“and I there has never been this kind of optimism about its potential for the near future. This is really the first time that mainstream moviegoers have warmed to a Star Trek film since 1986.”

I remember the summer of 1982, and how that proves you wrong in this regard: After the release of TWOK, Trek was considered to “really” be back (as in back from its TV origins) by audiences and critics–as opposed to the response to TMP. The buzz was loud as the high interest for the expected sequel only grew, which turned ST into a “key asset” at the studio of that period. ST, along with Indiana Jones and Eddie Murphy were THE key assets of Paramount during the 1980’s–with ST’s status cemented by the effect of TWOK. Of course, through the Berman years, that status (for movies) vanished, but if the status is there today, it is the second act.

LOL – ”‘Wagon Train’ To The Stars” – LOL

That’s HOW Roddenberry sold it to the network! LOL

Good luck!

You don’t know what you’re talking about, RD. What’s was the existing TV model for Dexter? Weeds? Six Feet Under? Big Love? My Name is Earl? The Simpsons? What’s was the “existing model” for—dare I say it?—TOS (gasp!)

Models don’t mean squat. You can follow them to disaster and ignore them to success.

“With Kirk, life is just as dull in Iowa, but he has no dreams, no ambitions, he just wants to live in the bottom of a bottle feeling sorry for himself, lashing out for the attention and love he feels he never got, abusing those who deny it to him, or getting the hell beat out of him so he can finally feel something. Unlike Skywalker, who will actually apply the lessons he learns as he experiences the obstacles life throws at him. We see Luke grow. Thanks to Abrams, we can only see Kirk stagnate.”

“These are not my ideas, my friend. This is CANON.”

“The story you seem to think you can tell only exists outside of canon, which once again does nothing to support the franchise or draw in new fans.”

I don’t “seem to think” I can tell that story. I know how to tell it. There IS NO canon on Kirk’s life in Iowa except a few brief scenes in a 2 hour 6 minute long movie. Yet you have somehow managed to religiously convince yourself that you know his entire story from those few scenes! As if! Not only do I know how to tell it, but going only on what Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman left or implied, I could tell a story from those facts with nothing in common than where you think it has to go, while making it believable.

“You merely tell me I’m not as imaginative as you but offer no reason why it should succeed other than it’s “optimistic”

Thing is, I don’t have to share a single idea with anyone who doesn’t get the idea, who has no idea how it would be done, and yet who’s main interest still seems to be to think up reasons why the idea can’t work, while simultaneously complaining to me that I’m not giving him enough detail to criticize as if I don’t know that’s all he really wants to do anyway.

I don’t care about unimaginative naysaying. You seem to have a toxic personality that’s better for me to just avoid as long as you decide to be the person you are. I’ve probably encouraged you by engaging you in conversation, so in retrospect it was probably my own fault to fall into the sort of conversation you seem to want to have, and which I am uninterested in having.

Ciao, RD.

If that’s true, then my experience is akin to little more than the same thing with a happy face. At least I offer the reasons I don’t see this working for TV. You merely tell me I’m not as imaginative as you but offer no reason why it should succeed other than it’s “optimistic”. If you cannot come up with an existing model to pitch your top secret idea, then you’ll have no luck even getting a meeting to pitch it. THAT is Hollywood.

As for Kirk being smarter and better than everyone else, yeah I want to watch that for 4 seasons. First he’s someone we can all identify with, then he’s better than everybody else. Which is it?

Even in the film Pike describes Kirk as “the only genius-level repeat offender in the Midwest.” You should really take a look at this:

http://io9.com/5250171/so-really-why-is-captain-kirk-such-a-douchebag

So by your definition, I guess I’m imaginatively challenged since I don’t see how Kirk’s story can be very interesting.

Ep. 1: Kirk gets in a fight, told he needs to grow up, doesn’t.
Ep. 2: Kirk gets in a fight, learns a lesson about not fighting, then gets in a fight again.
Ep. 3: Kirk gets in a fight, almost kills somebody, learns its wrong, then continues doing it for the rest of the series.
Ep. 4: Kirk has a life changing experience, but decides not to change.
Ep. 5: etc.

