Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
FredM

Star Trek XI: 12/25/2008

26 posts in this topic
J.J. ABRAMS TO DIRECT STAR TREK FEATURE FILM FOR PARAMOUNT PICTURES

IN THEATERS CHRISTMAS DAY 2008

 

HOLLYWOOD, CA, February 26, 2007 — "Star Trek," one of the most popular and successful franchises in the history of movies and television, returns to the big screen under the creative vision of J.J. Abrams, the force behind "Lost," "Alias" and "Mission Impossible III" for Paramount Pictures.

 

The team behind the film will include Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci ("Mission Impossible III") who wrote the screenplay and will executive produce with Bryan Burk. JJ Abrams and "Lost" co-creator Damon Lindelof will produce. The film will begin shooting this fall for a Christmas Day 2008 release.

 

One of the most popular film and television franchises of all time, "Star Trek" has encompassed 726 total episodes for television in six different series, beginning with the original 1966-1969 series created by Gene Roddenberry. The 10 "Star Trek" films have grossed in excess of $1 billion at the worldwide box office. The original characters have been named among the 50 greatest TV characters of all time and the Enterprise has lent its name to two proposed spacecraft.

 

"If there's something I'm dying to see, it's the brilliance and optimism of Roddenberry's world brought back to the big screen," said Abrams. "Alex and Bob wrote an amazing script that embraces and respects Trek canon, but charts its own course. Our goal is to make a picture for everyone — life-long fans and the uninitiated. Needless to say, I am honored and excited to be part of this next chapter of Star Trek."

 

Brad Grey, chairman and CEO, Paramount Pictures, said, "We could not be more thrilled to be back in business with J.J. Abrams. The revival of the 'Star Trek' franchise is an important part of Paramount's turnaround."

 

Rumored to be a prequel, indeed dealing with James T. Kirk and Spock during their days at the Academy. Supposedly younger versions of McCoy, Scotty and Sulu will appear in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did we decide to move Christmas Day to the 26? :blink: I really need to catch up with those memos...

 

I don't know to what to say, really ... being apathetic is kind of bad, yes, but I guess I am. They might as well go for it, because if Trek will ever experience a resurgence it'll need a strong movie to back it up. I'm not familiar enough with any of these guys' work (except that Alias was terrible, although I mainly blame Jennifer Garner) to use that as a basis for predicting the movie's success.

 

Personally I've always felt that it would be better to move forward, not backward, since this is the future, and time usually moves in a linear direction unless you have people playing with the temporal prime directive. That being said, I didn't like how the technology towards the late 24th century was developing. So I guess I'm just one of those people who like sto complain about everything and won't be satisfied in any case. :D

 

I'm kind of sad that Paramount missed the boat on a DS9 movie because they were so set on making TNG ones. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When did we decide to move Christmas Day to the 26? :blink: I really need to catch up with those memos...

 

Either I missed that memo too, or someone's finger slipped, lol.

 

After watching a few of the remastered TOS shows, I think the current overseers of the Trek franchise at least know how to make things look pretty, whether or not they have that connection with Roddenberry's spirit is hard to say. I'm not holding out much hope, but I'll probably still watch it. Though I think I'll wait until after New Year's Day ( Is that on the 2nd now? :lol: ) before heading into the theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is confusing the article release date, February 26th, 2007, with the movie release date of Dec 25th, 2008.

 

Well, going with the current casting rumors, it's looking like Matt Damon <ugh> going to be playing Kirk, but hey, that's alot better than the original proposal of Ben Affleck in that role. Honestly, I'd rather see someone unknown in the role. I still detested the casting in 'Enterprise" as it was "Quantum Leap" all over again.

 

Other rumors abounding are putting Adrien Brody in the part of Mr Spock, and Gary Sinise in the part of Dr. McCoy. We'll know soon enough, when they get to the production phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I’m excited. The director and screen weightier choice worries me. It has always been my theory that people who are making a franchise film should be deeply moved to make something great. Not just something for a paycheck because, well face it. As a Star Trek film any diehard Trekey will see it in theater regardless. I know I will. I merely hope that these people will see through to it to do the job right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am adopting a "wait and see" philosophy. Of course, on the flip side I want this film to do well and blow the competition out of the water.

Edited by Kansas_Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am willing to take a wait and see approach. They have to know they are being watched. I guess the pressure of Enterprise got them addicted to trying to explain without re-writting our history.

 

Casting will be interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now... I know a lot of people will disagree with me here, but I see a need to get this on the table.

