Orci: New ‘Star Trek’ Film To Bring In New Generation – May Lead to New Trek on TV June 19, 2007
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman, Star Trek (2009 film), Trek Franchise , trackbackYet even more on Star Trek from Mr. Orci’s press tour for Transformers. In the second part of the IESB interview with Orci there is one Trek question related to the future of the franchise and if it will ‘re-establish’ the universe. Orci replied:
Absolutely, it’s gotta bring in a whole new generation, it’s gotta bring in people who don’t know Trek so it absolutely trying to re-establish what this universe should be…
Regarding TV Orci dived into the whole CBS/Paramount thing.
…In terms of TV versus feature, there is a whole weird thing I am sure you can find out about, Paramount owns features and CBS owns the TV and like they have to be separate because maybe CBS was trying to compete to do a show that was going to get in the way of a movie. There’s all kinds of weird business politics that I am not entirely privy to yet. Our responsibility is to make a good movie and to hope that the success opens other doors, but it’s not our intention to go, let’s take this character and make this show out of him. You can’t think in those terms, you start getting in your own way and counting your chickens before they hatch. Make a good movie and then the rest of it will take care of itself.
In case you missed it in the other article, the subject of TV came up with his talk with SciFi Wire. Orci said of a new TV show
I’m sure CBS is thinking about that,…that’s not [something] we’re thinking about. We’re just thinking about the movie. Certainly, I don’t know how they could not think about that.
Some websites have jumped the gun and taken these comments to mean there is a new show in the works, but TrekMovie.com can find no evidence of that. It appears that CBS will do nothing until after the movie. I believe that if Abrams and his team can bring Trek back like Meyer and Bennett did in the 80s then CBS Paramount TV are likely to do what they did back then and create a new show with no relation to the film franchise (TNG). They will also keep a close eye on Lucas’ new Star Wars live action TV show which premieres (possibly) in 2009.
Loading ...
Comments»
Fascinating… TOS on TV again with a new show… One could only dream…
Got me interested!
…
But then again, I’m easily impressed.
: /
First they fix the FX, then they fix the acting….
Just kidding, of course. I’d love to see a new series. I hope they do not redo episodes from the original series. I don’t want to sit there comparing the New TOS (NTOS?) to the Original TOS (OTOS?)
Looking forward to XI!
I’ll believe it when I see it! Do you know how you can tell when someone in showbiz is lying? Easy,….THEIR LIPS ARE MOVING!!!
re: post 1;
He didn’t say the movie would be made into a TV version, he said that CBS is probably thinking of doing a show separate from the film. Probably different group of people, crew and ship. Like DS9 verse TNG films, that’s how I read the comments.
Of course, if the new Star Wars TV show blows chunks, then all bets are off.
5. Nelson – June 19, 2007 – That’s how I read it as well, and it would be the smart bet. The X-Files is an example of what can go wrong with a TV show being made into a movie while the show is still going, it does not work too well. Part of the problem with Trek before is that we were over saturated, Paramount was squeezing Trek for all it was worth, TNG and DS9 on at the same time, then DS9 and VOY and TNG Movies, then just after VOY ended ENTERPRISE came along (though I am a big fan of it). We had to much Trek in a period of 7 years.
Now while Paramount runs a movie series of say 3 films, CBS can run a TV series, unrelated to the Movies (maybe through in a reference here and there) a normal show runs for 7 years, 3 films over 7 years and 1 TV, would be just the right amount. Having two shows and movies on at the same time was simply two much.
Maybe even setting the films in time of TOS and ENT (yes I said ENT) and the TV series after the Dominion war and Nemesis (Use the Book Articles of Federation for inspiration, or even the Titan books), would give a well rounded view of the Trek Universe and would appeal to most fans of Trek, from the Fans of TOS to fans of DS9 etc, while still not over saturating fans and the broarder community.
re: TV- we’ll see. Pray. And wait. It will eventually.
I think that this is REALLY premature. If Paramount has the movie rights and CBS has the TV rights what chance would there be that the two storylines would bear any resemblance to each other? Star Trek suffered from too much product thinning down the overall quality. You shouldn’t have the A squad doing one thing and have the B squad doing another thing. Besides, like I said in the first place, let’s get a good movie and then see what’s next.
Here’s the part that scares me: that they are trying to “re-establish what this universe should be…” Not what it IS as has been laid out over dozens of writers, artists and producers, including Gene Roddenberry, over the last 40 YEARS, but what a group of flash in the pan laptop jockeys with fitted untucked shirts and “product” in their hair think it “should be”.
