PeterDavid.net

Not to be a suckup, but I think New Frontiers would make a great series.

I agree...New Frontier would be the way to go. It's just enough of a contrast from the "older" TNG; it would be the kick in the pants that Star Trek needs. (Not to mention that New Frontier has some of the best Star Trek stories ever...)

Harve may be banging his head against the wall, but if Star Trek XI is made with this concept, and is as much of a failure (in the US box office) as Nemesis was, then he might end up being thankful he wasn't involved in the first place.

I think, as a concept, Kirk & Spock Academy Days would've worked 20 years ago. But now? No, I don't think it would work.

Even more so because ENT was canned and seems to be more or less considered a failure as a whole.

As I said on the Psiphi boards, this idea comes across as something better suited as a tv pilot rather than a theatrical film.

At this point, I don't like the concept, but I'm probably in the majority there. :)

According to a story in Shatner and Kreski's Star Trek Movie Memories, Bennett's idea was quashed when a Paramount executive, who had been out of the loop in the film's development, learned that "Bill and Leonard are very happy about their cameos". Apparently he got really ticked and demanded there be an original crew movie.

This might end up being a great film, but I'd rather have an all new Starfleet Academy type show, with new characters (maybe with a couple of familiar faces in recurring roles as teachers/guest lecturers), set a decade or so after TNG/DS9.

That's just me, though.

Put me on the New Frontier band wagon...NF would be great up on the big screen...especially with PAD screenplays...

I believe PAD once stated that for Paramount to use characters that were not created by them (as several New Fronteir characters aren't) they would have to pay the creator of those characters. But if they go only with Paramount-owned characters, they don't have those costs. Therefore, a New Fronteir movie or tv show isn't likely to happen.

I don't know. I have to agree with Craig on this one. I think a "Trekville" approach might work for a TV show idea (whether it be a pilot movie, miniseries, series, or whatever), but it doesn't really scream "Big Screen Blockbuster" to me.

I Still say a post DS9 series is best... Say 20 years after the Dominion War. Or set the series with a broken Federation with a ship named Enterprise tasked with rebuilding Star Fleet.

Enterprise was a failure? In what terms? It lasted one more season than the original. It lasted three more seasons than most TV shows ever get. (My wife still watches her whole run of "Book of Daniel").
And I'd love to find bootlegs of "Hot L Baltimore", and am waiting for the DVD release of "Brisco County Jr." this summer. Sure it didn't get the seven seasons "TNG" or "Deep Space Babylon 5" got. And was "Voyager" a success because it ran that long?

I fear we are stuck with the thought that only "Trek Classic" made money to (excuse the Bobby Blake moment,) "The Suits" at Paramount.

Having said all that if we get a goof Science Fiction movie out of Abrams, would that be so bad?

I still remember all the hand ringing and wailing when Michael Keaton was named to play Batman in the first movie. Still to my mind the second best Batman movie after "Begins".

As Peter stated this movie may crash and burn before ever getting made. But then would we be Fans if we didn't second guess and make up our minds before we ever see the dang thing?

Sometimes I just look at the poster I got from Chuck Jones years ago, it it is a six foot horizontal poster showing the Coyote Chasing the Road Runner and along the way are signs in the vein of the old "Burma Shave" signs. And they state, "A fanatic is somone who redoubles his efforts after he's forgotten his aim."

Remember Fan IS short for fanatic.

Bobb

Everyone should go to Userfiendly.org and look at Sunday's comic.

I know I'm sticking my head in the lion's mouth, but I liked Voyager and Enterprise. Voyager was weak until they introduced Seven of Nine, at which point the show got interesting. Characters could get angry with one another and on a rare occasion act less than honorably without the influence of some mind-controlling-or-altering-whatsis.

Enterprise started out with great potential and then floundered with boring plots and little-or-no character development. But the Xindi war, even with its plot holes and its "affronts" to the self-appointed Defenders of Trek Continuity, changed the show for the better. Again, the characters were allowed to be a little bit flawed, and a little bit passionate about something: defending their world from destruction. For instance, Archer's decision to steal critical parts from a ship in the Expanse was a compelling episode because it's something that happens to real leaders during wartime: they face choices about whether or not to cross ethical lines for a perceived "greater good."

And get out your pitchforks and torches, because I even liked the Enterprise theme song.

I could get into a "young Spock and Kirk" prequel movie, if done well. I don't think the premise is as important as the execution. I mean, Nemesis was Next Generation all the way, so it should've been great, right? But the movie was mediocre at best. I mean, the movie managed to make the death of Data, one of the series' most popular characters, ho-hum. They ignored his emotion chip, portrayed him exactly as he was always portrayed during the ST:TNG series, added nothing to his character and then... well, sent him off to die in a dud of a death scene. If you're gonna kill a major character, and you're not doing it under duress because they're leaving a T.V. series (like Terry Farrell of DS9), for God's sake, take the time to say something meaningful with the character before sending them off, y'know?

I think the real problem with the entire Star Trek franchise is that it's never managed to truly free itself of Roddenberry's confining philosophy that humanity can be perfected and Star Trek should portray characters who are heroic in every respect. The reason why Star Trek pales in comparison to, say, the new Battlestar Galactica is that BSG portrays real human beings who exhibit the full range of human emotions and qualities.

I don't understand why "Nemesis" would be such a deterrent from Paramount releasing another Trek movie. The movie didn't bomb because people had lost interest in the characters or the Trek universe, it bombed because it sucked. It was a poorly written, poorly directed, and came out in (what seemed to me, anyway) a semi-limited and very unheralded release.

Wasn't it also the case with "Nemesis" that it opened basically the week sandwiched in between the openings of the first "Harry Potter"-movie and "Lord of the Rings"? I mean come ON! That has got to be one of the worst choices of opening day ever. And yet Rick Berman always just goes questionmark as to why the movie flopped. That's incompetence!

"Enterprise was a failure? In what terms?"

Profitability. Longevity doesn't equal financial success, and Paramount had been financing Trek back in the early 90s such that an episode was a money loser on first airing, making it up in syndication and reruns. I have no idea if they continued that philosophy with Enterprise but if they did... seen any reruns anywhere?

Having said all that if we get a goof Science Fiction movie out of Abrams, would that be so bad?

Here's another vote for a goof science fiction movie. I love humor.

I think the "suits" may feel to get a successful Trek film they need to use characters that the general populace are familiar with -- not just the fan(atic)s. They feel Kirk and Spock qualify, and since Shatner and Nimoy are too expensive, and likely too old, Young Kirk and Young Spock's the way to go.

And was "Voyager" a success because it ran that long?

When it comes to the bottom line? Yes.

The notion that ENT only ran as long as it did (ie, they even got a 4th season) to get it near that magic number of episodes for syndication is a good one - the show barely even got a 4th season to begin with.

It wouldn't have been failure had Berman said that after 4 years, that that was it.

No, the studio pulled the plug on a show with horrible ratings from the start that was costing too much that they also slashed the budget for the 4th season just to be able to make it.

And this doesn't even get into the issue of whether ENT even added anything useful to Trek as a whole.

So, imo, ENT = total waste + cancelled far later than it should've been = failure.

Wasn't it also the case with "Nemesis" that it opened basically the week sandwiched in between the openings of the first "Harry Potter"-movie and "Lord of the Rings"?

Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, AND the last James Bond movie iirc.

Please make the hurting stop! I just want a good ST movie. ALSO not to sound like a suck up, ST New Frontiers would be a great concept. Its got everything. And I am not being a suckup, just telling my opinion.

I believe PAD once stated that for Paramount to use characters that were not created by them (as several New Fronteir characters aren't) they would have to pay the creator of those characters. But if they go only with Paramount-owned characters, they don't have those costs. Therefore, a New Fronteir movie or tv show isn't likely to happen.

