Harve Bennett Talks “Academy Years” Concept & JJ Abrams Star Trek | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Harve Bennett Talks “Academy Years” Concept & JJ Abrams Star Trek August 25, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM),Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Back in 1989 Harve Bennett (producer of Star Trek II, III, IV & V) proposed that the Star Trek franchise needed to be restarted with Kirk and Spock being recast for a move set at Starfleet Academy. Work began on the project, including a script, but Paramount decided to stick with the original crew for one more film. In a new interview, Bennett talks about "The Academy Years" film, and also gives his thoughts about JJ Abrams Star Trek.

 

Harve Bennett on the Academy Years script and Star Trek 2009

After the financial and critical disappointment of Star Trek V in 1989, producer Harve Bennett proposed that the next Star Trek film reboot the franchise with a prequel set at Starfleet Academy, called Star Trek: The Academy Years. In the end Paramount decided that the 25th Anniversary of the franchise should have one more swan song for the original crew and Bennett Walked away, leaving Ralph Winter and Leonard Nimoy to produce Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. In a new interview with the official Star Trek site, Bennett provides some more details on his Academy Years script:

It was the best script of all and it never got produced. It was at the end of my run. Ned Tanen, who was Paramount’s head of production, had green lighted it before he left. We even had location scouts and sent feelers out for the cast. I had an eye on John Cusack for Spock, which would have been great. Ethan Hawke could have been Kirk. There were so many possibilities. But basically it was a love story and it was a story of cadets, teenagers. And, in order to get Shatner and Nimoy in, we had a wraparound in which Kirk comes back to address the academy and the story spins off of his memory. At the end, Kirk and Spock are reunited and they beam back up to Enterprise, which would have left a new series potential, the academy, and a potential other story with the original Trek cast. All the possibilities were open, the script was beautiful, and the love story was haunting, but it didn’t happen.

Later, in the mid-90s, (then-Paramount head) Sherry Lansing called me and said, “Come on in and tell me about this script we didn’t do.” We had a meeting. She was enthused and so was I. Then a couple of weeks later she called to say they couldn’t go forward because the television department was going to do a pilot that was a prequel. That turned out to be Enterprise. That prequel had very little to do with The Academy Years, but it smashed the revival of the script.

On the surface, there appear to be some similarities between Bennett’s Academy idea and the 2009 Star Trek movie (being both are prequels that include scenes of Kirk and Spock at Starfleet Academy). In fact, back in 2007 Harve Bennett said he might contest the Orci/Kurtzman script to ensure that Paramount wasn’t taking any idea from the Academy script he and David Loughery wrote. However, in the end the 2009 Star Trek movie was not seen as taking ideas from the Academy script.

In the new interview Bennett did speak about the new JJ Abrams film, but it seems it wasn’t for him, saying:

I did see it. I’m not the audience for that. Rapid cuts. Explosions. Gore for the sake of gore. Either that makes me a dinosaur or there’s a generational problem, but that’s not J.J.’s fault.

Go to startrek.com to see the full interview (Part 1 & Part2) where Bennett talks Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home and his place in Star Trek history


Concept art of Kirk and Spock for the Academy film


Concept art of USS Enterprise for the Academy film

Related:

TrekMovie VIDEO chat with Ralph Winter (includes discussion of Bennett leaving and Winter staying with franchise after Star Trek V)

Memory Alpha article on Star Trek: The First Adventure (aka Star Trek: The Academy Years)

Comments

1. Seattle Trek Fan - August 25, 2010

Wow, I had no idea that the NX-01 was dreamed up a decade before Enterprise premiered.

2. oogaboogawooga - August 25, 2010

@1. Yeah, at first I thought that WAS the NX-01.

3. Christopher Arnold - August 25, 2010

Although I like the ship design, too bad it never made it in any of the actual productions. Though I find it could be useful for a full-fledged reboot of “Star Trek”, that is should a full-fledged reboot be considered in the future.

4. CmdrR - August 25, 2010

Nevermind the NX-01. Check out the Vulcan mullet!

I’m SO glad V was not the last mission for the original crew. VI is a truly great Trek and I’m glad things went that way. Sorry, prequels make me queasy. It feels like repackaging stuff with less value than the original. I can’t have them unmake ST09, but I hope they got the whole “prequel” thing outta their systems. Let the next movie JUST BE A GREAT TREK! Don’t muddy it up with Hollywood-style processing. Please!

Also, “Gore for the sake of gore” ?? You mean the anal prolapse monster on Delta Vega? Otherwise, ST09 was pretty tame.

5. ensign joe - August 25, 2010

I’m drawing a blank on the gore to which he speaks.. seems like the most violent scene was when the first Cap’n gets run through but we don’t actually see it..

6. Lore - August 25, 2010

Harve Bennett must be a leaf eater because the new film was great.

7. Phaser Guy - August 25, 2010

Where was the Gore in the new Trek movie? I don’t remember it.

8. Dunsel Report - August 25, 2010

Star Trek II, with its “Alien” influence, burrowing eels, and disintegrating good guys, seems much more gory to me than the J.J. Abrams movie. But I’ll defer to him on quick cuts.

9. vjeko1701 - August 25, 2010

He is completely right. I’m not as old as him, I’m only 18 but I completely agree with him

10. Ran - August 25, 2010

He meant the script….

11. StarFuryG7 - August 25, 2010

So once again, Berman and Braga affected a project that would have focused on the early days of the original characters.

One more reason to hate those two hacks.

Although I will say that Bennett’s choice of actors, John Cusack and Ethan Hawke, have me wondering if that project should have moved ahead at all. I’m not too keen on either of those picks, so it calls Bennett’s judgment somewhat into question in my view.

On a completely unrelated note …why wouldn’t my other posts on a couple of the other article Pages show up after I added a URL under my email address?

Anyone know?

12. Jeyl - August 25, 2010

“Rapid cuts. Explosions. Gore for the sake of gore. Either that makes me a dinosaur or there’s a generational problem, but that’s not J.J.’s fault.”

Me no dinosaur, but me definitely agrees. Where as Harve got together a great team to put together something unique for the Trek cast, these guys took a lot of his work and made it into a summer action flick with all the modern techniques that make any old style action flick seem Alfred Hitchcock in comparison.

13. Markonian - August 25, 2010

Too bad I can’t travel to parallel realities to see ALL other possible Star Trek installments made real. That’d be cool.

14. Bill - August 25, 2010

Markonian

Does that include the idea about a Lwaxana sitcom that floated around in ’90?

15. miraclefan - August 25, 2010

I’ve known about the ”Acadamy Enterprise” concept art for years now.

16. StarFuryG7 - August 25, 2010

12. Jeyl – August 25, 2010
“Rapid cuts. Explosions. Gore for the sake of gore. Either that makes me a dinosaur or there’s a generational problem, but that’s not J.J.’s fault.” -Harve Bennett

“Me no dinosaur, but me definitely agrees.”

I know, I was going to comment on that too, but decided to hold my tongue for the time being.

17. miraclefan - August 25, 2010

#15 ”Academy” my bad.

18. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - August 25, 2010

I wish they would take that Script and make it inot a Miniseries or at least bring it out on a Novel so we can all read it. Maybe we can get James Cawley to do some stuff with it.

19. Wonderboy - August 25, 2010

Turns out they were gonna do some sourt of alternet reality type Star Trek from the Start

20. John - August 25, 2010

lol @ him hating on NuTrek with reasons that make 0 sense

21. Alientraveller - August 25, 2010

I think what Bennett means by ‘gore’ is the more realistic bruises and cuts make-up we see in films and TV. Kirk getting beaten up in the bar was jarringly brutal (intentionally so as the point is that it stops being fun and shows that his life is in a real state).

Anyway, I disagree with Bennett, and I hope the Supreme Court isn’t too disheartened considering pretty much everyone else involved in Star Trek loved it, including Nicholas Meyer.

22. P Technobabble - August 25, 2010

Yeh, I don’t recall that much gore in Trek09. And I didn’t think it was overly explosive, compared to Trek movies under Bennett’s production. I think the fast-cut technique owes mostly to MTV-style videos from the 80’s, and it helps perpetuate short attention spans. I’m not a big fan of the fast cuts, but it’s pretty much everywhere these days.
I think there’s some animosity still smoldering inside Bennett, as well. He’s pretty much went silent after his involvement with Star Trek ended — a script for a tv movie, co-creator of the short-lived Time Trax, and an animated series. I think an argument could be made that the Star Trek movies burned him out, and he never really recovered. Apparently, he had serious issues with Leonard Nimoy during the making of TVH, and he really didn’t want to be involved with TFF, and the supporting cast fought him tooth and nail against The Academy Years, since it meant the end for them.
But we have to be grateful to Bennett that he brought us some of the best Trek ever, from TWOK through TVH, and made Star Trek the motion-picture franchise it is today.

23. RAMA - August 25, 2010

It wasn’t particularly gory…but everything is quicker cuts these days from CSI to TV movies to film. ST09 just felt a lot fresher than what we’ve seen in recent years. Any new film or tv project for Trek is going to have to adapt or it won’t survive.

24. Chain of Command - August 25, 2010

He does have a point about the, “explosions” and “rapid cuts”. I liked the new movie, but I can’t really think of a scene where I really had “time” to just enjoy the view. That’s one thing I really miss about the older Star Trek films and older films in general.