Here’s an idea, Orci. If Star Trek isn’t what you think it SHOULD BE, then don’t make a “Star Trek” movie. Make up your OWN story. Yeah, make THAT movie — your own. Then you can make it the way it SHOULD be. And no one would care. Or go see it. Because it would probably suck. Because you have no talent. So instead you piggyback on titles and projects created by others with MORE talent and then “re-imagine” them as they “SHOULD BE” because you don’t have enough creativity to make up your own damn stories. Hack.
10. kickinhacksinthesacks – June 19, 2007 – Come on tone it down a bit, the movie appears to be a “prequal” of sorts, set before Kirk was Captain, so in essense there is not much that they can “change” they can put a new spin on the design of the ENT or what ever ship, but even that will have to be limited, they biggest changes may come with the sets, but even Rodneberry changed that, and I doubt they are realy going to go out and change forty years of hard work but alot of writers and produces, maybe he was taken out of context who know, but let’s not jump the gun.
fyi….#10 is our old friend who hates everything and everyone…Dip Thong…the flame machine
and I warn you again…find a way to make your points without pointless attacks
11. The Realist – June 19, 2007 – Why must people attack something that is still in it’s earliest stage? Eys voice concern, even offer your hope of what it will be, if you have a criticism of something they said address it in a constructive way instead of pointlessy attacking the artist behind it, and let’s try and avoid name calling. I am hopeful of a great movie, true to the past, but free to make it’s own way, they all seem loyal to the heart of what has kept Trek going for Forty years, so lets wait and see. Thanks for the heads up Anthony.
#11… Like I said, his comments scare me because he’s “re-establishing” what’s already been established (as opposed to changing sets) as it “should be” rather than how it “is” and “has been” for 40 years. Look at the outcry when CBS-D slightly changed the look of the Tholian ships recently. That was just a cosmetic change. I hope I’m wrong.
#12… Sorry Anthony. Sometimes my passion gets the best of me. Love you, love the site. Kisses all around.
I think we should all keep in mind how secretive these guys are being about the whole thing, normaly by now we have generaly got a good idea of who is in a movie and what the plot is roughly going to be, all we have now, is a time period and a couple of characters and even then we don’t know if they are going to be playing a big part.
They may be sending some of us on a wild goose chase or throwing us of the scent, I must admit if I were diong a Trek, and wanted it to be big, I would chuck some red hearings out there. I can understand people not wanting TOS changed all that much, it is what it is, but this is in a way going to be something completly new, Rodenberry basicaly did a reset with TMP. But lets see what time brings.
Here’s another idea.
Everyone quit reading more into the comments than what Orci says.
Timeline…
Paramount…
Write movie
Film Movie
distribute and promote movie
Movie debut
at CBS….
Movie?
Movie could be success…
meet with them about Movie
pencil plans on possible series
wait and see.
This is rumor based on a movie with an unknown script, no casting announcements and no official title.
Definitely a good idea to bring in a new generation.
#10 Kick/Dip/Flaming..
I fully agree with the Realist in most all he’s said, except his spelling…LOL.
This needs a wait and see attitude and not attempts to tweeze out bits of stuff from between the words in quotes.
and I hate name-calling for any reason.
18. Xai – June 19, 2007 -You are right there, my spelling is shocking! My English Teacher would have a stroke! Xai, I shall endeavour to improve my spelling :-)
I also agree with name calling, I try to avoid it when every I can, as it distracts from the primary topic of conversation, it also lowers the meaning and sophistication of a debate/discussion.
I also feel a bit of impatience from some of the people on here, who want more and more information, any information, I have to ask why? The production team appears to be going to great lengths to keep things as quiet as possible and thus preserve the surprise for the fans and greater public, your post at #16 is probably what is going through the minds of CBS Executives and Paramount Management, it would be nice if it happened that way but who knows what will happen in a year. Remember patience is a virture and good things come to those who wait. I hope my spelling has improved.
As I’ve said previously, I just hope that IF a TV series does come out of this, that it isn’t set as a prequel to anything. To make a thrilling and exciting story in a TV series, you need to make a few new things. TNG brought the Borg, DS9 the Cardassians/Dominion, VOY brought the Kazon and ENT did the Xindi and the Suliban.
