it a fresh start. The Star Trek that you know is still gonna be there, it just wont be tied down by the decade (and then some) of nonsense that preceded it.
Where we disagree is in the percieved definition of the word “re-boot” and what it ultimately entails. I see “re-boot” as a chance to be rid of all the shitty stories and convoluted continuity that has plagued Trek for so long. I see it as a chance to get to it’s center. A chance to start telling good stories without being beholden to a lot of bad ones.
You see it as a word that means everything that you love about Trek will be thrown out in favor of Bigger, Better, Faster. You see it as meaning a Battlestar style reimagining. You’re angry at a word when the word is meaningless. The word is just a hot-button catchphrase that could mean any number of things. Like going back to telling good stories with engaging characters involved in mighty adventures. Wouldnt that be a complete departure from what’s been done with Trek for so long now. Dont be angry with a word, be happy for what that word more than likely means.
You’re so caught up in words that I think it’s blinded you to the fact that they can all mean the same thing or they can all mean something different. Re-boot, re-imagining, re-start, re-storation, re-whatever.
By the way, if you want to use restoration as the word, you have to understand that restoration means using what was already there (ie: structure) and putting a new finish on it. In this case the structure, or base, would be represented by, say, an original cast. And the new finish would be new stories and new possible futures. You cant use “new coat of paint” as a bad thing and then say that it needs a restoration, when a restoration basically means sanding something down and repainting it.
If you’re angry that they’re using Kirk and Spock, then just say that. Dont make it some battle over a word that can have a million different interpretations to a million different people. I get being upset about reusing characters, but if you think about it, a restart (or whatever catchphrase you want to insert here) affords old, established characters the oppourtunity to go in new directions. It allows them the freedom to have new adventures and not be the “oldest, most cliched characters” anymore.
Could a new crew and a new starship also do this without using the dreaded word (in your opinion) “re-boot”?
Of course it could, but a re-boot (or whatever) can also let characters that a lot of poeple already love do the same thing. It allows them to explore new worlds because in this new continuity, the worlds havent been explored yet. A reboot will make Trek able to do all the things that you say you want Trek to get back to doing, all the while keeping characters that everyone knows and loves.
No new Star Trek crew has been started with a movie. I happen to think that a new spin on nostalgic characters has a better chance of being a financial success. I also think that it will be an intellectual success storywise, but let’s not kid ourselves. It doesnt matter how compelling or grand the story is, if it doesnt put asses in seats then it’s all for naught. A new Star Trek with people that no one recognizes wont intrigue general audiences the way a new Trek with new takes on Kirk and Spock will. Not in my opinion, anyway. And I think I speak more for general audience than a Trekkie does. Please dont take that as an insult, because it is not intended as such.
On a final note,
Please dont try to use pointless, psyche 101, babble on me by saying the fact that I say I’m not a Trek-Hater only serves to prove that I am, in fact, a Trek-Hater. That’s stupid and juvenile and it doesnt prove anything. You’re just using a pathetic attempt at first year psychology by saying that denial is the first sign that I am what I say I am not. It’s an attempt to marginalize my point of view by calling me a Trek-Hater. In your eyes, it’s a way of diminishing the possibility that a Trek-Fan could possibly like the direction that JJ Abrahms seems to be taking by devaluing them as merely the ramblings of a Hater who just wants a “new coat of paint”. This is not the case. I am not in any way a Trek-Hater. Not that I have to prove anything to you, but just know that I am a fan of the franchise and I have a strong desire to see it correct all the wrongs that have been commited against it for the last decade or more. Trivialize me as a Hater all you want. Convince yourself that since I am not a true fan, then my view has no real bearing or weight. Assure yourself with drivel like denial is the first sign as proof that since obviously I’m a hater (psycho-babble proves, like you said) I lack the understanding of what Trek “needs”, since that understanding can only be attributed to true fans such as yourself. Tell yourself how superior your ideas are in contrast to mine based solely on your percieved greater level of love and adoration of a property. When in fact you have no real way of knowing my level of interest other than your indisputable percieved fact that since I deny being something, it only proves that I am. Leave the nonsense at home, jr.