Er, Paramount does own New Frontier, lock, stock, and phaser banks, and it was created under a work-for-hire agreement. I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that Paramount wouldn't be under any obligation to pay Peter anything. If they used characters that Peter created for television, that would be a different story, as it would be governed by the Writers Guild rules, but those are for screenwriters, not prose writers.

But I don't think Paramount would be obligated to pay Peter anything. By the same token, I suspect that most producer-types in Hollywood would rather create their own thing because they get more money if they get a sole "created by" credit. *grin*

---KRAD

Not to throw a bigger wet blanket on the proceedings... But wasn't it JJ Abrams Superman script-- featuring Lex Luthor as a Super-Powered Kryptonian-- that stalled that movie's development?

If Abrams brings the same wreckless sensibility to a ST:TOS movie pre-quel that he did to his Superman script... I can't even imagine the die-hard fan uproar that would follow.

But if he goes for the funny... I want Matt Damon as Kirk and Ben Affleck as Mr. Spock!

Abrams may be receiving early high marks for his Mission Impossible film-- but whatever "The Suits" do... I hope they don't let him make a sequel. If ALIAS is any indication, it will just be the same thing over and over and over and over...

Don asked about _Enterprise_: "seen any reruns anywhere?"

Actually, yes. Channel 7 in Detroit shows two back-to-back episodes at 12:30 a.m. on Sundays (recently bumped up to 1 a.m.). One weird thing is that the second hour one week is rerun as the first hour the following week.

The other weird thing is that about two months after showing a series of episodes involving Archer carrying Surak's Katra; the Romulan's behind-the-scenes efforts to sabotage negotiations between the Tellarites and the Andorians; and the "Earth First" plot that rounded out the series, they showed these same episodes _again_. Yeah, that makes sense.

On the matter of _Nemesis_, I've never seen it. It remains the only _Trek_ movie I never saw. And I used to go to the first matinee showing on opening day.

Except for _Star Trek the Motion Picture_, which I vaguely recall was an evening show.

As to any proposed new movie and/or TV series and/or live performance with sock puppets and/or any other conceivable form in which _Star Trek_ might return, I'll take a wait-and-see stance.

Right now, I don't have any emotional investment in whether _Trek_ returns in any form.

Rick

Is there any indication that James Kirk had ever even met Spock prior to their service together on the Enterprise? Certainly, I don't know of any precedence for the idea that they went to Star Fleet Academy together (or am I being too anal retentive). I'm not sure about this idea as a movie, but at least it works better in this context than as a series (although a ST: Star Fleet Academy series not involving young Kirk & Spock could work either live or animated).

I'll add my vote to the idea of a series of ST: New Frontier mini-series!

"As I said on the Psiphi boards, this idea comes across as something better suited as a tv pilot rather than a theatrical film."

What makes you think it's not both? The term is "back door pilot." They get to build sets, costumes, etc., on a motion picture budget. If the film's a success, they can roll straight into series. The fact that they went to an accomplished TV hand makes me think that's what they're eyeing.

"I believe PAD once stated that for Paramount to use characters that were not created by them (as several New Fronteir characters aren't) they would have to pay the creator of those characters. But if they go only with Paramount-owned characters, they don't have those costs."

No, that's not what I said. Fans would routinely asked why Berman and Pillar, when creating a new Trek TV series, didn't use "New Frontier." Among the various reasons was the simple observation that whoever has the "created by" credit of a new series gets money every single time that credit appears on the screen. So why in the world would B&P want to have it say, "Created by John Ordover and Peter David" and have us get some or all of that significant amount of money when it can say "Created by B&P" and THEY get all the money. It made no economic sense for B&P to be making that money when they could be.

PAD

Posted by Don at April 25, 2006 01:42 PM

"Enterprise was a failure? In what terms?"

Profitability. Longevity doesn't equal financial success, and Paramount had been financing Trek back in the early 90s such that an episode was a money loser on first airing, making it up in syndication and reruns. I have no idea if they continued that philosophy with Enterprise but if they did... seen any reruns anywhere?

Yup. The Fox affiliate in Rochester, N.Y., has been showing the re-runs in syndication.

Also, Paramount's strategy with regards to Trek series' is a bit more far-reaching than just making it up in syndication and reruns. Keeping Trek on the air, and therefore in people's minds, generates DVD sales; revenue from tie-ins in other media, like books; and sales of Trek-related merchandise. Not an unsound strategy. In fact, I read that may be one of the reasons they re-upped Enterprise for a fourth season: not only because four seasons would be enough to let them put the show in syndication, but also because it's one more DVD collection to sell, and one more year of Trek to generate interest in related merchandise.

No, that's not what I said. Fans would routinely asked why Berman and Pillar, when creating a new Trek TV series, didn't use "New Frontier." Among the various reasons was the simple observation that whoever has the "created by" credit of a new series gets money every single time that credit appears on the screen.

Ahh. It's funny how memory works. I remembered that money was involved somehow.

PAD -
What makes you think it's not both?

I never said it couldn't end up being both, I merely said I think it's a bad plot for a theatrical film.

However, I'm also of the opinion that I don't think they should be using a theatrical movie to jumpstart a new show. :)

Bill Myers -
Yup. The Fox affiliate in Rochester, N.Y., has been showing the re-runs in syndication.

Do you have a UPN or WB affiliate in your area?

I ask because Fox has mostly been the one to air both Voyager and Enterprise in areas where UPN wasn't around when those shows were on their initial runs. And, at the announcement of the combining of UPN and WB, there was still a decent chunk of the country that didn't even have a UPN affiliate.

We have both UPN and WB here in Denver, although it's interesting to see that it's WB showing the ENT reruns, not UPN.

But with the two networks combining, it's hard to say what is going to happen with a number of on-going and syndicated shows, including Enterprise.

And the success of "Smallville" plus other teen-oriented dramas must have registered on Paramount.

And other fans. For that, blame Aaron Spelling.

When Harve was trying to pitch his Starfleet Academy idea, the response from some intense fans was 'nineohtwooneoh', floowed by fingers in the ears and eyes closed. Any further effort to extend the conversation was greeted with a louder chanting of 'NINEOHTWOONEOH! NINEOHTWOONEOH! NINEOHTWOONEOH!'

Yeah, we had Roswell and Buffy. But we had to get The OC to pushed 'nineohtwooneoh' out of the conscious of the fanboy/girl mind.

So, you got Smallville, and Supernatural, even Veronica Mars.

And suddenly, you can have a young Kirk and Spock at the Academy.

And Finnegan.

Heck, you can even have the cute blond lab tech.

It was about time.

I'd much rather see the franchise move forward in time rather than backwards. There's nothing wrong with prequels per se -- the journey can still be interesting even when the final destination is known in advance -- but there are so many things in the 24th century I'd like to see addressed that I feel as if this idea is potentially an exercise in wheel-spinning.

(And nothing against Harve, but the man greenlit ST5. For that I think a great many people would like to bang his head against a wall. :-)

Enterprise was a failure? In what terms?

Critical, IMO. Part of it was a big "let's muck around with history because we can" festival, and the characters by and large were ones I found exceptionally bland.

The Xindi war, which Bill mentions as a highlight, really did very little for me except maybe towards the end. Frankly, while the potential for tons of great conflict was there, I feel as though the series mostly decided, "hey, let's have Archer play Dubya". Hence the torture. Hence the "we're going to do rotten things and say it's for a good end."

Now, that COULD have been extraordinarily interesting, had the characters actually discussed it and raised some moral questions about where to go from here. But, like Voyager before it, The Captain Was Right, Period. There were the occasional sidelong glances, but that's about it. As such, I found the third season profoundly unpleasant most of the time. (I've heard that the final season is much better, but have yet to see any of it.)

