Ron Moore Supports Abrams – Thinks Trek Should ‘Start Over’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Ron Moore Supports Abrams – Thinks Trek Should ‘Start Over’ June 8, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview,Star Trek (2009 film),Trek Franchise , trackback

There was a Battlestar Galactica special screening in Hollywood on Wednesday and TrekMovie.com was there. BSG co-creator and executive producer Ron Moore had a quick moment to chat about the next season of BSG and Star Trek. On the subject of the new Trek film Moore tells TrekMovie.com that he is a fan of JJ Abrams. "He is tremendously talented and I think he is going to do a really good job," said the veteran Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine writer/producer. I also had a chance to ask the man who killed James T. Kirk (Moore co-wrote Generations) about the the the plans to bring Kirk back in the new film.

TrekMovie.com: Last week your old DS9 comrade Ira Behr told me that he thought the plans to return to the era of Kirk and Spock was the safe bet, but that it was also ‘marching backwards to the future’, do you agree with that assessment?

Ron Moore: I understand Ira’s point and there is a lot of validity to saying they are stepping backwards, but at the same time I think it is the smart move to do it. I think the Star Trek universe has grown beyond what you can get your arms around. You can no longer truly enjoy it for what it is because it is so big and it has so many cross sections and so much continuity that it is maddening. I think only the truly hard core fans can keep all that together. So I think it is time to brush all that stuff over and say ‘what were the roots of all this again? , what was this really about?’ It was about the 5 year mission with these guys on this ship and let’s start over and tell a new set of tales. So I support them I think it is a really good move.

TrekMovie.com: Beyond the film, there are a lot of new genre TV shows getting the greenlight these days. Do you think that a genre show like Star Trek and it’s kind of futuristic space based sci-fi can work on network television today?

Ron Moore: I don’t know I think that is tough. It hasn’t been done and they have given it a try over the years, even the original Star Trek didn’t make it on network TV. The broadcast networks needs such a large general audience and science fiction on TV has been such a narrower appeal. It is a strange equation of which I have never understood because if you look at the top ten feature films of all time it is almost all genre stuff…look at Star Wars. Why it doesn’t work on TV I don’t know.

During the event Moore was asked if he felt hampered during his time at Trek and if there were storylines that he still couldnt do even with Battlestar Galactica.

Ron Moore: Trek was very very good to me I have to say. I enjoyed my stint at Star Trek and I was there a very long time. It gave me my career. I was on two of the series and I loved what I was doing. But there came a point where I started feeling that I wanted to just be more dangerous with the characters. I wanted to go more and more into to ambiguous territory and make it more natural and real. I just started bumping up places I couldn’t go with Trek. But with Galactica I don’t know that I can say I have not been able to go places where I wanted to go which is in large measure is attributed to the network.[jokingly] They just love torture and rape and killing babies [laughter]. I  have been allowed to do the show I want to do.  


The Galactica Cast at the event

 

Ron also had the time to talk to others at the show. Links Collider and IESB.  

More of my interview with Ron (on BSG) as well as other BSG cast and crew will be available at GeekMonthly.com later this morning.

Photos by Al Ortega (the coolest photographer around)

 

Comments

1. Aldo F. Rodriguez - June 8, 2007

Keep Trek Alive!!!!

2. Jim J - June 8, 2007

Ron Moore has his moments of brilliance and failure, like all “artists.” I do, however, agree with him about what he said about the Trek franchise vs. what Behr said.

It still makes me mad that he and Braga killed off Kirk so stupidly, though.

3. snake - June 8, 2007

I’m first – wow this is amazing!

4. snake - June 8, 2007

Is it Ron Moore whjo is banging Seven of Nine or the other one (Branga)?

whichever it is he must thank his lucky stars that he was a trekkie at night when he’s lying in bed with Jeri Ryan

5. THEETrekMaster - June 8, 2007

Braga WAS dating Jeri Ryan…but no more.

And Braga has stated many times he never was a Trek “fan”….

TTM

6. THEETrekMaster - June 8, 2007

Braga WAS dating Jeri Ryan…but no more.

And Braga has stated many times he never was a Trek “fan”….

TTM

7. snake - June 8, 2007

hope i wasnt too rude in my previous post -

apoloigies if so.

Anyway regarding Mr Moores statements – I agree with him when he says “So I think it is time to brush all that stuff over and say ‘what were the roots of all this again? , what was this really about?’ It was about the 5 year mission with these guys on this ship and let’s start over and tell a new set of tales”

Its Kirk, Spock etc that are part of pop culture the same way Bond, Batman etc are…Picard Riker etc – no where near…TNG feels like just a long gone fad these days..for hard core Trek fans only…its time is over…whenever i see Patrick Stewart in interviews and he gets asked about Trek he gives off the same vibe now..

TNG films were always a bit iffy when they were out anyway – as it was TNG, not the original guys in them…actually if you look at TNGs films there was really only 3 as Generations had Kirk in it for a good bit….First Contact was a great film and hence succcesful at the BO…9 and 10 just fell flat on their face though as they were poor and focused on characters no one really gave a crap about (seriously – who gives a shit that Riker and Troi finally get married) Also people were just loosing patenience with the whole of trek by that time..(thanks to DS9 and Voyager)

8. ozzy - June 8, 2007

what the hell kind of a name is “Brannon” anyway?
wuss.
nice job killing off Kirk. it had about as much guts as the weakest TNG episode which he produced. (they couldn’t even fix it in the re-shot sequence.)

Now that Moore has made his own mark with DS9 and BSG, we see where the talent was on that team.

9. snake - June 8, 2007

damn – you cant edit on this board!

any way i wanted to add in regard to TNG – It was really only Patrick Stewart that held the whole thing together anyway – his acting and stature in the role helped TNG enormosly… ultimatly I think people were only going to see the TNG films for him actually…

10. snake - June 8, 2007

oh and another thing – The reason First Contact was so succesfull is because it gave what alot of people wanted – hard core bad ass Trek – Star Trek does Aliens with a dash of The Terminator.

That really hadnt been done before (closest was probably Wrath of Khan)

That and it had Patrick Stewart in full on mode

11. Kyle Nin - June 8, 2007

Ron Moore: “I think the Star Trek universe has grown beyond what you can get your arms around. You can no longer truly enjoy it for what it is because it is so big and it has so many cross sections and so much continuity that it is maddening.”

I don’t find it maddening at all. I love the continuity that exists through the different installments of Star Trek. It’s one of the reasons I became a fan.

12. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 8, 2007

Snake Plissken, welcome to our not so little club. I enjoy BSG a great deal and did like DS9 but have always loathed TNG. It would appear that once the Berman shackles came off, Moore (and his Renaissance Fair Hair and Beard) really flourished as a sci-fi creator. In fact I think both DS9 and BSG are both much more in tune with the Original Series than TNG or the other spinoffs. The Original series was extremely edgy for it’s day and is still fairly so today. Just look at the controversy regarding the Christain alogory in Bread and Circuses, Sexuality of Spock’s Brain ect. TNG and Voyager were bland, non controversial and very sanitary, very PC. It would have been interesting to see what the Ron Moore of today would have done with TNG had he been able to do so.

13. Ozy - June 8, 2007

I disagree with Ron Moore. Star trek has great continuity. Forget that, will be very bad.
Star trek is different show than Battlestar galactica ( and that is a good thing ).