40-plus years of continuity and great storytelling thrown out the window.
There’s an old saying, “It only takes one fool to undo the work of ten geniuses.” Roddenberry was the genius, Berman was the fool. Now here comes Orci & Kurtzman to deliver the coup de’ grace. Hard to believe one of the greatest intellectual properties in history is going to end this way.
I hope all this “rebuild” talk is just a clever smokescreen by Abrhams and company to “rebuild” instead. But somehow I doubt it.
Exactly,
Berman was the fool.
He fucked up by throwing out what was good about Trek and attempting to take it in new directions.
How do you know that Abrahms isnt planning on throwing out the bad stuff and then take it in new directions?
On a side note,
I feel sorry for pessimists. I really do.
I mean, imagine, walking around thinking that everything is going to end or that every change is going to be a change for the worse. What a horrible existence that must be. I must say that I’m eternally grateful that that curse wasnt placed upon me.
Jay
“Pessimist” and “curse?” Okay, who’s insulting who now? You’re right that I haven’t said anything about what the planned reboot actually means because Abrahams and Co have not. I’m basing my opinions on what they’re saying, you’re basing it on what you admittedly HOPE they will do.
You misinterpreted my use of the word “restoration.” When I say it I’m not talking about how you restore a car, I’m talking about how you restore an empire (see Meiji Restoration, or the Holy Roman Empire 3rd century). Bring back the greatness. Trek needs to be restored.
Trek originated franchise evolution, so bring on the new characters and new worlds and new plotlines and continutity. Bad as Berman screwed the pooch nobody’s arguing over that. We all know that when you change a franchise you can’t keep everyone happy, nor should they even try, but they sound as if they’re worried they’ll alienate everyone. Do you see the new creative team talking about evolution or revolution? I think it’s the latter. That being the case it appears as if, at long last, Trek will jump the shark.
BTW James Bond isn’t Star Trek. Bond’s past wasn’t well defined, and each Bond film was a stand-alone story. And the only argument about Casino Royale was whether Bond should be blonde and whether Daniel Craig could carry the part. Those are literally cosmetic considerations. The arguments about Trek are about continutity. Forget apples and oranges, you’re mixing apples and bowling balls.
Chill out. I can practically hear you yelling at me from here. I’m not getting into a pissing contest over Trek -I love the franchise, but not that much. You want to have the last word, please go ahead. But let’s be clear. Our disagreemnt (and I’ve never seen it as anything but) is not about whether Trek needs change, but rather differing TAKES on the changes being planned. We’re arguing not over whether Trek needs to go in a new direction -we ALL agree it needs to. The argument is whether Trek already has the inherent goods to save itself, or whether it needs an an overhaul. We seem to both agree there too.
But if the plan is to rewrite Trek, as it seems to be, then that idea is doomed to die aborning. And how do you bring in new fans by using the characters most associated with the franchise? I’m sure using Kirk and Spock will definitely convince non-fans that the studio is no longer catering to the classic Trek base.
I have to base my opinions on what I actually can prove and what I know to be true. As I’ve sais about Transformers, I’m not going to pan it out of hand, but we’ve all seen enough Hollywood disasters, from the moment of conception, to know when a project’s misguided. I don’t see Orci/Kurtzman talking plot, do you? Instead all I hear is shit about old fans, a new direction and profit models. Oh, that an all the special effects their exciting new script calls for. Sounds to me like these two idiots haven’t learned a thing from The Island, which they also wrote. Isn’t this kind of style-over-substance thinking exactly what’s wrong with movies today? And you want me to embrace that? Dumping new special-effects on the movies won’t make them better. More action won’t make it better. To Orci-Kurtzman there may be no problem that Industrial Light & Magic can’t fix, but in the real world we know better. Trek needs better stories. Please tell me where they’ve said anything about that.
The “new” Trek seems to be shaping up to be as bad as the old one became.
#1: I’m not yelling. I’m not upset in the least. I sincerely hope you arent either.
