Seems Romulan War is out :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060421/..._startrek_dc_2
Printable View
Seems Romulan War is out :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060421/..._startrek_dc_2
To quote another franchise,
"I've got a bad feeling about this..."
Abrams is a fine talent, but I'm not sure he's the best fit for Trek.
And I personally think that the franchise should have lay fallow a bit longer than this.
But we'll see... hopefully I'm wrong.
Booyah.
I knew Shatner could do it.
*does the snoppy dance.*
;)
Who said that Shatner and Nimoy are going to be involved? Just because somebody put a picture of the two next to the article doesn't mean anything. How do you want to explain to casual viewers that those two wrinkled guys are supposed to be cadets or junior officers?
I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that, though.
I don't think Trek needs a break. It only needs good stories.
Was this story confirmed anywhere else?
I meant Shatner has been writing a script based on Kirk at the Academy.
This seems to be that, or derived from or based no as a story concept.
I am pretty sure he is not gonna be in it, lol.
To paraphrase a response to "I've got a bad feeling about this..."
You always say that Frost... You always say "I've got a bad feeling about this..." ;)
Yeah I know the actual line is "I've got a bad feeling about this drop", but what the hey... it works ;)
I dunno... I am open to this idea... Nice to see all new blood tackle the topic.
Get good stories it does not have to take place in the past/
To be fair, Hugh, at the moment they're listing him as a producer, not the director (though it's not out of the question that he could direct it, too).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Casey
Which means, at least for the time being, that Berman is not producing it. And there was much rejoicing.
(It also mentions, on www.startrek.com at least, that Jendreesen's script isn't dead yet, so we might get an assload of stuff.)
To paraphrase a response to "I've got a bad feeling about this..."
You always say that Frost... You always say "I've got a bad feeling about this..."
Yeah I know the actual line is "I've got a bad feeling about this drop", but what the hey... it works
Um, wrong franchise, I think... I suspect the original poster was referring to the use of that line by mltiple characters in The Empire Strikes Back.
Well aware of that actually, but it just plain fit anyways :) But a thousand points of movie-geek to you sir... I tip my hat :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton
Here's the word from startrek.com's news line. I should like to emphasize the following bit from this piece:
"Abrams' producing partners from Lost, Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, are cited as being producers on "Trek XI." This project is separate from the previously rumored script developed by Eric Jendersen and overseen by Rick Berman. The former Star Trek producer is not involved in this project. "
Ridiculous amounts of emphasis are mine; I chalk it up to elation. :D
Well aware of that actually, but it just plain fit anyways
Of course, it could also be what a certain "Heavy Set Guard" said when he read the script to a certain John Travolta "epic." ;)
I... don't know how to react to this news, yet. In part because it remains to be seen whether this team can create good cinema. We will have that answer shortly. In part because the work Abrams has done isn't exactly what Trek is (or maybe should be) well known for.
Still, many talented writers are capable of writing in a variety of genres.
It is a step in the right direction to disconnect Berman (who is part of science fictions Axis of Evil) from the project. Let's hope he remaines disconnected.
Call me a cynic, but this is a really, really bad idea. They are going to find an actor to play Kirk, who will immulate that Kirsk-Speak?! I just saw Balance of Terror again... Oh, dear God, I pitty the fool playing Kirk.
I really think a film is a bad, bad, bad idea. A prequel film, a bad, bad bad idea. Only, one place I have seen has said no Bermen involvement. This is going to fail and when it does Paramount/Viacom are going to then agree say it is us and not that they come up with stupid ideas.
This idea is a novel at the most or a fan fic not a good movie. They think the past is where the good stories are?! Look at who wrote TOS and TNG and DS9: major talent working together. JJ Abrams is a good TV creator, I am not big on his movie stuff and MI:III is kind of iffy for me. I do not know how much Cruise, I can handle this year. I am sad to see Alias go and well never got into Lost, but I think he should be designing a series and not a movie.
In Aesop's fable "The Fox and the Grapes," at the end of the story the frustrated fox invents all sorts of justifications for not getting the grapes he wanted, after all his attempts.
What I want to know is what's the Fable where all the justifications for why the grapes are not to be desired takes place before the fox even tries to grab them.