14. StillKirok - June 8, 2007

First Contact was hardly hardcore badass Trek. It was the TNG movie that sucked the least, but comparatively speaking, it was not the big hit people like to make it out to be. Adjusting for inflation, it’s right in the middle. Plus, it had the largest budget at the time. It was an ok movie and was nothing more than a glorified TNG episode.

Even Ron Moore, who will forever be the idiot who killed Kirk, has acknowledged that.

15. Kyle Nin - June 8, 2007

I thought First Contact was the best Trek movie. I actually went to see it twice at the theater, and I can’t say that for most movies.

16. reptileboy - June 8, 2007

I get what Ron Moore is talking about, but the fact that he wanted to take Star Trek to more darker and edgier places and released he couldn’t, demonstrates that Star Trek cannot be like Battlestar Galactica without betraying its roots and ideology. And I respect Ron for that.

However, I still feel that some of the things Ron managed to do on Star Trek were not in keeping with the series. And I glad he recognised that and left without trying to change the franchise fundamentaly. In Battlestar he has found something which he can use to speak to the audience on his terms.

Whether or not he or Ira Behr feel Star Trek is going in the right direction is almost irrelevant. When Ron started on TNG, he was a huge fan of TOS, and loved Star Trek in general. I don’t think he could say the same now. I doubt even JJ has send every single episode of Star Trek like we ordinary fans have. So, I think I’ll take the views and opinions of people on this site and others as more powerful and faithful.

17. Lao3D - June 8, 2007

Interesting interview. As a big fan of the new BSG, I’ve come to respect Moore and his skills as a writer a lot. I agree that Kirk’s death was a misstep, but I also think it may have worked better on the page than it played on the screen, where it just came off as abrupt and flat. Could better direction have made it more substantive, and the whole film more satisfying? Hard to say.

18. billy don't be a hiro - June 8, 2007

Ron Moore is a genuine fan and I think he’s a talented guy who has done amazing things with a property like BSG that was perceived as so corny and mired in the 70s. Still, I can’t get over the fact that he thought shooting Captain Kirk in the back and then pushing him off a rusty bridge were good ideas, even at the time. At least he owns up to his mistakes, which is very unHollywood and very refreshing.

19. billy don't be a hiro - June 8, 2007

Oh, and Ron? Get a haircut! lol

20. Harry Ballz - June 8, 2007

I assume most everyone knows that when Moore and Braga were writing the script for Generations, they did so while in Hawaii together. How much you wanna bet they were smoking some of the local killer weed while brainstorming the plotline! That would go a long way to explaining how they came up with the lame head-up-your-ass premise for the demise of Kirk! What a couple of unprofessional ass-wipes!!! It kills me that, at the time, if any writer from OUTSIDE came in and pitched horseshit like that, they’d be laughed out of the room, but by these two bone-heads being on the production end, they get to run with it! Life isn’t just unfair, sometimes it sticks you up the ass and breaks it off!!!

21. Ivory - June 8, 2007

I love Ron Moore, but killing off Kirk in the manner they did was not a highlight of his career.

Do the right thing. Bring back Shatner/Kirk in ST XI and right the wrong that has in effect killed ST.

BRING BACK KIRK!!!

22. Muldfeld - June 8, 2007

I disagree with Moore and agree with Ira Steven Behr. If DS9 hadn’t come along, and the progression went from TOS to TNG and then Voyager and Enterprise, people would say nothing could be done to make the show better and blame it all on the franchise. The fact that DS9 DID do something amazing — in fact, it’s created the essence of what BSG is now in terms of political insight and in depicting human nature with moral ambiguity — proves that Star Trek can be great with the right people behind it. Star Trek failed creatively under Berman/Braga. It succeeded under Behr and he could generate great movies, too.

I’m sceptical about Abrams because he’s a superficial hack, relying on the nostalgia of the crappy original series to get audience members. Lost has largely succeeded because of Lindeloff; Abrams has barely written anything, though he may have some decent instincts for settings. Has anyone seen “Alias” — biggest pile of crap ever! Awful stories, terrlbe acting by lousy actress Jennifer Garner. Even Mission Impossible 3 was just a decent action flick — nothing deeper and hardly a departure for the guy, since it was basically Alias with Tom Cruise instead of Garner, who’s just as bad an actor.

Star Trek was largely worthwhile during the Motion Picture through Star Trek IV, some episodes of Next Gen and especially in DS9; that’s it. The rest was crap and it’s not going to get any better because people like Abrams don’t write politically insightful stuff. He just brings in the ratings. Paramount has screwed this up.

23. Kyle Nin - June 8, 2007

I don’t think Abrams said he was “starting Star Trek over”, did he? I thought it wasn’t going to be a reboot.

24. Jeff - June 8, 2007

Harcourt Fenton Muldfeld…YOU’VE BEEN WHINING AGAIN!

25. Moonwatcher - June 8, 2007

Can we get any more of this “E” style reporting on anyone that is close to, or admires J.J. Abrams?. Next we’ll get a report from his gardener ,or his diaper service man, as to what direction they think Abrams will take the new film. Are we that starved for information???

26. steve623 - June 8, 2007

” … relying on the nostalgia of the crappy original series …”

and that’s where I stopped reading.

Next!

27. Craig - June 8, 2007

So does this mean their wont be new Trek series at all? Or just a new Trek series on a network and their should be on in syndication? Or is Paramount waiting to see how Trek XI does before they think about doing a new series?

28. Londo - June 8, 2007

CBS Corporation own the rights to Star Trek TV series, not Paramount. Paramount only has the movie rights. They were divided up when Viacom split.

Paramount wants a new movie. CBS doesn’t want a new series.

29. Stanky "Just Can't Wait For More Star Trek XI News" McFibberich - June 8, 2007

27. Craig

It means nothing. Nothing.

30. Sean-1701 - June 8, 2007

If the hardcore fans can keep up with the continuity, why not hire on a couple of people (maybe actual fans) to do just that. A good writer could make the story appealing while standing on its own (for non-fans, casuals, etc.) but still keeping the wonderfully rich and enjoyable continuity of the Trek universe together (for hardcores, etc.). It wouldn’t be that hard and all of the past/future would just open up that many more rich ideas for stories!

For instance, my Dad and I wanted Voyager to end with a wormhole connecting the DQ to the AQ so that the universes could connect. And, Series V to be a Relativity (the time-travel ship from the emponymous Season 5 episode) series. A Star Trek time-travel series would offer so much! Still, Enterprise was a great show (especially the transcendent Season 4). Bring back Coto, Sussman, and the Reeves-Stevens! :D

31. Magic_Al - June 8, 2007

Trek’s amassed continutity is great for fans who enjoy all the connections and history, but Moore is right to call it maddening because it can force writers to be contortionists. Respecting “canon” to the extent that doing it no harm takes precedence over drama may appeal to a certain audience who finds it soothing and reassuring, but a larger audience would rather be thrilled by joy or terror in a setting that isn’t quite so overdeveloped and institutionalized.

Starting over doesn’t mean doing a bad show or doing things for the sake of difference. A new show would keep the core ingredients of its predecessor’s success and establish its own background and continuity. If it lives long and prospers enough, eventually it too might be crushed under the weight of its own synthesized history and need another reboot.