I’m not saying that there is a need for another TMP Enterprise reveal. However, It would be nice to get away from the hand-held “in your face” shaky MTV/Bay cam that has taken over movies these days with jump cuts/ lens flares and extreme close-ups all over the place.

In other words: HOLD STILL LOL

25. philpot - August 25, 2010

#13:

-TOS Season 4 & 5 (1970/71)

-Star Trek I: Planet of the Titans (1979)

-Bennetts ST: The First Adventure (May 1991 with TUC out Dec 91 )

-ST: Generations (1994) – the NCC 1701-A gets thrown into the 24th Century ‘Yesterdays Enterprise’ style – written/directed by Nicolas Meyer

-ST IX: TNG Mirror Universe (1998) – Geordies temporal vortex at the end of FC takes them into the MU

-Nemesis – directed by Frakes (2002) – Q returns to cause havoc with the Romulans

-ST XI: Crossovers (2005) – a TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT epic like Bring Back Kirk.com or maybe IDWs The Last Generation (which would have made a great final movie for TNG instead of or after Nemesis)

-Enterprise season 5 (2006) – start of the Romulan War, Shatner starring mirror universe 2 parter etc

-Bermans ST The Beginning (xmas 2008) – about the founding of the Federation – sequels to follow in 2011 and 2014

26. Phaser Guy - August 25, 2010

Maybe he doesn’t remember the Klingon’s dying in Trek VI in zero g. That was pretty gory. Also the scene in Trek III, where Kruge kills the worm thing, or when his pet dies. Or in Trek II with the insects going into Chekov and Terrel’s ears?

27. philpot - August 25, 2010

why didnt they just make the Academy movie and a sixth original cast movie back to back to celebrate the 25th Anniversary? (taking note of the BTTF sequels which had just been done) and released the Academy movie May 91 and TUC Decemeber 91

Bennent couldve directed ‘Star Trek: Starfleet Academy’ with cameos from the original cast at the end and Meyer couldve still done ‘TUC’

pity Trek V wasnt a Voyage Home style success as that mightve happened.

Young Kirk couldve been Sean Patrick Flanery (Young Indiana Jones – he always reminded me of a young Shatner). Spock – John Cusak or David Ducovney. Bones – Gary Sinese, Uhura – Halle Berry, Pike – H Ford or Christopher Reeve, Sarek – Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman. Amanda – Kim Basinger.

Plus we would have seen characters like Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell, Finney and Finnegan. Possibly even seen Kirk’s experience with the Tarsus IV massacre and his cloud Killer Farragut incident

28. ChristopherPike - August 25, 2010

I think Mr. Bennett may have his facts slightly confused. It doesn’t sound likely that Enterprise was being developed in the mid-90’s. More likely some other prequel idea was being batted around, while DS9 and Voyager was on the air.

29. philpot - August 25, 2010

heres an idea for someone to take note – why dosnt IDW do Bennetts Academy script as a graphic novel? All drawn with the original actors likeness – the closest theres been so far is the 1991 DC annual #2 (which im pretty sure was done to tie in with the lost Academy movie – like an alternate Trek VI adaptation) – it could serve as the ‘official’ Origin tale for the ‘Prime’ universe…although theres been countless origin novels and comics theres never been anything ‘official’ – like Countdown is the ‘official’ prequel to ST09 (or as official as one can get for something thats not deemed canon as its non screen). It wouldn’t come more official than more the writer/producer of the bulk of the original movies!

im pretty sure Harve Bennett wouldnt mind fans seeing what he had in mind for Trek VI…

30. Nemo - August 25, 2010

Okay, no one else is saying anything, so I gotta……
Did you get a load of that righteous Vulcan mullet Spock is sportin’ in the concept art?? He needs to reconfigure the “live long and prosper” fingers to the extended index and pinky fingers, for the rare, elusive “live long and play some ‘Skynyrd!” greeting.

I’m just sayin’…

31. ChristopherPike - August 25, 2010

The Academy era Enterprise is a puzzler, given the NCC-1701 would already be in service, under April and then Pike, while Kirk/Spock/McCoy were cadets.

Fans kicked up enough of a fuss as it was, when ENT debuted. Derriding the design as an upside down Akira-class and criticising how Kirk’s Enterprise was supposed to be the first and therefore, most historic.

Mind you, retconning this as Starfleet using a museum piece like Archer’s NX-01 as a training vessel, is an idea that appeals to me.

32. That One Guy - August 25, 2010

Huh…. the Enterprise kind of looks like the NX-Class.

33. Quatlo - August 25, 2010

John Cusack in anything is a downer.

34. Dr. Image - August 25, 2010

Thank God it didn’t get made.
But though initially I liked TUC, now I realy hate aspects of it. It really is overrated.
I get more “entertainment value” now from TFF!

The NX-01 should have had those spiked nacelle caps.

35. Philip Dunlop - August 25, 2010

John Cusack as Spock? That would’ve been amazing.

But The Undiscovered Country remains my favourite Trek movie. So it’s a little bittersweet to read this.

36. Vultan - August 25, 2010

I agree with Bennett about the rapid cuts. Hopefully, the ADD generation will come down from their sugar high some day and watch a few Hitchcock films.

Also, I generally liked Abrams’ direction, but some of the camera angles he used were a bit disorientating. Someone needs to reintroduce the tripod and the spirit level to Hollywood. Just sit the camera still and let the actors do the work. Forget the “artsy” angles. It’s Star Trek, not The Third Man; there could be only one Carol Reed.

Okay, rant over.

37. Dalek - August 25, 2010

I was grateful for the rapid cuts and fast pace. For ONCE, and I mean ONCE none of my friends said to me “Another boring Trek flick”. All the unnecessary padding the TNG movies had, hurt its pacing. All the endless conference scenes or crew quarter scenes that took you out the action. Nemesis was about 3 action scenes, seperated by gruelling exposition scene after scene.

Please stick with the rapid cuts.

And I will never forgive JJ for his overuse of gore in Star Trek 2009. Bob Orci how can you sleep at night???

38. S. John Ross - August 25, 2010

Well, I AM a dinosaur, so I think Trek movies should focus on important contemporary issues like carnivore-herbivore relations, and it cheeses me the heck off when they include cavemen, because: no. Do your homework and I wouldn’t have to nitpick, m’kay?

39. Captain Otter - August 25, 2010

I think things in Trekdom have worked out for the best, though mistakes were clearly made. So while I respect NM and love his flicks, I detect some sour grapes at work here.

@34

Which state with medical marijuana do you live in? Seriously, if you like TFF over TUC, then you have cleared mastered “puff puff” but forgot how to pass.

40. paustin - August 25, 2010

“explosions?” He doesn’t like explosions in films? I’m pretty sure there are some kind of explosions in just about every trek film.

also…thank god he doesn’t have a problem with lens flares…..

41. JKP - August 25, 2010

Would love to see that script as a novel. Sounds like it would have been great.

We all owe Harve for the success that Trek has become after he saved the franchise after TMP. He’s entitled to his views on JJ’s Trek.

42. Areli - August 25, 2010

Well, we kinda got Bennett’s reality in the form of STXI. I think he is just bitter that the idea wasn’t accepted (well, accepted but not done) in the past then all of a sudden it works in 2009.

Honestly, I don’t see the appeal of the academy days. None of the original crew were together in their Academy days (from what I know) but I wouldn’t mind a comic of Bennett’s script. :D

43. Losira - August 25, 2010

Harve Bennett’s “Academy Years” sounded great. I’m not sure about the Actors he selected. However it may have been a good miniseries to properly tell Kirk @ Spock’s story there is a lot to tell from Carol to Finnigan lest we forget Laila Kalomi. Then there is all the guy and school stuff, pranks growing up Kobiashi marue. Properly balanced with character drive developement,science and action. James Cauley is undertaking this project I hope he will due it justice. Its a tale way overdue in telling. And I must confess I’m a dinasaur and meaningless violence would not be nessary. Justified *ction needed in given situations. But tell a solid story. Keep it. Family friendly . I would love to see it come alive! For now I hope Cauley comes through on this.

44. Kent Butabi - August 25, 2010

#33 – HOT. TUB. TIME. MACHINE.

Rent it now.

45. Vultan - August 25, 2010

#41

Agreed. Many kudos to Bennett for his work in Trek. I mean, this is the guy who watched every episode of TOS to get ideas for a sequel to TMP. Thank God he didn’t skip over “Space Seed!”

46. ensign joe - August 25, 2010

” I can’t really think of a scene where I really had “time” to just enjoy the view”

Tru dat yo.. think its time to pop in my Blu-Ray TMP Director’s Cut.. well I would if THEY WOULD EVER PUT IT OUT!!!!!

*sigh*

47. Andy Patterson - August 25, 2010

Have to say I think Bennet’s idea was more of the way to go. The original show eluded to, so many times, of what the Academy was to their development as Star Fleet members.
… “Back in the academy…..”
….”Yes, Spock, I’m familiar with that….it was required reading at the Academy.”
….”He was my professor back at the Academy”
….”He was in the Academy with me”

And all we really got from the movie was, “3 years later”…and they’d graduated and I got no real sense they were any more educated or changed from their experience. At least not what TOS always suggested it was.