 

William Shatner is Kirk; Leonard Nimoy is Spock; and Deforest Kelly, McCoy. I'm not saying that the newly-cast actors are going to lend poor performances or otherwise not stand up to parr on their own, but this is on the scale of... perhaps recasting Gone With the Wind or Casablanca for a new release. These guys are going to be under incredible pressure, and no matter what they do, unless one has never seen the original series and/or films, they'll be compared to the original actors.

 

And why do we need yet another prequel? How many series and films have had to be prequel'd in the last decade or so? Just within science-fiction alone... Star Wars certainly had its general failure of a trilogy, we all know how the overall reaction to Enterprise, Batman had its own kind of prequel which has met with mixed reactions, and let's not forget the non-genre prequels of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Silence of the Lambs, and Casino Royale of Bond fame (which I admit met with much better success with some audiences than the other films I've mentioned have).

 

What many Trek fans are looking for right now is what we were given with the 'original' original series. Instead of a throwback to the literal Star Trek of the 1960s, we should be shown a bright, new future set after the return of Voyager. Show us new frontiers and technology of the 2450s or beyond; something new we can aspire to create. Star Trek inspired much with its original conception -- we need new vitality along the same thoughts to bring in a new series of fans, not a 'nostalgia tour' of the same characters and ideas that the 60s were given to watch.

 

We need new heroes and storylines, and XI, frankly, is incapable of doing this. When the producers and neocreators of our new Trek realize what they need to be aiming for, then and only then will Star Trek become the important staple in our culture that it has been, and also become again the money-maker that Viacom needs and wants it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Laarell.

 

The Original Series - its my thing, and it is my favorite of all the Treks. I also liked Enterprise. So, lets say for the sake of argument I am an old school Trek fan. Am I excited about seeing loud velour patterns on the big screen? Of course I am!

 

The idea of an Academy based movie, focusing on the original characters in some way, has been batted back and forth since 1989, sometime after the "disaster" that is Star Trek 5 (I've always disagreed with this - its not the greatest Trek film, but I enjoyed it, and it is the reason Im a fan today). I remember the year because I actually wrote a letter to Paramount at the time nixing the idea for an academy movie.

 

18 years of an Academy prequel floating around? That's a long time, and lets assume it will be done finally due to the stars converging with a lunar eclipse or something. Now that I'm older? An Academy movie? Sure, why not! Obviously Im not as uptight as I used to be. :-) I say bring it on. I'll go see it!

 

However - I agree with Laarell (and others). The franchise needs to spring forward again, not back. And by spring forward, I want all the Treks to be bypassed - nix any new Kirks and Spocks; TNG is done, and I also dont want to see VOY, DS9 and an ENT in the movies. And, books? No New Frontier or SCE crews.

 

A completely new cast, preferably unknowns, and a new ship to boldly go. Heck - why does it have to be a motion picture? Mini-series are good too. I'm digressing though. ;-)

 

So, I'm definitely doing the Devil's Advocate thing - I am up for an Original Series film and hope it blows the competition completely, totally, and without mercy out of the water. I want the box office figures so high that the heavens get hit. But, the franchise does need to move away from the established shows and get some fresh blood in there.

 

>^..^<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only read my post if you want to read some bitter ranting.. lol.

 

Ugh.. I'm extremely skeptical about this. After Enterprise I've lost faith in the people in charge of continuing the Trek universe. Whatever you say about it as a series or as entertainment, they just kept tearing holes in established Trek history. My main concern, though is because of Nemesis. They brought in a popular director, Stuart Baird, who knew nothing about Star Trek, and who decided he wanted to make it 'a movie anyone can see even if they're not a Trek fan.' Which is basically what the press release says about the next one. And in Nemesis Baird completely betrayed the characters of TNG because he had no concept of them and was just trying to make general entertainment.

Basically since Roddenberry it just hasn't been the same. He was still around when DS9 came around, and he at least had some part in the conception of Voyager (which I thought was still very much in the style and spirit of Trek). But let the heirs go off and do their own thing and it goes downhill, imho. I mean, what the heck is with the decontamination nakie chamber on Enterprise? Roddenberry was about sneaking social commentary onto the airwaves, not scantily clad vulcans.

 

As for it being a prequel, I agree all around. If you throw a Matt Damon in as Kirk, he's obviously not going to want to try to play Kirk as Shatner played Kirk, because he'll want to be all new and hip and reinventive, because that's what people do. They think they're so clever to put a new spin on an old thing, when all it does is become something different. It would be great to have a TOS-ish movie, but they're not going to put up cheesy velour and foam rocks. They're going to be all stupid and reinventive and it won't be TOS-ish at all. I mean, look at Enterprise. The NX-Enterprise was somehow sleeker and more refined than it's successor 100 years later. The only way to possibly pull it off would be, indeed, to have some good noname actors do it.. but they won't do that. That's not how hollywood works. Movies don't get made without a big name on the billet.