Filmed Trek in the post-DS9 era seemed to decide that the best way to keep viewers was (a) lots of skin (cf. Jeri Ryan and/or Jolene Blalock, with others on occasion), and (b) create a great deal of the illusion of conflict without ever letting any of the real stuff mess up their premises.

(Bill, if you want to see lead characters behave less-than-honorably and raise moral questions in the process, try DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight". One of the best hours of modern Trek ever made, IMO.)

That said ... as I've not watched "Alias" or "Lost", it's hard for me to really evaluate what J.J. Abrams is going to bring to the mix. I'm hoping this is a success .. but as was said above, I'm not bringing a lot of emotional investment to the question. I saw "Nemesis" and enjoyed it, but not so much that I'm in agony over the drought -- and some of the published Trek work, such as New Frontier and especially (sorry, Peter) the post-series DS9 novels, are keeping my interest in that universe alive quite nicely on their own.

Whew. Sorry, that turned into quite an essay there.

TWL

everyone busting on Enterprise is forgetting the "In A Mirror, Darkly..." 2 parter that was all kinds of awesome. Seriously, opens with a great twist on "First Contact", Mirror Archer going flat out buggo, guest apperance by The Gorn & classic TOS sets. It was 2 hours of TV gold. Fanboy wankfest, sure, but a hellova lota fun.

As for Abrams, yeah, nobody really likes Star Trek: Academy idea. But its Abrams, so me's give it a shot. But doing a prequel always gets Trek continuity geeks knickers in a twist.

Personally, I think they should do Star Trek set 100s of years after TNG where there's only, like, a half-beaten up Consitution class ship, manned by a Klingon, a Ferengi, a human, a hologram, a pet hamster, and the rest of the galaxy is full of Borg. Fun, fun, fun!

Posted by Craig J. Ries at April 25, 2006 03:35 PM
Do you have a UPN or WB affiliate in your area?

Yeah, we have both.

I noticed that the local Fox affiliate has only been showing about maybe 15 or 20 episodes, over and over and over. Does anyone know if that's the way Enterprise is being syndicated everywhere?

Posted by: Tim Lynch at April 25, 2006 03:50 PM

The Xindi war, which Bill mentions as a highlight, really did very little for me except maybe towards the end. Frankly, while the potential for tons of great conflict was there, I feel as though the series mostly decided, "hey, let's have Archer play Dubya". Hence the torture. Hence the "we're going to do rotten things and say it's for a good end."

Now, that COULD have been extraordinarily interesting, had the characters actually discussed it and raised some moral questions about where to go from here. But, like Voyager before it, The Captain Was Right, Period. There were the occasional sidelong glances, but that's about it. As such, I found the third season profoundly unpleasant most of the time. (I've heard that the final season is much better, but have yet to see any of it.)

Actually, one of the things I find frustrating about Star Trek is the tendency of characters to pontificate rather than to act from the gut as humans sometimes do. I'll never forget Picard's speech during part one of the ST:TNG episode, "The Best of Both Worlds," where Picard is talking with Guinan and wonders if the Borg will be the end of the Federation.

"This is just another chapter in history. Turn the page," Picard says with inhuman evenness. My God, the mighty Federation was facing an enemy against which their every weapon has failed! Even a man like Picard would have some doubts and fears to express. And it seems believable that he'd express them to Guinan, whom he trusts deeply and for whom he has no need to put on a brave front.

Frankly, I didn't mind the episode in Enterprise where Archer crippled another ship to repair his vessel and just moved on. It allowed us, the viewers, to ask the questions, rather than having them spoon-fed to us in speeches.

That said, I'm not telling you that you're wrong. You and I have different opinions, but the world's big enough for both of us -- and billions of others.

Filmed Trek in the post-DS9 era seemed to decide that the best way to keep viewers was (a) lots of skin (cf. Jeri Ryan and/or Jolene Blalock, with others on occasion), and (b) create a great deal of the illusion of conflict without ever letting any of the real stuff mess up their premises.

(Bill, if you want to see lead characters behave less-than-honorably and raise moral questions in the process, try DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight". One of the best hours of modern Trek ever made, IMO.)

I've seen almost every episode of DS9. Was that the one where Sisko tricked the Romulans into joining the war against the Dominion? If so, I'd agree with you on all counts. Great conflict, great moral ambiguity, great episode.

Still, those things tend to be the exception that proves the rule in the Trek franchise. DS9 provided characters that were more complex and allowed for more interpersonal conflict than, say, TNG or Voyager (although I think you're underrating Voyager in that regard -- Janeway got the job done, but I don't know that she was always necessarily "right"). But that's not saying much, in my view, because the "baseline" for the emotional richness of Trek's characters was set fairly low by the original and the Next Generation, IMHO.

As an aside, that's why I love the character of Mackenzie Calhoun. There's a complex, emotionally compelling character for you.

Anyway, that's the reason I contrasted Trek with the new Battlestar Galactica: the characters in BSG get to be human. Sometimes they do the wrong thing, not for the "greater good," but simply because they're selfish, imperfect humans, like the rest of us. For example, Tigh's drinking problem isn't in any way heroic; but it's very human.

Whew. Sorry, that turned into quite an essay there.

Why are you sorry? While you and I have different tastes, I thought your post was well-written and worth reading. It's always interesting to see things from someone else's perspective, even if it's one I don't ultimately share.

Following on PAD's comments re: B&P would want something that has them on the creator line, and not say PAD and Johnny O....could they, for example, make Star Trek: Next Frontier, featuring Captain Jackenzi Malhoun and crew in wild rule breaking adventures?

What kind of ...intelectual? protection would PAD and co have?

Craig wrote: "I think, as a concept, Kirk & Spock Academy Days would've worked 20 years ago. But now? No, I don't think it would work."

Oh, I don't know. Remember, it's not the basic premise itself that usually fails in popular culture -- it is the story and execution.

In 1976, if a bunch of people were sitting around a major studio conference table and I walked in and said, "I want to make a space opera film -- one that evokes the excitement of old serials, war movies and ‘B’ westerns," they would have laughed at me. But a year later, after Lucas shocked the world with a wildly successful "Star Wars" film that drew copiously from all three genres, the mood would have been much more receptive, I'll bet.

But, like I said, it isn't the premise (or formula) -- it's the execution. The terrible "Flash Gordon" film released in 1980 -- undoubtedly trying to ride the success coattails of "Star Wars" -- bombed not because it aped the blockbusters premise, but because the people executing the latter film (quite literally, I guess) just didn't get it.

Actually, I can think of a bunch of interesting scenarios a couple of space academy cadets could get themselves into -- some, in my opinion, quite riveting. I think it will entirely depend on the production talent whether this new starship explores the galaxy or slides headfirst into a black hole on its maiden voyage.

With all due respect to Mr. Bennett, I think a series centered around Starfleet Academy is an obvious one that any number of people could come up with. I myself thought an Next-Gen era Academy series set concurrently with DS9, which would deepen Nog’s character, and explore what life is like on Earth in the 24th century, including for civilians, and their reactions to a mostly far away war, would have been interesting. Berman and Braga pretty much ran the franchise into the ground with their total lack of value for good writing, and the Enterprise finale was pretty much the epitome of that.

But as far as one with Kirk and Spock, well, I’m not sure. I kinda get the sense that Kirk and Spock did not know each other at the Academy, even if they’ve never explicitly established it. Then again, they did explicitly establish that Kirk’s Enterprise was the first ship named Enterprise, and I was able to put that continuity glitch aside. I could forgive lots in the way of continuity contradictions if executed well by someone like Abrams, Whedon, etc.

And not that this is the first time I said this, but yeah, I’d give my left nut for a New Frontier series.

