The Future of Star Trek (revealed)...

[John Crichton]

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=17250

Relevant text reprinted below...

TO BOLDLY BLOW LIKE NO TREK HAS BLOWN BEFORE!!

Paramount is a studio that seems to be scrambling to figure out just what its identity is. For the last five years, it seems like they’ve been the home of stalled, desperately un-hip franchises, Ashley-Judd-in-peril movies, and weak Billy Friedkin pity gigs. They seem to be working to change that, though, with films like SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW and A PRINCESS OF MARS in the pipeline. I want to believe that Paramount can turn it around.

But when I hear about their plans for STAR TREK, I have to wonder. Are they unable to tell a good idea from a bad one where this particular franchise is concerned? I’m not the world’s biggest fan of TREK in any flavor, but I sympathize with TREK fans. You guys have it rough. And it’s about to get rougher.

First, the good news. No Berman. No Braga. Instead, Jordan Kerner (SNOW DOGS, INSPECTOR GADGET, THE MIGHTY DUCKS and D2 and D3) is being brought in to produce. Right now, he’s in the early stages of developing a prequel trilogy. First question, obviously, is “a prequel to what?” After all, the various TV shows have played all sorts of tricks with the timeline. When I hear “prequel trilogy,” it sounds to me like we’re going to see young Kirk and young Spock and young McCoy. It sounds to me like we’re talking about Starfleet Academy.

Instead, we’re looking at films that sound like they’re all about big intergalactic events, but which don’t appear to be about any characters, which is what Gene Roddenberry’s original vision was ALWAYS about. Characters. Don’t just try to tell some big budget spectacle story. I hear the first film’s about a civil war, the second film’s devoted largely to the galactic switch-over from a fission standard to fusion, and then there’s a third film where we’ll finally see an Ensign Kirk show up for all of about the last 20 minutes. Just Kirk. Nobody else. And no ENTERPRISE.

And that notion they’re discussing in hushed and excited tones about putting William Shatner’s head on a younger actor’s body? Easily the goofiest bad idea I’ve heard since Lex Luthor, flying Kryptonian. It almost makes me want to see them do it, just for the laugh value.

You’re still really early in this process, Paramount, so please... allow me to offer a little bit of constructive criticism. You need to listen to your fans. And I’m not saying listen to me. Read the message boards that are out there. Cast as wide a net as you can across fandom and let the fans remind you just what it is that made TREK so important to them in the first place. Reach out and take the time to get it right. Don’t just chase STAR WARS and LORD OF THE RINGS, and don’t throw money at it just to make STAR TREK into something it never was.

I’m going to try to bring you more details about this proposed trilogy as they continue working on it, and in the meantime, I’ll hand it over to the real TREK fans, you guys. What do you think of Paramount’s plans?

Um, ugh? I'm I'll for a new man in charge but this doesn't sound like the direction I want to see Trek go. I am curious to hear more, tho. Actually, it really doesn't matter what they do as long as they hire good writers and a good director to take control.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I need to see more and the scripts need to be well written. I to am in favor of dumping B&B but I am equaly leary of putting someone in charge whose claim to fame is comedies. I little humor in Star Trek is ok but overall the franchise is about adventure.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I have said it before and I will say it again; they have a great story in the founding of the Federation, they just have to use it! Bring in the Klingons as the bad guys, then build the on the myth of why the fed was born, why the prime, why the Klingons were hated so. They have a box, a very good box with a lot of toys inside, they don't need to think outside it.

If that does not work for you, Captain Logs - run and mix different stories from different views of different Captains and ships.

 

[Psychotic Dreamer]

Yikes. I would hate to see Trek reduced to some kind of comedy. Stupid hollywood.

 

[WayneLigon]

Hopefully, the three films mentioned are just rumors.

The 'civil war' would almost have to be the Eugenics Wars, which I admit would be an interesting film in and of itself. They'd need to get a young Ricardo Montalban lookalike, though...