Seems to be another lost opportunity (much like I think Phase II would have been – which in a lot of ways I would have rather seen than the movies….or Assignment: Earth) that’s we’ll never know about.
@13…yes would be interesting.

And I’m more in line with Bennett on his assessment of the movie too.

48. RenderedToast - August 25, 2010

I’m so glad Harve was ignored so thoroughly.

49. jarok - August 25, 2010

I think that some of the movies that Mr Bennett had been involved with were some of the best Trek ever put on film. And I have to agree that some of the JJ style of movie making does not add to the quality of a film. The lens flare is my biggest gripe in this area. When I studied photography, I was told to avoid lens flare at all cost. Now he adds them in on purpose. I don’t get how this is artistic. But the great thing about JJ’s Trek is that it was a major hit and brought in new fans. And that is what was needed in order for Trek to survive.

50. Losira - August 25, 2010

Bennett made a great contribution to Trek from Space Seed on Khan will be immortam however its sad that he was basicaly snubbed . By the Paramount bigwigs. That is sad. He was a good solid story teller. I wish they gave him chance on this. They also could have developed Ent. Project too. There was room for both, when you consider the nature let alone the 100 year gap dividing the trek tales. Hoever all I can say is Thanks Harve for all that you did for Star Trek. Your work was great!

51. RetroWarbird - August 25, 2010

I don’t know about his casting … but I’m only 25 and I agree with Harve’s “dinosaur” mentality about slower pacing (there’s plenty of time to speed it up in action scenes, but jeez, during slow moments?) and more hefty characterization.

Makes 2 hours of film feel more dense, and “full” of material. Instead of just breezing by and making you wonder where the time went.

Spectacle is good, though. J.J. knows how to do spectacle.

52. Ralph F - August 25, 2010

#25/

The most unforgivable sin from the whole TNG era is that the powers that be did not recognize the perfect crossover film that “Yesterday’s ENTERPRISE” could have been.

53. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - August 25, 2010

I’m a little bit shocked at the rigidity of some moviegoers. Bennett’s quote is a perfect illustration. Folks, there’s more than one way to cut a movie, and not just one valid way. Me, I love older movies, foreign ones, indie ones — the ones that feature slower pace and more deliberate, measured cuts (Tarkovsky is one of my favorite directors; try one of his on for size). But, seriously, from the point of view of editing, STXI is expertly cut to tell the story in the available time and keep it moving.

I do hope that STXII will be a more thought-provoking film, and that will entail a slower pace, at least at certain moments.

54. Losira - August 25, 2010

Also there was more then enough room. For ST 6. I cannot see what all the fuss was about except some Prima donna issues at work. Not very good Trek attitudes. There was room for all. No detractions from any of said projects. Each story is differantm

55. Desstruxion - August 25, 2010

I would very much like to see more of this story’s Enterprise pics if they are available. Like others have said, I like the similarities to the NX-01.

56. charlie - August 25, 2010

Is the academy script online to read???

57. Will_H - August 25, 2010

Yeah enough prequels, at least after this current movie run is over. Time to move forward. There’s only so much you can cram into the past before you start getting too limited by whats already happened. If Trek returns to TV ever its time to move to the 25th century.

58. Lousy Canadian - August 25, 2010

Spocks mullet + Kirk’s white Uggs= Greatest movie never made! D:

59. Disinvited - August 25, 2010

Doesn’t anyone recall that the 2009 effort was the first Trek movie to achieve the new low of a high rating of PG-13 (“sci-fi action and violence and brief sexual content”. ) ?

And no one mentions even feeling the slightest cognitive dissonance in trying to argue that a PG-13 rated movie is LESS gory than the PG and G rated movies that came before it?

From KIDS IN MIND:

“► A man is stabbed through the chest with a multi-bladed weapon (we hear a crunch). A man fights an alien with punches and kicks, and one is pushed over the edge of the platform they are on and one is stabbed through the back by another man with a sword (we see green goo on the sword when it pushes out through his chest).

► Several men fight in a bar scene, with many body and face blows and kicks; one man is struck on the head with a bottle that shatters, and one man lands on his back on a table and we see his very bloody face and nose. People shoot at each other on a space vessel, and two men fight: one is struck on the back of the head, and one grabs another around the throat. Two men fight with punches and kicks, and one is held around the throat (he gags and gasps). A teenage boy attacks another teenage boy, punching him in the face repeatedly.

► …A man with a sword fights an alien with a larger sword and one is pushed into flames.

► Three men space jump out of a pod and toward a planet surface, one crashes into a platform and is pulled over and into a column of flames, and the other two crash onto the platform (they’re OK).”

60. British Naval Dude - August 25, 2010

Mayhaps good olde’ Harve wuz’ onta’ somethin’…

I mean look at all tha’ terrible Starry Trek shows that did get made like:

Starry Trek: Benson wit’ Odo and Neelix workin’ fur’ Cap’n Govner’ wuz’ terrible! I means thar’ ship looked like a bloody mansion and they had no make-up budget…

And dunna’ get me started on Star Trek: 7th Heaven wherein’ Decker wuz’ apparently puked up by V’GER and married that whale biologist back in her own time. Say, whar’ did V’GER go anyways? Marry that whale cigar mayhaps?

A Starry Trek prequel show sounds better now then, doesn’t it?

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

61. RAMA - August 25, 2010

#59-Today movies actually actively seek to get ratings like that…even when STTMP was re-rated it was re-rated cause the studio sought that..in reality there isn’t much sense to the ratings…but ST09 is not significantly more violent than any of the other ST movies. STII’s space battle were longer, the eel scenes were more graphic in STII, the torture victims of the Genesis project were more bloody than anything in ST09…etc etc

62. Captain Kangaroo - August 25, 2010

#53

I agree. Most fans are complaining because ST09 didn’t move at a pace that they’ve become accostomed to in Trek films. I LOVE LOVE LOVE slower films. However, I know that there’s more than one way to tell a story. Although I do have some complaints (lensflares), the way how Abrams shot the movie is a representation of current filmmaking. Every movie is a representation of the era it was filmed.

ST09 is no different.

63. Nathan - August 25, 2010

Aa! Spock has a mullett!

And I sympathize, to an extent, with Harve Bennett’s appraisal of the new Star Trek movie–though not on the gore thing. Frankly, there was MUCH less gore in that movie than there was in Wrath of Khan, what with the eel thing, blood coming out of Chekov’s ears, and Scottie’s nephew covered in blood and burns.

But yes, some less frantic editing would be nice; though it didn’t significantly hurt the experience of the film for me. If the script had been meatier and more character-driven, then the editing would have followed naturally.

64. Vultan - August 25, 2010

Judging from many of the comments, Star Trek has now in many ways a divide like Star Wars:

-Original Trilogy (emphasis on storytelling)
-Prequel Trilogy (emphasis on special effects and George Lucas’ ego)

-Prime Universe Trek (emphasis on storytelling)
-Alternate Universe Trek (emphasis on MTV editing and… lens flares)

Okay, okay, Trek ’09 had a bit more going for it than the Star Wars prequels (better acting for one!), but you can definitely see a divide shaping up amongst fans. As for me, I wouldn’t mind seeing more from the Prime Universe, but I’ll always give the new universe a chance. I say just sit back and enjoy the show (or lens flares)—whichever way you see it. ;)

65. Vultan - August 25, 2010

Oh, there’s also some similarities in the animated series:

-ST:TAS (continued the story and better than its predecessor in a few ways)

-SW:Clone Wars (continued the story and better than its predecessor in MANY ways)

;)

66. Disinvited - August 25, 2010

#61.

Baldersash! Next you’ll try and convince me that UP, ICE AGE 3, and TOY STORY 3-D were less successful than 2009’s STAR TREK.

This is a business. No one in it wants a mark that has the potential to narrow the number of butts than you can seat.

67. sean - August 25, 2010

Anyone that feels ST09 is truly more gory than TWOK is simply watching a different pair of films than I. Or they’ve forgotten how gross TWOK is. Awesome gross, mind you, but still gross.

But I think people forget how violent/nasty a lot of films in the 70s & 80s really were, and automatically assume everything now must be more horrific because, ya know, THE CHILDREN! If they released Gremlins nowadays it would probably be rated R because, again, THE CHILDREN!

68. Michael Hall - August 25, 2010

“Anyway, I disagree with Bennett, and I hope the Supreme Court isn’t too disheartened considering pretty much everyone else involved in Star Trek loved it, including Nicholas Meyer.”

Actually, the only comment I’ve read from Nick Meyer regarding Trek ’09 (given after an evening promoting the book he’d written about his years working on the franchise) was that he thought it was “spectacular.” That opinion–which even I, no fan of the film, could readily agree with–seemed very politic to me, especially given that Abrams is something of a favorite nephew to Meyer. No doubt, though, that I may have been reading more into this than the facts warranted. :-)

As for Harve Bennett’s legacy–well, what can you say? He gave us Star Trek II and Star Trek V and everything in between. And while I have mixed feelings even about his successes (e.g. the emphasis on villains and a militarized Starfleet), without him Trek as a going concern might well have died with the first movie. Everyone posting on these boards, consequently, owes him a great debt.