Okay, maybe not my left nut, but lots of stuff I value. My sketchbooks, my drawing board, my photo collection, my cat, Elsa…

Okay, maybe not Elsa…

Bobb Waller: Enterprise was a failure? In what terms? It lasted one more season than the original. It lasted three more seasons than most TV shows ever get…
Luigi Novi: While Enterprise should be commended for getting much closer to 100 episodes than the original series or many other series have, and while it did fix a lot of the problems that plagued Voyager, and deserves kudos for some valiant attempts that ongoing continuity, it still suffered many of the problems handed down from Voyager, including lack of clear plans for many of its characters, and episodes marred by bad, prosaically written, and derivative stories. I can’t speak for Craig, but perhaps some consider it a failure by virtue of comparison to the previous four series that went a full seven seasons.

Tim Lynch: Filmed Trek in the post-DS9 era seemed to decide that the best way to keep viewers was (a) lots of skin (cf. Jeri Ryan and/or Jolene Blalock, with others on occasion)…
Luigi Novi: Seven of Nine appeared in Voyager’s fourth season premiere, which means she was present during DS9’s sixth and seventh seasons. I don’t say this to nitpick, but to underscore how the problems faces by the last two Trek shows IIUC, had more to do with UPN’s control over them versus what the prior ones could do in syndication, rather than simply where in the production timeline they were produced.

Bill Myers: Actually, one of the things I find frustrating about Star Trek is the tendency of characters to pontificate rather than to act from the gut as humans sometimes do. I'll never forget Picard's speech during part one of the ST:TNG episode, "The Best of Both Worlds," where Picard is talking with Guinan and wonders if the Borg will be the end of the Federation. "This is just another chapter in history. Turn the page," Picard says with inhuman evenness. My God, the mighty Federation was facing an enemy against which their every weapon has failed! Even a man like Picard would have some doubts and fears to express. And it seems believable that he'd express them to Guinan, whom he trusts deeply and for whom he has no need to put on a brave front.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see why putting on such a front is only something you do with those with whom you don’t have as strong a rapport. Even in such times, people will still have a sense of resolve, faith, or optimism. To each his own, though. :-)

My idea for a great STAR TREK series: Star Fleet Intelligence. How does the noble, direct Federation uphold its principles for people working covertly and in the shadows? What happens when the Prime Directive interferes with intelligence gathering? Or when actions have to be taken against Federation members?

I appreciate what ENTERPRISE tried to do -- show the events leading to the creation and laws of the Federation -- but it usually went in a silly route. ("Reed alert"?) And the Xindi War just transformed the third season into an extended episode of 24. (Aliens are coming for Earth, and it's up to one courageous crew to stop them -- before it's too late!) They also had truly gratituous t&a (Hoshi gets topless! T'Pal's sleep therapy involves lots of nudity and touching!) and some technology that went well too advanced for its pre-Federation time. (I'm mainly thinking of the Vulcan Marauder, the ship that could holographically transform itself into many ships, be operated by a single individual from light years away, and repair massive damage to itself.) The one thing I really liked about ENTERPISE was the contrast between Andorians and Vulcans: a race largely ruled by emotions in conflict with a race ruled by logic. (And Jeffrey Combs was awesome as Shran!)

D'oh, if y'all want a gander a a script review of Harve Bennett's Star Trek: The Academy Years script, (not much review-age going on, just basically a detailed summary) head on over to AICN's post here:

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=22789

Spock helps Kirk to cheat on an exam by mind-melding. Ick.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at April 25, 2006 06:11 PM

Bill Myers: Actually, one of the things I find frustrating about Star Trek is the tendency of characters to pontificate rather than to act from the gut as humans sometimes do. I'll never forget Picard's speech during part one of the ST:TNG episode, "The Best of Both Worlds," where Picard is talking with Guinan and wonders if the Borg will be the end of the Federation. "This is just another chapter in history. Turn the page," Picard says with inhuman evenness. My God, the mighty Federation was facing an enemy against which their every weapon has failed! Even a man like Picard would have some doubts and fears to express. And it seems believable that he'd express them to Guinan, whom he trusts deeply and for whom he has no need to put on a brave front.

Luigi Novi: I don’t see why putting on such a front is only something you do with those with whom you don’t have as strong a rapport. Even in such times, people will still have a sense of resolve, faith, or optimism. To each his own, though. :-)

I don't entirely disagree. You could make a strong case that he'd put on a brave front even during a private moment with Guinan. On the other hand, even the bravest of people, when faced with the possibility that their bravery may not be enough to prevent their entire civilization from being completely wiped out, would have doubts, fears, whatever. And since T.V. is a visual medium, the only way to show that is through their behavior. I simply thought Guinan would be the person to whom Picard would most likely show that side of himself. I'm sure there would be other ways to get the same point across, though.

That said, I understand that there are people who like the unrelenting heroism of ST:TNG's characters. I used to be one of them.

I remember being livid about the ending of the two-part ST:TNG episode, "Chain of Command." The Cardassian torturing Picard wanted him to say there were five lights above him when there were only four. At the end, Picard confessed to Troi that just before he was released he was ready to say there were five lights, and in fact believed that's how many lights he saw. I now look back on that as one of the best episodes of TNG.

I passionately disagree with the people who like the stiff-upper-lip heroism of most of Trek's characters, but as you said, to each their own. Or IDIC. :)

Besides, I still like Trek, even if I think it's flawed.

I ... don't know. I suppose it COULD work. It does not contradict any known continuity. I'd even say it would explain Spock's presence on the Enterprise as Kirk, knowing him from Academy days, might have requested his being assigned there ... except that he was already there, long before Kirk.

One problem being, which version of Spock would they go with? The almost happy, smiling version from THE CAGE? The less cheerful one from the second pilot? Or the positively reserved one of the regular season?

Too, those were different days in the Federation. The political correctness of later shows wouldn't exist yet. Kirk's Starfleet was much more of a "shoot first and ask questions later" mindset than the "we'll talk things over" of later series. Consider, for example, the SURVIVOR episode of TNG where the Enterprise-D is being fired upon by an obviously hostile alien vessel. Picard orders a WARNING shot! ("Let's raise our voice a little, shall we, Number One?") Kirk would simply have ordered the ship be blasted. Or at least damaged enough to stop shooting. A different philosophy back then. Or will they rewrite history - again?

Still, if it brings the possibility of seeing the old uniforms again, it can't be all bad. ;-)~

As to those wishing for a NEW FRONTIER series, I concur, but Mr. David has already shot that down as he insists he has no interest in moving out West, something which would probably be a requirement if he were to be meaningfully involved in such a project. As he should be with his brainchild up on screen.

Y'know, I remember having this idea for a Star Trek show years ago. Mind you, not with Kirk and Spock, but with new characters. However, I also read an Entertainment Weekly article that suggested the possibility and they said Paramount's response was "Star Trek is not about putting young people in dangerous situations." So, who knows.

I have no idea if they continued that philosophy with Enterprise but if they did... seen any reruns anywhere?
Yep. Seattle, UPN, Saturdays at 7pm. They appear to be airing the series in order, beginning to end. And I've got to admit, aside from the godawful song and some questionable "haven't I already seen this stor-oh, okay, that was a twist" plots, I'm kind of enjoying it.

I'm enjoying it a lot more than I did Voyager, anyways.

I reserve all comments and judgments about a new movie until it's cast.

There are reruns of ENTERPRISE on weekends -- Saturday or Sunday, I forget which -- late at night on channel 4 in New York. There are also reruns of DEEP SPACE NINE from noon to 2 on Spike TV. There were reruns of VOYAGER on UPN, but with that network merging with the WB I don't know if they'll keep any TREK on.

I was very excited when I heard the news of JJ Abrams doing a new ST movie. Of course, it helped I just read a great review on AICN of MI3 that said JJ was able to go back to what made MI great.