That is one of my main problems with ENT, though; they make up these NEW THRILLING bad guys who’ve never been mentioned before hand. Sure, they’re exciting and menacing, but you can’t continue making up thrilling bad guys that simply slot into history without any mention in the future.
That’s why I’m hoping for another sequel series. The discontinuity in ENT could have easily been avoided, but I’d rather not see it happen again. Post VOY, please!
-TGP-
#19 Realist.
Thanks! Where from, may I ask?…
Iowa here
“Make a good movie and then the rest of it will take care of itself.”
Well said, Mr. Orci. Now get cracking on that good movie! :)
21. Xai – June 19, 2007 – Australia, English background. Believe it or not, my passion is Theatre and English Literature, you would not tell my spelling abilities! I hang my head in shame!
then I clarify… state of Iowa (Kirk’s future home state), USA, here.
“To my computer, welcome!”
Pleased to meet you.
#22 Scott…
Agreed.
re: 19- I totally agree, The Realist. Good, positive and intellegent discourse makes for an intellegent forum too.
Speaking of The Realist’s spelling, I thought the funniest example was in post # 15 where it was stated, “some red hearings out there”. Weren’t those the ones televised live, in the early 1950’s, during the big Communist scare? Bwahahahaha………..
Kind of a stupid thing to realize, but if they were to make a new TOS series under the leadership of JJ Abrams, that would make it the Star Trek: ATOS (Abrams TOS)
Atos was known from the original series of course, and similar spelling to a Mr AtoZ (A to Z)
Seriously thou, I hope the movie does well and that it leads to a new Trek series regardless of the actors involved. If they could focus more on character development, and less on the technical and scientific aspects of Trek (ie TNG and beyond), I think they would be able to make a great show. I’m just hoping that they refrain from using known actors in the movie. Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan etc… none of them were really “uber known” actors at the time of TOS.
24. Xai – June 19, 2007 – Thank you and to my computer welcome. To everyone picking apart my spelling, I only make this suggestion, don’t, not because I am offended, I’m not, in any way offended, it is sort of flattering! But there are probably far to many mistakes to list.
Remember a positive attitude is far healthier than a negative one! “We can’t be afraid of the wind” ;-)
As most of you have figured out I am an optimist, I can see good in most things in and always think positively, where I work I started a Positive Thought Bank, each day we take it in turns to email around a positive thought and each of us saved it to a folder on a computer, this was so we could always have a source of positve and fun thoughts at hand for when things get hectic and stressful. In it people can put general thoughts, funny observations, emails, anything that is positive! I know it is not related to the link and it draws away from the thread of conversation but thought I would share something positive, feel free to copy me!
I think it would be neat for CBS to make seasons 4 and 5 of the original series and possibly more. That way you could have a new original series feel but it wouldn’t be meant to replace the first 3 seasons.
I think people are confusing reboots, re-imaginings, sequels, prequels, and everything else under the sun, with simply getting back to basics.
Star Trek, at it’s core when you strip off the 40 years of bullshit and pork, is simply about the 5 year mission of a futuristic starship with a crew representative of vast numbers of worlds, skipping through the stars. Nothing less, nothing more.
Star Treks primary problem IS infact it’s vast history, and any writer that has worked on the show will tell you that, and they have.
It’s entirely possible for a thing to become so burdened by it’s own seeming success that it negates creativity.
So now 40 years on, what are your alternatives creatively?
You can create plug in adventures, neatly fitting in between A and C , making damn sure to avoid stomping on A and C, effectively neutering any sense of drama, risk, jeopardy, or adventure, since we already know C is the outcome, you can re-create A, abandoning B,C, etc, you can go beyond C, and make G, which is merely more of the same of everything that preceded it, or, you can wipe away all of the bullshit and really examine A and ask what is A trying to say, what does it mean, and go from there as a starting point, neither altering nor re-interpreting A, but rather embelleshing it.
It sounds to me like these guys are returning to what they percieve Star Trek at it’s core is, and if that so happens to step on the toes of the fans of the successor series, well, they had a long ride, 4 different series worth of material for your viewing pleasure.
I like the idea of getting back to basics, because Star Trek lost it’s own identity, first they lost Kirk, then even the name of the ship, until finally you can’t even answer what the hell Star Trek is about. Is it about a ship named Enterprise or Voyager? Is it about James Kirk or Benjamin Sisko? is it about a spaceship or a space station?
Creatively, the WORST mistake Paramount made was continuing series after series after series.