69. S. John Ross - August 25, 2010

#65: Many ways, indeed! Clone Wars is the clearest example I know of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear :)

70. Disinvited - August 25, 2010

#61.

Also TMP’s re-release at the B.O. was a DVD advertising stunt. There was absolutely no box office benefit to be gained by seeking a PG rating for its extremely limited engagements. A better example would be 1977’s STAR WARS – something that’s been futzed with and had multiple wide re-releases to theaters over time. But, unfortunately for your claim, has maintained it initial PG rock steady to this day.

Please show me any credible evidence that a PG-13 upgrade was ever sought for that movie or THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK or RETURN OF THE JEDI for that matter.

71. Phaser Guy - August 25, 2010

TMP was rated G when it first came out G!!! What was it? A Disney movie?

72. jas_montreal - August 25, 2010

WHAT DOES BOBORCI HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HARVE’S RESPONSE ABOUT THE NEW TREK ?????!?!?!

73. WannaBeatle - August 25, 2010

I would have certainly been happy if Bennet was brought back to write and/or produce the last one. He actually might have made it watchable.

This is the first time in all the 30 plus years that I’ve been a Trek fan, that I’ve only seen one of the movies only once. I’m still hoping for a re-boot of the re-boot!!! Trek 2009 was a barely an OK movie, but a HORRIBLE Trek movie. Though, ST V had its flaws for sure, but at least it still had the Roddenberry touch to it…

74. WannaBeatle - August 25, 2010

Oh yeah, I do remember hearing about Cusak/Spock deal. I think I first heard it being mentioned at a convention in the years between V and VI,

I was halfway wanting to get a piece of the action and audition for a part. I think I would have gone for a Vulcan part, but would have taken anything, I suppose (I did end up trying for a part in Trek 09, but got nada–oh well)

75. Jason - August 25, 2010

I’ve always been very glad that they went ahead with Star Trek VI instead of this idea

76. kmart - August 25, 2010

66,
THE BLACK HOLE in 79 deliberately added a violent scene in order to get a PG, not a G, to try and take the ‘disney curse’ off the film (fat chance of that!) But at least they were smart enough to try (as was STAR WARS, which had to lobby to get a PG, most of the board folks dozed during the screening and wanted to give a G.) G rating is stigmata, screaming KIDZ to most, and keeps folks away. TMP was too stupid to realize that (sez something about folks at the top on TMP, it does.) Even Ellison noted that in his review.

77. Disinvited - August 25, 2010

#67.

And a lot of people are forgetting that the Director’s Cut of TWOK got a limited theatrical release in 2002 and still maintained its PG rating.

78. JohnWA - August 25, 2010

73-

Roddenberry was not pleased with the result. He tried to have it de-canonized and was at least partially successful in that effort. Sybok was never mentioned ever again in any production of Star Trek. The TNG episodes “Sarek” and “Unification” – which aired at the time of Gene’s death – even implied that Spock was Sarek’s only son. That’s an assumption that the ST09 alternate reality seems to endorse as well. Similarly, the romantic relationship between Uhura and Scotty was not referenced in the next film or any of James Doohan’s subsequent appearances.

79. Disinvited - August 25, 2010

#66.

Some of the the top 10 highest grossing pictures of all time are still rated G.

Business is business, if this reasoning is valid then why in the cases of the Director’s Cut releases of TMP and TWoK would Paramount even bother with resubmitting those editions to the MPAA. Wouldn’t they maximize disc sales by releasing them as “unrated” editions?

And why if TwoK truly is the gorier feature didn’t they lobby for the magic PG-13 if that rating is indeed that? It was only 6 years latter that the Abrams’ feature wrapped in 2008 and I believe that was the same year it was submitted to the MPAA.

80. Devon - August 25, 2010

Harve Bennett is pretty hypocritical here. Other than the fast cuts, is he implying that his films didn’t have “Gore for the sake of gore” or “Explosions?” That was a completely stupid statement of him to make, but of course, some of the XI Haters will desperately agree with it and not realize what they are agreeing too.

81. Shinzon's Lover - August 25, 2010

#61:

PG-13 did not come into existence until the late 80s, well after ESB and RotJ came out. Also, you can’t compare “movies going for a rating” back then to today. PG-13 is the new PG, basically. It almost seems daring to have a movie that is PG these days.

Also, lets not forget, ST09 was not the first Trek film to get a PG-13 rating.

82. Devon - August 25, 2010

“I would have certainly been happy if Bennet was brought back to write and/or produce the last one. He actually might have made it watchable.”

Considering people watched it.. again, and again, all the way to $380 Million Dollar and some of the best reviews for any Trek, then you would be incorrect.

“his is the first time in all the 30 plus years that I’ve been a Trek fan, that I’ve only seen one of the movies only once. I’m still hoping for a re-boot of the re-boot!!! Trek 2009 was a barely an OK movie, but a HORRIBLE Trek movie”

These comments crack me up. Basically its people saying they secretly like the movie but are afraid what their Trek friends might say. A good movie is a good movie, Trek or not.

“Though, ST V had its flaws for sure, but at least it still had the Roddenberry touch to it…”

You mean Bennett or Shatner took the credit for other people’s work in STV? I don’t recall that, sorry.

83. Disinvited - August 25, 2010

#66.

I’m losing focus here. I didn’t mean to get into the position of arguing that production companies don’t have their superstitions and target whatever MPAA ratings they believe in their folly would maximize sales. I meant to pooh-pooh the idea that TMP’s re-rating was actively sought because someone believed that it would improve its meager limited release B.O.

However, I do think it is folly to discount the value of family attendance in your ticket receipts and that a PG-13 can work against you in that regard, i.e. there’s no guarantee. For example, compare 2009’s ICE AGE 3’s PG $887 million receipts against that of the PG-13 2009 STAR TREK’s $385 million.

84. Sid - August 25, 2010

That E looks so much like the NX-01 it’s uncanny.

85. Chasco - August 25, 2010

#78 “the romantic relationship between Uhura and Scotty was not referenced in …any of James Doohan’s subsequent appearances

How many conventions did you go to? Jimmy loved referencing that! Nichelle also played up to it, and if they were at conventions together they would make a point of kissing each other on stage (more than once, usually).
Maybe they were told to stop once Paramount muscled in on running the conventions and spoiled all the fun.

86. Disinvited - August 25, 2010

#81.

You are forgetting that there were special editions, i.e. Lucas futzed with them and they were re-submitted to the MPAA much later for wide theatrical re-release. He’s had, and no doubt will continue to have, plenty of opportunities to up their ratings if there’s any truth to this. He is after all, a business man.

And you are indeed right, having never seen NEMESIS that rating was not immediately accessible to my recall. Thank you for keeping my mind clear on that. I apologize for the error.

Since that only strengthens my NEMESIS resolve, I think that you have made my support group happy. ;-)

87. Phaser Guy - August 25, 2010

Do people CARE if it’s rated PG or PG 13? Really, who cares. Why they felt the need to make TMP so bland to give it a G rating, I don’t know.

88. Alex Rosenzweig - August 25, 2010

I read the description of “The Academy Years” when it was posted at Ain’t It Cool News. I haven’t read the full script, but the summary was really quite good. There were a few minor continuity glitches (which, really, could have been ironed out in an afternoon, if that), but otherwise it would fit almost perfectly into the Prime Trekverse.

Add in a retcon from today’s POV of the training vessel being an old NX-class ship, and it gels almost flawlessly.

Much more importantly, though, the story’s solid, and it works as an origin story for the original characters, truly the “Star Trek Zero” that the current Supreme Court originally claimed they were producing, but obviously never intended to actually do.

#29 – “heres an idea for someone to take note – why dosnt IDW do Bennetts Academy script as a graphic novel?”

I think that’d be awesome! Even a novelization would be pretty cool, if Pocket might be interested. I wonder who has the rights to the screenplay, and what would have to happen to make it work.

In the meantime, of course, there’s also the “Origins” episode of “ST: Phase II” that shot in June and will be another take on the Prime Universe backstory.

89. njdss4 - August 26, 2010

Harve sounds a little bitter, imo. John Cusack as Spock? Ethan Hawke as Kirk? Can I vomit now? “Academy Years” is a great concept, but those casting ideas are awful.

I must say, though, that I agree with Harve on a few things. I definitely don’t like how movies today are based on such rapid cuts. Transformers was definitely the worst about this, but Trek 2009 did it a lot, too. It’s like they cut that much to hide what they didn’t want to take the time to do right.

Also, I wish they had done the Academy Years idea instead of Enterprise. Since Enterprise was never allowed to do the 5th season, which would have saved the show (Romulan War, anyone?), an Academy show would have helped the new movie in bringing in a new, young generation of Trek fans.

90. Phaser Guy - August 26, 2010

DC comics did their own Starfleet Academy type story and Kirk never got to step foot aboard a starship once in the entire comic.

91. Disinvited - August 26, 2010

#87.

Ultimately, for their stated purpose of aiding parents, I agree. I’m not sure that invalidates them, and their gore tallying ways, as a metric of that which we seek to compare and contrast.