 

I also agree that moving forward would be for the best with a brand new cast and century. Would be nice to have a bright future to aspire to again.

 

Okay, I'll stop ranting now.

 

All else I'll say is that there is very little in the world I would like more than a DS9 movie. ::wipes tear::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laarell has a point but I feel that it may be nice to see a fresh take. As far as the actors being under presser, well you will never replace Shatner Kelly and Nimoy but just remember we don’t want someone trying to play William Shatner playing Kirk. If you want check out Star Trek New Voyages if you want to see what I mean. In many respects that have manage to catcher some of that original trek nostalgia. For a fan sierras they do peaty well. Except where they kill Checkoff :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be great to have a TOS-ish movie, but they're not going to put up cheesy velour and foam rocks. They're going to be all stupid and reinventive and it won't be TOS-ish at all. I mean, look at Enterprise. The NX-Enterprise was somehow sleeker and more refined than it's successor 100 years later.

 

Mr. Leb, I understand this section of your rant.

 

But, track record wise? We have visual canon that supports the modern recreation of the original series sets and costumes, and in each case it was done believably and well. TNG did a brief glimpse with "Relics", VOY had "Flashback", DS9 did "Trials and Tribble-ations" and ENT did "In a Mirror, Darkly".

 

If the above eps are any indication, any production team (whether they be old Trek vets, or new blood) worth their salt can re-create the Original Series as it appeared. Maybe minus the tinfoil. The Original Series was ultra modern looking during its time, reflecting the trends with sparse, clean looking modern furniture as was popular (in some living rooms that is) during the 60's.

 

Now as for a new actor stepping into an old role? Absolutely there will be a new interpretation, and each film produced (sci fi or other) these days strives for whatever current modern look there is.

And, both the Original cast and the Next Gen cast had to re-establish their characters for the motion pictures. Oh sure, it was the same character and actor, but a whole new motion picture setting lent to a whole new character area to explore, and Im sure the actors had to make some reinterpretations in the film settings, even if they dont say it in so many words during an interview. It would be like a stage actor going into TV?

 

You know, this film is well over two years away and things always change - can we really hope for one Trek film to appease all the masses?

 

Is it wise to cater to Trek fans "totally", or do these modern times dictate that all sci fi films be catered for any science fiction fan? (However - remember "The Voyage Home" - it appealed to a wide range audience, and non Trekkers went to see the film.)

 

Has anyone else noticed the lagging of Trek? I just remember back in the 80-90's it was Trek mania, and now it's really quiet...and its not all ENTs fault.

 

>^..^<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now as for a new actor stepping into an old role? Absolutely there will be a new interpretation, and each film produced (sci fi or other) these days strives for whatever current modern look there is.

And, both the Original cast and the Next Gen cast had to re-establish their characters for the motion pictures. Oh sure, it was the same character and actor, but a whole new motion picture setting lent to a whole new character area to explore, and Im sure the actors had to make some reinterpretations in the film settings, even if they dont say it in so many words during an interview. It would be like a stage actor going into TV?

 

Of course, we all do realize that there will be a ton of pressure on the new actors to try to emulate the original. But who can truly reinvent Shatner's dramatic pauses, or Nimoy's dry Vulcanisms well? Mark Lenard was a wonderful Sarek, and in all honesty, I thought Kirstie Alley did a very good Saavik, and believe that most other female Vulcans didn't have the same ease of character, like Kim Catrall's Valeris in STVI.

 

Has anyone else noticed the lagging of Trek? I just remember back in the 80-90's it was Trek mania, and now it's really quiet...and its not all ENTs fault.

 

>^..^<

 

I remember the heady days of Sputnik and...oh, wait, wrong memories. But, I do remember those years. You had a new TOS movie coming out every other year- TMP in 80, TWOK in 82, TSFS in 84, TVH in 86, TFF in 88, although TUC was in 91 (Saw it in IMAX in San Antonio in '92, during tech school w/ the AF). And every time an even numbered movie came out, it did better than the predecessor. TNG premiered in 87, and I remember watching it religiously once a week; even scheduling my dinner breaks at work to watch it. And then came DS9, and then Voyager, and then let's go back in time to the heady days of before the Federation with ENT. There was distinct potential there for a good series, but the potential was lost on a shift to darker themes.