Addendum:
Star Trek isn’t Star Wars. It can’t extend beyond it’s own premise and be all things to all people. Star Trek is far more serialized and self-contained than Star Wars.
If ccaptain every Joe on Any ship during Any time is Star Trek, that becomes silly after awhile. Star Trek has to be about someone doing something for some purpose, and once established, those attributes have to remain consistent. That’s story-telling 101.
Let’s face it, the new movie is probably attempting to AUGMENT the original premise of Star Trek, not change it! Let’s hope for the best!!
Star Trek and Star Wars will probably compete with each other on the same night. Sigh. Bureaucratic thinking is consistantly predictable.
Absolutely, it’s gotta bring in a whole new generation, it’s gotta bring in people who don’t know Trek so it absolutely trying to re-establish what this universe should be…
To re establish is a word I dont like.
They sorta tried do that with ENT and we all know how that turned out. 13-1.5 million viewers in four years.
People who see Star Trek think its too geeky for the common moviegoer. This isn’t a Mission Impossible Tom Cruise instant blockbuster here. This is trying to recapture 90’s glory.
Thousands of people think they know what the Star Trek Universe should be but how are they going to agree on that? We cant even agree now which captains better. Which episode was the best… which show was the best. Remastered or classic? Which movie was the best etc. .How dimwitted and short sighted can this guy really be here?
Instead of Berman Trek we now get Orci and Kurtzman Trek, YAY! Where is Leonard Nimoy when you need him?
Let’s face it, in the 60s and early 70s space was exciting. Kids used to build model space ships and wanted to be astronauts. The Apollo missions were happening; we all remember Neil Armstrong’s first words on the moon: “It feels all spongy, it’s like a giant sponge cake”. But that’s all gone. We know there’s no other habitable planets within reach.
I think they should just let star-trek go. Like everything else these days, they take something good and milk it dry. Just… let it go.
#37…
And… why are you here, exactly? Seems more fun to spend time posting to sites with topics you actually care about.
@ #35, Redshirt…
Sisko, Parallels, TOS, Classic, tWoK/FC, very.
-TGP-
Berman & Braga = BB
Orci & Kurtzman = OK = > Hey, Trek is OK for a long time again!!! ;-)
#38
“And… why are you here, exactly?”
I come here to check the latest remastered original series episodes. I saw the title of this thread and poked my head in to have a look.
Actually, I don’t really know why I’m here. I’m not even sure I really like star-trek that much thinking about it. I want to enjoy it, but the bad scripts, bad effects, English-speaking human-looking aliens, all planets having the same gravity as earth and impossible ideas like the transporter and faster the light-speed travel always spoils it.
Actually, thanks for asking. I shouldn’t really be here at all.
The term “re-establish” sounds too much like the term “reboot” to me. Please tell me that it’s not a reboot.
re: 41
“Actually, I don’t really know why I’m here. I’m not even sure I really like star-trek that much thinking about it. I want to enjoy it, but the bad scripts, bad effects, English-speaking human-looking aliens, all planets having the same gravity as earth and impossible ideas like the transporter and faster the light-speed travel always spoils it.”
I can more easily believe in the transporter and faster-than-light travel and the other things you mentioned than I can in someone new playing Kirk or Spock.
#20:
What’s the difference between introducing the Xindi and the Suliban on ENT and never showing them again in the 23rd and 24th century Treks and introducing the Andorians, Orions, Tholians, and Tellarites on TOS and never showing them again in the 24th century Treks?
Really, the only aliens from TOS that made a substantial appearance in the 24th century Treks were the Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans. Everyone else seemed to be forgotten.
In fact, the Andorians, Orions, Tholians, and Tellarites make more of an appearance on ENT than TOS itself.
REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT,
GET USE TO IT
This is sounding more and more like a 100% reboot.
I for one don’t like the reboot idea.
So TNG was a reboot of TOS or what? No, it was a reimagination within the chronology. So it’s the same with TOS and the new film. It’s a reimagination that lies in the chronology we have and it fills holes in it. These are the voyages we don’t know – the human adventure begins again!
#47:
TNG wasn’t a reboot. It was a continuation, just 100 years in TOS’s future.
#45:
If this next movie IS a reboot, I’m not watching it. I’d feel like I’d be betraying what has already been done.
Some would say “If you could except a Batman reboot, why not Star Trek?”