92. Adam C - August 26, 2010

love undiscoved country glad they did it,

didnt like 2009 version much huge gaping holes of quality

93. Remington Steele - August 26, 2010

Right, how do we get a hold of the script then??

Anthony, find it for us please!!!

94. Christopher Pike - August 26, 2010

93: Google is your friend. Ain’t It Cool + Star Trek + Academy

There’s a summary there IIRC.

I doubt any of us will ever be able to read the script.

95. P Technobabble - August 26, 2010

One attempt to reboot Star Trek (as a tv series) which doesn’t get a lot of attention is the J M Straczynski/Bruce Zabel proposal. The premise is available on-line, if you haven’t seen it.

96. Holger - August 26, 2010

An IDW comicbook version of Bennett’s script is a very good idea. It would be great if Bennett and IDW were to approach each other about such a project.

97. Holger - August 26, 2010

Re 95: Thanks for pointing this out. A very interesting document. So the alternate universe approach is originally JMS’ idea. History repeats itself: Paramount was -allegedly- aware of JMS’ Babylon 5 concept, because he pitched it to them in 1989, and worked it into DS9. Now Paramount was aware of JMS’ reboot concept, in an alternate universe, and left it in JJ’s unable hands to work out.
If true, what a tragedy for Star Trek.

98. captain_neill - August 26, 2010

I agree on the fast cutting that Harve Bennett talks about, it is a curse on mainstream films these days.

I love the new movie and it was a fun adventure. I love fast pace but I feel fast cuts and shaky camera are now being used because studios think the mainstream gets easily bored.

I like the camera shaking being used for the desired dramatic tension and it works great in new BSG documentary style. But like Bullett time in The Matrix I do feel it is being overused these days.

I do like the style of Star Trek XI but being interested in film making and having done a short film I feel this is not the style I would do personally.

I still like steady cam and well crafted shots, Its the things I love about film making.

I like to think the audience is smarter than what the studio believes.

Bennett’s idea sounds cool but my problem would be that it would make no sense for all the crew to be together at the academy given the differences in age. I mean Kirk is 12 years older than Chekov and McCoy is around 6 to 8 years older?

It worked in the new movie but they had an alternate universe to get around the changes in canon.

99. Damian - August 26, 2010

It seems some fans are offended by Bennett’s comments about the new film. I myself agree with him to some extent. While I enjoyed the new film, I also was bothered by the shaky camera, lensflares, and quick cuts. But Bennett also noted that is moviemaking of our time. Lots of movies are like that now. I don’t happen to like it myself, but if I want to see movies from today, I have to live with it. To me, it always looked like careless, unfinished filmmaking, but that is what the public wants. One of the things that bothered me in the new film is that there were some otherwise beautiful scenes, but with the quick cuts, seizure-like camera operating and flares, I barely got to enjoy them. I’ve noted before my favorite space scene in the new movie was when the Narada was waiting for Spock to arrive. One of the few scenes where the camera was steady, there was no bright headache inducing flashes and they actually held the scene for more than 3 seconds. The next movie will be made the same way as Star Trek (2009). That is Abrams style and that’s life.

I respect Harve Bennett’s opinion. He gave us some great Star Trek and I thank him. I agree with what he says to some extent, though there were many things I liked about the new film. But I remember hearing about the Academy concept at the time he was floating it and I thought it was a terrible idea. I believe it would have fell flat on it’s face and many of the same fans here who say they would have loved to have seen it would have been the same who would have complained about it turning canon on it’s face. I remember at the time many fans were not ready to give up on the original crew. Could you imagine of Star Trek V was their last film. Star Trek would have died right there. They needed Star Trek VI to give them a proper send off and to send them off on a high note. It did that and more.

100. philpot - August 26, 2010

88/96 – yeah IDW could even do the SFA script as part of a ‘Lost Movie’ line – adapting scripts of ST movies that never were – e.g. Planet of the Titans, ST The Beginning and any others (a Yesterdays Enterprise style ‘Generations,’ ‘Heart of Darkness’ Insurrection?)

101. Robert H. - August 26, 2010

Personally I prefer the conceptual art of the USS Enterprise over the NX-01. where can I get the conceptual art for the movie that never was? Even better, the website.

102. David B - August 26, 2010

I wish people would stop calling the writers the supreme court. Also it is not JJ Abrams Star Trek for gods sake.

It is Star Trek directed by JJ Abrams on this occasion. He didn’t make Star Trek like George Lucas’ Star Wars, that doesn’t apply here.

Does anyone remember when films used to be the their own Title not so and so’s this os so and so’s that!

Supreme Court is just arrogant, if you raise them up on this pedestal and they get the next film wrong they will be supreme idiots.

My rant is over for now..

103. Imrahil - August 26, 2010

Those costumes are terrible. I’m glad Star Trek Babies didn’t get made.

104. Horatio - August 26, 2010

Something I don’t think that was mentioned is that plans were also underway to bring the TNG cast to the big screen.

105. Danpaine - August 26, 2010

….I have to agree with those who say it’s a real shame the “Yesterday’s Enterprise/Generations” crossover film idea never came to fruition. Ent-A, with the original crew, effectively and believably interacting with the Ent-D and TNG crew…could have been EPIC with the right story. Damn shame.

My two cents, I’m glad TUC was made as opposed to the Academy idea. A great ending for the ol’ gang.

106. VOODOO - August 26, 2010

I’m glad that they didn’t do it.

Despite what Bennett says we would have never gotten ST VI and a proper send off of the original crew.

If the film was a hit they would have continued to make films with the far cheaper cast… If the film was a flop they would either stopped making ST films or they would have waited and made the next film with the TNG cast.

107. skyjedi - August 26, 2010

Top Gun trek was a bad idea then as it is now.

108. skyjedi - August 26, 2010

Speaking of prequels what about that one by Berman and the band of brothers writer featuring Kirk’s ancestor during the romulan/earth war

109. gingerly - August 26, 2010

“I did see it. I’m not the audience for that. Rapid cuts. Explosions. Gore for the sake of gore. Either that makes me a dinosaur or there’s a generational problem, but that’s not J.J.’s fault.”

Oh, it’s a shame he couldn’t be more classy about that opinion. I really didn’t see any gore for the sake of gore. Honestly, I thought the violent scenes were more thoughtfully cut than most mainstream films would have been. Especially, regarding the Robau death scene. I wondered why it was PG -13 in the first place.

The other two criticisms I can see though.

110. Chris Pike - August 26, 2010

Yes, TUC was a high note for the original cast to leave on, easily one of the best and my personal most played of all the films…great intellect behind that film…

111. captain_neill - August 26, 2010

99

Its not my favourite style as well.

112. bo - August 26, 2010

Star Trek 09 was far superior to any of the previous outings……period. Like it or not, trek has finally grown up and moved out of the basement. Perhaps some of you should as well.

113. OfficialSpudUk (Formally known as PropperTrekkieUk) - August 26, 2010

Here comes the ‘action flick ruined ST’ bollocks!

If Trek was to survive, it needed to be popular again. As many of us as there might be, Trekkie’s aren’t enough to make these films profitable (Nemesis a case in point). It had to modernise, there was nothing wrong with ST:09, it was perfect, brought in the money and has rejuvinated the series!

That said, I wouldn’t mind Harve being involved again.

Get over it people, ST:09 needed to happen or there would have been no more Trek.

114. Danpaine - August 26, 2010

112. bo – August 26, 2010

“Relax, Cupcake.”

115. Lore - August 26, 2010

#112 & #114 Come with me………….CUPCAKE!!!!!!!!!!

116. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 26, 2010

Harve was just being honest – he is NOT the audience for ST 09. He’s 80 years old, and ST 09 was marketed towards a YOUNG audience. I wouldn’t expect that your average 80 year old would care much for the movie. None of my grandparents saw it. Leonard Nimoy (and apparently Shatner) enjoyed the movie, but they’re special exceptions. :)

117. ensign joe - August 26, 2010

“I wish people would stop calling the writers the supreme court.”

Like it or not these are the people calling the shots.. the ones who get final say.. “the buck stops” with them..

Ideas get put out but must pass through a final group to get approved.. the “supreme court” ..

When they no longer have the job the title will no longer apply..

I think the term is fitting.

118. ensign joe - August 26, 2010

“If Trek was to survive, it needed to be popular again.”

Ever seen Old Yeller?

“Survive” is a point of contention no?

Getting bit by a zombie will keep the body animated but would it be called survival?

Star Trek will be around with or without the last or the next movie.. adjustment of your temporal parameters is suggested for optimal pattern recognition in this regard..

119. moauvian waoul - August 26, 2010

This ratings conversation has gotten a bit …Puritanical. I like movies for adults. PG-13 or R would be fine as long as it’s well done. This sounds more like a TNG gripe rather than TOS, which was always a shade more risqué. As for box office- two things: Inception; Dark Knight. Leave the kiddies at home, or not. If space is too scary, stay on Earth.

I never watched MTV, since music should be heard and not seen, but it seems to me the shaky cam is a product of the success and realism of Private Ryan more than anything.

120. Disinvited - August 26, 2010

#113.

Bullfeathers, STAR TREK was and continues to be a success borne (sic) by continuing syndicated reruns. At best, if I accept your posit for the sake of argument, it only applies to the film franchise.

