Some Trek Movie News!

[Hugh Casey]

I posted this on my blog, in THIS ENTRY about news that's been coming out of San Diego ComicCon, and thought that this part would interest some of you here...

CBS/Paramount released the teaser poster for the next Trek movie, which will be coming in 2008, and produced by J.J. Abrams (producer of Lost and Alias, and director of MI:3). I like the poster... very, very retro. Lends credance to some of the rumors that we've been hearing about a reboot of the franchise. And, yes, that poster is now my new desktop background (you can get one HERE if you want). Oh, and if you want to check out ant interview in Variety with Abrams about Trek (no details on the plot, but lots of his thoughts on the franchise), check it out HERE.

I've also got some notes about some Spiderman 3 and Babylon 5 news that's been coming out of SD, too, so feel free to check it out if you want.

[Cut]

Concerning the Trek news: So it seems certain that we'll see yet another sci-fi prequel. Well, not my favorite option, but hey, if it's Trek I'll give it a chance.

When will there be a SG-1 prequel, showing how the Goa'uld (have I written that strange word right?!) conquered and dominated earth?!

Ah and Hugh: Thank you for sharing BOOM BOOM ACKALACKA BOOM

[Hugh Casey]

You're welcome. I couldn't get it out of my head, so I figured... "Why not SHARE the pain!"

[Cut]

"Why not SHARE the pain!"

You are way too kind, sir!

[Squick]

I actually like the route they're going with this. The "teaser" style poster is really nice. The textured uniforms are reminiscent of Spider-Man or Superman Returns.

If they market it correctly, this may very well be the rebirth of Trek in a manner never expected or seen before. Imagine a Batman Begins or V for Vendetta take on Trek? This could be very sleek and edgy movie making by a young and happening creative team. Very cool.

[black campbellq]

I'm with Squick on this one. The Trek universe kind of painted itself into a corner by refusing allow things to really change -- too much emphasis on the "head of the week" mentality and weak characters in the last two shows.

[Squick]

If you think about it, Trek hasn't really capitalised on the appeal of using big celebrity actors or even widely accepted critically acclaimed actors (like a Johnny Depp). If they had to adopt this route, something akin to a comic book adaptation, I think its appeal will grow leaps and bounds. And that’s what this franchise needs to stay fresh and happening. Yeah, the TV series actors are cool (well most of them), but when given the opportunity to introduce new characters on film, like XI proposes to do, then big name actors should be used.

[REG]

Meh. We've already had big-name celebs on Trek before (e.g., Christopher Plummer). A few even got their start on Trek (e.g., Famke Jansen, a Bond girl turned mutant psychic).

My one fear of having JJ Abrams doing Trek ... is that he might call up Tom Cruise. *shudders in fear and disgust*

[Squick]

Christopher Plummer a big name...hehehehehe. Who would go and see a Trek movie just because of him even in his heyday?

Nowadays movies pull in audiences largely on who's in the film. Might be a tad lame, but that's the way it is.

And yeah, the risk is, of course, getting in crappy big stars like said Tom Cruise or Ben Affleck. But, you have to admit that doing so will bring a whole different audience to the franchise which will in turn rejuvenate it further than anything has to date.

[Tobian]

I dissagree Squick... Most of the major brands carried forward on the name of the PRODUCT, not the STAR almost never have big name stars in them. For example Spiderman has made a big name out of Toby McGuire and Kirsten Dunst, they were known, but NOT a-list celebrities - though both of them have since went on to get several lucrative roles. The latest Superman is also full of more-or-less unknowns (even Kevin Spacey is not an A-list celebrity, though very big in a cult sense). Having a relativelly big name vilain, or at least a fantastic character actor (and in that sense Christopher Plumber was!) will be a massive help: Our evil supervilain in Nemesis was a bit of a damp squib, much like the movie.

More than anything we want people in this thing who don't get swallowed by the media machine, and can stand on their own two feet and give outstanding performances, and not just rely on the fact that they are 'a big name star'. We also have to remember that we are hoping to get a franchise out of this.. this could be the big make-or-break film.. and if we get a bunch of stars who are NEVER going to go on to make the series, then that hope is dead in the water before it begins! Do you think Ben Afleck or Tom Cruise would star in the TV series (washes mind out with soap at the horrible image )?

The flip side of that is that many actors will be well aware of the pit-trap of Trek - some people never escape it once they enter, or their careers falter after the show, and they never get more than that, so it's going to be very hard to recruit people because of that alone! A Big name celebrity, for that reason may well become a 'vilain' because it is almost always a one shot deal, but for everyone else, they could be along for the ride!

[Squick]

My point is that to continue this franchise, we must largely reject what was done with Trek in the past. By this I mean what “worked” before has been outdated by what’s been happening in genre in recent years. Television series like Lost (which is mainstream SF!), have set a new – very high – bar, as has the proliferation of comic book film adaptations (all of which are not good, granted). Who the hell would have guessed a V for Vendetta movie would have been made (and so well, IMO)? Insane! So with that in mind, Trek should adopt a similar process. Get a good bunch of creators, a matching set of big name actors enthusiastic to be linked to a fantastic property and do your best. Amazing what comes out of this!

Concerning the celebrity of actors: Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst versus Gates McFadden and Terry Farrell? Please! The former are young, happening actors waiting to lend their energy to something as cool as Spider-Man. The latter didn’t even realise how lucky they were to be associated with something like Trek in the first place and bad actors to boot. I never said A-list actors (though that would help), just big names whose only claim to fame isn’t Star Trek for God sakes! And who says this movie must translate to a TV series? Let’s just get a decent film first.

[REG]

Christopher Plummer a big name...hehehehehe. Who would go and see a Trek movie just because of him even in his heyday?

Who would go see a Star Wars film because of Alec Guinness even in HIS heyday? Even George Lucas knew he had to cast a big-name star among the list of unknown cast.

[REG]

My point is that to continue this franchise, we must largely reject what was done with Trek in the past. By this I mean what “worked” before has been outdated by what’s been happening in genre in recent years.

Not necessarily. Nicholas Meyer have proved on two distant occasions (Star Trek II and VI) to make successful Trek films. The problem is they try to emulate what he can do but could not.

[Squick]

Not necessarily. Nicholas Meyer have proved on two distant occasions (Star Trek II and VI) to make successful Trek films. The problem is they try to emulate what he can do but could not.

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.

[Tobian]

The largest flaw in the modern trek films is that they lack the sense of being... feature films. That's the basic quality they lack because of the cheap way they produce them. To be 'feature films' they really have to be MUCH more than just a double length episode with more expensive special effects. They got something really right with the Enterprise in the motion picture and wrath of khan - the ships felt like actual ships in a way you can't do with TV effects.. you saw huge chunks of set, the ship felt statelly and looked like it was huge.

Nemesis was perehaps one of the worst examples of that.. they only used a handful of sets.. which were of course just re-uses of First contact, and the special effects looked pretty cheap (the new Reman ship was pretty non descript!).

Too often directors and producers nowadays rely on the fact that recent technology can make special effects cheaper.. However most contemporary films rely on the fact that because it's cheaper - they can do MORE with it and have more! Some of the best films, you don't even realise you are seeing special effects! When you compare latter trek movies with the Matrix, or the recent Starwars film - their effects are basic and cheap. Generations and First contact got it nearly right, and they put a lot more effort into the effects, the set and lighting design and the story. Nemesis was like a B movie plot or double length episode. They seem to miss the point that with a buget 10 or 50 times that of the series shows... the film needs to look like you spent it - not just added some new twinkly lights onto the bridge set from the show!