I think it's as yet unwritten, but someday it will be called "The Internet Fan and the Star Trek concept."
I'm with V'Lor. I am hungry for post DW stuff and seeing the now more gritty Federation moving forward.
Wow.
*Hands V'lor a Scythe and Black Cowled Cloak*
Admiral X. U. Morrison: "Captain V'lor, it may both not be logical and against standing orders to do this film. Therefore, we are doing it anyway."
I love it.
;)
...I am hungry for post DW stuff and seeing the now more gritty Federation moving forward.
Yeah, 'cause Star Trek shouldn't be about hope anymore. You might as well make it a BSG clone. :rolleyes:
Touche'.
I think there is room for gritty and campy, and "give the new guys a chance to do something good."
FEEL THE IRONY:
People saying they hate Rick Berman, and Brannon Braga, I hear the echoes from the Mirror Universe, "String 'em up! Hang 'em high! Anyone but them! Replace them! Long Live Star Trek!"
Now that the Moff and his Apprentice are out of the picture (yuk yuk), it's now "Kill the concept, before it gets off the ground, who cares who is doing it."
Note to self: Feel the Gritty, Dark, Post-War Future Irony, and post to the Trek-RPG.net forums. Mission Accomplished.
Is this not what a Majority of Trek Fans (TM) Wanted?
What, is someone concerned that if this gets made and is terrible, that no more Star Trek will be made? Reread the posts of last week, please. This might get made, despite the end of "Enterprise."
People thought that Y2K was the end of the world. This is just a Star Trek Movie.
There is some disconnect there that I seem to be not comprehending.
It made me smile, so I thought maybe some here would like it too:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060423
;)
... only I'd have replaced Berman with Braga :D . Berman at least did bring us some nice DS9 episodes. I can't recall any good Braga initiated episode :rolleyes: .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
And THAT was my point over in the Romulan War movie thread: that movie concept just struck me as nothing more than a strategy to ride on the reimagined Battlestar Galactica's coat tails. It was a bad idea, and it still is. It sounds like Berman is still trying to develop it anyway to try to sell it to Paramount. With this announcement, however, it seems like Paramount has already made its choice: new blood, with proven moneymakers as the producers and creative talent. This is a GOOD thing.
As for the concept of Star Trek Academy and a Kirk/Spock first adventure? I'm willing to give a chance. Does this mean that there AREN'T good stories left to tell in the post Dominion War Era? Sure there are, but realistically the success of a new movie set in that era would depend on viewers being familiar with everything that has gone before; B&B were right about one thing: in order for Star Trek to survive as a franchise, it must attract new fans. I like the idea of trying to reconnect with the TOS era better than trying to ignore or rewrite it, as it seemed at times Enterprise was trying to do.
Could this new movie result in a "reimagined" TOS series? Maybe, but y'know, I don't think that's such a bad thing at this point.
There is something wrong with a fight with the Romulans? I've been looking to see that play out sense Balance of Terror (that is the one in TOS with the Romulan ship commanded by our favorite Vulcan right?) :)
Berman Not Part Of Trek 11
Longtime Star Trek writer and producer Rick Berman, who joined the franchise at the feet of creator Gene Roddenberry, will not be involved in the proposed 11th Trek film, to be directed by Mission: Impossible III helmer J.J. Abrams, SCI FI Wire has learned.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index...ory=0&id=35641
Abrams Reviving Trek
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index...ory=0&id=35587
Who's writing it?
Reunion, Cause and Effect, Fistful of Datas, Birthright part 1, Frame of Mind, Parallels, Sub Rosa, All Good Things...Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcoran
And that's just a few from TNG. He wasn't always a complete hack. Just once they made him a producer...
A post Dominion war arc could easily incorporate political elements as a sharper Federation attempts to find its way back to its idealistic roots - in fact, I'll bet that could be a good premise for a post DW arc. Perhaps after things have gotten a little bit worse. The characters would be forced to deal with, among other things, a perception of the Federation as "no longer the good guys". Over the course of the series, instead of descending into darkness, they climb out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
But that's not what he wanted; he wanted to see the new gritty Federation move on.