#2: “I’m not going to pan it out of hand” followed by “The “new” Trek seems to be shaping up to be as bad as the old one became”. Kind of seems like your panning it right there, doesnt it.
#3: Look,
As I’ve said before, neither of us knows what the future holds. Neither of us can say it’s a mistake or it’s a good thing irrefutably. All either of us can do is make guesses and go with what our gut tells us. The fact is, neither of us can “prove” anything. And you’re right, the only difference between the 2 of us is I have hope and you dont. You expect failure where I hope for success. If I’m wrong to hope for the best, then I’ll just have to be “wrong”.
I think the direction JJ and crew are taking is a good one and I hope it turns out well. You think it’s a bad idea and expect it to fail. Calling a pessimist a pessimist isnt an insult, it’s a fact. Calling it a curse was insulting and I apologize for it.
And lastly, #4:
Your comparison of Evolution vs Revolution is actually a really good way of looking at it. Natural progression can be a wonderful thing and there are many good things that can be said about it. However, when the natural evolution of things becomes stagnant and stilted, as in the case of Trek for the last decade, then maybe a property wide revolution is in order.
We can debate semantics till the cows come home and it wont get us anywhere. My point is that you dont know a new crew will guarantee success any more than you know the old crew rebooted will guarantee failure. Nor do I, for that matter, and that’s the way it’s gonna stay until we see the final product. It then becomes a question of if you spend the next year and a half or so expecting and foretelling of failure then that almost guarantees your outcome. You’ve made your own future by convincing yourself that there is no way this is a good idea before you have any way of knowing it. Seem like you’re basing an opinion on something you cant prove, doesnt it?
and it’s not about getting the last word, it’s about continuing the conversation. Yet another way for you to attempt to belittle me and my views.
By the way,
I’ve never said anything about catering to the classic Trek fanbase or concerning whether or not it’s a good or bad idea. That’s John’s argument.
at least, I dont think I did…
Jay
Note I said “SEEMS to be shaping up as bad” not “IS shaping up as bad.” I have yet to pass judgment. Please stop insisting that I already have.
In my post above I asked you for some proof of the plot. I’m still waiting. You can call my POv pessimistic, or any other name you want, but at least I’m basing it on what the creative team is actually saying. What do you base your “hope” on?
The two screenwriters have already shown that their creative “vision” needs eyeglasses. How many times does a screenwriter or director or producer have to turn in crap before you’re willing to ask, “Does this guy have any idea what he’s doing?”
Look at the excerpt from the IGN article. Orci/Kurtzman insult the fanbase as if the fans are the problem and not the past producers. You and I agree that Berman was/is the problem. But nowhere do these new screenwriters tell us that they’re breaking with Rick Berman and the crap he did for fifteen years. Now maybe they can’t because Berman is still employed at Paramount, is still a high-ranking executive there (and has one of the strongest contracts in the industry) and is still in charge of Trek (on TV at least). But do you see them criticizing the way the franchise was handled? No, they attack the fans instead. This is what they’re SAYING Jay. It’s not my “hopes” but the hard reality.
“However, when the natural evolution of things becomes stagnant and stilted, as in the case of Trek for the last decade…”
Trek’s evolution over the last ten years has been anything but “natural.” It’s been Rick Berman’s forced, stilted war to get Trek off track. He mangled Trek until it was remade in his pathetic image. Trek’s natural progression (done correctly) was more like what Manny Coto was doing during season 4 of Enterprise. Don’t confuse Berman’s bastardization with true Trek.
Finally, (and after this I’m done with the issue) nowhere have I said this will be a flop. But what I’m hearing from the outset tells me these guys don’t sound like they know (or are willing to admit) what went wrong with Trek in the first place -namely their boss, Rick Berman. I don’t require they do so, but it would certainly ease some of my concerns, which no one has yet to prove as unjustified.