Initially I was not comfortable going back simply because the Original Series ST ship seemed to have computers slower than my laptop. The show Enterprise showed one way they could go backwards and honor the original series without insulting our intelligence (or being like a retro Flash Gordon episode).

Bottom line, ST Nemesis was not a great movie. It was, in my opinion, almost a reimagining of Wrath of Kahn, complete with the noble sacrifice at the end. I didn't hate it, but there is a reason it bombed.

I don't care when the next one is set. And honestly, I think it would be harder to write a Trek set farther in the future. A TV show? Yes. But a movie would prove to be too distracting. It would be far better to set it in an already established time period.

With the right script, the movie stands a chance. I mean come on, the Star Wars Episodes 1-3 were nothing to write home about and even they seemed to make money because people wanted to know the story of Vader. If JJ Abrams does it right, this would tap into a character the general public has heard of. They know he becomes the captain of Enterprise. How he got there could be very entertaining (as some of the many Pocket Books that deal with this issue has shown -- it is not a guarantee of success but it has real potential).

Iowa Jim

1I think it's time to kill the idea of the sci-fic prequel. Why you ask? I'm glad you did: Ok, Star Wars was MEANT to have prequel's because Lucas had PLAINED to make them, (Please reserve debates on his excicutions for another time)The idea of Star Trek prequel's should come under the heading; if everyone else jumped off a bridge....
Enterprise was a corperate idea, not a creative one like DS9 or evne to a point Next Gen.
Ok, I agree Next Gen would never have left space dock if not for the success of the first four movies. But if you look at what Gene created vs what the suits at Paramount wanted, you'll see it ended up being a creative idea.

R. Maheras -
Oh, I don't know. Remember, it's not the basic premise itself that usually fails in popular culture -- it is the story and execution.

Yeah, I know. But it just strikes me as a concept that is really hard to pull off, and isn't going to add anything useful to the franchise/Trek universe.

When you get down to it, the last few Trek films really have been made for Trek fans. And there are fewer Trek fans than in years past - or at least fewer who are willing to watch new stuff as it airs, whether it was Nemesis or Enterprise.

The next Trek film will probably have to appeal to all audiences, and that in itself is going to be hard to do since I've never considered Trek to be a concept that can appeal to everybody.

And even the notion of making a all-audiences Trek film will probably piss the rest of us off in the process. :)

Luigi Novi -
I can’t speak for Craig, but perhaps some consider it a failure by virtue of comparison to the previous four series that went a full seven seasons.

Well, actually, it was three previous series that went 7 years, but who's counting? :)

But yes, that would be one aspect of many as to why I consider ENT to be a failure.

The expectation that the series would run 7 years was there, whether it was fair or not. It was lucky to make it past year three.

JamesLynch -
There were reruns of VOYAGER on UPN, but with that network merging with the WB I don't know if they'll keep any TREK on.

I think SpikeTV is supposed to get the rights to Voyager here in the next year or two anyways, since they got them along with TNG and DS9.

So, yeah, let's try this again then:

A couple of sites have news out now that Abrams is debunking the Star Trek situation... at least a bit. He makes it sounds like everything is still up in the air in terms of what the story will be, or whether he'll even direct.

When I read first read (here, yesterday) the idea of "Kirk and Spock at the Academy," I was thinking that I'd read something that would contradict that concept. Well, I just found, to my mild surprise, that the novel which I was thinking of was indeed on my current bookshelves, and my half-recollection of it was correct.

Vonda N. McIntyre's _Enterprise: The First Adventure_ establishes Spock and Kirk's first meeting as being on the bridge of the Enterprise, when Kirk took over the captaincy from Pike. Now, of course, when it comes to movies/television series and the novels which are inspired by them, the core material is the true canon; and considering that I - certainly not a huge, die-hard Trekker - am the first person to have brought up McIntyre's work, I think they could probalby get away with contradicting the novel without too much of an outcry being raised....

Since Voyager has come up, I feel like chiming in that I liked that series pretty well, honestly. I haven't seen much of the first couple seasons; and, especially in retrospect, it's clear how derivative or underachieving the plots sometimes were; but still, overall I'd take many of those characters over their TNG counterparts. The Doctor started out as the Spock/Data character, I suppose (well, at the very beginning, I guess he was just more of a crank); but, while Seven of Nine assumed that role (outsider connecting with their humanity, not crank), the Doctor became, IMHO, an interesting and unusual character in his own right. I don't dislike any of the TNG characters (well, even Wil Wheaton hates Wesley :) ), but I personally find the Voyager characters to be more likeable. And that may be a reflection of the coldness issue raised above; I think generally the Voyager crew was a little warmer and more human.

This is not to deny that Voyager did have a lot of missed potential, or that TNG had some excellent and compelling episodes (especially after they escaped that first season or two) (aaa, beardless Riker!;) ); or, to deny that Deep Space Nine, with great characters and often excellent plots, is the best Star Trek show :)

Is there any indication that James Kirk had ever even met Spock prior to their service together on the Enterprise?

cannon wise spock and kirk did not meet until they met on the enterpise. however...........star fleet/the federation never met the borg or the ferengi until the 24th century and the first meeting of humans and kligons ended in war. also mind melds were never a disgraceful things for a vulcan. just be glad Q didn't show up!

"Ok, Star Wars was MEANT to have prequel's because Lucas had PLAINED to make them, (Please reserve debates on his excicutions for another time)."

Um . . . bullplop.

He didn't plan the prequels. He planned the sequels because he started writing Star Wars and it turned into a big, long endless movie as he was writing. However, he didn't plan on the prequels. The only "proof" that he did was that "A New Hope" was labelled as episode four in the story crawl. The reason he did that was because he was modelling it after an old sci-fi serial and the good stuff always seemed to happen in the middle. So, he made it seem like people were coming into the middle of one.

Now you may go back to the Trek talk.

Lucas talked about the prequels in at least one interview before Empire Strikes Back. He didn't have them written, but there was a general plan of what they would be.

As for Star Trek, wasn't Spock already a Science Officer when Kirk was at the academy?

The next Trek film will probably have to appeal to all audiences, and that in itself is going to be hard to do since I've never considered Trek to be a concept that can appeal to everybody.

It's possible. But the way to do that is NOT to use past material as a crutch.

In the ST universe, "canon" is what has been filmed. The novels can be used as takeoff points, but unless it's been committed to celluloid (or its digital equivalent) at some point, it doesn't really count.

As far as I know, none of the episodes or movies have ever addressed the question of when Kirk and Spock first met, or how long Kirk was out of the Academy before being assigned to Enterprise. We do know that Spock served with Pike for eleven years, but for all we know, he was assigned there as a young lieutenant, working his way up through the ship's heirarchy until he became the guy whose job it is to relay the captain's orders (can't remember what the job title is...)

Also, when we first heard of the mind-meld technique, almost none of the humans on the ship's crew were aware it existed. Spock said it was a very private thing for Vulcans. Later, he and Tuvok turned out to be mind-sluts, melding with folks left and right and not even calling the next day.

Just my opinion in brief (brief being a relative term):

Voyager started out great--everyone was well defined, story was on target, everything. It immediately went off track. Since the series arc was based on the "Gilligan's Island" syndrome, how could it not? Some great characters were developed, but the arc of the series never reached (in my opinion) DS9 proportions.

Enterprise started great, and then lost steam. How could you fail with the rich tapestry of the Foundation's beginning to work from? How could you add that stupid war story arc? What a lame attempt to save a series, by ignoring the very thing that made it compelling.
Frankly, I stopped watching it. Manny Coto and team brought me back--what a shame that they didn't have one more season to grow into. They had the key and were painting the epic canvas back into view. Shame that it was considered too little, too late.