 

But even darker themes can work. Look at the new BSG. Sure it's darker, edgier, and has better special effects than the original, but those are all secondary to the human drama, the focus on the characters.

 

As for the lag, Kansas, I call it product overload. You have reruns on Spike, TV-Land, Sci-fi, etc., so the series are still on TV in syndication as well as DVD sales. Viacom hasn't taken them out of circulation, making the public hungry for a new series/movie.

 

If the Paramount can bring back the ideals that made TOS great, the Human Adventure, as it were; then this pre-TOS movie will be worthy to see. If not, then it goes into the DVD collection as a "Yeah, I got it, but I never watch it" movie, like I did with SW:TPM.

 

Just my two slips of gold-pressed latinum.

Edited by will_marx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavens, I must be so behind. I know I havent seen all of the movies. I did not realize there were already ten of them! (Please dont exile me for this!) I was just catching up on the next generation folks, watching tapes from a friend of mine. I am not sure I would enjoy a movie showing my most memorable Star Trek characters before we knew them in the 60's. From what I know about the Star Wars series, I have heard much talk about the newer movies seeming to supercede the older ones in technology and style. Would that not occur with this series if this XI movie were created?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally the NX class was the forerunner to the Daedalus class (the ugliest starship ever thought up), not the Constitution class. According to fandom the Daedalus class was more efficient because it had a secondary hull. This isn't canon however.

 

I think ANY revisit of the TOS characters will have to take the form of a reimagining such as they did with BSG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that people want to move forward with Trek, literally and figuratively.

 

Who really wants to see a movie about characters that, as far as we know, are dead.

 

I'd love to see a post-voyager movie. Maybe have Captain Harry Kim, and cameos of that class. Or, have some kind of VOY-DS9 crossover movie. There are two underrated crews right there that need attention. Give it to 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heavens, I must be so behind. I know I havent seen all of the movies. I did not realize there were already ten of them! (Please dont exile me for this!) From what I know about the Star Wars series, newer movies seeming to supercede the older ones in technology and style. Would that not occur with this series if this XI movie were created?

 

Ms. Major, I dont think you'll be exiled :-) And you're right - if you ever happen to catch a rerun of the Enterprise series, which is set before Kirk and crew, the tech (and special effects) of ENT looks a bit more streamlined then The Original Series. Yet, the Original Series still looks futuristic.

 

 

I think ANY revisit of the TOS characters will have to take the form of a reimagining such as they did with BSG.

 

While not a fan of the new BSG, I do admire the reimagining of the characters, and how it was handled. If that is done with Trek, then so be it, and I'd welcome it. Although...if my fav Dr. McCoy becomes a girl I might have a mild - read: WTH! ::hits the roof:: - issue with that.

 

 

I just think that people want to move forward with Trek, literally and figuratively.

 

Or, have some kind of VOY-DS9 crossover movie. There are two underrated crews right there that need attention. Give it to 'em.

 

But, if people (and the franchise) want to move forward, then why focus on established crews?

 

And, on the flip side, if we do see a DS9/VOY movie (I doubt it though - sorry guys!), then isn't it fair to assume that these shows might also benefit from a reconfiguration like the new BSG - new Janeway, new actors (in keeping with the move forward angle)?

Edited by Kansas_Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the movie-going public is tired of prequels. We knew Lucas would do it with Star Wars ever since we learned the 2nd movie was called Episode V, which meant they had to go back and do Episodes A-U, but we are taking things too far. They are even doing a prequel for the reimagined BSG about life on Caprica.

 

Batman Begins was cool, but it isn't really a prequel as much as it is a "restart" the way it should have been. I think a Superman movie about the final days of Krypton could work. Other than that, however, ENOUGH OF THE *^((*)% PREQUELS!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, is there anything in the ST Canon that says that Kirk and Spock were in the Academy together? or McCoy? Are they going to just make up some amazing first meeting that makes them all fast friends?? We already know about some of Kirk's pre-Enterprise postings and they do not include Spock or McCoy, so it's not like they were always together.

 

I agree that it's time to step away from these characters and just have a great movie about the Trek universe, but that isn't tied to specific characters that have a lot of baggage with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personlay i would like to see somthing like in the novle Koybyshi Mayru. one of my favret ST books ever btw. Where we looke back on their academy days. what i'm worryed about is that they will arange for some improble sitution where Kirk Spock and McCoy team up to save the world yet agian, and when they have just meet to boot. I dont know about you but i'm rather tired of TOS storys where Kirk Pulls a answer out of his @ yet again and they move on

 

I apolygaze for those of you that i offend

 

As to moving on with the trek franchize. with the failer of Enterprise i thing they are worryed about launching another searies. Dont worry give it 10 years or so and the world will be redy for a new trek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, is there anything in the ST Canon that says that Kirk and Spock were in the Academy together? or McCoy?

