J.J. Abrams To Direct 'Star Trek XI'

Bandit LOAF said:
The problem is that it's a silly internet catch phrase, not something anyone has given reasonable thought to. The idea that Star Trek needs to "rest" might (and it's a very distant might, in my mind) make sense if you're speaking in terms of some immeasurable recharge required of the people currently in charge of the show... but when the news is that an entirely *new* team is going to be running Star Trek, the concept loses whatever shread of relevance it once had -- JJ Abrams isn't burned out on Star Trek.
Click to expand...

Although i consider myself a Trekkie i havnt been reading all the stupid internet stuff from the fans. however i still feel that star trek could use a break. if one studies the trek history you will see that the long gap they had between the original series and the next generation was one of the best things that happened to star trek, it gave them time to consolidate everything they already had and think of plenty new stuff ( and unthink of stuff as well - Star Trek Phase 2 would have been a disaster ). TNG was a big risk for paramount because there was a new crew, new ship and an almost new galaxy taking the helm of star trek, everything was different and dint have too much similarities to TOS but now im sure most trekkies think of TNG as star trek's finest moment.

you see, if the concept becomes stale, perhaps giving it a break might help. it will generate more interest and anticipation amogst fans and other familiar to the series as well and the fresh ideas is what will help most. now i dont want to point fingures at berman or bragga but perhaps having a new set of producers will allow the show to move and explore other directions as well.

the thing that makes star trek so special is that it has a history, spanning from the 22nd century-29th century and from the 1960's to the present day. trek's main objective should be to build on that history, not re-use it again and again. given, enterprise was decent, voyager was awsome 4th season onwards but nowhere as widely accepted as TNG was when it ran.

this is what i fell should be done. i assure you, i havnt read any of the dumb internet shit or anything, this is just my opinion. i will ofcorse expect a lot from the new movie cos when i started off watching trek, i dint know of anything but the original series for almost 5 years ( i 1st saw some one in a TNG costume during startreks 30th aniversary, lets just say i grew up in a very remote place :s ) but rest assured if they do screw up there is still a lot of good trek for fans like me to fall back on and cherish.

the only way they can revive star trek to its status from the TNG era is to "truly sail into the unknown".
 
I agree with practically everything you've said here, Foxtrot.
But I think - sadly - the only way to succesfully revive ST (i.e. to get high enough viewer ratings) is to wait for a new generation of fans to be added to the existing fans. About 10 years should do it.
 
Foxtrot said:
if one studies the trek history you will see that the long gap they had between the original series and the next generation was one of the best things that happened to star trek
Click to expand...

Such a statement ignores the fact that four Star Trek movies came out between TOS and TNG. There was a long gap - but it was between TOS and TMP. (11 Years)

I really cannot read the rest of your post if you're jumping the perverbial Steven Spielberg robot-aquatic antagonist with your first statement.
 
LeHah said:
I really cannot read the rest of your post if you're jumping the perverbial Steven Spielberg robot-aquatic antagonist with your first statement.
Click to expand...

He HAS a name.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I have some problems with Star Trek VI, but I do love its character.

(Lets face it, from a practical standpoint there's a lot in Star Trek VI that just doesn't makes sense -- from the uncomfortable gymnastics they go through to jam the titular Shakespeare line into the movie to the practical fact that Spock putting a homing device on Kirk's jacket makes absolutely no sense. Does he do that on every mission and we just don't see it? Or did he expect that Kirk would be arrested, tried and then sent to Klingon jail... without ever having to change his clothes?)
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely I agree, there are many things that don't make sense...and yet I find it all more enjoyable. After all, many other classics make similar mistakes. I mean, who hasn't watched a movie where things don't make sense? As long as it doesn't keep slapping you in the face with it then I'm pretty ok with it. Star Wars for example, also broke the laws physics repeatedly but it was still hella fun watching X-wings 'dogfight' in space with explosions and laser blasts etc. The shakespeare? It's certainly better dialogue than Jar Jar Binks! :) I found it lent a certain "quaintness" to the script even though it really had no place or background. It gave character to the exchanges. Yeah, the homing beacon was another unexplainable and unlikely scenario (not to mention Enterprise infliltrating Klingon space so easily). Despite those obvious flaws, I still enjoy it the most out of all of them. Followed closely by Wrath of Khan...another excellent movie.
 
Althought the writer describes those elements in the script, he has no control over the actors' performance afterwards.
The director does, especially if it's a bigshot like in the case of Nemesis.
If he directed ST VIII : First Contact, he probably would have told the guys portraying Borg drones to put more emotion into their performance
Click to expand...

Since there's no significant Romulan character (some Senators are vaporized in the introduction, a viewscreen face helps the Enterprise later on) in the movie, I can only take the original poster to mean the actions of Romulans as a whole are uncharacteristic -- not that any one actor isn't doing a good job.

(The idea that someone would complain that the manner in which the Senators reacted to being vaporized was somehow discontinous is silly -- the idea that the movie portrays the Romulan Empire as some poorly run organization that has been secretly enslaving space vampires all this time and that can be easily taken over by a bald kid with a ball of light *is* out of character... and deciding those things was the job of the *writer*.)