That is totally different. The movies “Batman”, “Batman Returns”, “Batman Forever”, and “Batman & Robin” were very loosely connected. And furthermore, ALL of the movies were based on the comic books. They’re not REPLACING the comic books.
TOS wasn’t based on anything. Basically what would be happening is the new movie would make it as though TOS (and all that followed it) never happened. It would REPLACE all of it.
I wonder how “Star Wars” fans would feel if Episodes 4, 5, 6 were redone with new actors. I don’t think they’d stand for it. But when it comes to “Star Trek”, everyone’s okay with it??? I don’t understand that.
#48
“OS wasn’t based on anything. Basically what would be happening is the new movie would make it as though TOS (and all that followed it) never happened. It would REPLACE all of it.”
Well there you are, you’ve come up with a plot. The film starts with something happening that alters the time-line — like those borg thingies tried to do in that film (first contact I think) — only this time it isn’t corrected and the past is changed. They can take the whole of star-trek, throw it in the air and start again. Brilliant Kyle Nin. I’d go along with that.
I think they said there’s no time travel in the movie. Didn’t they?
Dear Reboot Guy,
You copy paste hack. Your last REBOOT should have a period, not a comma at the end. *grin*
Your freind (sp)
TubaJoseph
48. “Some would say “If you could except a Batman reboot, why not Star Trek?”
That is totally different. The movies “Batman”, “Batman Returns”, “Batman Forever”, and “Batman & Robin” were very loosely connected. And furthermore, ALL of the movies were based on the comic books. They’re not REPLACING the comic books.”
———-
RE: The BATMAN comics have been rebooted in the past. ( “Crisis On Infinite Earths” springs instantly to mind.) Fans have been able to get over that.
The James Bond and Godzilla movie franchises have been rebooted several times as well and they’ve continued to endure. If the new Star Trek movie fails it won’t be because it’s a “reboot” it’ll be because it wasn’t a very good film.
IMO,
Too many people are reading between the lines of an interview to find what they want to hear or what they fear. And others are going further saying they won’t see the movie because it is (or isn’t) __________.
No one has patience or already knows what Christmas 2008 will bring. It must be boring to know everything before it happens.
#44
Gene Roddenberry obviously decided that he didn’t want to show Andorians, Orions, etc, seeing as though he knew they existed but just never mentioned them in TNG.
With ENT, the sequel series didn’t even have a CHANCE to acknowledge the fact that those species exist. And for an enemy so fierce and such a threat to the Federation, why not mention them at least ONCE in the future?
Here’s a comparison: Imagine the Dominion weren’t in DS9, but they were made up in ENT instead. Isn’t it a little odd that they (would have) NEVER been mentioned in the sequel series, even though they had such an impact on the Federation and history itself?
I’m saying that slotting new bad guys into gaps in history is implausible. You almost need three hands to count how many times Kirk is mentioned in the TNG era. It’s much more plausible to go forward where you can FREELY make up new and exciting bad guys, without worrying about continuity.
-TGP-
#31 Josh
Your definition of Star Trek is just fine….
“Star Trek……, is simply about the 5 year mission of a futuristic starship with a crew representative of vast numbers of worlds, skipping through the stars.”
In reviewing 5 series of TV eps and 10 movies… that seems to be the formula with a few twists and turns. True?
If for some reason the new movie TOS Lite, does something to change it’s future (canon)… so be it. It’s not up to me or you to define it or do something about it… just hopefully enjoy it.
I don’t think “re-establish” means a reboot in this instance at all. I don’t foresee any a female Scotty or a battleship Enterprise. I think it’s just a matter of re-establishing the basics of what Trek is all about for the mainstream. It will still be the Kirk character we all know, the ship we all know, the universe we know, the classic TOS formula we all know, but I think rather than “re-establish” he should have used the term “re-introduce”. I think they just want to introduce, again, and remind everyone, specifically mainstream America, just what Star Trek-TOS style- is all about…..especially after 20 years of Bemanized Trek. I think a re-establishment or re-introduction and return to classic Trek is way overdue. I couldn’t be more happy that JJ agreees.
#54 David Kulessa,
I had a guy down the block that I had several conflicts with over the years. Now he’s gone. When he was around, I didn’t dwell on him or bring him up much and now that he’s gone, he’s out of sight and mind.
Look at TOS… I can only recall a few times during 79 eps that the Klingons or Romulans were a conversation or informational topic when they weren’t the antagonist that episode. There wasn’t many times in the officer’s mess that we overheard “Wow, that battle with the /Klingons/Romulans was bad.” The point is… the episode was telling a story, with only about 42 minutes to fit dialogue, FX, acting, etc. in.