It doesn’t matter how optimistic you are, at the end of the day, Kirk has to continue being a rebel and rejecting everyone. You are trying to tell the story about a guy who has no ambition, doesn’t care who he is, or want to try to improve himself. This is why we find him in the state he’s at the beginning of the film.

Oh sure you can tell stories where Kirk saves some little boy’s life, but then he must turn right around and continues on the same selfish self-destructive path we find him on in ST09. So no matter how positive you make the stories, the net effect is, Kirk does NOT change … for 4 seasons!

I likened him to Luke Skywalker before his uncle bought R2D2: working on the farm, hangin’ out with his friends, shooting womp rats … pretty dull stuff. At least there you have a chance to watch a young man who WANTS to go somewhere face challenges that form him, to learn and change who he is, waiting for the opportunity to finally leave home and pursue his dreams.

With Kirk, life is just as dull in Iowa, but he has no dreams, no ambitions, he just wants to live in the bottom of a bottle feeling sorry for himself, lashing out for the attention and love he feels he never got, abusing those who deny it to him, or getting the hell beat out of him so he can finally feel something. Unlike Skywalker, who will actually apply the lessons he learns as he experiences the obstacles life throws at him. We see Luke grow. Thanks to Abrams, we can only see Kirk stagnate.

These are not my ideas, my friend. This is CANON.

The story you seem to think you can tell only exists outside of canon, which once again does nothing to support the franchise or draw in new fans. The story you want to tell is “One Tree Hill” in the 23rd Century. If you have another way of describing it so that the rest of us with challenged imaginations can get it, then by all means do.

A story about a kid spiraling downward is YOUR version, not mine. My version is about a kid who is smarter than everyone else around him, who excels at everything he does, but who also has his uncle’s voice inside him cutting him down, and who thus has a dichotomy in his own view of himself.

Kirk is cocky because he succeeds, because he can outsmart anyone. But when he cuts himself down, that’s his uncle talking, and that’s what he has to overcome. He sabotages himself because he has two radically different and competing views of himself in his head. MY story is about a kid who has setbacks along the way of spiraling UPward, who reveals his character by succeeding despite some hardships along the way.

I would NEVER pitch or do a series of the kind you are representing. But since it’s my idea, you have no idea what I’m talking about. All you can do is imagine how YOU would do it, which I would not bother with at all. You don’t have my imagination or optimism.

Most of your comments are a collection of naysayings because YOU can’t imagine how it would be done.

“Unfortunately, the James T, Kirk story is little more than the first few chapters introduction to when his life really took off and meant something.”

No. The James Kirk story “is” the story that it is written as. It hasn’t been written yet. Don’t confuse what is with what could be.

“There is no coincidence that Abrams chose not to show us any more of Kirk’s youth … because there was simply nothing there worth watching except more of the same.”

Again, you keep talking about Jim Kirk’s story as if it is objectively real, as if no one can come up with any interesting stories to tell around it because it is objectively uninteresting. But really, you say that because your own imagination is so thin. Mine isn’t, and I’ve already got a good idea of how the entire series would go. Kirk’s story is as interesting as good writers make it. Nor do you seem to understand how the technology of the 23rd century plays into story possibilities here.

Honestly, RD, conversing with you is a little like talking to a frowning face painted on a concrete wall. In attitude you are something of a Debby Downer, and that may be a big reason why we see the idea in a totally different way. I can see how it can be done well, so I’m optimistic about it, and you can’t, yet despite your ignorance you feel qualified to comment on what I see, and what you do not, anyway.

You are not criticizing my idea, you’re criticizing your idea of my idea.

The two are unrelated.

Nope. That’s Hollywood. But since you can’t share any of your ideas, I guess we’ll never know. How about an example of a successful series that’s been built around this kind of premise?