 

I'm pretty sure that there is nothing canon supporting this first meeting. However, non canon wise we have a winner - Cadet Kirk Starfleet Academy # 3 (junior readers), 1996 by Diane Carey. Kirk is 19 and a junior cadet, McCoy and Spock are older, mid-twenties cadets and they all meet and promptly get thrown into an adventure.

 

 

As to moving on with the trek franchize. with the failer of Enterprise i thing they are worryed about launching another searies.

 

Enterprise ain't THAT bad. (see "Are We Spoiled" topic) ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enterprise ain't THAT bad. (see "Are We Spoiled" topic) ;-)

 

 

No Enterprise is not that bad. I love all things Trek. But it is more like that Youngest child that is good but just not as gifted as his older brothers and sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is somewhat official now. Star Trek XI: The Search for Kirk (OK, I made that part up.) will be a reimagining, according to the screenwriters.

 

MTV posted an exclusive interview with Star Trek XI screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Here are few excerpts from the article.

 

"There will be more action in this movie than any Trek that's preceded it," Kurtzman promised. Orci, without discussing a specific budget, added, "It'll be the biggest one. The economic models of the other [films] were very much based on the fans out there and their purchasing power. With this one we're going for the broad audience to bring people into Trek for the first time."

 

"The challenge of the movie is to be 100 percent true to the fanbase but also to bring in a whole new group of people who've never seen 'Trek' before," Kurtzman said.

 

As for recent rumors that Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise were being considered to play the new versions of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, the duo were reluctant to spill the beans. Asked if they would be happy if Kirk were played by Damon, a long pause followed. Finally Kurtzman allowed, "I'm the hugest Matt Damon fan ever. If he became [Kirk], great."

 

Will William Shatner or Leonard Nimoy appear? "Really, who can say?" they answered.

 

They confirmed that Star Trek XI will be a starship-based adventure. "I don't know how you make Star Trek without a starship," Orci laughed. "You have to trek through the stars, so you need a ship for that. There, you got something out of us!"

 

Orci and Kurtzman also confirmed that the film is not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise. Whether that means a whole new look for Star Trek remains in question. "We're not going to start totally from scratch," Orci said. "We want it to feel like it's updated and of the now. That's actually the discussions we're having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing's new. It's tricky."

 

The duo also confirmed that the same production team that assisted them and Abrams on Alias and M:i:III will join them for Star Trek XI, including production designer Scott Chambliss and director of photography Daniel Mindel.

 

"We just hope they bless us," Kurtzman said about the former Star Trek stars. Shatner and Nimoy recently visited with Orci, Kurtzman and producer/director J.J. Abrams. According to the writers, the meetings went well. "It was pretty much the most stressful thing ever, but it was wonderful," Kurtzman said. "They were amazing."

 

Orci recalled. "We've been watching [star Trek] all our lives. I've even read the books. It was all about, what have I always wanted to see in Trek?'Trek,' more than anything, has always been about the human interactions. It's all about the human soul."

Edited by Dumbass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. This doesn't bode well. A remake? I think that they might have found something worse than a prequel... it's hard to say.

I guess at least by calling it a "reimagination," it allows them to re-do TOS with a modern feel (yeah, you're right that TOS was very modern and futuristic in it's day) without directly stepping on canon toes. But it also means that they're departing from Roddenberry that much more. To me it's like they're saying "we're going to reimagine the mona lisa using modern 3d rendering technology unavailable to Da Vinci at the time."

 

Maybe they will do a movie about the USS Hood, a TOS era ship with a different crew that boldly follows in Kirk's footsteps every Tuesday night... :blink: Oh wait..

 

All this stuff about putting more action into it is disheartening, too... between the lines I'm reading that they just want to make money off of yet ANOTHER big flashy computer graphics showcase, and pull in money from fans while they're at it, in much the same fashion as Star Wars fans were swindled by the prequels. They probably won't use a single model. Sorry, I'm trying to be less skeptical but it's not working, hehe.

 

You make a good point, Kansas, that they're certainly capable of doing things TOS-ly. I just don't think they WILL.

 

But, yeah... I guess in the end all we can really do is wait and see. I'll try to keep an open mind and maybe I'll be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0