32. Kyle Nin - June 8, 2007

#30: “Enterprise was a great show (especially the transcendent Season 4). Bring back Coto, Sussman, and the Reeves-Stevens!”

Couldn’t agree more. But it seems that you and me are the only two people on this site that think that.

33. Magic_Al - June 8, 2007

#32: Enterprise got better. The problem commercially was not enough viewers were left by then. I blame Voyager for Trek’s poor health, not Enterprise. Voyager, by promising a difficult premise then retreating into Trek Lite mode, created the feeling that Star Trek was tired. Both Voyager and Enterprise had some great episodes (and I admit Voyager in its later, faster-paced seasons became a guilty pleasure of sorts) but the overall trend was downward, and it was a nose dive that Enterprise didn’t pull up from fast enough.

34. IrishTrekkie - June 8, 2007

peope have already commented on this qoute but i think i have to as well

“I think the Star Trek universe has grown beyond what you can get your arms around. You can no longer truly enjoy it for what it is because it is so big and it has so many cross sections and so much continuity that it is maddening.”

oh yes that makes sense , since large universes are a bad thing *cough* star trek , lord of the rings and star wars ,stargate. lol . i mean its set in space , i would have thought having a big universe was important. The guy does not seem to know what hes talking about .

I mean going back to kirk and the gang is great, but if they piss all over star trek history and do a complete reimage , then they might as well tell the fans to start digging a grave , couse star trek will be dead.

35. Gregory - June 8, 2007

I do agree its time to go back to the roots. I am for rebooting with an open mind. Look at the success of recent reboots such as Dr. Who and BSG. Looking forward to the film when it comes out next year.

36. mrregular - June 8, 2007

12# Lord Garth:
Agreed. The edginess just wasn’t there in most of TNG or Voyager. Funny how these shows have not aged well, with few exceptions. “The Best of Both Worlds” one of them…a great two parter.
On the other hand TOS took risks, as did DS9. I’m hooked to BSG now(regretting the new season will be the last-the acting in the last few episodes of the recent season was fantastic!)

37. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 8, 2007

Thanks M

38. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - June 8, 2007

Risk is our business

39. Dom - June 9, 2007

BSG can be seen as Moore’s personal commentary on ST: Voyager. BSG is how Moore would have dealt with the story of a bunch of humans stuck in the middle of nowhere in deep space struggling to survive. BSG, for me is perhaps the best scifi TV show since TOS ended!!

Moore is also correct about Trek’s continuity being too sprawled and messy. Let’s face it, we have TOS, which Roddenberry himself was happy to contradict at times with TNG. We have the animated show which was canon until 1987 and might now partly or completely be again.

We have DS9, Voyager and Enterprise (which, for all their merits and de-merits had fewer and fewer viewers) adding continuity most of a potential film audience will be unaware of.

Then there are Trek movies II-VI, which Roddenberry also didn’t particularly recognise as ‘canon’ after his own TMP. And what about the spin-off novels and comic books, most of which contradict each other as well as the series on which they’re based?

Star Trek is a franchise that started on TV, with many contributors, that branched out into other media. It’s not a Lord of the RIngs where one man (and his son) pretty much determine what is and isn’t ‘canon!’

JJ Abrams is also not, as one person put it ‘a hack.’ You can dislike his stuff, but to describe his work as that of ‘a hack’ is plain ignorant. Alias, which admittedly suffered in later years as Abrams moved on to other projects, was one of the slickest, best made shows on TV at the time. No wonder Paramount jumped at the chance to get him on board for MI:III! Lost, similarly, in its early days was compelling TV.

If anything, when these shows suffer, it usually coincides with Abrams’ diminished involvement.

As for Trek’s outside-of-cinema future, I suspect Paramount will be considering straight to DVD Trek projects, given they’ve established a direct-to-DVD division.

Look at the new Get Smart movie. There’s a direct-to-DVD spin-off film with secondary castmembers coming out within days of the actual film’s release. It makes good financial sense to make a direct-to-DVD film simultaneously, as there are available standing sets and stock FX available from the main film.

Say, that characters like Sulu, Chekov and Uhura ***maybe*** were in the feature film (of which none of us has any idea.) A story about them would be easy enough to produce while the ‘big three’ are off-duty or away on a mission elsewhere.

My suspicion is that any new Trek projects outside of the cinema will be based on the ‘rebooted’ Trek universe anyway.

I’m glad Ron Moore has backed the new movie project. As the man who reportedly regrets that he killed Kirk, he must be very relieved to see him revived!

40. Harbinger - June 9, 2007

I think Ron Moore should go get some help and get over Star Trek. Every interview he does he eithers slams or whines about it. For a guy who slams “chessy” shows from the 1970′s. I guess he is waiting for 1970 to call up and ask for their hair style back.

Comments like this only prove that Moore is NO fan of Trek regardless of what he says. He is nothing more than talking like Rick Berman.

So long Ron!

41. Jeff - June 9, 2007

The Star Trek movies don’t seem to be about the rabid Trekker anymore but about trying to appeal to a mass audience ($$$$$). Joe Movie Fan cares nothing about continuity or the giant world of Star Trek. They just want a good story, effects and characters worth caring about. It should be interesting to see the new movie and whether they cater to the mass audience, the hardcore Trekker or if they can somehow find the balance like ST:WOK did so well.

On a side note, being a relative newbie to this site, it is amazing how angry some of you people are.

“Mr. Spock, the women on your planet are logical. That’s the only planet in the galaxy that can make that claim.”

“The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank.”

42. Dom - June 9, 2007

Harbinger..

I think Moore was about the only thing that kept Trek running close to properly in later years! His treatment of Galactica shows that he could have done great things in the Trek universe, had he not been restrained by the ’1980s Big Mac and Fries’ culture of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.

If Mr Moore discusses his issues with Trek, in part it’s because people ask him about it and also because I suspect he’s frustrated that Trek became such a bland, play-safe show in its later years, a million miles away from TOS’s heyday. Moore recognises that the original Trek was anything but ‘safe.’

The whole ‘Federation as nanny state’ thing that developed in 80s Trek was a perversion of the so-called ‘positive future’ of TOS. The ‘positive future’ was that we put away our major hostilities and started exploring space. It didn’t mean humans became inane, cardboard caricatures of Californian lifestyle gurus.

And where the f*ck does Mr Moore’s hairstyle influence his producing abilities? If that’s the worst insult you can lob at him, clearly he’s doing something right!

Finally, I think the producer of shows such as Battlestar Galactica and Carnivàle has more than ‘got over’ Trek!

43. Dom - June 9, 2007

Jeff said: ‘The Star Trek movies don’t seem to be about the rabid Trekker anymore but about trying to appeal to a mass audience ($$$$$). Joe Movie Fan cares nothing about continuity or the giant world of Star Trek.’

In fairness, why should they, Jeff? TV and cinema are both about moving pictures, but are otherwise very different media with a different target audience and purpose.

The hardcore Trek fan base isn’t big enough to support a blockbuster-scale movie anymore and, besides, Star Trek was intended to be mass-appeal entertainment, not a niche market. As I said earlier, Trek continuity’s messy enough. Sweeping the board clean is the best way to go for the mainstream audience!

44. Kyle Nin - June 9, 2007

#35:

The new Doctor Who is not a reboot. It’s a continuation of the old series. Christopher Eccleston played the 9th Doctor and David Tennant plays the 10th Doctor.