Bottom line, it may be less effects intensive than any incarnation of Star Trek, but for this kind of soap opera, it’s one effects budget too much. Also, studios and networks rarely plan for shows of this nature to have a limited run. The goal is always to develop properties that will run as long as profitable. Either way, 7 years or 4 years … a story about a kid who keeps spiraling downward so that by the end of the series he will be set up to finally do something with his life where the movie started, simply won’t inspire anybody. Episode after episode, even if he has mini-advances toward some kind of direction in his life, he must also have a significant setback to make him fall back into his rebellious habits. Before the first season is over, the formula will be old and tired and frustrating.

As for franchise building, are you serious? Carol Marcus in Smallville? LOL Gary Mitchell? His uncle Frank? Really? It is unlikely any of those characters will appear in the films. His mom seems to be gone a lot, which is likely one of the reasons Kirk is so rebellious. It would seem he is pushing his brothers away as well. But again, none of these characters will add to the franchise at all, unless Orci & Kurtzman decide to make Gary Mitchell, a one off guest star/villain, a major new player in the film series. Kirk’s family never figured into the series at all, since that is not what Star Trek is about. In fact, I would say that Bones and Spock and the Enterprise are Kirk’s family. Interestingly enough, that fits extremely well with this Kirk who left nothing behind in Iowa when he joined Starfleet.

So I’m back to: 1) expensive series for what it is, 2) main character keeps facing demons but doesn’t improve his life for the entire run of the series to match canon, 3) does not tie into franchise in any profitable way, 4) is not sustainable for any length of time.

While I can imagine all sorts of interesting stories involving this Kirk as a young man that I would want to explore as a Star Trek fan, I can imagine none that the average television audience would find interesting, or believable and few will be able to identify with Kirk. Of course I don’t think Kirk is a real person with a real history, but his archetype is clearly definable in our society. I went to high school and college with a number of these “Kirks”. Some went on to find themselves, others dropped out completely. But the one thing they all had in common was that little happened in their youth to form their adult successes until they finally decided to turn themselves around, a revelation that came after endless missteps and grief in an ever downward spiral. Only then did their lives become interesting as they actually started to live for something and find out who they were. And for a series like this to be successful, it must resonate with the archetypes people know. Unfortunately, the James T, Kirk story is little more than the first few chapters introduction to when his life really took off and meant something. There is no coincidence that Abrams chose not to show us any more of Kirk’s youth … because there was simply nothing there worth watching except more of the same.

“Before that he is just the local bully and general troublemaker. There are no stories of success, just failure, after failure because he doesn’t care. Week after week Kirk suffers another humiliating defeat pushing him ever further into his go-nowhere life. He’s a loner, alienating people wherever he goes. Leaving him in the end with a motorcyle and nothing else to leave behind. Yeah, that’s inspiring – I see that easily going 7 seasons.”

???

Lord, I’m sorry RD, but you are I aren’t in the same universe with how that show would go. You have a very simplistic black and white way of looking at things, and I don’t.

Based on 2 scenes from Trek ,09: a crashed Corvette and a bar fight, you think the ONLY way to tell his story in between those scenes is the pathetic version of it you just concocted? Is your version of his early life now canon in your mind, RD? Absurd.

There is literally NOTHING that you mentioned which would be how I imagined it. NO-THING. And I already portrayed it as a limited show. 4 years max, I would think, and less would be better. But you probably didn’t have time to read those earlier comments.

“Besides, the mystery is already removed. Even if one introduces a series of events where Kirk tries to turn himself around before Pike’s intervention, we always know the outcome because he doesn’t turn himself around until the movie. In other words, we know he will fail every time, so what’s the point. To watch him try and get worse every week. There are no lessons to be learned from it.”

Yeah, that’s the Orci argument for rebooting the franchise, but this is not a reboot and the mystery aspect is irrelevant. It’s a story about people, and he wouldn’t fail every time getting worse and worse. Again, that’s your unimaginative black and white way of looking at things. No subtlety. No lessons learned. Kirk is in your view a total jerk until he steps on the shuttle to go to Starfleet. You have a shallow notion of his character which would be completely disposed of by this show.

