STAR TREK XI to be a Prequel

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Rayaru
This is true.

So noted...for now.

[D.S.McBride]

Originally posted by Fesarius
Kirk is still the mac daddy of alien chicks! Enterprise, love it or hate it, hasn't topped his record yet...

True enough; but Jimmy T. never needed to rub our noses in it...even the obvious pulling-on-the-boots-after-we're-done, "Bang a Gong, Get It On" scene between him and that Scalosian chick (forget her name) in "Wink of an Eye" left something to the imagination. ENT, for whatever it says about the times we live in, has no such restrictions, and seems prepared to push the envelope - for better or worse - for all it's worth.

[Don Mappin]

To be fair, every series needs to reinvent itself after awhile.

Take Bond for example. That's how we got a BMW, ditched the PPK, and snowboarding down a mountain with gliding snowmobiles!

While purists like myself grimice at these changes it's all apart of trying to woo a younger crowd. I, for one, am glad the Walther and Aston Martin have returned.

Let's hope that the next Star Trek movie doesn't abandon its history and fans in an effort to be that which it is not.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by strict31
By using liberal amounts of sex.

Originally posted by Don Mappin
So essentially "Enterprise" on the big screen?

Wonderful.

Speaking generally and not addressing anyone specifically; (No, really!):

Enterprise is much more tame than the average hip-hop video you'll see on MTV. By today's standards for broadcast TV, Enterprise is moderate and on an even footing with other shows (Lest we forget, we did see Kristin Kreuk's barely-covered backside in Smallville; Like Jolene Blalock on Enterprise, both Gigi Edgley and Virginia Hey were seen nude (from the back) once or twice on Farscape. etc.) Perhaps we'll see less on TV now since the needless brouhaha over Janet Jackson's right breast ?

Still, the Europeans are savvy enough to know that sex is just an ordinary aspect of life and is shown as such regularly in their TV shows. We Americans have discarded the majority of the out-moded Puritan values inherited from our forefathers; I 've never understood why a minority of our population cling to prudishness as if our lives depended on it.

The thing that strikes me as odd is the recent prudishness evident in modern Star Trek fandom. In my past experience, especially at fan-run conventions, ST fans have been of the randiest sort.

I guess its as Bob Dylan has sung: "The times they are a changin' . . . ."

Your mileage may vary. . . .

[Space_Cadet]

Originally posted by strict31
By using liberal amounts of sex. Maybe the prequel will be set in the seventies, with a ship of hoes captained by Snoop Dog. Starfleet would be the military arm of the UFP...United Federation of Pimps. Perhaps the Borg (cyborganic playah-hatahs) could show up, threatening the intergalactic Player's Ball, and only the USS Entrepreneur could stop them by smackin' that Borg Queen up.


Strictly Speaking

Hell yeah!. I'll pay 12 dollars to see that in theater

I also second Ezri's Toy sentiments. Some folks just need to get over their prudish ways.

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by D.S.McBride
. . . that Scalosian chick (forget her name) in "Wink of an Eye"

"Deela" played by Kathie Browne [McGavin], the late wife of Darrin "Kolchak, The Night Stalker" McGavin. She passed away last year.

[strict31]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
Speaking generally and not addressing anyone specifically; (No, really!):

Enterprise is much more tame than the average hip-hop video you'll see on MTV. By today's standards for broadcast TV, Enterprise is moderate and on an even footing with other shows (Lest we forget, we did see Kristin Kreuk's barely-covered backside in Smallville; Like Jolene Blalock on Enterprise, both Gigi Edgley and Virginia Hey were seen nude (from the back) once or twice on Farscape. etc.) Perhaps we'll see less on TV now since the needless brouhaha over Janet Jackson's right breast ?

Still, the Europeans are savvy enough to know that sex is just an ordinary aspect of life and is shown as such regularly in their TV shows. We Americans have discarded the majority of the out-moded Puritan values inherited from our forefathers; I 've never understood why a minority of our population cling to prudishness as if our lives depended on it.

The thing that strikes me as odd is the recent prudishness evident in modern Star Trek fandom. In my past experience, especially at fan-run conventions, ST fans have been of the randiest sort.

I guess its as Bob Dylan has sung: "The times they are a changin' . . . ."

Your mileage may vary. . . .