Since the series arc was based on the "Gilligan's Island" syndrome, how could it not?

I could fill a manuscript with ways not to.

In fact, seven seasons' worth.

Just to jump in with a quickie - wasn't there something written a while back to suggest that Spock may have been at the Academy in an instructor capacity? I have some vague thought in the back of my head that this concept had been brought up at one point.

VOYAGER could have worked, but unfortunately the conflict of these individuals having to work together - a rather unique concept in the ST television universe - evaporated as the first season went along until everyone was just one big ol' happy family it seemed. Compound that with the ability of the crew to go about in a jolly romp from planet to planet, with rarely an urgent feeling of finding the quickest way home, doomed the series to come off as TNG-light in my opinion. What was the point of making them lost if it rarely was the focus of the program?

As to ENTERPRISE - it just seemed like a great loss opportunity to put together a first-rate program that would interest SF fans and yet also make ST fans happy. They easily - EASILY - could have stayed within established history in the show, but instead all too often went for easy remedies when painted into a corner. Shame.

As to the new movie - I still believe the biggest idea would be to do one that was floating around just a few months back, which was to bring back many characters from the previous series and involve them into one slam-bang big adventure. If not that, a movie dealing with new characters in "current times," dealing with new problems would be much more satisfying and even draw more ticket-buyers than some heated-over Kirk/Spock in school concept.

I liked Voyager at first, but it just got too silly. I got sick of Janeway asking, "Can we squeeze Voyager through that small hole?" every episode, and don't get me started on the whole "Oh, Q is here, and he can send us home with a snap of his fingers, but we don't want HIS help" thing. So I stopped watching.

I stopped watching Enterprise after the first episode.

To date, The Next Generation is the only Star Trek series I've liked.

Personally, I've thought for years now that the series they ought to make is STAR TREK: EMPIRE. Set in the Mirror Universe with a defeated human race struggling to be free (as seen in DS9) it would allow you to dispense with the 'perfect humans' of the regular ST universe while still having all those recognizable aliens and societies to play against.

I think the young Kirk and Spock actors have their work cut out for them. It's a fine line between "being true to the characters" and coming off as a parody of Shatner and Nimoy.

As for the tangential Star Wars debate, I've read interview material from as early as the early '80s (i.e., Somewhere between "Empire" and "Jedi"), where Lucas discussed going back and doing the prequels at some point. Given that the "Episode IV" screen crawl was not part of the original screening of Star Wars/"A New Hope", one might speculate that George only considered sequels when he realized that there was gold in them thar Wookiees.

Sorry to jump on again so quick, but just had another thought on the Spock situation. Did he ever say he served eleven CONSECUTIVE years with Pike? Or that all eleven years were on the Enterprise? This might actually work then - Spock having worked under Pike for some time before heading to the Academy to learn or teach, thereby meeting Kirk. After a time, he returned to work with Pike onboard the Enterprise. Heck, make his reasons for going to the Academy directly related to his experiences with Pike and Pike's crew; perhaps some type of incident that drove him to reconsider his commitment to Starfleet and his human side. (I can see it now ... right after "The Cage" situation was resolved, Pike and the others have a good laugh over Spock trying to emote with the plants on the planet. "Hee, hee ... wait, wait. Here's my impression of Spock ... ahem ... 'THE WOMEN!!!' Hee, hee.")

Okay, I'm joking about that last part, but still perhaps there could be something there if done properly.

Ah, who am I kidding? :-)

About the STAR WARS aside: Jason M. Bryant wrote, "Lucas talked about the prequels in at least one interview before Empire Strikes Back. He didn't have them written, but there was a general plan of what they would be."

That's pretty much the way I remember things. Once Lucas realized that his film was a success and he would be able to produce his larger story the original plan was for a total of nine films: One trilogy of prequels about the fall of the Old Republic, one trilogy about the Rebellion, and a final trilogy about the generation following Luke, Leia, and Han. Only later was the series trimmed to six films.

Back to STAR TREK, I kinda like the idea of a "Mirror Universe" series. Also, I was fully expecting a Q appearance in ENTERPRISE; I was just wondering how they'd end it so that Q's existence would be kept secret.

For those curious about Kirk and Spock's academy days, per the "character biographies" posted at the Star Trek website ( http://www.startrek.com/ ), Kirk and Spock were at the Academy at the same time, although Kirk was a year behind Spock. Also, during his last year at the Academy, Spock was selected by Pike to serve aboard the Enterprise.

Now, as to what Craig J Ries posted concerning Abrams' denial, this is posted at IMDb.com under the heading "Abrams Slams 'Star Trek' Rumors":
Mission: Impossible III director J.J. Abrams is hitting back at unauthorized reports he is directing the next Star Trek movie. The Alias creator is furious the news was released prematurely and is also upset that key details regarding the storyline were incorrectly reported. He explains to Empire online, "The whole thing was reported entirely without our cooperation. People learned that I was producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear rumors of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is not entirely accurate." Last week, Hollywood trade paper Variety, reported Abrams was on board and that the film would center on the early days of Captain James T. Kirk and Spock and that Philip Seymour Hoffman was in talks to play the ship's doctor. Abrams won't reveal the true storyline, but hints that it won't feature characters Captain James T. Kirk or Mr. Spock at all, but doesn't rule out bringing some of the original characters back for the new film, adding, "Those characters are so spectacular. I just think that..you know, they could live again."

I'm not a Trekkie (not that there is anything wrong with that), I have read maybe one book, and not all of the series.

It seems to me that the problem with the Star Trek Franchise was that the basic formula -- starship crew solving some problem -- doesn't work anymore.

Star Trek movies I-IV, VI were good because they went beyond the formula, beyond the basic framework of the series. You had a nostaligia to the old crewdynamic but also something extra: they were older, they were promoted, they lost their ship,they were outlaws etc.

The newer movies felt like very mediocre chapters with a larger special effects budget and careless writing (except maybe VIII).

TNG expanded enough on the basic formula of the original series to be good, although if I watch it today (not often) it feels dated.

DS9 was great because it went way beyond the formula. It was more multicultural, more political. There were major developments and changes from season to season so it was not repetative. It had more dynamic characterization and character interaction, and, of course, a metaplot.

I have seen only 3 or 4 episodes of Voyager, which were excellent. But, from what I heard, it seems that in many ways it was just another enterprise cruising through a newer final frontier.

I have seen only about a season of Enterprise because they kept showing it at different times where I live, but the truth is I didn't care enough to ry. It could have been great, since it could have shown how the federation was formed; how was it like before the days of the allmighty federation when Earth was just a small planet (interesting from an American perspective); how the wars with the Klingons and Romulans started. It could have explored the civilizations that went on to form the Federation. We stil know much more about Klingon and Ferengi culture than Vulcan. But instead it seemed stuck in the old formula, and the metaplots I saw didn't seem to work.

I don't really think that a plot involving Kirk and Spock in the academy will work unless the writing proves to be really excellent. As a supposedly new framework it does not seem to go enough beyond the old stuffy Star Trek universe framework. It just doesn't sound that interesting. It could maybe be a good spinoff if the Star Trek franchise was as strong as it was in the late 90's, but I doubt it can restart the franchise.
I also don't think it is comparable to Star Wars or Smallvile or Batman. Star Wars told a story of a world much different than the one in the original trilogy that was very important to the story as a whole. Unfortunatly it failed, but it could have been good (I'm sure you all have some ideas about how it could have been done better. I've actually written some of them down). Smallville works because it refers to the known Superman structure while at the same time being significantly different + it combines supernatural and the regular (mostly teen) world. Star Trek does not have that benefit. Batman Begins worked because, like Star Wars, there was a story of the transformation of Bruce Wayne/Anakin that needed to be told. I don't think the same can be said about the story of Kirk and Spock. I also think it would be more interesting if there relationship was that of a newly arrived young captain and more experienced veteran on the enterprise than by suggesting that they met before in the academy.