Film franchises just plain don’t ursurp prior art and become the sole means of its expression or viability. SPIDERMAN wasn’t dying and isn’t dead because SONY canceled its planned fourth movie in the series and rebooted that film franchise.

121. I am not Herbert - August 26, 2010

I have to agree with Harve re: ST09… I guess I’m a dinosaur…

122. PEB - August 26, 2010

Here’s my two cents, since everybody else has given theirs. Nick Meyer saved Trek not once but twice, and so if there’s anyone on the production level that I will listen to it’s that man. I have nothing but respect and love for Harve but some of the team from past Trek films/shows are begining to sound bitter. I suggest finding other outlets to bring your Trek ideas to light. Comic books is the usual go-to (then again, Paramount probably wouldnt allow it) but it still, it makes you seem like the ‘you kids better get off my lawn’ type of person.
JJ’s Trek was great. You cant praise some Trek shows and films for being fun and adventurous and then bash his because of camera angles and lense flares. Cinema changes with time, as ALL art should and in my humble oppinion, JJ is on track to being ranked with the greats. Lets just see what’s in store for the next outing before people keep bashing this new timeline (and thats coming from a kid who loves all previous Trek…well mostly all).
oh and is it me or does anyone else feel bad for Enterprise cast? They get it worse than the Voyager crew it seems.

123. Alex Rosenzweig - August 26, 2010

#95 – “One attempt to reboot Star Trek (as a tv series) which doesn’t get a lot of attention is the J M Straczynski/Bruce Zabel proposal. The premise is available on-line, if you haven’t seen it.”

I read it. As a different story, following a different ship, it might be quite interesting. ‘Course, it reads a lot like ST: Vanguard. ;)

As a reinvention of TOS, it–like all other reboots–is simply a fail. It’s premise that simply going out to explore isn’t good enough, that theer just *had* to be some deep, dark purpose behind it all, flies very much in the face of what TOS was doing.

#100 – Neat concept. I think the title’s already been used, but “Treks Not Taken” would have been perfect for it. :)

#102 – Well, it’s less a raising-up than an analogy. The phrase showed up while they were still in their “Let’s lie to the audience and make them think we’re serious about doing a real prequel” phase, and were using it as a description for them trying to work through some of TOS’s early, and occasionally coflicting, continuity bits. And it made sense at the time. Of course, three years later, and with the truth revealed, it doesn’t make as much sense now, but oh, well…

124. Disinvited - August 26, 2010

#122.

There’s a lot to be confused about in the 2005-2006 Old Paramount (now called CBS) and New Paramount split.

Basically, as a copyrighted work STAR TREK was created as a television production. Because of that, CBS now owns STAR TREK. Through some very convoluted cross-agreements that seems to involve some licensing, what is now called Paramount has the right to make STAR TREK motion pictures and to control the preexisting TREK motion pictures’ distribution (They have physical possession of that film library.) – but that’s it. Paramount can do absolutely nothing about CBS deciding to license Harve’s comic.

125. Holger - August 26, 2010

Re 112: Thank you, Dr. bo, for establishing these objective facts for us beyond any reasonable doubt. I’m sure your hitherto undisclosed evidence and reasoning which supports your claim is unassailable.

126. Holger - August 26, 2010

Re 122: “JJ’s Trek was great. You cant praise some Trek shows and films for being fun and adventurous and then bash his because of camera angles and lense flares.”

Well, I can. ;-)

127. bo - August 26, 2010

Re 125
Learn to spell.

128. et - August 26, 2010

“Gore for the sake of gore?” Did we see the same movie?

And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Bennet-produced TWOK slug-in-the-ear scene more creep-fodder than anything in the ’09 flick? (And I say this as a huge fan of TWOK.)

Not liking lens-flare is one thing… but not liking “Explosions” in a Star Trek film?

Sorry, I hate to say it, Harve, but you kind of DO sound like a dinosaur. And it’s not a generational thing. My guess is the young-gun producer you used to be would have been behind making as exciting a movie as you knew how to make.

I can’t judge the quality of what would or would not have come out of the “Trek Academy” film. It might have been fantastic.

But the concept art shows SPOCK WITH A MULLET. And that’s just plain wrong.

Mullets for the sake of mullets. ::shudder:::

129. Anthony Pascale - August 26, 2010

bo,

warning for trolling

make your points without resorting to insulting people

130. Holger - August 26, 2010

Re 127: Haven’t found a typo. Where is it?

131. Starbase Britain - August 26, 2010

I respect harve bennett a great deal and his significant contribution to the series of movies. Hes been great for trek and i think he totally gets TOS.

It would have been very interesting to see this vision come to life but i wonder how Paramount would have backed it financially. Im not sure they would have thrown huge money on knowing that trek 5 didnt do very well and that TNG was also now underway.
Greg
UK

132. P Technobabble - August 26, 2010

102. David

“…Supreme Court is just arrogant, if you raise them up on this pedestal and they get the next film wrong they will be supreme idiots…”

Do we need to go through this one again? It’s not meant to be taken literally, nor should it be seen as arrogance. Don’t take it so seriously…

133. Vultan - August 26, 2010

#127

Learn manners.

134. Disinvited - August 26, 2010

#76.

I do recall that in 1977 during D.C. Fontana’s science-fiction series FANTASTIC JOURNEY’s reign seeing reporting on some memos from NBC executives that may shed some light on the thinking of Hollywood during that time when Paramount was waffling about which way to go with TMP.

A big brouhaha had erupted in the NBC suites over the initial casting of the actress hired to play the Atlantean princess in one episode that made it to air as Fontana intended to make the character a regular. The NBC execs demanded the role be recast as the initial actress (Whose name escapes me.) that got the gig “was too sexy for a kid’s show.”

135. sean - August 26, 2010

#77

I don’t think I ever disputed what the movie was rated. Only that I find it far more violent than ST09. The ratings board isn’t exactly a consistent bunch (try watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated). To this day I’m still not sure why the original Matrix was rated R instead of PG-13. It’s all very arbitrary.

Anyway, it all seems a bit moot as ST09 was not the first Trek to be rated PG-13. First Contact was rated PG-13, and I seem to recall Nick Meyer indicated that if he hadn’t made the Klingon blood purple in TUC that they would have been slapped with an R. Try figuring that one out.

136. Disinvited - August 26, 2010

#135.

How could I forget the tommy-gun splatter? And I most certainly did

But anyway I was contending that it was still close enough between MPAA ratings of the 2002 TWoK Director’s cut PG and 2009’s STAR TREK’s PG-13.

I agree that trying to compare ratings boards ratings across decades is most likely futile.

137. sean - August 26, 2010

#136

Actually, IIRC it was the Borg Queen’s disintegration scene that earned them the PG-13.

138. Disinvited - August 26, 2010

#134.

This is probably for Harry more than anything else and I’m probably counting on him to fill in the blanks and correct any misremembrances.

I still don’t have a strong recall who the original Atlantean actress was but I think the odds are that it was Mary Ann Mobley. I recall the character had a straw blonde hairdo on the show – very much a look that would later be associated with Donna Mills but I don’t think it was her. If I remember correctly, at the time of Mobley’s Miss America reign there was a tie with NBC’s TODAY SHOW that would have given her some sort of contractual deal with the network where they’d send her out for auditions on casting calls for their various projects (NBC was listed as one of the production companies on FJ.), after her doing a stint on that show. Hers may have still been in effect during filming in 1976.

139. Disinvited - August 26, 2010

#137.

This site tracks the reasons the MPAA gives:

http://www.screenit.com/movies/1996/star_trek_first_contact.html

and says none was given.

MPAA.org doesn’t have anything.

It’s probably for a number of reasons including those we cited.

140. Basement Blogger - August 26, 2010

I liked Trek ’09 but had problems with it. I’m glad that someone with strong Trek credientials also had issues with the film. Harve Bennett prepared himself to produce “Wrath of Khan” by watching every episode of the Original Series. (Disc Two of Wrath of Khan, DVD special edition.) By doing so, he understood Star Trek.

When I criticized Trek ’09 for the Star Wars influence and the pacing, I got attacked by other Trekkers that they didn’t want the “talky-gooey” Trek of old. My point was I didn’t want Trek to become a “GI: Joe: Rise of Cobra” type of movie where the audience is pounded with action set piece after another. I argued that Star Trek was intelligent science fiction and was told by other Trekkers it was not. That was hard to take. Leonard Nimoy has always said the best Star Trek worked at many levels. It had adventure, heart and intelligence.

The good thing about the new film is that it did get new fans. But I wonder if they appreciate the old series, all of Trek’s iterations. When a high school kid that I coached told me he loved Trek’09, he wanted a list of the best TOS episodes. I gave them to him with links to CBS website so he could watch them. I haven’t heard from him and wander what he thought of the “talky-gooey” Star Trek of the sixties.

It comes to down to this. Star Trek was Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Whether you like his philosophy or not, that is what Star Trek is all about. He hired great science fiction writers for the orginal series. Ellison. Spinrad. Sturgeon. This site has reported that Damon Lindelof says Trek ’12 will go deeper. That’s great. I just hope Lindelof doesn’t write a scene where the crew meets in a church to look for Kirk’s dead father. : )

I loved Trek ’09’s special effects. I loved the photography, the colors. The Vulcan scenes were great. J.J. Abrams is a fine director. But I felt the movie at times did not feel like Star Trek, it was more like Star Wars, which the filmmakers admittedly say was an influence. (Documentary: “A New Vision.”) I reiterate I liked the film. But I won’t worship it. I do thank Trekker Vultan for praying for my soul.