IMO, I don’t have a big problem with this lack of back story bad guys.
#53:
I want the producers/writers of the movie to just say flat out whether it’s a reboot or not. They don’t have to give away any of the plot or story. It’s just a “yes or no” question. Simple.
It just seems like they’re beating around the bush, not giving a clear answer. If they did, then I’ll stop asking if it’s a reboot.
I’m fine if they give the movie a new refreshing look, just as long as they don’t ignore what has already been established in the Star Trek “universe”.
How many times did we hear about Gabrielle Bell in TOS? TNG? or even Voyager? I don’t think at all, but yet we were introduced to him in DS9. Evidently, he played a mahor role in helping to get the Star Trek future to where it was. There are many many instances where we are introduced to something from the “past” later and never told about it before. Does it ruin the continuity? Does it alter what we did see? I don’t think so. It just helped illuminate past episodes we saw of the future. (I’m getting a Janeway sized headache trying to keep my tenses straight!). What I’m saying is that of course we don’t know all of Star Trek’s timeline and to say that to introduce the Xindi and never have heard of them before is just unnecessary overanalyzing of an entertainment medium. Enjoy it, and try to think of how these incidents helped form the world we love to jump into every so often. Also, how many times was V’Ger mentioned in TNG, DS9, or VOY? Or the whale probe? We knew of these threats to Earth, but they were never necessary to mention to further a story in future Trek.
#58 Kyle Nin,
I understand your frustration… but why would they tell you or anyone? Think about it.
You are trying to produce a huge amount of money that takes a large sum of $$, talent and time to produce… a creative venture that you know there is likely a pent-up demand for. Would you give hints…especially before the product is finished? Your hints could hurt your profits…. would you give anything at all?
There’s only one answer that makes sense.
Everyone desperately trying to explain why Star Trek has some unique set of factors that makes it un-rebootable while many other franchises have proven exactly the opposite are just grasping at straws. Just because you don’t WANT a reboot doesn’t mean a reboot can’t be a success, and it doesn’t even mean you can’t like the new movie, if you just give it half a chance.
I just know that when and if the new movie turns out to be a big hit, about half of you here complaining about reboots will change your tunes and hastily claim that the new film isn’t really a reboot per se, but a re-awakening, or re-affirmation, and then try to explain away all the factual contradictions to the prior movies with all the Trekkie ardor your hearts can muster.
The rest of you purists will continue to grumble about reboots and go on and on about the “canon”…all while continuing to spell it with 2 “n”s. :)
Well, until they actually say whether its a reboot or not, I can’t get excited about seeing it.
At least I still have “Stargate” to look forward to. They won’t reboot THAT.
I am still trying to figure out WHO that is directly connected to the film said the word “reboot”.
#62 Kyle,
No one’s begging you to see it if you don’t want to.
#59 It’s too bad whatever the V’ger/Dekker/Ilia joining had become was never seen again. Would have made a great two-parter episode or film. Voyager, being on the other side of the Galaxy also could have had an ep. with the Machine Planet.
oh god another pointless – its a reboot the sky is falling – argument. I am going to go watch some paint dry to liven up my life
“Hire Shatner and Nimoy, Koenig, Nichols and Takei, find cardboard cut outs of Doohan and Kelley, build the old sets, buy back the old props and let’s make a movie.
I for one never want anything to change the slightest bit. There’s no need to find a new cast, new FX…dig the 11 footer out of the Smithsonian attic. The actors can do it…. Trek must never, ever change, be spun off or rebootimaginiated ”
Bizzaro-Xai
——————————————————————————————-
This is not a tirade against a few people that are solid in their beliefs about their view of Trek. Stanky is an example. I disagree with but respect his opinion because he stands by it and isn’t swayed by a few words of a writer who by contract cannot reveal a thing.
But for those that think they see the word “reboot” (gasp) in Orci’s words… may I suggest you all wait for confirmation of that thought before you scream, as Anthony mentions., “the sky is falling”!
Try a new tactic… patience.
Xai
What I find amusing is the strong feelings against change so many Trek fans exhibit. Change is an essential component of life, even if we hate it at times. Isn’t that one of the themes of Star Trek? The ability to recognize change and use it as a way to grow and understand humanity?Everytime a new Trek series comes out, or a new film there are hordes of people who despise it before seeing it. Each of the series has its “OMG, what were they thinking” moments, but each also has its “OMG, that was great!” moments. I agree, I don’t want a reboot, but it doesn’t seem likely. I think, from what we have been told, that the new torch bearers will do their best to keep everything with canon.