45. Chris Roberts - June 9, 2007

Star Trek can not be a Galactica reimaged.If you want a Blockbuster you need the core audencies to help.I have lost all respect of Ron Moore because of what he did pissing over Galactica.I too was no fan of Casino Royale(I wish the producers would just admit Casino Royale was a total restart) but noone really knows what JJ Abrams IS doing.He says they respect Cannon and IS doing a film for both fans and non fans.And by the way Alias was a great show(season 4 which they had the best ratings wise suffered because they departed too much Into stand alone episodes) and Jennifer Garner Is a fine actress.I have just now started to watch the Lost DVDS for Season 1 through Netflix so I am not totally ready to comment on Lost.

46. TiberiusK - June 9, 2007

A great interview. Insightful comments, although I’m surprised that he wasn’t more negative about Trek’s tired formula. In some ways, BSG has been his open rejection of that formula.

47. Dom - June 9, 2007

#44: A lot of us wish Nu-Who **would be** completely separate from the old show we love!

48. Ozy - June 9, 2007

Star trek universe have great continuity, an that is a realy good thing.
Reboot will be a very bad thing ( destroying a 40 years of continuity ).
Reboot is a way for ”going to do cyrcle” thing.

49. Kyle Nin - June 9, 2007

If Star Trek XI turns out to be a reboot, I won’t watch it.

50. Lukas - June 9, 2007

When you think about it, all STXI will need to avoid is contradicting the set continuity in order to keep most of us happy enough to enjoy whatever new story they want to tell us.

I don’t need the new movie to waste time placating my extensive knowledge of the trekverse in order to enjoy it.

Just as long as Klingons don’t hatch from eggs or the Enterprise is unrecognizable, I’ll be willing to sit and enjoy something a little new and different.

51. Stanky "Just Can't Wait For More Star Trek XI News" McFibberich - June 9, 2007

Original Galactica – not that good
New Galactica – why?

52. Dom - June 9, 2007

Ozy (48): Continuity is great for TV show hardcore fans who like to get into the nitty gritty of things. Assuming a great knowledge of past Star Treks when making a blockbuster for the cinema is commercial suicide. You didn’t need to know anything much about Trek in order to enjoy The Wrath of Khan, did you?

Kyle Nin (49): Yes you will! Any fan of Trek who says they won’t watch this film is talking out of their big hairy arse!! We heard all this boycott bull**** before when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond!

Stanky (51): Why not? Galactica had an intriguing concept, badly executed, in the 1970s. The new version has done something different and interesting that will hopefully influence sci-fi shows for years to come.

53. Steve - June 9, 2007

I’m with Ron Moore on this one. DS9 aside, a lot of the post-TOS Trek universe was far too… sterile, in my opinion. The world is a dangerous place; there’s no reason why the whole of our galaxy shouldn’t be a bigger dangerous place, and that shone through in DS9, and continues to in BSG.

To butcher a quote, “It’s the characters, stupid!”. TOS worked because the people gripped you. Proof of this comes with TWoK, which managed to be a far better film on a far smaller budget, because had brilliantly written and altogether very realistic characters. TNG became too sterile at times, too caught in a “Federation = good, aliens = bad-but-redeemable” mindset. DS9 gave us a Trek universe where humans aren’t angels, they’re only human. And that’s what makes good sci-fi.

Ron Moore made DS9 work because the Starfleet cast were trying to live up to the shiny happy ideal of the Federation, but were at the same time flawed and vulnerable, which is normal and human. And of course, DS9 gave us Section 31, which gave us the highly realistic “devils in paradise” secret service that kept the majority of the Federation so clean and shiny.

As for killing Kirk… it was a necessary evil, I thought. Displacing Kirk in the TNG era wouldn’t work, there’s not room in most Trekkies’ minds for Kirk and Picard to begin with, let alone co-existing. Returning him to the Nexus would be too clean, and altogether not very Kirk. And no matter how he died, there’d be people who hated the method, so at least this way everyone agrees it could have been done better :)

54. Sleeper Agent X - June 9, 2007

52 –

Well said, Dom. But why do you wish Nu-Who was separate from Old-Who? I like the series, myself, and thought they did a good job preserving the feel of the old show while updating it for today’s times.

50 –

What if the Klingons burst out of people’s chests and have to fight Predators to the death as part of their rite of passage? :)

55. Lukas - June 9, 2007

You’re the devil, Sleeper Agent X.
AvP was too awful to mention here. However, maybe they could do some sort of crossover and have the crew aided by an army of CGI Gungans led by Jar-Jar… yousa agree? ; )

56. Lukas - June 9, 2007

Oh, and I think both the 9th and 10th Doctors are both brilliant. Just my $.02.

57. Lukas - June 9, 2007

Oh, and I think the 9th and 10th Doctors are both brilliant. Just my $.02.

58. Sleeper Agent X - June 10, 2007

55 –

And Jar-Jar manages to kill an attacking horde of Klingons just by tripping over his own feet! Yes!!!! J.J., are you out there? Please make this happen!!!

59. trektacular - June 10, 2007

The new Trek movie will be appealing to a large mass audience simply because its a big budget movie and needs to make money, the screenwriters of Transformers being involved also doesn’t give me much hope. Trek needs to come back to TV with anyone other than Berman and Braga at the helm. But I guess CBS doesn’t want that to happen. Shame

60. Dom - June 10, 2007

Hi Sleeper Agent X.

Nu-Who just doesn’t work for me. Not to say there aren’t some great moments in it, but I think the writing for the Doctor is just a bit . . . off. I liked the first eight eccentrics, but the last two have been too manic for my taste. The sight of very good lead actors overacting is toe-curling (and yes I know there was plenty of that cropping up with guest stars in the old show too!) I actually felt Elizabeth Sladen’s portrayal of Sarah in SJA was closer in tone to the earlier Doctors.

I also haven’t been terribly engaged by the supporting characters, such as Rose and her family, Mickey, Jack and the new girl.

Torchwood just strikes me as a show that confuses shock value with being ‘adult.’ I thought SJA was closest to old Who, in terms of atmosphere. Trouble is, I think Russell T Davies is the probably the most overrated writer working in British TV today. I wish he’d move on and give someone else a shot at being showrunner. Oh and take Murray Gold with him: I think the current version of the theme tune and the incidental music stink to high Heaven!

BTW haven’t seen Human Nature yet. I’m intrigued, as I liked the book (even though, again, I think it was overrated – give me unflinching versions of Transit, White Darkness, The War Trilogy or Lucifer Rising!)

61. Ozy - June 10, 2007

#52- Trek XI dosen’t need to be reboot, to get big scores. They only need a great story.

62. Dom - June 10, 2007

Agreed, Ozy. And to the minds of most people, a great story won’t require you to have a doctorate in Star Trek studies to understand it! Thing is, to most of us, a story set in Trek’s early days with modern FX and new actors is pretty much a ‘reboot.’

There are degrees of reboot: on one end of the scale there can be what effectively functions as a ‘prequel’ where it’s kind of accepted that the design and storytelling are updated for a modern audience.

Then on the other end of the scale are reboots that outrightly override all past continuity, outrightly contradicting it, such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins.

From the sound of things, Star Trek 11 will be a ‘soft reboot’ where what’s been seen before won’t be outrightly contradicted, probably just not overtly referenced, but the design and recasting will make most of us consider it a restart!