(On a side note: Since Paramount isn’t letting Rick Berman run/ruin this one, and is bringing in a new team, I take that as a tacit admission by the studio that Berman was the problem. That Berman won’t be making this film is by deifinition good -see, I am capable of saying something complimentary about the film, sight unseen)
We all know the irrefutable history of Hollywood as it realtes to hotshot creative types thinking they know it all. When I read the excerpt from the IGN article and see nothing about the story, but instead hear about how big the budget’s going to be, and how they plan to have a record-number of special effects and make it more action-packed, only a fool doesn’t get worried. They sound more like high school kids bragging to their friends about their new science project than creative geniuses finally getting a franchise back on track.
You want me to praise the new team? Laud them with compliments? All right, get them to tell me what the STORY is going to be so I’ll have something to praise them for. At least get them to tell me what they WON’T do. But they’re saying NOTHING about either of those things. Doesn’t that strike you as even a little odd?
Again, please tell me what Orci/Kurtzman have said about the story…still waiting…
PS And there’s a difference between being a pessimist and cautiously optimistic, just as there’s a difference between “having hope” and giving unqualified support to an unproven product. I’m withholding praise of the new Trek until I see it. If details about the movie come to light and it seems that Orci/Kurtzman are going to get it right I’ll be the first to say Bravo! When the movie comes out if it’s good nobody will be on this board faster than me to say so. I just don’t think we should be saying it right now. This is a time for skepticism and circumspection, not for “hope.”
Don’t confuse criticism of the screenwriters with opposition to the movie. By the same token, let’s not sing their praises until we have a reason to either.
I’m not gonna waste my time searching for articles where the writers state things to the effect of staying true to Trek, or keeping what made Trek good while still trying to garner new fans. You know they’ve said things like that, so dont ask me to point out where they’ve said specific things about the plot because you know they havent.
You saying these things just kind of proves my side of the argument also. You dont know anything about this movie other than this hot-button catchphrase that’s being thrown around, and yet you expect it to be bad. Why is it OK for you to expect bad but the idea of me hoping for good is foolish?
Do either of us know what lies ahead? Nope, we sure dont.
And basing your opinion on “what they’ve actually said” ammounts to thinking it’s gonna be bad based on “re-boot”. Because as you know, that’s all they’ve said. Why is that automatically a bad thing? Why cant that be good?
And if we base it on past exploits then you have to realize that you’re talking to someone who didnt hate the Island, thinks the direction the Transformers seems to taking is a good one, and someone who appreciates JJ Abrahms talent. You ask what am I basing my hope on… there’s your answer.
I’m the cautiously optimistic one, not you.
Nothing you have said has been even the slightest bit optimistic.
I havent guaranteed success, but if what I’m doing is unqualified support of an unproven product then what you’re doing is unqualified dismissal of an unproven product. I have never said this idea WILL be a success, I have merely stated that I THINK it’s a good idea and I THINK it can send the franchise in better directions than it has been sent in quite some time. In the same vein, You havent guaranteed failure. You have merely said that you THINK it’s a bad idea, and you THINK it will result in disappointment.
Neither of us can prove anything.
We both have the same set of facts in front of us.
The difference lies in how we interpret those neutral facts.
You have no knowledge of plot and worry that it’s gonna be bad. I have no knowledge of plot and hope that it’s gonna be good. We’re just opposite sides of the same coin.
You say that before something happens is a time for skepticism, not hope. I feel that skepticism has it’s place, but I also feel that is exactly where hope belongs. Why does worry belong there but hope doesnt? That is the very definition of pessimism vs optimism. Pessimists worry that something is going to turn out bad, while optimists hope that the same thing will turn out for the best. I’m not insulting you, it’s a fact. These words exist for a reason. Pessimism and optimism are words that describe the seperation that lies within peoples personalities when it comes to future expectations based on the same set of facts. We dont know what’s going to happen and yet we view the future in very contrasting ways. You withhold the “It might be good”‘s but you have no problem with the “It’ll probably be bad”‘s. Ulitimately, what’s the difference? I mean really, at it’s core, what’s the difference? They’re both just guesses.
You say “only a fool doesnt get worried” and I say only a fool doesnt understand the importance of hope.
Either way dude,
I fully understand that you want this to be a good movie, but it’s not what you expect it’s going to be. I respect that. I cant realte, but I do respect your opinion. Just realize that that’s all it is. It’s not indisputable fact. It’s not right or wrong. It’s neither better nor worse than the opposing viewpoint. It’s just what you think, given the same limited facts that I have, the future has in store for you concerning Star Trek.