It seems to me that for the Star Trek formula to restart it is better to try to go beyond the formula.
Maybe the story of a civilian ship in which the humans are not the majority and whose attitude toward the federation is less reverent. I realize it sounds a little like Firefly, but sometimes it feels as if the fedration is actually a human, self-rightuous military dictatorship controlled by Starfleet, which also seems to be the only employer in the galaxy. It would be interesting to see some Firefly sensibilities injected into this world and present a different point of view of the Star Trek universe, as wel as explore its civilian side. Iactually have some ideas for characters and Metaplots for this one.

Another option for a movie could be to have Captain Sisko come back from wherever he is into a near future scenario. Look how much our world has changed since the series ended.

How about promoting Picard to admiral and having him command a fleet or a convoy. Sounds too much like Battle Star Galactica? Still, it could offer the opportunity to explore new crew dynamics as well as ways of doing things. And anyway, Picard has been holding the same commission for years. He's holding back all the promotions in Starfleet. Even poor Worf, who was promoted, always ends up in the same lousy job.

Now, as to what Craig J Ries posted concerning Abrams' denial, this is posted at IMDb.com under the heading "Abrams Slams 'Star Trek' Rumors"

The thing about Abrams "denial" is that in the same breath he says everybody's info is wrong, he turns around and says he still might use some of the original crew.

Which is to say that you probably can't rule out anything at this point, even if he says he isn't using Kirk & Spock. :)

Required scene:

Teen Kirk: What's going on in there? Everyone coming out looks like they just saw somebody die?

Teen Spock: They're seniors. They've just finished up their Kobayashi exams. I understand it is a very difficult simulation -- some say impossible to pass flawlessly.

Teen Kirk: Oh? Really? Doesn't sound that hard.

Here's an idea for you....

Let

Trek

die.

Star Trek had a good run and I liked most of it. We can go back and catch the reruns or pop in a DVD and see the Trek we enjoyed whenever we want to. Now, how about something new?

Look at all the comments above and out there on the net about Trek in general. Trek has to change. Trek needs a new formula. Trek needs to be shaken up. Trek needs to be something..... new.

Look at all the comments about Smallville Trek. The actors (if they do this) who get the Kirk, Spock or the whoever parts will always be picked apart by fans because they will never be able to be Shatner, Nimoy and the others. They will also never have the same chemistry and never have the same feel as the classic trek actors. Plus, they'll move even farther away from their "adult" selves as the younger actors begin to bring more of themselves to the roles and most likely get even more complaints from fans about how Kirk, Spock and etc would never act that way.

Well, why make a Trek that aint Trek or cast a bunch of peolpe into roles that they are most likely doomed to fail in when you can have something new? Not having a bad Trek film on the production block clears the way for something else to be made. Maybe that something else will be a good sci-fi or fantasy film. Maybe it would even be a good film that starts a new franchise. The same argument can be made for the TV.

And maybe a good long death would be good for Trek. It did wonders for it the last time.

Again, I liked Trek (up until the last two) and I still stop channel surfing if I hit any of the first three TV shows or the first five films. The thing is, I really like seeing new stuff come down the pike as well and would rather take the chance on an unknown product then a franchise on life support machines.

Posted by AdamYJ at April 26, 2006 08:03 PM

"Ok, Star Wars was MEANT to have prequel's because Lucas had PLAINED to make them, (Please reserve debates on his excicutions for another time)."

Um . . . bullplop.

He didn't plan the prequels. He planned the sequels because he started writing Star Wars and it turned into a big, long endless movie as he was writing. However, he didn't plan on the prequels. The only "proof" that he did was that "A New Hope" was labelled as episode four in the story crawl. The reason he did that was because he was modelling it after an old sci-fi serial and the good stuff always seemed to happen in the middle. So, he made it seem like people were coming into the middle of one.

Now you may go back to the Trek talk.

That depends on who you ask, AdamYJ. Lucas has recounted how he created a backstory as part of writing what became the first Star Wars trilogy. When Star Wars Episode IV became a phenomenal success, he became enchanted with the idea of eventually going back and creating a trilogy of movies that would chronicle this backstory.

As I recall, the idea that the story could span 9 episodes was bandied about around the time The Empire Strikes Back hit theaters. This seems to support the claim that Lucas had wanted to create Episodes I through III almost from the very beginning.

Lucas has since been quoted as saying he had entertained the idea of doing episodes VII through IX, but had lost interest in the idea.

So I don't know how you could argue that he didn't "plan" the prequels. Perhaps he hadn't considered making the movies while writing the first draft of the script that became Star Wars, Episode IV, but it looks as though he had plans for Episodes I through III many, many years before he actually made them.

Posted by uncajimmy at April 25, 2006 12:27 PM
...set the series with a broken Federation with a ship named Enterprise tasked with rebuilding Star Fleet.

When Roddenberry originally wrote the premise for a new Star Trek show, the broken Federation ship was called...Andromeda! And her captain was called...Dylan Hunt! Those people who remember two failed pilots that Roddenberry created (Genesis II & Planet Earth) should remember that name! Robert Hewitt Wolfe "developed" the concept and changed it into "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" and I don't believe that it lasted more than three years in its restructured form. I could be wrong.

As for a Star Fleet Academy series WITHOUT Young Kirk and Young Spock, didn't DC Comics come up with that concept over a decade ago? I don't recall it being a hot seller!

And Peter, didn't you write a graphic novel with a scene depicting Kirk's relieving Pike from command of the Enterprise with Scotty as HIS chief engineer?

For the continuity junkies out there who question the idea that Kirk and Spock knew each other before either of them set foot on the Enterprise, I recall a TOS episode called "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" where Spock, while sharing his mind with Medusan Ambassador Kollos, mentioned that Kirk AND McCoy were friends of his for many years! In the second Trek Pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before," Gary Mitchell mentions in Sickbay that Kirk was an instructor at the Academy in his early days by quoting one of his students: "Watch out for Lt. Kirk! In HIS class, you either THINK or SINK!" I once visited West Point for a week as a high school junior and I've noticed that it was customary for lieutenants to be posted as instructors before they served command positions in the field. Why would that be so far-fetched for Kirk and Spock to have done the same? Because Trek isn't "real life?" Gimme a break!

While I would never be a booster for a "Kirk & Spock/The Early Days" concept, I strongly doubt that a film/TV pilot featuring new young actors playing a Later Generation of Starfleet's finest would appeal to The Mass Audience anymore than it did the loudmouths who shouted "nineohtwooneoh!" when Bennett pitched it! "Follow the money" will be the catchphrase when they pitch "Star Trek" again and only a wide-eyed idealist who has no idea how television and blockbuster films work would believe otherwise IMHO.

I too will "wait and see," but not with baited breath.

Here's an idea for you....

Let

Trek

die.

This is not a unique problem for Star Trek. The genres of fantasy, sci-fi, super-heroes, are swamped with sequals, prequals, spinoffs, relaunches, remakes, revamps, continuations, and long running titles. On the one hand audiences and writers are tempted to go back to the worldsand characters they created. On another, there is the wish to make/see some new take on something familiar, on the third hand there are obvious risks of having something either too much like or too much alike the original, or both, while not matching what made the original great (I wonder if a New Indiana Jones movie will have similar probles to the new Star Wars trilogy). Some people think sequals are bad by definition. Many end up disappointing, few end up succeeding. But how can you know if it is worth taking the risk?

I think in Star Trek's case it might be worthwhile. It has existed for so long that it has a real sense of time and internal history. It is interesting to see how the Star Trek universe changes as the world changes. Especially since the Star Trek universe has such an American perspective.

