Some Trek Movie News!

[Squick]

You're absolutely right Tobian; Trek movies do tend to look like extended TV episodes when compared to other FX movies. That's why the creators need to separate themselves from what has been done before and give the franchise the attention it so rightly deserves. Give it the new hot writer/director/producer, give it a line-up of big name actors and give it the FX budget a film like this demands. I'm not saying turn it into a Star Wars prequel debacle where style surely superseded substance, but do a Batman Begins number where the treatment is on target, fresh and empathic.

[WarriorKnight]

You're absolutely right Tobian; Trek movies do tend to look like extended TV episodes when compared to other FX movies. That's why the creators need to separate themselves from what has been done before and give the franchise the attention it so rightly deserves.

But thats all Star Trek movies are .They are just the next episode in the series.To expect anything else is to invite disapointment.The only Star Trek movie that disapponted me was ST:FF.(the out of character jokes & things like Scotty not knowing when to duck.Things like that.)

[REG]

Exactly! What "worked" before, even for the successful Trek movies, won't work again as the genre as a whole has moved on. That's why Trek is failing today...its process is antiquated.

No. It's that Nicholas Meyer is good at what he does.

[REG]

But thats all Star Trek movies are .They are just the next episode in the series.To expect anything else is to invite disapointment.The only Star Trek movie that disapponted me was ST:FF.(the out of character jokes & things like Scotty not knowing when to duck.Things like that.)

Actually, I like those little jokes. It's the story revolves on "god" that didn't seem right or a rehash of "Who Mourns for Adonais?"

[spshu]

<snip> The only Star Trek movie that disapponted me was ST:FF.(the out of character jokes & things like Scotty not knowing when to duck.Things like that.)

Wasn't Scotty under Sabok's influence? To me that was the explaining for him not knowing when to duck.

[Doug Burke]

Wasn't Scotty under Sabok's influence? To me that was the explaining for him not knowing when to duck.

No, he came under Sybok's influence aftert waking up in sickbay...

[spshu]

No, he came under Sybok's influence aftert waking up in sickbay...

You are right; I guess I came up with that reason then dropped then forgot what my newer reason was.


It looks like Marina Sirtis and Michael Dorn are skeptical about this movie.

[REG]

It looks like Marina Sirtis and Michael Dorn are skeptical about this movie.

They're just jealous because they expected one more TNG film.

As for Michael Dorn's comment on not going backward, we did tried to go forward ... TWICE! INSURRECTION and NEMESIS failed to impress me.

As for Marina Sirtis's comment on Paramount's not getting Trek anymore, apparently with all due respect, not even your castmates who meddled with the script writing for the last two TNG films.

You know who understand Trek? Manny Coto, who just worked on 24 this past season. Even though it was too late, the fourth season of ENTEPRISE impressed me more than the previous three seasons because of Manny .... um, not counting the series finale episode you starred in, Marina.

[Tobian]

Put those claws away Reg: It's nothing to do with them that someone badly wrote Nemesis or the last series of Enterprise! Fundamentally they are right, it is a risky idea, if not completelly 'bad' with the right hands. Manny Coto made a good job out of a mess that B&B had made with the whole concept of the show, but that doesn't neccessarily mean he could write or direct a feature: As has been discussed, it does need better treatment than just a double length episode!

To be honest they are not saying more or less than most of the fans, with possibly more insight into what's going on than most!

[Kirk Johnson-Weider]

The problem with Star Trek is that the franchise has nowhere to go. Voyager pretty much ended any real continuation of the timeline. Voyager was more about technology than story and Seven of Nine was simply the dumbing down of Trek to sex appeal. Sure there were a few decent episodes, but overall Voyager was rather unimpressive the characters were pretty flat and the whole 'get back to home' story was really old. By the end of Voyager, the technology of Starfleet rendered most adventures pointless or would have to be terribly contrived.

Instead of trying to salvage Trek, which would have been difficult, they went back in time to do Enterprise. Once again dumbed down with sex appeal (T'Pol), shallow characters, with naivete and stupidity being used to represent the earlier time period. We watched a few episodes and simply didn't care, they were redoing history and redoing it poorly. People say things improved in later seasons, but as Trek DVDs are so outrageously over-priced we will probably never know.

Really, the problem is that Trek is now too cautious. Compared to other science fiction shows, recent Trek feels bland and uninspired. I mean let's be honest, why wasn't there a gay character on Enterprise? It's little things like that, Trek has lost its ability to seem progressive and visionary. That said, we enjoyed Nemesis it was a good Trek movie comparable to most of the other movies. For audiences I don't think it was the special effects or story, which were fine enough, but the fact that Trek just doesn't feel right anymore and they don't care about the characters.