The second.. I can't imagine how you could have a film like that. I'd assume we'd be using fusion power for quite some time before wossname invents the Warp Drive.

The third...if that's about the founding the Federation and the Academy, I'm all for that. That would be a nice little link to the rest of the 'universe', to have the last scene be where 'Ensign Kirk, reporting for duty sir,' is the last thing you hear before the credits (or left as the last thing before the screen goes black) -- don't even have to see the actor, just hear that line.

 

[The_Universe]

I suppose the last few second intro of Kirk would be cool...

But I don't really think the idea of doing a "history" of the star trek universe is a good idea. Not only do malevolent demi-deities play havoc with the timeline on a nearly daily basis, but the strength of Trek has never been its consistency.

Consistency in Star Trek sucks! Zephram Cochrane appears in an episode of the original series, and he looks nothing like the guy who plays him in First Contact. In the original series, the warp drive goes up beyond 14, but in TNG warp can never exceed Warp Factor 10. There are even inconsistencies from within each series (watch how ferengi change throughout the run of TNG, and then change more in DS9).

The guy at AICN is right! The strength is in the characters, not the overarching storylines. Why did I watch trek? Because I cared about Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu and Checkov. I gave a damn what happened to Uhura and even nurse Chapel, and ocaisonally Yeoman Rand. Why? Because they were these beautifully constructed characters.

TNG was the same way! Picard, Riker, Data, Geordi, Worf (but not Troi. I draw the line at Troi) were all people that you wanted to spend an hour (or more) with every week.

Even in DS9, it was worth the time to see Quark, Garak, and Odo (the rest of the characters, save the direct transplants from TNG, were total throwaways for me).

Neither of the newest Treks have done that. 'Enterprise' hardly even LOOKS like Trek, and they've done precious little time exploring! No acidic concrete monsters! No hippie love flowers! Not even a planet filled with humans from Time Period X on earth. These are the things that make Trek! Bring them back!

 

[Altalazar]

Sounds rather suspicious to me. I'll believe it when I hear it from Paramount.

 

[Umbran]

Consistency in Star Trek sucks! Zephram Cochrane appears in an episode of the original series, and he looks nothing like the guy who plays him in First Contact.

Ah, yes. You yourself say it is about character. If it is about character, than looks are unimportant. The movie Cochrane had far more character depth than the series one.

In the original series, the warp drive goes up beyond 14, but in TNG warp can never exceed Warp Factor 10.

Your geek fu is weak, my friend. This disrepancy is explained in the technical manuals. Warp theory advances in the time between Kirk and Picard, so the numbering system for warp changes.

Not even a planet filled with humans from Time Period X on earth. These are the things that make Trek! Bring them back!

Geek fu even weaker! Check out "North Star", first aired back in November, last aired on March 10: "Enterprise discovers a settlement of humans living a 19th-century Western lifestyle on a Delphic Expanse planet, so Archer and crew set out to learn how they got there."

Before you start talking about what Enterprise should be doing and isn't doing, you ought to be up to date on what it is doing

 

[Orius]

[Relevant text reprinted below...
Um, ugh? I'm I'll for a new man in charge but this doesn't sound like the direction I want to see Trek go. I am curious to hear more, tho. Actually, it really doesn't matter what they do as long as they hire good writers and a good director to take control.[/size][/b]

Well, since it DID come from AICN, I'll assume that good portion of it was groundless rumors and outright bull. I do not consider AICN to be a trustworthy source of information on the Net.

 

[Dreeble]

Heya:

I like the idea of adding William Shatner's head to a younger actor's body with a few restrictions: 1) Like the rumor states: for 20 minutes only since it would be too expensive because of 2) Dynamically digitally make Shatner's face age-appropriate to the younger actor. We've all seen programs that "age" peoples' images. Something similar that does the same thing in reverse in realtime as the image (the actor on screen) moves about would be a cool effect.

Take care,
Dreeble