It was the Pon-farr… the above name sounds like a porn version!

Funny slip, for sure….

If Star Trek XI is to take on the idea of showing Kirk and Spock early on, the writers should embrace the canon and not reject it. Casino Royale and Batman Begins are not good comparisons with Star Trek simply because both are already understood by the notion of the audience as to be vague in timeline conception. Batman has already gone under numerous incarnations since 1939 and remained 34 since then. And with Bond, we have had 5 actors play the role with two of them (Connery and Moore) playing them til they were really past the prime of the character themselves to only be replaced by a younger actor. The whole notion of belief thus is basically left open for the audience to interpret for each new incarnation, since neither of the previous franchises ever specifically set out a specific time frame to which their stories took place.

Star Trek, however, has come to incorporate the notion of time and date usage into the story telling by both the writers and more importantly by the fans of the series. To go and “revamp” with a start from scratch approach with Star Trek will leave the audience left with the notion of “well then what the hell was the point of watching it then” because those in charge will be telling them that what they have come to know is unimportant and “thus” what they have come to love and their emotional connection to it is also unimportant.

Besides, when actually writing a story all of the canon is not needed to be taken into account in one story. Only small portions need to be refrenced under the notion of showing PROGRESSION. For example, in certain shows and films the entire piece wrapped around the back story of certain characters or incidents (i.e. the Kirk and Gary Mitchell friendship, Carol Marcus relationship during the academy, the kobayoshi maru test.) Now those are probably the three main subjects, with many others also taking center stage such as the Kum far episode to where Kirk first hears of the vulcan mating ritual or the Finney episode where a former friend from the academy attempts to frame him for his murder. Now in these circumstances these points do not have to be referenced, the story should simply leave it open so as if a viewer or fan chooses too they can simply assume it happened during a certain moment or time.

The whole idea behind Star Trek has been the idea of growth over time, both for the characters we have come to watch and care for and for the time and place in which its society has been set. No, the story does not need to bog itself down in the canon and attempt to add ample amounts of it in to simply say “See, we have canon in here.” Instead, the new film should take certain concepts of canon and apply them but then go on its own path from there. Do not negate certain canon, but simply leave certain aspects of it as “open understanding” meaning- we did not say it did not happen, but we did not reinforce it either. Some of the best stories for Star Trek have done this: Namely in the films Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, and Undiscovered Country where Nick Meyer either as director or writer knew of certain important notions of the canon and then went on to extrapolate beyond that.

That is all we want for Star Trek, the clever and smart approach of taking in what is there and then giving us something further with it.

The next Trek series–and this doesn’t necessarily apply to the movies so much but to a TV show–needs writers, directors and producers who are willing to take their characters on great and terrible journeys, exploring the darkest darks only to rise again to the light. Star Trek has never, ever done this consistently, only in small, brilliant bursts.

Give Trek to Whedon, Petrie, Minear, Espenson, etc, and watch it rise to a level of greatness that it has never seen.

We call that the sophist mentality.

@ Jon: Why are you here?

I think the L.A. columnist’s idea could work. I mean, just as with the Kirk/Spock idea, what it comes down to is good writing. With good writing, any setting and any group of characters can make a great movie. There’s certainly nothing wrong with going forward. There’s also no problem with going back. Hence AbramsTrek.

My only serious bone to pick with Mr. Neil is his evident misunderstanding of the word “reboot”. He talks about “throwing out” old canon when in fact all he’s doing is leaving it behind, a la TNG. In such a “New Testament” series, they’d probably live in the same, internally-consistent universe, but would just do less with the old villians than they did before–or even make them into allies. Just like TNG.

“Reboot” is a word that gets thrown around far too often, and it carries far too many negative connotations for too many fans for an L.A. Times columnist to abuse it in this way.

Otherwise, it’s a pretty good article. Only one snipe about “unmarried” Trekkies, and a pretty good appreciation for the franchise. Being compared to the Vedas and the Bible was nice.