141. Vultan - August 26, 2010

#140

“Leonard Nimoy has always said the best Star Trek worked at many levels. It had adventure, heart and intelligence.”

Yes!!! Shatner, Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, and Scott Bakula have also made similar statements in recent years.

Oh, and, Basement Blogger, I wouldn’t worry too much about the ADD segment of the fanbase. If the intellectual stuff is too much for them, they can bang their heads against the wall until the next lens flare.

142. JohnWA - August 26, 2010

85-

Conventions aren’t canonical.

143. Michael Hall - August 26, 2010

“As a reinvention of TOS, it–like all other reboots–is simply a fail. It’s premise that simply going out to explore isn’t good enough, that theer just *had* to be some deep, dark purpose behind it all, flies very much in the face of what TOS was doing.”

Word. Straczynski is talented and his place in SF-TV history assured, but his proposal for a TOS reboot, when finally revealed, proved to be sketchy and wrongheaded–a major disappointment.

144. S. John Ross - August 26, 2010

#102: “Supreme Court is just arrogant, if you raise them up on this pedestal …”

Star Trek fan-terminology has always been rife with pompous silliness; it’s part of either the fun or the creepy, depending on your point of view … but it isn’t new, as anyone who’s ever seen the word “canon” associated with Trek knows, or anyone who’s seen Roddenberry called “the Great Bird of the Galaxy.”

#113: “If Trek was to survive, it needed to be popular again. ”

If the Trek film franchise was to survive, it needed to be popular again. But there are lots of ways to go about that; some of us just don’t like the way they chose. Any argument that it’s the One True Way is silly; there are lots of popular films that also have the qualities Trek09 jettisoned in its quest for bums on seats.

#118: “Getting bit by a zombie will keep the body animated but would it be called survival?”

This comparison rings with truth every time it appears. It’s beautiful.

145. Phaser Guy - August 26, 2010

Did Harve Bennet forget about all the swearing in Trek IV? Even the scene where the punk rocker flips off Kirk and Spock? but Trek 9 is oh so gory.

146. MJ - August 27, 2010

“I did see it. I’m not the audience for that. Rapid cuts. Explosions. Gore for the sake of gore.”

Yea, obviously you did not see it, Harve. I liked what you did with the original cast movies, but this pettiness does not become you and reminds me of that other big baby, Shat.

147. Rick - August 27, 2010

It’s hilarious how people can’t just understand not everyone loved Trek 09…

148. Rick - August 27, 2010

Plus, how is saying that he’s probably too old for Trek 09 petty? Seriously…

149. Crispy - August 27, 2010

”Supreme Court” Is that what they’re calling the writers of nuTrek now? How very arrogant. God help us.

150. Devon - August 27, 2010

#149 = Hello Crispy, welcome to 2007.

151. captain_neill - August 27, 2010

Bo is the kind of fan I was worried about with Abrams movie.

The kind who does not appreciate the history of Trek/

152. captain_neill - August 27, 2010

I guess the only thing I hate about this site is that its ok to criticize past Trek but it’s a sin to criticize the new movie.

I don’t get this.

Why must all Trekkie’s love this film without a complaint yet it’s ok to bash Next Generation or Voyager, which I love watching.

Its the same with Doctor Who fandom as well.

153. kmart - August 27, 2010

149,
Considering how highhanded the majority of the ‘real’ fed supreme court are about inflicting their sensibilities (such as they are) on us, ‘supreme court’ might be a very accurate name for the folks who decide what TREK now is supposed to be.

135,

No, blood color had NOTHING to do with ratings on TUC (total BS on the part of Berman giving an interview about something he didn’t know squat about.) Blood color was a plot point — blood volume would have been a factor, since they couldn’t do WILD BUNCH in space no matter what hue the blood was.

154. P Technobabble - August 27, 2010

152. Neill

Surely, you jest, brother! Have you not read the bashing Trek09, JJ Abrams and Bob Orci & Alex Kurtzman have taken on this site??? Perhaps you’re not reading all the comments! Orci, in particular, has taken the brunt of some of the rudest, mean-spirited comments about his work and the film that I’ve had the displeasure of reading. There’s been plenty of criticism of the film, and there’s plenty to criticize in all versions of Star Trek. But, as some people have said before, you can criticize it and still love it. Even took me a while to recognize that one. But I don’t see any specific agenda to praise Trek09 and slam past Treks. Not at all…

And on another note (not directed at Neill), the “supreme court” thing is ridiculously out-of-hand. It’s tongue-in-cheek, it’s humorous, it’s just a way of referring to the makers of the films as a whole, it’s not meant to be taken so hard-assed seriously. You don’t think Orci has a sense of humor? Apparently, some people are not getting that.
In addition, there will always be “the folks” who will decide what Trek is going to be, as it was then, as it is now and as it will be in the future. Unless Paramount/CBS adopts a policy whereby the entire arena of Trek-fans collaborate to make Star Trek, the decisions will always come from a select group of people. And that’s the way it is…

155. Damian - August 27, 2010

Hey Bo

I liked all 11 films. I even liked Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
So take that.

156. Damian - August 27, 2010

I have to agree with P Technobabble. There has been bashing from all kinds of fans about all types of Trek. That is the downside of an open comment forum. The haters and the trolls come out. I have no problem with criticism when done intelligently. What gets under my skin is when someone decides to make it personal. I am a fan that likes it all, from The Cage to Star Trek (2009). I will stick up for JJ Abrams et al, Rick Berman et all, Harve Bennett, Gene Roddenberry or anyone else involved for their contributions to the Star Trek universe. I will also criticize them about certain things when it is warranted, but I try to stay respectful.

157. ensign joe - August 27, 2010

from the “chat transcript from the set”:

“Roberto Orci: complaints mean you still care… so we never want to see you stop complaining.”

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/25/jj-abrams-trek-team-fan-chat-transcript-pictures-from-the-set/

here’s to hoping there are less complaints come 2012.. cheers!

158. et - August 27, 2010

You know, I can like the new movie as well as the old ones. The Kubrickian-paced ST:TMP is one of my favorites, so it’s not like I’m one of those “kids today” who “needs fast cuts” to stay interested.

I don’t have an issue with people criticizing the new film, I’m just often surprised at what some of the gripes are.

Seriously, people, they’ve been shaking cameras since TOS. Wasn’t the show famous for it?

But do I really have to invoke The Onion…?

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

159. Greg2600 - August 27, 2010

I agree with Harve on the rapid cuts, shaky cam, and explosions. I hate those kinds of movies. It has no place in serious science fiction, if you ask me. Belongs in Stallone movies.

I would have rather seen Harve’s script made, because it still would have fit the original canon.

160. Phaser Guy - August 27, 2010

It would be cool to see a Trek movie where a supposedly powerful Starship doesn’t get trashed to bits in ten seconds of fighting.

161. Disinvited - August 27, 2010

#158.

It may be a fine distinction for some, but there’s a world of difference on screen between hand-held shaky and tripod shaky.

162. sean - August 27, 2010

#153

Well, it wasn’t Berman that referenced it, it was Meyer. Maybe he wasn’t being truthful or was exaggerating, I have no idea. The fact that Klingon blood was never purple before nor after certainly would seem to back him up, however.

But really, the blood in TUC wasn’t my point. That Trek films prior to ST09 had plenty of blood and guts (and were even rated PG-13!) was.

163. Disinvited - August 27, 2010

#162.

But none of the ToS era films ever were rated PG-13 (It didn’t exist.) nor were the two ToS films who were resubmitted to the MPAA for their “Director’s” cuts around the turn of the millennium (When it did.)

And TOY STORY 3 just crossed the worldwide b.o. of $1 billion gross with the supposedly jinxed “G” rating making Disney the first company to get two billion dollar grossing movies in the same year for the also not PG-13, ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

164. Sky Captain - August 27, 2010

@160: It would be nice to see a Trek movie where fans would have a nice cup of STFU and just watch the movie instead of bitching like babies. But that would mean acting like adults and not teenagers stuck in their parent’s basements.

It would also be nice to see adult Trekkers accept that time goes on, audiences change, and that franchises grow stale and need to be revitalized. But that would mean not acting as if they’re the ones in charge of Star Trek, and accepting that fact.

When these things will happen, I’ll never know.

165. bo - August 28, 2010

@164 AMEN. Just reading these boards it is clear that many hear are not tolerant of any sort of change. Star Trek 09 was a great film. Sure it had its flaws, but I can watch it back and still be entertained by it. The original movies were good for the time that they were made, but would kill the franchise if they were produced today. In the end they would connect with a small few. JJ did a great Star Trek film………………..period.

166. Disinvited - August 28, 2010

#165.

I’m not sure what image comes to mind to those that throw around the word “franchise”.

ST ultimately exists today because dedicated fans wouldn’t ignore it while corporate America did.

This constant mentioning that if done this way or that, it would only connect with a small “few” reads as a direct slam against “cult” films as if the phenomenon isn’t real, “worthy” or sustainable.