I liked Enterprise and I don't shoot prequels on sight... but I'm not particularly overjoyed by this project.
Ok, part of it must be my dislike of TOS, but most of all, while I've nothing against prequels in general, I find prequels of particular characters to be much more difficult to do well, as they tend to remove any uncertainty about the characters.
In this case, not only do we know that young Kirk and young Spock will both survive, but also that they will remain friends, not be busted out of the Academy, not get married, and so on... (unless they plan to make more movies on that theme, which would make them a sort of "look how Kirk became Captain" arc, like the SW prequels were a sort of "look how Anakin became Vader" arc).
This fairly reduces the possible character development plots.
Another risk with exploring the past of known characters is that, either you build lots of ties with their future selves, which could range from lot of private jokes only hardcore fans would understand to far less subtle jokes like meeting younger versions of other characters (mind you, I'd like to see Kirk meeting Carol Marcus, and this could be almost the right timeframe), or you build them as completely independant characters, and then one's left to wonder why they didn't use original characters anyway.
Well, my last input here is that in watching something like "Saving Private Ryan" for example, I knew that the Normandy Invasion would be accomplished.
It didn't make it or the following story any less exciting, and dramatic, to know what will happen.
Seeing it again, I know who will live, who will die. What each character will learn or lose. I still watch it, just because it's a dramatic story.
When I watch Wrath of Khan, Pitch Black, Aliens, Terminator, and the Ralph Bakshi version of Lord of the Rings, I know what will ultimately happen. I have seen those films dozens of times. But it doesn't detract from enjoying the stories. For me.
That's what I think of this project. It might tell the early days, sure. Bt if it tells them in an organized, coherent dramatic fashion, I am all for it.
It's just like reading a Star Trek novel set in the Original Series, even though I have seen or read books set in Voyager, or DS9. I can still enjoy those characters, and what came before.
Except the post DW is VERY appropriate for the times we live in. Having ideas that the viewers can relate too or that are in the public's minds eye is what ST was all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
And lets face it, an academy movie won't move the "hope" foreward, but a movie about rebuilding after a devasting war/attack and helping you once enemy rebuild would.
Personally, I like what Balok said -- it would be a decent idea that could be expanded upon (the characters finding themselves in a Federation they don't like, doing things that they can't accept, and deciding they need to move the Federation back to its better roots).
I also never said I liked the idea of an academy prequel, either. I'd much rather see the Romulan War idea developed into a strong movie trilogy, leading into the birth of the Federation.
Yep, Trek is a reflection of us now.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceGiant
These idiotic prequels are not reflecting now it is nothing but rewriting the elements. Some people have said they do not mind the prequels because they hated TOS. :(
There would be no Star Trek without TOS, saying that to me makes no sense as it is the series the rest of the shows are based on. People wanting a prequel for hating TOS just want a past rewrite so they can say this is what the past should be not TOS.
That is like saying the original holy trilogy of Star Wars 4, 5, 6 don;t matter to the Star Wars. There would be no 1, 2 and 3 without the original or books or movies or video games.
These prequels are ways to hijack the credit that Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek, don't believe me? Listen to Berman sometime and read his interviews he is saying HE made Trek.
Sorry, prequels disgust me. George Lucas did prequels but he created Star Wars and he made mistakes someone else doing that like with Trek with Enterprise and not this stupid movie idea did alot more mistakes and blatant screw ups and obvious rewrites like how they trashed the Vulcans.
Post Dominion War reflects us NOW and not this crap about prequels. That is Trek back to its roots you prequel people are looking for. Refocus what the show was about and not doing a hack up job that Voyager and Enterprise were and this prequel!
This is nto the way to go. Don't rewrite the past, but write about the future!
Two points.
1) There's a difference between "rewriting the past" and "filling in the blanks".
2) I have read/watched and enjoyed many of the "reimaginings" that have occured over the years. Battlestar Glactica, Marvel's Ultimate setting, Batman Begins and the Spider-Man movies to name a few. Suffice it to say that, IMO, it is not a crime against nature to update or revamp something that's no longer performing as well as it could, as long as the revamp is done with respect for the original property.
