ST: From 007 to ... NCC-1701???

[Ranger REG]

Source: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070108p.php

Though unconfirmed or unsubstantiated, it seems Matt Damon may have a good contender for the Kirk role, in the form ... ladies, I do not mean his abs ... of Daniel Craig.

 

[John Crichton]

I'm ok with this. I'm less concerned with the casting of this than the plot/story.

 

[Mark CMG]

"Restarts" seem to be the new thing, eh?

 

[Ranger REG]

"Restarts" seem to be the new thing, eh?

Meh. Like introducing a new edition of D&D to a new generation of sci-fi fans. Or rebooting the James Bond franchise with a fresh actor.

 

[Mark CMG]

Meh. Like introducing a new edition of D&D to a new generation of sci-fi fans. Or rebooting the James Bond franchise with a fresh actor.

I do get it. I just don't know if it is such a good idea. I wish the effort would be spent inventing something new rather than putting a new saddle on an old horse. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of almost all things Trek. Likely I'll watch and enjoy whatever it is they will produce. But, I still find it to be a bit of a disappointment conceptually.

 

[horacethegrey]

Bond or Bourne for Kirk? AWESOME!

Seriously though, I don't see the need for Star Trek to go back to it's roots in order to catch fire again. And as much as I like Damon or Craig, I just don't see them as the good captain of the Enterprise. Shatner will always be Kirk, and unless there's some spectacular revelation that Kirk is a Timelord who can morph from one actor to another, you can't convince me otherwise.

 

[Ranger REG]

I do get it. I just don't know if it is such a good idea. I wish the effort would be spent inventing something new rather than putting a new saddle on an old horse. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of almost all things Trek. Likely I'll watch and enjoy whatever it is they will produce. But, I still find it to be a bit of a disappointment conceptually.

Well, either the franchise can try to persuade JJ Abrams to make something new, despite the fact that he's pretty much locked onto the concept, or find someone else.

Personally, while I don't like rehashing Kirk & Co., I do like going back to the 23rd Century but with a new ship and crew. Besides, twice we went forward and all we got were INSURRECTION and NEMESIS. So what, third time's the charm?

 

[Aaron L]

We need a DS9 movie, stat.

With Garak.

 

[John Crichton]

We need a DS9 movie, stat.

With Garak.

Naw, I don't trust it. The story is told. I like remembering it fondly.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Naw, I don't trust it. The story is told. I like remembering it fondly.

I tend to agree. DS9 was great, but it's also over.

But I still would prefer a new series/movie set after the DS9 events (if neccessary, also taking Voyager into account, but I prefer to forget most of it ).
Going back will always hurt a bit because of the thousand continuty issues arising from it.
I am not certain that they can pull off a Battlestar Galactica reboot (BSG had only 2 seasons to "forget", Star trek has 5 whole series and 10 movies) with Startrek. (But if they can, more power to them. )