Crazy Star Trek Rumor

[RottingCorpse]

So, I don't know how I feel about this . . .

* * *

WILLIAM SHATNER to return for new STAR TREK movie?

http://www.CanMag.com reports that Captain Kirk might be returning to the bridge of the Enterprise for the next "Star Trek" film. Not only that - he'll be joined by Patrick Stewart's Captain Picard and Scott Bakula's Johnathan Archer, of "The Next Generation" and "Enterprise", respectively.

The site claims that the idea to set the next "Trek" movie as a prequel, with the action centering on the students of the Starfleet Academy, has been trashed. Instead, they're considering doing a sequel that will be set in the "Mirror" Universe - which we've seen in both "Star Trek" and "Enterprise" before - which will make it possible for several of the 'captains' to team up. (After all, there's no rules/no continuity restrictions in the 'Mirror' universe).

"Apparently Shatner was in talks to do a guest role on Enterprise, but it didn’t work out. Why? Apparently he wanted a) more money b) would rather do Trek films. Solution? The ideas for the episode of the “Enterprise” episode he was going to do will now be incorporated into a movie. Yep, Captain kirk’s back", says the site. "It’ll be Shatner, Captain Picard and maybe Archer".

[Cassander]

Maggie, get me my elephant gun. 

[nacho]

Don't trust any Shatner-originated rumors these days.  He's having a great time goofing around.

[RottingCorpse]

Star Trek: The Academy Years?

Part of this reads like Star Trek fan fiction and I kind of lost interest halfway through the article. Still . . .

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

[nacho]

Is this old chestnut back again?  You can color me amazed if this sees the light of day.

[Matt]

There's so many Trek rumors. I don't believe any of them.

[RottingCorpse]

So, making rounds on the net this morning is that J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost, Mission Impossible III) will be working on a movie about young Kirk and Spock. It came from the Daily Variety, not known to print random fanboy rumors.

I think Nacho's riffed on the subject before, but I think it bears discussing again . . . Has the era of Star Trek passed us by? In a world of suicide bombers, dying republics, red/blue state warfare, and reality TV, does the idea of man "boldly going where no man has gone before" lose all meaning? The whole show was a product of cold war mentality and seems to be Roddensberry not so subtly telling the Russkies, "This is what space exploration will be like if WE win the space race." (In the sixties, having the Asian dude and the hot black chick as part of your ensemble was still raw and edgy.)

Oh, and let's not forget that Star Trek bombed in it's regular run. It became popular in syndication through fan love.

Anyway, Star Trek: Can it be resurrected or is this another shameful case of Hollywood grave robbing?

[nacho]

We aren't past the era of Star Trek.  Deep Space 9 upgraded the franchise for 90's-style Iraqi/terrorist conflict.  Voyager removed us from the regular formula all together.  Enterprise would have been good if it hadn't of been manhandled.  You can, really, do whatever you want with the franchise.  Which is why it's constantly revisited by Hollywood.

And, yes, the original series tanked --but not for long.  It was back in action, and big enough to inspire serious remake activity, just a few years later.  And TNG was hugely popular -- hell, UPN's backbone is built on TNG.  DS9 also has a strong following.  Voyager was the beginning of the end, ratings wise, but still strong enough to keep the boat afloat.  Enterprise's hideous demise was the fault of bad writing and no thought, not the audience getting tired of the series.  Enterprise should have been an edgy political thriller with aliens, but that takes talent that Team Star Trek lacked.

All that said -- grave robbing is exactly what this is.  As usual -- and Star Trek is the poster child, also, for this problem -- the men behind the curtain don't know what we want.  They want to cash in on the franchise, and good for them, but they're so far removed from the fans it's impossible for them to think of a working concept beyond throw every element and character together and write a script in a weekend.  Star Trek's always been simple, often mind-numbing, but we've started to see it try to copy itself.  Nemesis, for example, was a desperate attempt to recapture Wrath of Kahn.  If it's not doing that, it's biting off more than it can chew.  Enterprise could have followed the rise of the humans/Starfleet/the Federation and nothing else and been wonderful.  Instead we got feel-good scripts, ridiculous love triangles, the "Temporal Cold War," and the most misguided need I've ever seen to feature all the villians from the other shows...even though that meant completely rewriting the Star Trek bible, which, when fans complained loud enough, resulted in equally misguided attempts to try and explain away what they had done. 

[fajwat]

without Gene, star trek as a franchise isn't really an entity anymore.  I agree with all of what Nacho just said, but I don't think we can count on anything other than repetition of Enterprise-class mistakes, except where existing teams (DS9) are in place and not being interfered with.

[Matt]

Nacho hit it on the head. There was such fucking potential for Enterprise... I felt it could have been DS9 2, with the Romulan Wars being an excellent variation on the Dominion Wars that made DS9 so tight.

Also, the leader of televised science fiction has passed to Battlestar Galactica. It doesn't have the cult history that Star Trek does, but it's garnered much, much more critical acclaim. Star Trek took risks when it first came out, but now those risks are being taken by BSG.

[RottingCorpse]

Enterprise's hideous demise was the fault of bad writing and no thought, not the audience getting tired of the series.  Enterprise should have been an edgy political thriller with aliens, but that takes talent that Team Star Trek lacked.

I think that's an excellent point, and with that in mind, let's talk about J. J. Abrams. The dude is no hack. He has pedigree. Genre fans, for the most part, consistantly love him. (Does he write every episode of Lost or does the apparently lackluster second season fall completely on his shoulders?) In theory at least, it seems the absolute worst he could do is rehash Lost and/or Alias, which in my mind is a hell of a lot better than rehashing Quantum Leap.

[nacho]

Abrams has lost all credit in my eyes.  Whether or not he's to blame for the second season of Lost, his admission early on that he had "no plan" for the show is the sole reason Lost has fallen. 

Now, I don't know.  We're talking movie here, right?  I realize, now, that we should think differently when we approach the Star Trek movies.  They're very much a separate element of the franchise, and have different rules.  In a way, the movies have to adhere to the formula more than the series.  That's where we run into the outdated formula problem.

[Matt]

BSG! BSG!

[nacho]

See, I really think BSG has fallen into a sub-genre of sci-fi.  "Dark" sci-fi  I think it has nothing to do with the bright and cheery world of Star Trek and Stargate and others -- nor does it exist as competition.

That is, it's created an independent little world...something only the truly great shows can do.

[RottingCorpse]

The plot thickens. (No pun intended.)

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."