63. NZorak - June 10, 2007

The Next Gen bashing is really irritating. For many people, including myself, Next Gen was our Trek. It was the the main one that we grew up with and we will always love it for what it was. I do like the original series, and I saw all of the original movies except The Motion Picture when they were first released, but Next Gen was had the characters I cared most about, so to me its a shame that it had to end on such a low note with Nemesis. I’d love to see them do some Next Gen direct to DVD releases to try and fix what they broke.

That said, I look forward to the new movie and I hope that Abrams does something incredible with it.

64. Trevok - June 10, 2007

Who cares what Ron Moore has to say about Trek, He butchered BSG, in my opinion his views are worthless!!!
LLAP

65. Farfal - June 10, 2007

I gotta say “DITTO TREVOK!” That show is so unwatchably self-absorbed, with illogical twists & turns AND HORRIFIC CAMERA-STYLIZING (Can’t call it art any more folks, when it’s played out overedited trash).

Screw Moore, who took DS9 from a new concept to a mis-adventure. The guy obviously has no focus, and to hear people like him “agree” with the “new direction” of the franchise in what amounts to : “wipe the slate clean, forget everything that’s ever been filmed or written, and let’s start all over again”….. he got hit with a Lucky Stick at som epoint in his Hollyweird career, and hopefully after the crash & burn of this horrible Galactica mess, he’ll go back to flipping burgers.

And seriously…. does anyone know a SINGLE acquaintance that “never misses” Galactica? Nope, didn’t think so.

66. Almodovar - June 11, 2007

@Farfal

“…he got hit with a Lucky Stick at som epoint in his Hollyweird career, and hopefully after the crash & burn of this horrible Galactica mess, he’ll go back to flipping burgers.”

Where do you get off saying that BSG is a horrible mess?! It’s hands down one of the most interesting and best written sci fi shows on television in the past 15 years, and it has been almost universally heralded as such by the critics. Not to mention its big succes in the ratings.
And DS9 may not have been a big ratings success, but it has also been critically acclaimed. I myself ignored it at first, thinking it just a copy of Babylon 5. But after watching a good number of episodes later in the series, I realized that it was the best Star Trek since TOS.

67. Dom - June 11, 2007

Hmmm . . . yeah . . . ok, a cable show that lasts four seasons (five if you count the miniseries) and garners a great deal of critical praise is clearly a failure! What does that make the original Battlestar Galactica or Galactica 1980, then?

Apparently, Glen A Larson sufficiently dislikes new Galactica that he won’t let them make a feature film based on it. Pity!

68. thx-1138 - June 11, 2007

Farfal,
It would appear that you are talking out of your……..lack of knowledge.

Galactica is a critical and ratings success, so reports of it’s crash and burn are a bit premature. Please to be posting your screenwriting credentials. You sound like someone who, if it ‘aint old star Trek, it ‘aint shite. Expand your horizons and enjoy the great “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations” that is the Star Trek universe and all of sci-fi for that matter.

Honestly, the amount of pointless bitching about things doesn’t move the ideas forward on this site.

69. The Realist - June 11, 2007

32. Kyle Nin – June 8, 2007 – Nope another Enterprise fan here. The writing in the last season and part of the third I feel were un paralelled, they were sharp, well thought out and you could see realy effort and work. Unlike VOY, which was truly lost, thanks to VOY Star Trek nearly died.

70. spsblue - June 12, 2007

That isn’t the Galactica Cast….. in my opinion.

71. spsblue - June 12, 2007

That is the ‘Very similar story that just happens to have the same name but be in a completely different universe’ cast.

72. spsblue - June 12, 2007

Sorry, busy day, rather stressed.

73. Dom - June 12, 2007

Given the philosophical concept that ‘everything that has happened before happens again in the cycle of time’ is referred to often in Galactica, you could argue that the new Galactica happens in an earlier or later cycle of time, making it effectively a sequel or a prequel. The fact that Tom Zarek is a dead ringer for the earlier Galactica’s Apollo adds veracity to that idea.

Similarly, Star Trek has featured many different universes, not to mention rewritten its own timeline substantially in the course of the show (there’s substantial argument that the whole Trek universe as we know was rewritten by ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise!’)

Frankly, I’d rather have an out and out reboot than pretend that we’re looking at the exact same series!!

74. Dom - June 12, 2007

‘as we know IT’ even!!

75. The Realist - June 12, 2007

73. Dom – June 12, 2007 – I to a degree agree with you, though I l ove Trek as it is, with it’s history and mythology and in a way would love to see it expanded upon more. But having said that, ST: ENTERPRISE, I feel was a great show with great writers towards the end and in a way ENTERPRISE could have opened the “Reboot” door, Abrams could take his lead from Enterprise and build the Trek history from there, this would mean that ENT, in a way could become the new TOS (Not replace) but for the New generation of Fans ENT could be their TOS. I grew up on TNG and DS9 and loved them immensely, they were relevent to me as is/was Enterprise, though TOS, did not have the same resonance with me, though my Favourit Trek (Enterprise Incident) is from TOS overall the show lacked something for ME. There are many who feel differently, and that’s great, there are many who would be selfish and see Trek die and deny future generations from contributing to the saga rather than see it rebooted or changed, this is wrong.

Why? Because who are we to say, that my niece and nephews, future children don’t have the right to interpret Trek in their own way, my Niece loves Enterprise and DS9, but does not like TNG as it seems to and I quote “comfortable” and TOS as it seems “Silly and Cartoonish, with the bright colours” and I agree, from todays perspective the Colour scheme from TOS is over the top when the show first Aired Colour TV was new and they chose the scheme to emphasise the abilities of the new medium, NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING TOS WAS BAD, I AM SAYING SOME DON’T LIKE IT. For Trek to survive it has to appeal to a new younger audience, TOS may not be able to do that, the characters may, but the “Ship and Uniforms” and the plot need to appeal to a modern audience, just the original BSG looks ridiculous to some degree and the new looks more real, this is where ENT lead the pack, the characters, the ships and uniforms were more real than TNG VOY and TOS.

76. James Wylder - June 12, 2007

The Realist has many good points… Enterprise brought me back to Star Trek, I downloaded it (illegally, I’ll admit) because I heard it was so terrible from someone, and then fell in love with it. I promptly bought all of it. After I finished that I watched all of TOS, and its movies, but I, like your neice have had some trouble with TNG. So much of it is Brilliant, there are some glorious episodes in it… But there is so little tension or reason the show keeps pushing. Enterprise is the exitement of going where no man has gone before, again, just like The Origional Star Trek. You feel that fish out of water feeling with the characters and learn about the world of star trek as they do. TNG seems to be the, “going where the federation has already been and where there is some diploatic thingy going on” usually. I like TNG, but it just doesn’t have that magic consistantly.

Enterprise is different then other Star Trek’s, yes, but its not a reboot. Its more like a re-introduction, which is what I hope this new movie does as well.

77. The Realist - June 12, 2007

76. James Wylder – June 12, 2007 – Perfect word! Re-introduction. I liked TNG but Trek lost me with VOY and got me back with ENT, if this movie can merge the original Trek movies and ENT, it will be brilliant, and hopefuly will be able to bring more “new blood” into the fan base.

78. The Realist - June 12, 2007

And thank you not many agree with some of my posts.