Posted by: Jerry C at April 27, 2006 03:58 PM

Here's an idea for you....

Let

Trek

die.

Yes. And let Superman die the next time sales of that comic-book title wane, or a movie adaptation bombs. Or Spider-Man. Or the X-Men. Or Law & Order on television. Or...

The bottom line: entertainment is a business. They'll let Trek die if and when they perceive that there is no more profit to be made from Trek, and not until.

And I really don't understand the idea that the premise of Kirk and Spock in their younger days won't work. Let me try another example...

Premise: a teenaged boy gets the powers of a bug. That's the idea behind Spider-Man. It's also the idea behind a comic called The Fly. One still endures today; the other does not. Why? Because it's not the idea that counts, it's what you do with it that matters.

Of course, this could all become academic. The way Hollywood works, by the time everyone at Paramount is done getting their hands in the soup, we end up with a Trek movie about a Starship run by Tribbles.

Posted by Micha:
Another option for a movie could be to have Captain Sisko come back from wherever he is into a near future scenario. Look how much our world has changed since the series ended.

Well, I'm not really sure just how well that would play out, as Sisko has already returned from his time with the wormhole aliens in the DS9 novels which have published new tales set following the conclusion of the TV series with the apparent blessing of Paramount. It's not to say a new DS9-based movie couldn't happen but the novels have done a largely fantastic job of carrying on the post-series tales of Kira and the rest.

Posted by Jerry C:
Look at all the comments about Smallville Trek. The actors (if they do this) who get the Kirk, Spock or the whoever parts will always be picked apart by fans because they will never be able to be Shatner, Nimoy and the others. They will also never have the same chemistry and never have the same feel as the classic trek actors. Plus, they'll move even farther away from their "adult" selves as the younger actors begin to bring more of themselves to the roles and most likely get even more complaints from fans about how Kirk, Spock and etc would never act that way.

Not sure why you'd think anyone would pick apart someone new playing Kirk for not being Shatner. Hell, that alone could be a plus. Shatner as Kirk has become one of the biggest jokes in SF fandom. (Don't forget even Nimoy took time to "become" the Spock we all remember.) As for the chemistry, it wasn't always there even with Shatner and Nimoy. (But, don't forget an Academy-based series/film would be set prior to that "chemistry" took the shape we eventually saw in TOS and the movies.)

While I don't think Trek needs to die, I do think screen Trek needs a good long rest.

Barring that, maybe it needs to think SMALL for a while. Perhaps a couple of direct-to-video movies. Maybe take another shot at animated Trek and actually give it some production values. (Look at how much better recieved Clone Wars was than just about any of the live-action Star Wars prequels.) Definitely keep some quality written work coming out.

Either way, Trek DEFINITELY needs new blood. Bring in the Abramses and Tartakofskys (sp?) on projects that could take some risks without making the huge financial gamble of a major motion picture.

I've said it before, but I'd love to see an animated anthology series similar to Star Wars Tales where different animators and writers can show off their own takes on the Star Trek universe, not being restricted to one time period, or even to canonical continuity.

-Rex Hondo-

Why don't they just pull a Battlestar Galactica and blow it up and start all over again from scratch picking and choosing what continuity to keep and what to ditch?

"Premise: a teenaged boy gets the powers of a bug. That's the idea behind Spider-Man. It's also the idea behind a comic called The Fly. One still endures today; the other does not. Why? Because it's not the idea that counts, it's what you do with it that matters."

The question is what kind of story you want to tell? The key to Spiderman's success is that he had doubts and issues that older established super-heroes did not. So no we have to ask what is the hook of a story about Kirk and Spock in the academy? What will make it interesting?

About 15 years ago I read a book called Star Trek Federation that had the crews of the two enterprises meet + a story about Zephram Cochran (sp?). I guess it was an idea for a movie that was rejected. I don't really understand how the systems of novels based on movie franchises like Star trek and Star Wars. I've read only few of them.

Only tangentially related, but all this talk of what it'd be like if other actors played Kirk and Spock and the TOS cast naturally calls to mind the great fan-project STAR TREK: THE NEW VOYAGES (http://www.newvoyages.com ) that creates and web-distributes new TOS adventures. It's been written up in places like Wired and Now Playing magazine and has seen Trek professionals (on screen and behind-the-scenes) participate. (It's apparently tolerated by Paramount as long as no one is making any money on the project, and apparently no one is...)

I heard that the actors have already been set for the new movie. The story revolves around a young James T. Kirk as he enlists in the newly formed Star Fleet. At the academy he meets a young intern, Leonard McCoy. They end up serving their first mission together. Its on the USS Omega, where they first encounter a science officer named Spock. Some kind of trouble ensues and the senior officers on the Omega are injured or killed. Kirk, Spock and McCoy are thrust into action.

The actors are apparently, Matt Damon as young Kirk, Ben Affleck as Spock and Christian Bale as young Dr. Bones McCoy.

Sounds awesome. Can't wait.

The actors are apparently, Matt Damon as young Kirk, Ben Affleck as Spock and Christian Bale as young Dr. Bones McCoy.

Well, now I have another reason to skip this show.

Sounds awesome. Can't wait.

Sounds like some serious fanwanking going on.

Although why anybody's go fanwanking over Damon, Affleck and Bale in a Trek film is beyond me.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at April 28, 2006 04:16 PM

Sounds like some serious fanwanking going on.

Although why anybody's go fanwanking over Damon, Affleck and Bale in a Trek film is beyond me.

Craig, I'm always amused when someone begins complaining about a movie before they've seen it -- or, in this case, before it's even made. It reminds me of the fan outcry over Michael Keaton as Batman prior to the release of that movie.

Frankly, I think the actors in question are all very capable and I'd be very interested in seeing what they do with the characters. But, y'know, we're talking about Hollywood. I mean, remember how everyone was abuzz about Nicholas Cage as the next Superman -- something that never materialized? Assuming this movie gets off the ground, what hits the screen may be very different from what we're talking about now.

Besides, it could be worse. I think these posts got deleted in the last spam sweep, but I had suggested -- facetiously -- that Wil Wheaton could play Kirk and Rick Schroeder could play Spock. Then Bill Mulligan topped me by suggesting Jake Lloyd as Kirk and The Guy Who Played Screech as Spock.

Just wait a minute here... Since nobody's going to be happy with anybody but Shatner playing Kirk, the idea could still work with a little tweaking. You just have to get Shatner to play Kirk again. Now, hear me out.

You title it Star Trek: Back to the Academy. Turns out that due to a recordkeeping error somewhere along the way, nobody can find any record of Kirk actually graduating, or for that matter actually attending, the academy. Well, the only reasonable thing to do is send him back, and hilarity ensues! I just remembered that Rodney Dangerfield is dead, so we'll have to settle for somebody close to play the headmaster, Admiral Norris Peck. Then you get random hot actress #15 to play the hot (but smart and respectable) teacher Kirk wants to bone, and the thing practically writes itself!

-Rex Hondo-

Okay, okay, okay. First off, as MUCH as it made me happy to hear new Trek is in the planning stages, just don't know about JJ Abrams. As much as I liked the first season of Lost, (been too busy to see any of the second yet) I was REALLY disappointed in Alias. Kind of like Kingdom Hospital, loooooooong on atmosphere, short on depth. At least, that's how I felt.

And second, Enterprise, IMHO, was a success for the reason that it told good stories. And for those that said it trounced Trek continuity, I'll say again, just because you never SAW IT ON SCREEN, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Look at any WWII era movie, especially the romantic comedies, and would you know what was happening in Europe? And for those that wanted more character development, they were trying for the Big Three dynamic that Jim, Spock and Bones had on the first show.

I liked it, anyway.

mary jane atk hairy atk hairy kingdom