Correction:
You did say one optimistic thing.
No Rick Berman is a good thing, and you’ll get no argument from me on that one.
And how can they critisize the very property that are trying to fix?
Blaming Rick Berman would serve no purpose other than to point fingers. It wouldnt solve anything. Obviously they know there has been a problem of late, otherwise they wouldnt be talking about a re-boot. If they thought the status quo was fine then the word re-boot wouldnt be the word being used to describe the direction being planned.
Do I think the fact that they havent given me every plot detail should be cause for worry? Uhhh… No, I dont. I dont want to know the entire plot before I see the movie. I guess I’m one of the few that still likes to be surprised by movies. Knowing that it’s gonna be a revisionist, or new take on the early days of Kirk and Spock is plenty for me right now.
I’m not saying laud them with compliments but you’re not even giving them a chance before you’ve decided that the direction they’re taking is a bad one. The movie is still being written for Christ’s sake. Relax. It’s like someone who wants to have a taste of something before all the ingredients have been added, much less having properly been cooked.
Hey guys…good discussion going on here. I could talk for hours about how great Manny Coto is, how Ron Moore did wonders for trek AND all the similarities between BSG and DS9, but I’ll save that for another time.
Anyway, I have a trek script called Convergence. Darren Conley read it and gave a positive review plus it has a small cult following. One of my recent readers loved it enough to email it to a friend at Paramount who distributed it around. A Paramount employee that deals with their scripts said he is interested in it and my writing but has to wait till after ST: XI before talking to me.
If you guys would like to give it a read email me at prophecyinc@sympatico.ca and I’ll fire you off a .pdf copy. I would value your feedback greatly as you know your shit!
Thanks – Rob
Reimaging means that in the futute we meet again for the first “the borg”, the ferengi again, the bayorans again.. So they can keep on recycling the same old stuff…
A bold move would have been a setting 1000 years in the future, with changed design, politics, wars and races… It`s also a reboot but much fresher… much like TNG was totally different from TOS…
To boldy go where no one has gone before…not backwards
^Yes.
When the hell is Star Trek going to end? They have a bunch of t.v. spinoffs and I’ve lost track of how many movies they’ve made. All they are doing is rehashing the story (yet again) with new actors and probably making it “more modern and edgy.”
Oh, and BSG blows Star Trek out of the water any day of the week.
But that’s what they did with BSG. They rehashed the story with new actors and made it more modern and edgy (putting it lightly). BSG is incredible and the only reason STar Trek has a record of failing recently is because the idea of the show didn’t change with the times after TNG. DS9 tried but it almost wasn’t gritty enough. Janeway and Archer’s ships just didn’t change from TNG. They were literally different versions of it. Good, but we need change. One man’s idea got it going and they should have kept changing with the times, not adhering to Roddenberry’s concepts.
This just in
Kirk – Ashton Kutcher
Spock – Lindsay Lohan
Bones – Shaquille O’Neill
Great making a new movie the last one was good best one yet hope the y dont go to far away from the federation and star fleet enterprise was good for the first few series dont really now what they played at in second half of final season went down hill…
Sorry I don’t think rebooting the franchise it the way togo. Each of the movies has movie by movie moved away for Gene Roddenberry’s original Ideas and core values. To the point that the latest movies have been more like Terminator, Die-Hard and Star Wars then Original Trek.
Rebooting is a way of saying we plan to leave behind anything remaining of Gene Roddenberry’s original vision and values. Apparently if rebooting is what they are doing, then the writers can’t come up with anything good while being constrained to his ideas and values. Thats why they need to reboot. Maybe it is time to reboot the writers.