But then, again, I'll probably just be called an apologist or collaborator or some other easily and hastily-applied label which signifies my opinion doesn't matter because it doesn't match those labeling me. :rolleyes:
I would also rather see a romulan war movie than the academy movie if I had any input (which we all know I don't :) )
With respect to V'lor, I must point out:
This post-dominion war / Rebuilding period "Applies to us". I totally disagree.
Okay, Star Trek is seen world wide.
"Us" might apply to people living in America, or the UK, al la the ongoing war in South West Asia...If the War in Iraq or the "War on Terrorism" is used as an allegory.
But it won't apply as specifically to China, Russia, Japan, India, etc. etc.
It is common that writers write, using the current times, writing scenarios or films as a social commentary. Some writers ay that that is what science fiction is FOR.
But if that is the case, why don't we have a Star Trek, not post dominion war, but some whole new scenario like "The Galaxy blows up in 100 years, because of Warming at the Galactic Core?"
Well it might be a good allegory, but it wouldn't be interesting fiction. Nor would, "All the Dilithium Crystals in the Universe fracture in 35 years." Nor would "The Omega Particle is being manufactured by a non-Federation race, Let's not rule out bombing them into oblivion, for being upstarts." Nor would a lot of allegories, from "Modern Day."
I'm not trying to turn this into a political discussion, by any means.
My point is, that I just don't think "Dominion War" or "Post-dominion war" can be applied, as accurately as you (and some others) suggest. Of course, many will hotly disagree. I just want to be on record as taking the position that I don't think that it applies, because the Federation is not strictly an allegory for America or Britain, as was carefully pointed out to me some days ago in another thread, and that was true.
I read somewhere that Tolkien once decried any attempts to suggest that Sauron and Mordor were allegories for Germany under the National-Socialist party. Maybe I heard it wrong.
I just do not feel that it is applicable, for various personal reasons.
Actually, I am looking for a good story. The guy writing the current one is setting it in the past. If he writes one next year in the future of Trek, and it's good, I'll enjoy it, also.Quote:
Originally Posted by V'Lor
That being stated, I personally have always wanted to see what the Earth-Romulan War was like, just because it is a cautionary tale of limited nuclear exchange, and a vital, key part of the history of the Federation.
"Balance of Terror" was written yes, as a World War II, Cold War Era tale.
But if you want to go along the allegory line, basically it's time for a film about Khan's rise to power, and the Eugenics wars.
That stuff is on the horizon, it seems. "Write about the future", as you say.
Yeah there is but in this case they will rewrite the past and ignore continuity like they have done with Enterprise and Nemesis. There is no need to set the story in the past honestly good stories do not have to be in the past. This past kick sickens me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Burke
Moore, Raimi, Nolan, Marvel & Quesada, all said those above are RE visions! They have nothing to do with the already established past of the other works. In fact in Marvel Universe there is the regular comic book history and the Ultimates history. Two seperate lines two seperate storylines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Burke
Now if JJ Abrams says this is a revisionist telling sure, I'll buy that that it is not part of the established time line. That I won't have an issue with, but this is not being called a revisionist telling like BSG; Spider-Man; Batman; Marvel's Ultimate line. This is suppose to be part of the already established timeline. That I am having a serious issue with because when you create in the past you want to add things you did not even think of before or was not thought up of at the time. Look at Lucas and SW prequels he came up with some new ideas not addressed in the original films and he was the original creator.
JJ Abrams is not Gene Roddenberry and I would have an issue if Gene was thinking of this, but Gene never thought the past needed to be addressed. if this is called a revisionist telling no problem that it is new and different outside what was established like Marvel's Ultimates, BSG, Batman and Spiferman no problem but it is not.