64: It was too bad, but Collins was doing 7th Heaven (maybe he was too busy anyway?) and Persis Khmbatta was no longer alive (unfortunately). Also, in a way maybe they did! I read somewhere that Roddenberry thought of the Borg as the natural progression of V’Ger, or we could consider the Machine World to be the Brg homeworld. We did see Borg worlds on Vpyager (if I am remembering correctky..it’s been a while since I saw all the Voyager episodes).
(Sorry, I don’t intend to clutter the message board, but I wanted to clarify something.)
When I said, “…I don’t want a reboot, but it doesn’t seem likely.” I meant that it doesn’t seem likely that we’ll be getting a reboot, but some more meat to the history of Trek, which I for one think is GREAT! We get some more insight into the Trek universe, and characters we have loved for years! (albeit with new actors, but we don’t have a time machine to get us a young Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley)
I don’t think adventures could be filmed featuring the character of the Decker/illia/Vejur life-form, they evolved beyond the scope of human comprehension. The novel quite eloquently states they continued to become more and more beautiful and evolve until they could no longer be percieved, without really even going anywhere. They transmutated to another plane of existence, an existence in which Stanky likes Trek reboots. ;)
More important fact is going to be getting that people feel comfortable with new cast, which was the main reason for the success of Star Trek.
It happened BIG TIME with the original cast and to a lesser degree TNG, but DS9, Voyager, and ENT had a lot more trouble with this. I don’t see it happening like that again regardless if its a reboot or not.
I meant ‘the people feeling comfortable with a new cast’. sorry
Eh, I felt fine with VOY and DS9.
I’m still skeptical about the ENT crew, though. I’ve only watched up to The Andorian Incident, and I know for a fact that characters like Mayweather get only about two episodes devoted to them. Trying too hard to be like TOS, maybe?!
The constant fighting between the Vulcans and Humans just annoys me. DS9 and VOY were at least friendly. It was much easier to warm to those crews.
-TGP-
This was in the NY Post this morning…
June 21, 2007 — CAPT. Kirk is jealous of Mr. Spock. William Shatner, the stoic commander of the Starship Enterprise on “Star Trek,” is said to be furious with the producers of “Star Trek XI” because they offered Leonard Nimoy, Kirk’s lovable Vulcan sidekick, a cameo role but didn’t give him one. Shatner “is very upset,” said an insider, “and has been lobbying for a role.” The film, to be directed by “Lost” producer and director J.J. Abrams, is to start shooting later this year. Shatner’s manager, Larry Thompson, said, “I don’t know that to be the case, so I can’t comment.”
#73: “The constant fighting between the Vulcans and Humans just annoys me.”
There’s a reason for that and it’s resolved in Season 4. Remember that this is over 200 years before VOY and DS9. And over 100 years before TOS. You can’t expect every alien species to act EXACTLY the same, especially given the circumstances.
#65: “Oh god another pointless – its a reboot the sky is falling – argument.”
It’s not pointless if it’ll determine if I’ll see the movie or not. But I guess my ticket wouldn’t matter right? It’d be only one in a few million.
#63: “I am still trying to figure out WHO that is directly connected to the film said the word “reboot”.”
That’s just it. No one did. They don’t resolve the issue. They MUST know that people are wondering about it. Why would they not say? It’s not like they’d be giving away the story for the movie. It’s a simple “yes or no” question. It’d take them only a second to answer.
#63: “No one’s begging you to see it if you don’t want to.”
It kind of seems like everyone is. (#45: “REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, REBOOT, GET USE TO IT.) Like I don’t have a choice.
#76 Kyle
Regarding your 4th paragraph please re-read #60. And if it takes a year and a half for you to decide to see a movie, I pity your dates.
#77:
I read your comment #60. I just don’t agree with it. I WANT to be excited about the movie. But the way they’re talking about it, I just can’t be. Instead of my interest level going up, they are making me have the opposite reaction. I’m becoming less and less interested in new Trek.
So, it’s starting to not bother me that I may not see the movie. And that’s sad. Really it is.