79. Dom - June 13, 2007

I get where you’re coming from, The Realist, although, if your niece has an issue with the TOS colour scheme, my best suggestion is that she not watch it!!

It is what is. I love it, whether it be in bright colours or Napoleonic dress!!! Youngsters these days are way too interested in surface detail over substance. Tragic!

80. The Realist - June 13, 2007

79. Dom – June 13, 2007 – she does not watch it, it is not that she is only interested in surface details, the opposite thank you, the point I was making with youngsters is that they are seeking something they can related to, where as many can relate to DS9 and ENT, they are finding it hard to relate to classic Trek, this is not because they are only interested in the surface details, “youngsters” find it hard even relating to some of the issues. Yes youngsters like big bangs and special effects, but many I deal with who like Trek enjoy seeing issues that affect them, they want a substance they can relate to, one was able to relate to the last few seasons of DS9 because of the war story arc as their mother was serving in East Timor, another was able to relate to characters off of ENT, as they were new to the big city and had to get used to certain things, yet not many could relate to issues and characters from TOS, it is not that they are not interested in substance, it that they can not relate to TOS in many ways, the colours, the costumes and the story line, and as for suggestions for my Niece, I would ask that you keep them to yourself and also stop painting all younsters as superficial.

81. Yelnick McWaWa - June 14, 2007

I’ve loved Trek since I saw WOK and the original series twenty five years ago. It has tons of potential still left, if done properly. Once DS9 left the air, they lost me.
Abuse and neglect from the hacks of Berman/Braga ruined Trek for awhile. “Voyager” always played it safe with the morally indignant Janeway who was NEVER wrong. Compelling drama was sacrificed instead for weekly formula. “Enterprise” had a few cool moments but realy had no point in ever existing. It created too many uneeded continuity problems in the technology aspect, considering it looked more advance than Kirks era, but thats irrelevant compared to the rather limp stories and dull characters.
I hope Abrams can restore the franchise to its glory days of the original cast. I love trek for many reasons, I love the sci-fi, the morality plays, the emotional dilemas and of course the occassional eye candy. I love the continuity no matter how laborous it has become. That gives it depth, personality-a soul.
Moore has done wonders with BSG, (although i still wanted to see Bryan Singer’s version!) but his comments of “Start over” irritate me. I’m sick of this remake everything mode we are stuck in and especially sick of catering to the retard masses, if I hear it’s for “Non-fans too” one more time, I will take a hostage!
WHO ELSE IS GOING TO WATCH STAR TREK BUT FANS? I hate sports so why would I bother? I’m not a homosexual so why would I want to have gay sex? I’m a christian so why would i entertain the idea of atheism? See where I’m going? I HATE the non-fans, the casual viewer is ruining trek and I jsut wish they would stop defering to these low frequency, ignorant piles of dung!
I put this out there for Abrams as a warning, if you court the non-fans you run the risk of pissing off the loyal real fans… DON’T DO THAT! Trek is for FANS only, if you are not one, go away and leave it alone…Tick off the nerds and there will be hell to pay.

82. Yelnick McWaWa - June 14, 2007

Seriously, if you can’t find the drama of the original series, you have a seriously lack of history. The most defining decade of the last 50 years is rife with drama and I wasn’t even born until the 70′s. The production design looks magnificent in HD! The colors pop and jump out at you. Wish TNG looked that good. It never has, always looked like it was filmed with flourescent lighting; ugly and garish. Lacks no imagination. DS9 looks more cinematic, technically superior, colors were rare, but then the mood of the show was somewhat dark so it doesn’t matter.

83. The Realist - June 14, 2007

81. Yelnick McWaWa – June 14, 2007 — “Trek is for FANS only” No it is not, you are preaching against what Trek stands for, Trek is for everyone, not just the die hard fans, with that attitude, the movie may be great but might flop financialy and your precious Trek will be lost. Who is to say a person who watches an episode every now and then should have no interest in Trek, you hate non – fans? Well guess what with an attitude like that they probably hate you. What people have to accept that Trek is a SHOW, Paramount, wants to invest big bucks in the Movie and they have a right to make a return from it. For the franchise to survive into the future it has to “Seek and new fans, and new demographice, to bodly go where no Trek has gone before.” And the fact you are not gay and that you are christian in this discussion is realy a pointless statement, there is the capacity to get new fans and win back old ones. You are part of the reason Trek died, the narrow vision of only catering for a small percentage of the viewing public who are already Trek fans, guess what, established fans will die some day, and the demographic will get smaller until Trek will no longer be viable, there is more at stake than just fans, Trek needs to be financialy viable as well, and to do that it needs a massive shake up and be appealing to a new audience as well as appealing to the fan base, so stop being so self centred.

84. Yelnick McWaWa - June 15, 2007

The casual viewer has nothing invested in trek. The casual viewer didn’t resurrect the show in the 60′s when it was cancelled for the firs time and the casual fans have no knowledge of what makes Trek work. I don’t see any casual fans perusing the Convention circuit.
Again, this Non-fan mentality makes no sense, Why would someone watch/listen/read something they have no inherent interest in? That’s laziness. For the franchise to thrive, it needs to tell compelling stories and not cater to the morons- err I mean, masses. Sure it needs to pick up fans, but I stress the word, FANS, not some ADD channel-hopper. Spare me the financially viable guff, I’m well aware of that. It’s a given these flicks need to earn money and thats just it, they ALL have earned their money back in box-office or VHS/DVD sales, Even the least performing, “Nemesis”, earned a profit eventually so to say they are berift of potential money if they don’t seek out a more desirable demographic is BS.
Star Trek has NEVER been about the casual fans-thank god. I hate the fence-sitters. Poo or get off the damn pot! Thats exactly what Rick Berman/Braga were doing, sure they remained on the air because of the hard-core, but they refused to tell, edgy, pertinent, sci-fi stories, which is why “Enterprise” was canned and deservedly so. Alienate your LOYAL fanbase and you have nothing, because the “casual fan” will leave at the next commerical break.
Star Trek has never pandered to the casual fans before, so why start now? Please don’t start now. Unless you LIKE science fiction, Trek will never work for you. Again, casual fans go die! Unless you are real true fan, why bother?

85. Anthony Pascale - June 15, 2007

Yelnick

if your theory were true, then Hollywood would have ceased to exist years ago. Even in just the example of Star Trek it is clear that over the years many non fans have gone to see the films, especially in the 80s. If you compare the ratings to the ticket sales there were many more buying tickets than were regularly watching the show. Take a look at Transformers….how many Transformers fans are there in the world? That film will probably do about $500Million+ worldwide. How many comic book fans are there, but how many see superman, batman, etc. Many times more than those who buy the comics.

Bottom line is there simply are not that many hard core fans to sustain a franchise (especially now with Trek’s aging population)…it would be box office suicide to solely cater to them….and it would probably make a far less entertaining movie anyway.

many of us fell in love with trek when we were young, it is time for Paramount to bring in a new generation….just like Lucas has done with the new trilogy.

86. The Realist - June 17, 2007

85. Anthony Pascale – June 15, 2007 – Well said, Trek fans are growing old, like everything in life things change, it is the cycle of life.