In my onion StarTrek Voyager was the closest to Gene’s Original Ideas in the StarTrek series and It was the best of all the trek Series and Movies. It even surpasses original StarTrek because of advancement made in the filming industry between 69 and the late 90′s. Though i think Original Trek Would have been way better if the producers had the tech that the producers of voyager had available to them
They should make a new movie based on when Kirk and Spock and the gang first started out. I know there was a pilot, but telling how Kirk first got started and his first mission would be really cool, especially if in it he met Spock and McCoy. Imagine someone such as Daniel Craig or Matt Damon playing Kirk. They could start out by showing how Kirk graduated from StarFleet academy. Remember how in one of the movies, Spock explained about how Kirk got around the “Impossible” way out of it” scenario.
OK, we’re ALL optimists here. Some of us are fumbling around in the dark hoping for some light and others are in the blazing sun and optimistic that they will soon find shade. Let’s hope we can all find something to like about this new Trek effort, even if it’s not the same things.
That said, I wanted to add that I the original Star Trek, TNG and Voyager were all compelling to me bacause of two things: The acting and the character development. Both of which are best facilitated by a writer using a TV series as the vehicle.
In a feature film the writer has to get the movie goer personally concerned about the wellbeing of a character or (in this case) a crew within mere minutes. Trek fans already know all about the characters long before going to see a Trek movie because these people have been in our homes every week for the last seven seasons. I can already accept the concept that Commander Data may have a brother named B-4. And I rejoice with him in that discovery because I know how unique he is as an android. A non-treker has no idea what “the needs of the one out weigh the needs of the many” really means.
Who wants to sit around and postulate theory on the Dyson Sphere! I’ll bring the marshmellows!!!
A Trek movie that REALLY is different and is otherwise a great production will still be a disappointment to anyone who is looking for something like the original series. Starship Troopers wouldn’t have been nearly as cool if it followed 30 years of storylines and character development and then hit the big screen as something different than the series, that is if you asked a fictional “Trooper the Series” fan. But I never heard of a Starship Trooper before and NEVER saw bugs SO BIG and I thought the movie was great. The mixed shower scene helped out a lot as did DR Doogie.
Whether they try to tell a new story or write a new chapter to the same story we’ve all embraced, the important thing is that the story is creative, the characters are compelling and the actors are convincing.
If this effort is a flop or not I do believe that Universal missed a golden opportinity to take Voyager to the big screen. It’s too late now because the series ended too long ago and even sindication has all but ended on a few local TV stations as midnight filler.
But boy I could follow Seven of Nine through the corridors of Voyager a few more hours. And would love to hear The Doctor (what was his name?) sing another opera via his holographic emitter. With subspace torpedos, multiphasic shielding and trans-warp at her fingertips I think Janeway and the rest of the Federation could be quite a pain in the Borg’s cube.
If you shouted “Idiot, he didn’t have a name!” at your monitor then you don’t belong here and you failed the test. It’s too obvious and you should have resisted temptation, realizing my gest. If you were drawn into a sense of nastalgia and grinned while reading the previous paragraph then I’ll be the middle aged balding guy with all three of his son’s in the movie line with prepaid tickets (purchased online) at the midnight opening of WHATEVER they come up with Star Trek in the title. Cause God love ‘em as long as they keep tryin’ then I’m still buyin’.
Screw Galactica. I turned it off for good when that bi@*h Starbuck became not dead again. The original Starbuck and Apollo had a “you can be my wingman anyday” relationship between two tough guys that the new series jacked up from the start. The only way Star Trek could do worse is if they portrayed Spock as a crossdressing transexual who was Kirk’s first guy on Vulcan experiment during college. Or in this case, Starfleet Academy. Hey wait…they did say they were trying to draw in new fans with this one, didn’t they???
trekkies should not be afraid of change. Manny Coto did great things with season four of enterprize and could do great things with the move. I think that most fans out there are more fants of trek that came after the next generation than of the original star trek, the new movie should feature everything new.
besides being an avid trekker, i am also atransformers fan. transformers in was very popular from 1984 to 1990. from 1990 to 1995 it died. All they did to make it the huge money maker it became again from 1997 to 2007′s move was hiring a great writer who wrote great stories mr.larry ditillo. he created the “beast wars” and boooom. transformers is back in business with a bang.
star trek should simply give the audience good stories, as new as original and as different as possible.