“What’s worse is that there’s no opportunity to really introduce anybody else from the franchise, there’s no Lois Lane or other characters to either help expand the franchise for viewers.”

Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell. His uncle, his mother, his brother.

“The cast of regulars would also be somewhat limited and ever changing as well since Kirk is continually pushing people out of his life.”

Nope. That’s the thinness of your own imagination showing. I’m amazed at how you discuss Kirk as if he were a real person with a real history, as if you know what that history is, and as if there’s no way of getting around it other than what you say.

“There’s nothing to explore there, especially considering the cost of setting it in the future too.”

Wrong again. It would be less effects intensive than any of the Star Trek spinoffs, and it would draw people into the franchise more subtly than with bad costumes and aliens with knots on their heads talking silly meaningless techno jargon and sputtering stardates—if ANYthing killed Star Trek, it’s THAT kind of narrow minded fan focused stuff—through good writing, good stories set in that specific future, and excellent drama and character. Things, in other words, that most good and successful TV shows have in common. The future setting wouldn’t be pointless, it would be a crucial part of the storyline, the technology of which would actually make certain premises and storylines—the specifics of which I will not mention—otherwise impossible to do, and yet which are relevant to the development of Kirk’s complex character. Again, it’s your own imagination that’s failing here.

Except it would pull the same ratings that other such shows pull and yet cost considerably more to make thanks to the needless special effects which serve no purpose other than to set the story in the future which seems to also have no purpose, other than to be about James T. Kirk.

dmduncan wrote: I don’t care about which stardates mesh with which events, blah blah blah…and 99% of the population who could potentially be interested in Star Trek don’t care about that stuff either.

I don’t see what technical jargon has to do with the other. Once you strip away space and Dr. McCoy and Spock, then what’s left? You’re basically telling the story of Luke Skywalker growing up on Tatooine. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. A story which has wisely never been told, particularly not in series form. Actually Luke’s life sounds a lot better than bad-boy Kirk.

dmduncan wrote: Kirk is BETTER than Superman exactly because he does NOT have super powers and yet manages to beat his demons.

Thanks to Orci/Kurtzman, Kirk does nothing but battle demons his entire youth. He seemingly overcomes most of them in one night, when he decides to try Starfleet because he has absolutely nothing else … he’s hit bottom.

The years that are of interest for this Kirk are the Academy years. Here’s where the bad boy tries to figure out how to be the man who became Captain Kirk. That’s a true story of adversity, success and failure over 3 years that actually shape him. A period when Kirk actually wants to achieve something and yet must still face failure and remain motivated despite his decision to improve himself. Unfortunately, this means another actor playing Cadet Kirk, which Pine has already established, so it’s best saved until Pine is out of the captain’s chair or at least a little older.

Before that he is just the local bully and general troublemaker. There are no stories of success, just failure, after failure because he doesn’t care. Week after week Kirk suffers another humiliating defeat pushing him ever further into his go-nowhere life. He’s a loner, alienating people wherever he goes. Leaving him in the end with a motorcyle and nothing else to leave behind. Yeah, that’s inspiring – I see that easily going 7 seasons.

Besides, the mystery is already removed. Even if one introduces a series of events where Kirk tries to turn himself around before Pike’s intervention, we always know the outcome because he doesn’t turn himself around until the movie. In other words, we know he will fail every time, so what’s the point. To watch him try and get worse every week. There are no lessons to be learned from it. What’s worse is that there’s no opportunity to really introduce anybody else from the franchise, there’s no Lois Lane or other characters to either help expand the franchise for viewers. The cast of regulars would also be somewhat limited and ever changing as well since Kirk is continually pushing people out of his life.

There’s nothing to explore there, especially considering the cost of setting it in the future too. In the end, I’m not sure how this draws others into Star Trek as a franchise which is otherwise very different, both in the past and especially at the current box-office.

I’m afraid the only place this type of story belongs is in the 2-hour pilot leading to Kirk’s academy years.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997

Funny