87. Yelnick McWaWa - June 21, 2007

There are plenty of hard-core fans out there. The movies have ALWAYS catered to fans. WHO else would want to see them? I don’t see how a casual viewer would unstand the Vulcan mysticism in Trek III or the artifical intelligence of TMP. Better yet, why would they care? How can you enjoy something you are ignorant of and have no emotional investment in?
Sorry, I just don’t the casual BS.
The aging fans have had children making them fans as well. Paramounts biggest sin has been not knowing what to do with Trek, hiring the wrong people to direct/write and not giving them big enough budgets. And with DVD and cable as big as they are, there’s no way any Trek won’t make money. Again, I don’t know any casual fans who watch Trek or anything else. Either you are or you aren’t. I keep stressing this, if you call yourself a “casual” fan, what is your glitch?

Thank you all for the healthy debate!

88. Adam Boudreaux - July 2, 2007

Just here to put my $.02 in on some past subjects:

1. I know a few “casual” Star Trek fans. They like watching Trek, when they want to see something different, just like TOS fans did when the original series came out. Because of the recent technological expansions on television (i.e., digital cable, TiVO, instant DVD season boxed sets, etc.) “causual viewers” will/are the future fans of TV shows of all genres. Just look at Dr. G, Medical Examiner, The Tonight Show, Judge Judy & The Price Is Right; when my other shows are preempted or on hiatus, I watch these shows to replace them. Why? Because I like watching them. “ADD”-riddled “morons” are what hardcore fans become, when you hand them a TiVO.

2. BSG is fantastic! It’s real! Space will not involve holding claws with a Gorn, singing Kumbaiya; it’s gonna be dark, scary & full of danger.

3. Nu-Who is true blue… fun, just like the original. I also agree that it’s a continuation, not a reboot. Speaking of reboots: the only reboots i’m getting tired of, are the ones based on obscure TV shows like Get Smart & Miami Vice. Ugh! There have been a few exceptions, like Mission Impossible. But overall, all the misses don’t justify the few hits.

4. ENT was great & had alot of potential. It died because of the narrow-minded & because UPN became a crappy channel, canceling good shows & replacing them with half-ass sitcoms, like WB did. I’m glad CW & MYTV devoured them, even though it looks like they won’t be much better.

5. I suggest you go to the internet & seek out Star Trek fan films; that’s where “hardcore fandom” is going. Some of it is actually pretty good. If not, then quit yer bitchin’ & thank “The Great Bird of the Galaxy” for reruns.

89. robert - August 21, 2007

too words , talk-say and it gets nothing done, really do any of you really think, that posting and posting and posting text, will ever get star trek back on tv, and do any good to get cbs to show star trek again ever, it does not good to text about how much you hare , it because soon or later your words go on death ears, I think they need to do what they did a long time ago , get a big group of people out their with signs to say they want star trek back on real tv

if you think about it how much has writting stuff down on the web really changed tv , and yes I really did hate it when 44 ended enterprise I liked watching that show , these days to see good new star trek shows, I been watching that http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/

its been the best star trek in a long time, its the only fan one that I found that seems good quality with actors etc.. in it , I can’t stand bad acting shows and I can’t stand that reaility tv shows either …

90. robert - August 21, 2007

also on the this thursday if you guys don’t no you should see that
off of that website I posted above , and text from the site below on it

“WORLD ENOUGH AND TIME” WORLD PREMIERE EVENT ANNOUNCED

The time has come, the premiere date has been announced for Star Trek: New Voyages “World Enough and Time. August 23, 2007. Fans can join George Takei, James Cawley, Marc Zicree, Michael Reaves, and many others behind this outstanding Star Trek production to watch the premiere as it is happening via streaming video. Executive Producer James Cawley commented on the event on the New Voyages forum, “…the cool part is that we will be doing a LIVE Premiere Event with George Takei in Beverly Hills, Ca. and YOU all will be able to watch it LIVE via Streaming Video… M

91. Tony - October 10, 2007

Read this…

STAR TREK

A darkened and lifeless Enterprise is suspended in blackness of space. Beneath the vessel is an eerie luminescence that turns out to be a mass of pulsating plasma, a sweeping phosphorescent color and form in ever changing patterns.

Within the plasma are the mangled and lifeless bodies the Enterprise crew. Then miraculously the bodies begin to heal and slowly disappear only to materialize on the Enterprise which has also come back to its own form of life. Kirk appears in the command chair clearly remembering the sensation of having died.

In an attempt to more fully understand what has happened Kirk has ship log played back. He learns that the Enterprise has been studying a black hole. Spock, Scott and a science team utilizing a science pod jettisoned from the great vessel to study the phenomena at a varying proximity. A sudden surge of energy, which collapse’s toward the center of the black hole also managed to capture the Enterprise in its wake. What happened next, they assume is that the vessel and her crew met their demise.

Kirk has McCoy begin examinations to determine if they actually had died while ordering Uhura to raise Starfleet Command. Static is their only response. Chekov compounds the bad news by announcing that he cannot begin to determine their location.

Kirk has the energy mass outside the ship scanned, in the hope that it might be some kind of life form. It must be alive. Unfortunately there is no response but when he attempts to beam into it Kirk finds himself back in his command chair.

The final members of the crew have materialized but by their absence it seems that Spock, Scott and the science party are lost forever. The mass abruptly disappears. Full ship scans indicate that somehow every aspect of the vessel has been dramatically improved. Chekov is able to determine that they had been dead for at least eleven years. Kirk orders the ship to head for Starbase 12. They are shocked to find that there is no trace of the Starbase. Kirk gives the order to return to Earth.

In route to Earth, they encounter a Rigelian starship, whose captain does not recognize the Enterprise and informs Kirk that Earth has never been a part of the Federation of Planets. the rigelian ship accuses Kirk to be a invading force. In the ensuing battle Enterprise manages to disable the Rigelian ship.

Growing more confused by the moment Kirk retires to his quarters contemplating the words of the Rigelian and pondering the fate of Spock. Should they divert to Vulcan to see if he is there? McCoy had suggested they proceed straight to Earth and reluctantly Kirk agreed.

On Vulcan Spock is in a meditative state softly utters “Jim?”. He becomes troubled by memories of his former life particularly strange is that he has not had such thoughts in years.

Returning to the bridge, Kirk orders a course laid in for Vulcan. McCoy feels that this is ill advised but the captain points out that there had occasionally been a telepathic link between himself and Spock and for this reason Kirk seriously believes that his friend is still alive. More importantly, Spock may hold some clue as to what had happened to them.

They are able to lock into Vulcan orbit without being detected and locate Spock. Kirk beams down to his cell like quarters. Despite the fact he has such a difficult time with emotion Spock smiles and is genuinely pleased to see his old friend. They beam aboard the Enterprise, which breaks orbit and out races a squadron of Vulcan cruisers.

Both Kirk and Spock attempt to figure out exactly what is going on. They realize that somehow their universe has been altered and judging by the ship’s increased speed capabilities Spock deduces that their mission whatever that may be will have something to do with traveling through time. He adds that their task had been to study the black hole phenomena and compare their distortions to a ‘time gap’ that Spock had discovered when making an improvement to the transporter system six months before entering the black hole.

The theory is that somehow time has shifted, which is why no one has ever recognized Spock or the Enterprise and there has never been any friendly contact between Earth and Vulcan. If this theory is correct Kirk wonders aloud, how did Spock survive? According to the Spock, the transporter may have created a tiny time gap and individuals beamed into this may have protected them from time shifts.