I think I may turn into more of a Star Wars fan than a Trek fan. Hmm, maybe I won’t go THAT far.
it is pointless because
a. it is not a ‘reboot’
b. if it were a reboot it could still be good (Casino Royale, Batman Begins)
the movie will be good or bad based on the quality of the film making, not the level of adherence to dogma.
#79 Anthony
Amen and I hope that’s the capper to the “R-word” in here.
I just found out why I don’t like to post comments on this site.
Everyone goes out of their way to hate me.
And no one ever answers my questions.
REBOOT REBOOT REBOOT
#80: “Amen and I hope that’s the capper to the “R-word” in here.”
I guess not.
#75
Yeah, I know why. But it’s still annoying. Like, nearly every single episode has Archer and Tucker saying something mean and chuckling, and T’Pol does her “i’m not impressed” look, and walks out of his ready room. WITHOUT FAIL.
They could have at least been creative about it.
-TGP-
#81 Kyle,
Repeatedly stating you want answers to your questions about a reboot when you know dam well it’s not going to happen doesn’t get you on the hate list… but it could be considered annoying.
We all want information, but that comes at it’s own pace and I know Anthony and Co. work hard to find out what’s going on.
And David…. that’s as creative as it gets, your honor.
Kyle, I hate you. (joke)
Reboot and reboot. What is reboot?
A few thoughts here…
I completely disagree that the many Star Trek stories, and series, have lost track of what Star Trek is about. I think they have all served the overall story of Star Trek. I argue that Star Trek, at its core, is a story about Humanity, and Humanity’s potentials, especially our potential to overcome our differences, learn to delight in them rather than fight over them, and reach out into the future with hope and excitement, rather than fear and despair. That story was played out in microcosm on the bridge of the starship Enterprise, on its five-year mission, with its multi-racial, multicultural crew. As Star Trek continued into the other series, that story grew, with new episodes and new characters and new tales, but I still believe that, even if it wasn’t always told well, all the Star Trek series have still continued to tell that basic story, just against a larger canvas. Do I think it’s an interesting choice to try to get back to that core story? Perhaps so, especially since so many people seem not to realize that it was never really lost, and the movie does seem to be an attempt to recapture the soul of the concept by going back to its core, which is, of course, Classic Trek.
And based on what they’re saying, I can’t see at this point how anyone could interpret it to mean that they’re rebooting it in any way other than restarting a computer. Orci seems to be indicating that they went to considerable lengths to tell their story within the overall established Trekverse, even while they suggest that they’ll modernize the “tone” somewhat, which isn’t the same thing as throwing away the continuity. ;) (I must admit to being intrigued by the whole zebra analogy in the IGN interview, though.)
‘Course, what can I say? I’m a fan of not any one series, but of the entire Trekverse, and all 12 (so far) “official” Trek series, and not even counting the potentially hundreds or thouands more for which there’s room. I don’t have a problem with them exploring the roots of Star Trek and getting “back to basics”, if they have a story best served by doing so. Here’s hoping it all works out!
Best,
Alex
Hope they make intresting story for XI and if there will be new Trek series and i hope it will continue Trek to its new era like TNG was to the TOS
heh there arent so many Trek fans in Finland and still im hoping our channels will show some Enterprise episodes or do he have to buy those expensive DVD boxes :)
Syöppö
Ok, it seems this has gone down a few pointless paths.
1. Constantly screaming for answers about what the movie is about, will not do any good, why? Because they want to create a mystery around this movie, so that it will hav the effect of making people want to see it to find out what all the hype is (very clever ploy). Two, who are we to demand answers? Are we putting in the long hours of creating this thing? No we are not.
2. Re: the aliens in the alter series, the only time the Tholians (for example) were mentioned in the TNG era was one episode of DS9 when the war was about to begin, (they signed a non-aggresion treaty), as for alot of other TOS aliens, barely a mention was made of any of them, ENT showed the evolution of those aliens into Earth Allies, of Foes. Lets treat the Xindi in the same way, they came they saw, they got their buts kicked and moved on.
Trek is just a show and should be enjoyed as such, I am sick to death of hearing about William Shatner wanting to be in it, for pitty sake, move on, maybe the days of the “shat” are truly over, maybe he will be in it who knows! I said a few posts back, have patience and wait and see, and just enjoy the movie for what it will probably be, an expansion of the Trek Universe, and to those who don’t “recognise” anything beyond TOS, good for you, that’s your opinion and we are all entitled to it, but some seem fit to use foul language and insults to express this view and as far as I am concerned that is not on.