His track record : Zero experience directing Star Trek or anything like it.
So the least he can do to make up for his lack of xp in the genre, is to review relevant material to get an idea of how the main races (like Romulans) should behave.
Click to expand...

You'll like JJ Abrams, then, he already had one TV series about time travel.

(Felicity)

Although i consider myself a Trekkie i havnt been reading all the stupid internet stuff from the fans. however i still feel that star trek could use a break. if one studies the trek history you will see that the long gap they had between the original series and the next generation was one of the best things that happened to star trek, it gave them time to consolidate everything they already had and think of plenty new stuff
Click to expand...

The problem with the 'Star Trek as zeitgeist needs a rest' argument is that it (as above) eventually points to the gap between TOS and TNG (or, TOS and TMP... or, TAS and TMP, however you want to close that circle) as evidence that such a thing would be a positive move that would 'recharge'

The problem is that saying this overlooks the important element that made those years great - Star Trek had an *amazing* community that kept incredibly positive and productive through those dry years (which we as Wing Commander fans try to emulate). Star Trek isn't a pie that they put on a windowsill for several years while it cooled and became ready to eat... it's a pie that they hid in a dusty garage while an amazing group of people wrote their own pie recipes, pie fanzines, held pie conventions to meet the original baker, petitioned NASA to name space missions after the flavor of the pie, etc. Those people are no more: the dominant Star Trek community in 2006 is an awful collection of terribly cynical internet jerks.
 
it's a pie that they hid in a dusty garage while an amazing group of people wrote their own pie recipes, pie fanzines, held pie conventions to meet the original baker, petitioned NASA to name space missions after the flavor of the pie, etc. Those people are no more: the dominant Star Trek community in 2006 is an awful collection of terribly cynical internet jerks.
Click to expand...

you couldnt have picturised it beter LOAF. its true, todays fans are nothing compared to the old fans but that doesnt apply to everyone. i take myself as an example, i like trek for its philosophy, its stories, characters and entertainment value and always try to look at its good side and im sure there are more fans like this out there. what we as fans must do now is keep trek alive somehow and spread it out even if possible which i do whenever i get a chance, heck im engineering student here in canada and i still see so much resistance from my batch mates but whenever ive had a chance to show them an epp of voyager theur minds seem to have lowered that "mental barrier" they have against trek as many ppl have now a days. heck, i do the same for wing commander, ive already "converted" a friend into wingcommander Prophecy fans this year and i hope to continue that because ppl today have no clue what a good game is, because they havnt seen the games from 10 yrs ago ( like WC, crusader..... ). the same principle should apply to ST, many ppl today hate it without even seeing it.

in the end this break is deffinately going to be a test for the star trek community of today. if they can see past the flaws and stuff and embrace trek for what is tries to represent, that humanity has a bright future only if we make it so, the same would apply to trek today, that it would have a bright future only if we "make it so."
 
Confed said:
At least after viewing the Wrath of Khan, you immediately know they will bring him back thanks to "the Genesis effect". Data however is not coming back, we are only left with his idiot brother B4.
Click to expand...

Except that the Genesis effect resurrection is not established until the third movie. The intention was that Spock was very, very dead. But a no-name indy director and his writers cannot prevent Paramount from keeping their money-making vulcan alive for as long as they can keep Nemoy coming back.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
the idea that the movie portrays the Romulan Empire as some poorly run organization that has been secretly enslaving space vampires all this time and that can be easily taken over by a bald kid with a ball of light *is* out of character...
Click to expand...

What I didn't understand is why the baddies wanted so much to destroy Earth. What's the source of so much hate? Earth did nothing to them. It's like being the movie villains is the sole reason for that. "We're bad, so let's destroy Earth". Wouldn't it make more sense to destroy Romulus? I get it that they needed Pickard, but what did Earth had to do with anything?

And yeah, the Romulan Empire looked like some very poorly run organization.
 
I didn't mind that they wanted to destroy Earth so bad... I just wish they would have fought the end battle over Earth. A huge fleet battle, or something. Especially since it's for sure that it's the final TNG movie. :(
 
Well Earth is the capital of the Federation and the homeworld of humans. I would expect that anybody who hates the Federation (or hates humans in general) would want to destroy the center of Federation (or human) society. Why did the Kilrathi want to destroy Earth? ^_^
 
Delance said:
There's no motivation whatsoever.
Click to expand...

To clarify this, it's the Romulans that wanted to destroy earth, not the space vampires. I agree that it would have made more sense if the space vampires wanted to blow up Romulus for all that slavery and meddling.
 
Well, I'm just glad that TNG is finally stepping into its grave. I mean, how long can you trot out the same characters for twenty years and have them all inexplicably thrown into the same situation even after they all moved on after TNG?

As usual in this sort of thing, I find myself as the only person in the room who thought that DS9 was actually the best Star Trek series. Fantastic writing. Especially when DS9 got opened up for the writers to do multi-episode story arcs, no matter how minor they turned out to be. The writers could only cop out so many times by having some mysterious alien thingy take over the station before they had to actually write.I]/I] It's really the only character based Star Trek show out of them all. Voyager tried, but they couldn't quite get to the same level, nor did the format of the show allow it.