When they arrive to Earth, there is absolutely no sign of Starfleet Command. Uhura manages to tap into a broadcast. A futuristic design fills the screen, awesomely with a hint of Klingon influence. Yet it looks as if they are in the mid 20th century. To Kirk however it is a travesty. The city is nothing as it had been. The people are uniformly dressed and the city itself is a conglomeration of structures lacking the beauty of the 23rd Century he had known.

Beaming down to to the edge of the city they manage find local scientists who takes in Kirk and Spock. The planet’s surface is stantaneously covered with a vast ugly urban sprawl. A discussion starts with the scientist who reluctantly gives them a description of his world. “A populated by a race of mindless automatons” he states “who do nothing but eat, sleep and perform their designated functions within the social order”.

He is ask if he knows of a scientist named Scott. The scientist informs that Scott had work in a special laboratory near Munich in the past. That was the last anyone had heard from him. Kirk asks the gentleman’s name. Daystrum’s he states. All of them beam aboard the Enterprise, where they studied and theorize that Scotty himself might have been the source of the time shift.

Kirk and Spock beam back down to the main capital’s library, with the intent to steal the city’smain computer core and beam back up. Spock begins to study the information with in the computer and learns, at least in theory, that they must go to 1961 Earth and stop Scott from altering history. Spock states the trip could be successful but the ship’s power has been drained to the point if they go back they will be unable to travel back to the future. Before the could beam the core back to the Enterprise, several large men wearing Klingon garments approach them stating they have no authorization and begin to beat them. Spock manages to contact the ship and is able to have himself and Kirk beamed back aboard. Meanwhile Uhura has been sending a signal to Starfleet frequencies and finally receives a faint response. It is a automated responce from the science pod which validates Spock’s theory that the Enterprise and it’s crew are immun to the time shifts.

Spock calculates for time travel. They arrive in the mid 20th century.

Adorned in appropriate clothing for the time period, Kirk, Spock beam down to a Munich that looks notably different than what they expected. Cars have electric motors, people’s clothing differ slightly and the whole pace and tone of the city is slower than they expected thus illustrating that some alterations have already taken place. They discover a replica monument of the laboratory they seek commemorating the initial appearance of the Mediator in 1934. They are 28 years too late and it would seem that Scotty has altered history to an incredible degree.

According to people they question the Mediator brought peace and optimism to the world, cured diseases and fed the hungry. The “Mediator” can be found at the League of Nations headquarters in Geneva. They are quite a shocked that World War II had never taken place.

They beam over to Geneva only to discover that the Mediator is a computer, which was reportedly a gift from Scott who left instructions on how to use it. A committee of world leaders and scientists did the work themselves. They also learned its secrets.

Kirk manages to meet with a robust Winston Churchill, who denies him access to Scott. Suprisingly Churchill is not shocked by Kirks presence or with is consistant questions concerning Scott. Kirk is quite concerned that Churchill knows of him. With little choice they go back to the Enterprise where they decide to beam all of the committee aboard so that they can explain their position. Moments later they beam up, much to their own amazement Josif Stalin, Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy, Eleanor Roosevelt and Albert Einstein and are all overwhelmed to be there. Kirk conducts a tour, ultimately explaining that this is Scott’s home and he must be returned to it. They have no objections but only the computer has a direct communication with him.

Using the computer’s information as evidence, Kirk goes before the committee pleading for the opportunity to meet with Scott. Adolph Hitler argues that he is needed here and given the fact that Scott is now an old man he can be of no use to the Enterprise. Hitler is suspicious pointing out that Kirk would not have made such a perilous journey simply to renew an old friendship. He demands to know Kirk’s true motives. The captain finally explains that Scott is responsible for the future and has no choice but to show history tapes of what should have occurred between the years 1930 and 1964. They witness World War II, Hitler’s involvement of the holocaust, the Americans use of the atomic bomb, Stalins murderess Soviet Union, Mao Zedong communist China and the spread war in Asia, Kennedy’s own assassination. Because of their great achievement of world peace and cooperation in space exploration this allows the discovering space warp, which leads them some how to a untimely war with the Valcans and the death of over two thirds of the human race. This makes the humans too weak to defend against Klingon conquerors. They’re all horrified by what unfolds.

Granted that this is an awful prospect, says Kirk, but progress must be made one step at a time by a great number of individuals. Mankind will finally correct these horrors on his own without the intervention of a Mediator. He adds that their Mediator is a product of the history he has wiped out. Because of Scott’s interference the committee has made themselves slaves to a computer. The only way to prevent the world from being enslaved is to allow Kirk to meet with Scott. They refuse, pointing out that they will not allow their age of splendor to become like the one they saw on the viewing screen. Later and in private, Kennedy tells Kirk that he agrees with him and despite the fact a time alteration would claim millions of lives, ultimately including his own, gives Kirk the location of Scott’s island hideaway in the South Pacific.

Upon reaching the island and overcoming guards, Kirk, Spock and McCoy go to a beautiful palace where they meet with a considerably older Scotty, a man who has accustomed to great power. His bearing is dignified and wise. He quickly recovers from his shock at seeing the trio and explains that his first experiments proved successful. Five years later he attempted time travel to prevent the black hole incident, but something went wrong and he suddenly found himself surrounded by German soldiers who immediately attacked him. He was forced to stun them with his phaser.

He merely wanted to return home, but found himself in the position of having to trade scientific information for food and equipment and as a result changes in history were immediately put into effect. Most notably the fact that the worlds arsenal was more powerful than it should have been at the time. Feeling intense obligation, he had to make sure those weapons were never used.

As time went on, he realized history had already been changed so all he could do was hope that all the changes would be for the better. Following through with this he developed potent medicines and agricultural systems, saving lives and eliminating famine. Kirk tells him about the future and Scotty, rather than feeling regret, explains that he could use this knowledge to alter even that time period. Spock disagrees, stating that they need the dilithium crystal which ornaments Scott’s dining table so that they can return to 1937 and correct history. Scotty will not go stating that this is his world now, but he gives Kirk the crystal reasoning that even if the captain straightens everything out perhaps this alternate reality will exist on another dimensional plane.

They beam back aboard the Enterprise and begin their journey. Unfortunately Enterprise’s engines will only take them back as far 1936. Phasers lash out and destroy the specified targets in both Geneva and Munich. A moment later the Enterprise itself explodes.

A younger Kirk, Spock, and Mitchell appear at Starfleet Command in the proper time frame of the 23rd Century. Spock informs Commander Kirk that his time gap calculations were mistaken and investigation of the black hole will not be necessary. Kirk looks at Spock with a confused expression. The Enterprise and its crew are preparing to go on their first mission. They all board a shuttlecraft and take a tour of a much simpler Enterprise. Fleet Captain Pike and Admiral April greet them in the hanger deck where a ceremony concludes a transfer of command.

Later in the captains corders Kirk is joined by Spock. Kirk asked Spock what he stated just before they boarded the shuttle. Spock responds that he simply will do a thorough job as his chief science officer when providing information. Spock states his loyalty “I shale always be yours to command…”

92. Rosie - September 15, 2008

I think that the media and science-fiction fans not only overestimate Ron Moore, but that he does so, himself. Ira Behr was right. Rehashing the old Kirk/Spock stomping grounds is nothing more than a step back for the Trek franchise.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.