New News on Next Trek Film

[Sea Tyger]

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.

[V'Lor]

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.

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.

Yep, Trek is a reflection of us now.

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!

[Doug Burke]

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.

[IceGiant]

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 )

[LUGTrekGM]

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.

[LUGTrekGM]

...That is Trek back to its roots you prequel people are looking for.

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.

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.

[V'Lor]

Two points.

1) There's a difference between "rewriting the past" and "filling in the blanks".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

[Doug Burke]

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.

Enterprise (what i saw of it) rarely directly contradicted anything canon. Lots of "fanon" stuff, but not much that was seen on screen.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

Glad to hear it. It just was starting to sound like the direction this thread was heading...

[Ergi]

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.

[LUGTrekGM]

That covers more or less what I am trying to say, only more eloquently, Ergi.

[tonyg]

I think that it is too soon to call. It really doesn't matter what the setting/characters are, as long as it has a good story and they do a good job. Yeah, those are big ANDs, but they are the same ANDs that make r break all movies. The best concept can skill become a terrible film, and a poor initial concept can be made into a great film. It all depends of just how they do it.

[V'Lor]

I made it very clear, but I see people just reading over because they just want Trek.

I went up and down about Enterprise and it failed but the die-hard fans don't want to admit it because they have taken it as faith and blinded. The prequel did not work there and won't work in the movies. B&B was one of the big problems with the project and prequel was the second with Enterprise.

When this bombs in the box office and oh this will for the many reasons I have posted previously then this will be said the DVD sales is what it is about and when the DVD sales are not that great after all the collectors buy it and the few people that liked the movie. It will be a truimph because well the DVD sales were good, yeah.

I heard this from the Enterprise people enough. What I am saying is being skipped over just so people can celebrate what they think will be good because they already see it as a box office smash.

You talk about my cyncism looking at the track record of bomb: Insurrection; Nemesis; Voyager TV Series and Enterprise TV Series fine, as it is waaaaaaaaaaay too early to say this is a bad idea, but you all are saying read what you said guys this will be a success and will be huge. This is what you are saying. Compairing special episodes that were announced as revisions as examples guys read what I said earlier I even underlined it.

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.

That is what I said if they say it is revisionist I won't have an issue, but they are not. That is why I have an issue. Alot of you jumping to the defense of the show missed that part, which means you are not reading what I am saying but just want to promote your idea this Kirk and Spock in the Academy idea is great. They are not calling it a revisionist guys so quit calling it that.

They are not even saying this is a redesign like Batman;Year 1 which was a revision by Frank Miller on Batman or Even the Superman Miniseries that recreated John Byrne. None of that has been said what that is by anyone JJ Abrams or Paramount.

Now let's add some talk here: Gary Mitchell

What is his importance if they do this prequel and how this will be addressed to the importance of Star Trek: TOS?

[Doug Burke]

In a way, the latest news renders a lot of this discussion somewhat moot. Or at least places us firmly back in the realm of complete speculation...

http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/3623/2/

(Ganked from Robin Laws' Blog...)

[V'Lor]

Wow, I find this good news this is not this concept possibly not it. As I stated before I like JJ Abrams work and that direction was not the way to go.

He has a fondness of the characters does not mean it is a film in the past, but may incorperate some of the actors? After all Spock is still alive IRL and in the ST Timeline.

[IceGiant]

In a way, the latest news renders a lot of this discussion somewhat moot. Or at least places us firmly back in the realm of complete speculation...

http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/3623/2/

(Ganked from Robin Laws' Blog...)

And it's not that we have any resemblance to a bunch of old women sitting around gossiping eh Doug?