I never call someone names or such this is all a matter of opinion on the boards calling people those names like 'apologist or collaborator or some other easily and hastily-applied label' is not my stule. You start labelling someone like that in a deragatory fashon you are already losing the argument. Those are cheap shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Burke
With all due respect on the 'Dominion War' and 'Post Domion War' applies to us, I think my friend you are mistaken let me set up an example here:Quote:
Originally Posted by LUGTrekGM
Federation/Starfleet (United States) and Cardassian Prime (Iraq), I see some symbology here. That would be a tale about us in American would it not? The occupation of Cardassia Prime after a devestating war? The people are not happy we are there for instance? This is just one angle I see as a writer and how it would reflect us now with our occupation of Iraq. Some Cardassians want the Federation/Starfleet there and others do not. The Federation is divided over what is going on as terrorism and a rising death toll start changing people's opinion on Cardassia, people want to pull out others want to stay and help to rebuild even if it is years after the Dominion War
Hey, that is how I view it as an angle one of many I can think of. That would be us now in 2006
Enterprise (what i saw of it) rarely directly contradicted anything canon. Lots of "fanon" stuff, but not much that was seen on screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by V'Lor
Ah, but DC Comics and in many cases Marvel established changes in their characters to "update" them and assumed they were part of the established continuity. And pardon my flippancy, but I might be a Trek Atheist. I don't believe Roddenberry was god. He came up with a great concept, but he didn't create it all single-handedly. In fact, most of the best ideas were ones he hated.Quote:
Moore, Raimi, Nolan, Marvel & Quesada, all said those above are RE visions! They have nothing to do with the already established past of the other works. In fact in Marvel Universe there is the regular comic book history and the Ultimates history. Two seperate lines two seperate storylines.
Now if JJ Abrams says this is a revisionist telling sure, I'll buy that that it is not part of the established time line. That I won't have an issue with, but this is not being called a revisionist telling like BSG; Spider-Man; Batman; Marvel's Ultimate line. This is suppose to be part of the already established timeline. That I am having a serious issue with because when you create in the past you want to add things you did not even think of before or was not thought up of at the time. Look at Lucas and SW prequels he came up with some new ideas not addressed in the original films and he was the original creator.
JJ Abrams is not Gene Roddenberry and I would have an issue if Gene was thinking of this, but Gene never thought the past needed to be addressed. if this is called a revisionist telling no problem that it is new and different outside what was established like Marvel's Ultimates, BSG, Batman and Spiferman no problem but it is not.
Personally, I feel that Trek is way overdue for a revamp of some sort. Crisis on Infinite Treks or something... (Hm. That might be a good idea for a game. "Parallels" meets "Crisis"... Must give thia more thought...)
Glad to hear it. It just was starting to sound like the direction this thread was heading... :)Quote:
I never call someone names or such this is all a matter of opinion on the boards calling people those names like 'apologist or collaborator or some other easily and hastily-applied label' is not my stule. You start labelling someone like that in a deragatory fashon you are already losing the argument. Those are cheap shots.
I don't understand what your problems are with prequels. Prequels, or rather reimaginings have already been done for Trek. I'm speaking of the Voyager and DS9 episodes celebrating 30 (or was it 25) years of Star Trek. The Voyager episode was okay, IIRC, and Trials and Tribbleations from DS9 was great. So it can be done. And even without these examples I would have no doubt about it, since neither Brannon Braga nor George Lucas are involved.
Regarding the theories that Cardassia and the Dominion War are supposed to be allegories for Iraq and (I suppose you mean) Operation Desert Storm: that claim is unsustainable. Desert Storm was in 1991, DS9 was launched in 1993. And it took another 5 years for the Dominion War to start. A little late, isn't it?
Yes there have been allegories in Trek. TOS is full of them. The Klingons stood for the Soviet Union and Romulans represented China. The conflict between Bele and Lokai in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield obviously is supposed to show the flawed thinking underlying racism. When Russia made steps towards peaceful coexistence with the West, the Klingons were willing to negotiate for peace in The Undiscovered Country.
That was great Star Trek, because it addressed the grievances in the society and warned against what might happen, or how things could be better than they were.
Although I found the third season of Enterprise much better than the first two, I hated the parallels between 9/11 and the Xindi attack on Earth. It provided a frame for an entertaining story arc, but didn't propose any solutions, apart from violent ones, nor did it examine the roots of evil.
The fact that I'm not a US citizen and I have a problem with hooray patriotism and simple solutions to complex problems (unless they happen to be effective, of course) made it even harder for me to like Enterprise.
I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings, or offended anyone by becoming a little bit political, but it was necessary to explain my opinion.
That covers more or less what I am trying to say, only more eloquently, Ergi.