Maybe a new approach will help, maybe Star Trek XI will reinvent the franchise. Let's be honest, right now it is a dead, or mortally wounded, so trying something new is a good idea.

[REG]

Manny Coto made a good job out of a mess that B&B had made with the whole concept of the show, but that doesn't neccessarily mean he could write or direct a feature: As has been discussed, it does need better treatment than just a double length episode!

Meh. One could say the same about Alias and Felicity TV creator, JJ Abrams.

[REG]

Really, the problem is that Trek is now too cautious. Compared to other science fiction shows, recent Trek feels bland and uninspired. I mean let's be honest, why wasn't there a gay character on Enterprise? It's little things like that, Trek has lost its ability to seem progressive and visionary. That said, we enjoyed Nemesis it was a good Trek movie comparable to most of the other movies. For audiences I don't think it was the special effects or story, which were fine enough, but the fact that Trek just doesn't feel right anymore and they don't care about the characters.

Maybe a new approach will help, maybe Star Trek XI will reinvent the franchise. Let's be honest, right now it is a dead, or mortally wounded, so trying something new is a good idea.

I know you're using that as an example, but does having a gay character makes a big difference in reinventing Trek? I mean it's just another "interesting icon" following Spock, Data, Odo, EMH-1, and Phlox.

What would impress me is a good edge-of-the seat story that doesn't mangle past continuity (like adding Remans to the Romulan populace).

[First of Two]

Y'know, it looks as though the folks over at Pocket Books may be unraveling that Reman mess. There's a trilogy called "Exiles" (Book 1 and 2 are out, book 3 is slated for next year I think) dealing with the Sundering's history.

If I'm reading it correctly, the Remans may be an offshoot of the Romulans. The book makes it seem as though the Remans were a group of Surak's followers who the Romulans stranded on Remus early on in their shared history.

What Surak's followers were doing on "Romulan" ships is a long story, you'd have to read the book.

[Kirk Johnson-Weider]

I agree, but at least it would be an icon that is not completely overdone in science fiction and would provide the writers with a new dynamic. Trek just feels rehashed in its last few incarnations.

I also have to agree that while I think Trek could use a restart, JJ Abrahms worries me. I don't really find him that innovative, I mean Lost is cute, but its really not that original. Still Paramount has picked him so not much use in complaining about it, might as well hope for the best.

I think Trek is best when it is character driven with an edge-of-the seat story, and the current batch of Trek writers can only do one or the other and when they try both they fall flat. I also agree that how hard is it to keep to continuity, considering how many Star Trek roleplaying adventures I have ran I can say it really isn't that hard to create great stories within the continuity. Laziness is more a factor I think than the needs of the story.

[Squick]

Voyager was more about technology than story and Seven of Nine was simply the dumbing down of Trek to sex appeal.

and

Once again dumbed down with sex appeal (T'Pol), shallow characters, with naivete and stupidity being used to represent the earlier time period.

Hate to say it, but sex appeal has always been part of Trek, especially TOS. So, I suppose it's just an extension of that.

I mean let's be honest, why wasn't there a gay character on Enterprise?

I agree with this statement. Such and inclusion would indicate welcomed daring with the franchise. Just don't know if I could handle man-to-man snogging

Another thing they should take from TOS is the limited number of protagonists. I mean, let's not kid, every series since has had a large cast with a bevy of regulars that all fight for screen time. While this is fine for TV it doesn't work well on film. Think X-Men.

I also have to agree that while I think Trek could use a restart, JJ Abrahms worries me. I don't really find him that innovative, I mean Lost is cute, but its really not that original. Still Paramount has picked him so not much use in complaining about it, might as well hope for the best.

I think Trek is best when it is character driven with an edge-of-the seat story, and the current batch of Trek writers can only do one or the other and when they try both they fall flat. I also agree that how hard is it to keep to continuity, considering how many Star Trek roleplaying adventures I have ran I can say it really isn't that hard to create great stories within the continuity. Laziness is more a factor I think than the needs of the story.

While not the biggest fan of Lost, which I thought had a lot of promise initially and then kind of went nowhere, it is nothing if character-driven. Never watched Alias or Felicity so can't comment there. I have faith in Abram's creative team. It's all about a willingness to explore fresh ideas and a passion for the medium. If he's been called the new Spielberg (which is rather premature IMO) then we've got a lot more promise than say, a Jonathan Frakes or some other second-rate Trek-spawned jack-off.