Like you say, everybody's mileage varies. While i wouldn't mind seeing The Jolene's bum on the Tv screen, I make no assumptions about the willingness or desire of the person next to me to see the same thing. While i don't mind seeing janet's breast semi-bared on TV, I can't say the same about my neighbor. Sex is a part of life. That's pretty much a given. But that doesn't mean everyone, or even a majority wants to see boots in the process of being knocked on prime time, or broadcast TV.

Again, I'm not the sort of person to care, for my own purposes of offense or lack of offense. And if it's cable, or a movie, it's different because you pay for the content.

I don't think Trek is necessarily prudish, my pimp comments notwithstanding. It is evident that Trek characters have had sex and are sexual beings. Even Data.

I don't know if you're referring to a simple depiction of sex, or if you mean actual nudity, but I've found in my extensive analysis of nude scenes (for the purposes of science, i assure you), that it is very rare that a scene requires nudity to get the point across. And if the point is nudity, well, that's quite different. But even then, you can get away with camera angles and other tricks, suggesting, but never exactly exposing.


*shrugs*

Again, personally, I don't care about nudity or depictions of sex, but I can't speak for the next guy. As such, I would try to respect what the other guy might find offensive. Within reason.


Strictly Speaking

[REG]

Originally posted by Fesarius

Hence my "more or less". The problem with bringing back Sisko is that you're gonna have to explain where he *was*, and that means you've got to bring in elements of Bajoran mysticism, the prophets, etc. Your two choices then become to retread familar ground for fans, or leave the movie inaccessible to new viewers. And if you bring him back *without* an explanation, you'll alienate existing fans.

I dunno. Can an alien religion be just as mysterious as ours? I mean, remember the last task Sisko did for the Prophets? All he did was to Dukat/Pah-Wraith by throwing him into the cavern of fire, even at the risk of his own. It ain't heroic but he fulfill it.

"The Prophets works in mysterious way."

I'm not saying it couldn't be done; I'm saying it would be a real challenge to do it well ... a challenge that is, IMO, beyond the displayed talents of Berman and Braga.

Of that I agree. It's like putting a couple of toddlers to pilot a space shuttle.

You might be onto something here, but there's an element of risk: this would be the first Trek to carry a lead who wasn't also the lead in a series. Stewart has big screen acting chops -- does Frakes? That's the question producers would have to answer. But I think this is how I would go -- then see if I could get Stewart in for a cameo as Admiral Picard -- if Janeway can make the Admiralty, Picard surely can.

Well, many of us have suggested that the next movie should be be an ensemble of cast from TNG, DS9, and VOY. We don't need all of them, just the relevant ones.

[REG]

Originally posted by Don Mappin

So noted...for now.

I dunno. I think of all the Trek series, TNG leads everyone in showing skins.

[REG]

Originally posted by Don Mappin

Let's hope that the next Star Trek movie doesn't abandon its history and fans in an effort to be that which it is not.

You are a lot more forgiving than I am, despite I gave Braga a second chance with ENT or Berman a second chance with Romulan-filled NEMESIS.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by REG
You are a lot more forgiving than I am, despite I gave Braga a second chance with ENT or Berman a second chance with Romulan-filled NEMESIS.

Perhaps I am, perhaps not. I can recognize a stinker ("Nemesis") but at the same time see the potential in "Enterprise." I'm just...disappointed that the fix eludes them to turn a 'so-so' show into a great one. (For the record, I initially hated the idea of a prequel show.)

And while I may reside in Utah, the prudish State in the Union, I am a liberal. I don't mind sex on television or the movies (you otta see my DVD collection) but when it comes to Trek I have certain expectations. Was "The Naked Now" titillating? Yes, it was. Did TNG go to that well every week? Unfortunately 7 of 9 gave struggling VOY a big ratings boost so we get to live through that all over again.

I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

[REG]

Like you, I do have certain expectations with regards to my sci-fi favorite. It has gotten to the point with this current regime that I'm practically begging them to impress me.

[Space_Cadet]

I can understand sex being used as a cheap ploy but Star Trek from the beginning has always used sex as a ploy (sluttish witch doctors, miniskirt, greenish strippers). Its tradition and that's why i tend to accept it. Not to disgrace the Roddenberry name, but from what i read he was horn dog and had a hand in (no pun intended) in actress selection, as well as chasing after them.

[REG]

Yeah, but the sex usually don't distract us from the story.

And don't forget, miniskirt is the fashion of the 1960's. Just be glad that mullets weren't used in TNG.

[Space_Cadet]

I guess sexual distraction varies for different individuals.

Just be glad that mullets weren't used in TNG.

true.. it was either that or concrete hair