But, with the way all of the latest series ended, there's really no way to do a movie about any of them, except maybe Enterprise, which would have to follow the "long episode with a special effects budget" approach, with no guarantee that anyone would actually show up at the box office.

Pardon the pun, but a prequel is really the only logical approach for the Star Trek franchise, at least for now. They've had some setbacks, and need to rub the Vulcan's head for luck.
 
Nappydman said:
Well, I'm just glad that TNG is finally stepping into its grave. I mean, how long can you trot out the same characters for twenty years and have them all inexplicably thrown into the same situation even after they all moved on after TNG?
Click to expand...

I don't know - lets go ask the TOS cast.
 
As usual in this sort of thing, I find myself as the only person in the room who thought that DS9 was actually the best Star Trek series.
Click to expand...

Eh, I think that a lot of people believe this. While I love the show (The Visitor is probably my favorite single Star Trek episode), my problem with this as a broad statement is that Deep Space Nine works specifically because of the contrast. Without Next Generation going beforehand, DS9 isn't impressive. The things people seem to love DS9 for aren't in any way unique... they're the elements that make up the average soap opera: multi-episode storylines, character conflict and so forth. Presenting a new show with these aspects isn't surprising or interesting unless you have the baseline created by the earlier serieses.

Voyager tried, but they couldn't quite get to the same level, nor did the format of the show allow it.
Click to expand...

I don't think Voyager tried at all. Fans wanted to believe that Voyager *would* try... and the initial setup *seems* like it's an attempt to have a DS9-like continuity (the shows are actually reversed in this way - DS9 was clearly developed as a setting for a plot-a-week show). After the first episode of Voyager, though, they made no attempt to be anything but TNG with a different cast.

But, with the way all of the latest series ended, there's really no way to do a movie about any of them, except maybe Enterprise, which would have to follow the "long episode with a special effects budget" approach, with no guarantee that anyone would actually show up at the box office.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is what drives moviemaking at all -- if there was money to be made in a TNG, DS9 or Voyager movie, then they'd have absolutely no problem making one. Hollywood Studios care very little for the rote continuity that fans cling to.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Eh, I think that a lot of people believe this. While I love the show (The Visitor is probably my favorite single Star Trek episode), my problem with this as a broad statement is that Deep Space Nine works specifically because of the contrast. Without Next Generation going beforehand, DS9 isn't impressive. The things people seem to love DS9 for aren't in any way unique... they're the elements that make up the average soap opera: multi-episode storylines, character conflict and so forth. Presenting a new show with these aspects isn't surprising or interesting unless you have the baseline created by the earlier serieses.
Click to expand...
I think you have a good point there, LOAF, and I agree with you. One of the reasons DS9 was a good show to watch was because it was a different and fun take on the same universe.

However, despite all of that, I still think there is a case to be made for DS9 being the 'best' overall Star Trek series. If you compare the quality of DS9's freshman and sophomore seasons to TNG, DS9 is clearly the winner. DS9 found its stride faster in the first year, and wasn't weighed down by a Writer's Guild strike in the second as TNG was. Over the course of the show, the writing was more consistently good than with TNG (there was no single 'golden' season of DS9, unlike TNG and its third season).

Also, if you look at the production values of TNG over its seven year run, they increased each year; DS9 continued that. Basically just about every aspect of the show besides writing and acting improved as technology and techniques improved -- special effects, sound, costumes, makeup, props... these things just got better. This isn't some Trek-specific thing, of course... television has been getting better since the beginning of television, and will probably continue to do so.

So there's a case to be made. I'm not saying DS9 is the best, of course... I prefer TAS.
 
In all fairness, though, seasons 1 and 2 of Deep Space Nine are excellent for reasons entirely separate from (and in opposition to) the common fan claims to greatness for the show in general (story arcs! battles with lots of ships! continuity!) -- they're just very well done individual stories (in a setting crafted especially to fit that concept).

I don't want to go so far as to say that I can pick the 'best' season of Star Trek, but early DS9 is up there. In rewatching the series recently, I found the first two seasons stand alone episodes to be more clever than the war stuff -- the grand arcs and such are lots of fun, there's a lot of intelligent episodes... but there's something about it that makes it seem like it was more easily achieved than what the show was doing when it started off.

I'm not sure if you're kidding about TAS or not - an argument could certainly be made...
 
Honestly, my personal favorite is TOS. While arguments can be made against it because of look, acting, ect., they really did the best with what they had at the time for a TV show--it had to have something special considering the entire franchise is really built on it.

However, the reason I love TOS so much is really the writing. Virtually every episode was a morality play and commentary on life at the time and social issues. It was so skillfully done, and in more recent series although at times they tried to mimic that with varying degrees of sucess, TOS had stories that really had great impact and power with their statements.

That being said, I really just love everything about the franchise. Although there are some things I liked better than others, I really wouldn't say anything was a mistake or bad for Trek--I really love it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top