In 1992, a little film called BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER would certainly meet many of the properties bandied about as a “franchise killer” (PI). It certain wasn’t any HUGE success at the box office ($16 million). And yet, 5 short years later, to the contrary, a franchise was built. And it hasn’t been twenty years since the last BUFFY episode and they are trying to reboot the first movie. Heck, it hasn’t been twenty years since the movie.

As the worst Trek that appealed to the fewest of the few was still being pressed on disc just prior to 2009 and released to retail shelves, I’m going to have a very difficult time accepting that it was “dying”.

I think Paramount’s decision to try blockbuster was long overdue, but in no way do I see that it HAD to happen because “small” Trek was unsustainable. In February of 2009 there were 25 million Trek fans worldwide. If a savvy corporation could get a significant portion of that to attend any sort of Trek film multiple multiple times as many already do, well, that would be more than enough to sustain “small” Trek – at today’s ticket prices, it would even be enough to approach the current ballyhooed $385 million.

167. bo - August 28, 2010

If the fans were really there, they would not have needed to reboot TOS. It is as simple as that. If Trek 2009 had failed, Trek would have simply gone away.

168. Disinvited - August 28, 2010

#167.

Your are using circular logic which masquerades as saying something when it really isn’t.

Using your logic Sony HAD to reboot SPIDERMAN because Spiderman fans aren’t really there. Bullfeathers.

Just who the heck was Paramount planning to market the extended edition DVD of NEMESIS in late 2005 if there wasn’t any market demand? Why’d they throw their money away like that and then do it again by transferring NEMESIS to Blu-ray?

Why’d did the CinemaScore for the 2009 effort say that those attending were largely older males?

169. skyjedi - August 28, 2010

I really thought the Orci bashing started out because of him writing The very bad script and dialog for transformers, and people thought it would carry over to Trek.

The trailers worried people until they saw those scenes in context in the film. It ended up being much ado about nothing.

170. bo - August 28, 2010

@167 Spiderman is more popular than classic trek. Nu trek is more popular than Spiderman.
Why so defensive?

171. Disinvited - August 29, 2010

#170.

Defensive? How so? You made a spurious claim using circular reasoning and no evidence that a film franchise gets rebooted because there are no fans – “It is as simple as that.”, you claimed. Now that I’ve provided examples of evidence to the contrary, you say it isn’t as simple as that, it depends on a non sequitur: Its popularity with respect to other franchises. Well, STAR TREK is more popular than BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. So?

According to Richard Arnold, a former consultant to Paramount and a former assistant to Roddenberry, in a February 2009 article in THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, there were 25 million ST fans worldwide at that time:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3iffc4c7c167527636510c8f730f75e428?pn=2

Do you still assert that those 25 million fans are not there? Can you cite a superior source for your claim?

172. Disinvited - August 29, 2010

#170. bo proffered “Spiderman is more popular than classic trek. Nu trek is more popular than Spiderman.”

What metrics of popularity are you using to arrive at these conclusions for the entire portfolio of each of these works of art?

173. bo - August 29, 2010

Spiderman is art
Star Trek Classic is NOT art
Nu Trek is Art
Why so defensive?

174. Red Skirt - August 29, 2010

#171 – that’s an interesting “statistic”. It means that if every Star Trek fan in the world saw the last movie just once, that it would have made $250 million at the box office without any other people seeing it. And if just half those fans saw the movie twice, the film would have made it’s worldwide box office gross without a single non-fan seeing the film.

So why didn’t the film make more considering the average fan polled on this site saw the movie at least 3 times at the box office, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that many people who have never seen Star Trek before in their lives attended as well?

EIther there aren’t that many fans, or the movie wasn’t that good. Personally I think it’s a little of both. But I have no “facts” to back that up.

175. Red Dead Ryan - August 29, 2010

There are indeed many Trek fans. 25 million+ is quite reasonable. Problem is, the movie was poorly marketed overseas where “Star Trek” didn’t have much of a chance to build on its fan base. Now, the fan base is a smaller proportion of the movie going audience than it is in North America, but still, there were a lot of Trekkies who hadn’t cared about Star Trek for awhile. Same goes for North America. Overall, alot of Trekkies stayed home because “Star Trek” was an unknown quantity at the time. While I would argue about 80% of the fan base paid to see the movie at least once at the theatre, it was about 20% that stayed home because a) they were skeptical about a new version of TOS Trek featuring new actors as the classic characters, and b) Many fans in Asia, Europe and elsewhere outside of North America were unable to see the film in theatres because they didn’t know about it or that many theatres chose not to show it or even when they did, it didn’t stay very long.

“The Motion Picture” can be a somewhat reliable comparison. Adjusted for inflation, the movie would have earned just slightly less than “Star Trek” did in total worldwide gross. And remember, there were a lot FEWER fans of Star Trek back then. But they made up the vast majority of the audience. Whereas “Star Trek” brought in more of the mainstream audience (though clearly hardcore/casual fans still made up the majority of the ticket buyers) which doesn’t give us a clear idea of how many Trek fans there are in the world but which does provide evidence that a lot of money was left on the table.

Overall, I would think that twenty-five million being the rough estimate of the number of Trek fans worldwide is quite reasonable. “Star Wars” has probably at least seventy five million fans worldwide because its been marketed better in non-English speaking countries as well as the fact that it has been more accessible to non-fans.

Its too hard to get an accurate reading on how many Trek fans there are in the world because not everyone who went to see the new movie was a fan and not every fan went to see the film. Plus, illegal downloading and shorter stays in the theatre have taken big bites out of revenues as well as demographic statistics. Also, a lot of people just don’t bother going to the cinema anymore whether its because of cost, people chatting during the movie, or just plain old inconvenience.

I, myself, went to see the film five times in the theatre. The poll done on this website seemed to indicate that most fans went multiple times with the average being three. Which makes it clear that even in North America, where the majority of Trek fans live, a significant number of people stayed home.

Judging from everything I have read on this site, there is still a fair sized number of fans who remain skeptical about the “New Universe/Timeline” “Star Trek”. But it is just too hard to properly calculate the number of fans based on the revenue of the new movie alone. One has to take into account that most people regard Star Trek as a television property first and foremost. And since there is no t.v series currently running right now, we can’t know for sure. But we have prior evidence of twenty-five million plus fans of Trek. The syndicated series “The Next Generation” brought in an average of fifteen million viewers. Assuming that the majority of them became Trek fans or were fans before coupled with the TOS fans who didn’t watch the series, 25 million was probably the conservative number. But then again, its all just a guessing came.
There could be more fans, but there could be fewer. But in my opinion (and it is my opinion based on how I see things so I don’t presume to be 100% correct) there has to be at least twenty million fans worldwide. And not every fan likes the same versions of Trek that others do. That further skews things.

But I do know we will get a better idea in a couple of years when the sequel comes out. With a better marketing strategy as well as a better overall product(hopefully), a better measurement can be taken. Perhaps some of the newbies who saw “Star Trek” 09 have become fans? Maybe the fans who stayed home the first time will come out to see the second flick in the theatre?

176. Disinvited - August 29, 2010

#173.

You really should try looking up the word “art” before making such a patently false assertion.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=define:art

177. Disinvited - August 29, 2010

#174.

Exactly.

The assumption that this reached a HUGE new unfamiliar with it demographic, can be traced back to the assumption that the 2009 effort’s CinemaScore of “A” can be interpreted to mean that the the “largely older male” attendants’ word-of-mouth would hugely jump its ardent fan demographic to that of one unfamiliar with Trek, and thus, also unfamiliar with those same ardent fans. But like its PG-13 rating it wasn’t the first STAR TREK film to get a CinemaScore in the “A” range. Past history has not demonstrated word-of-mouth jumping out of this demographic to be the case.

There are other other “popularity” indicators that paint a different picture than the one largely assumed:

http://moviemerchandise.org/2010/07/toy-story-3-most-successful-toy-merchandising/

This was for a range of 18 months back from June 22nd of this year. Note all 9 of those that bested Trek did so in the same (still) poor economy that some have proffered as the reason for the Playmates cancellation of its Christmas 2009 line of Abrams STAR TREK based products. Eight of those did so in a smaller merchandising window of time – the Disney top dog in the smallest one of them all.

I finally now understand with GI JOE in the third best position why Paramount green-lit RISE OF THE COBRA’s sequel: It’s popular – it’s really popular.

Let’s be clear: building 2009’s box office on largely ardent Trek fans after NEMESIS would still be an impressive moon-landing. It just would mean that everything would not be as the Hollywood spin machine would have it appear to be – and when would THAT ever be surprising? They are, after all, experts in the business of making illusions seem real, are they not?

178. Vultan - August 29, 2010

#173 bo

“Spiderman is art
Star Trek Classic is NOT art
Nu Trek is Art”

A real Trek fan would want to live on the TOS bridge, not under a bridge. Either say something intelligent or go away, troll.

179. Disinvited - August 29, 2010

#178.

I thought bo was perhaps just doing standard wingeing about “inferior” television.

But, thanks, I now see this statement on founding Trek and his previous ones regarding it for what they truly are.

180. bo - August 29, 2010

So…………………..
You can’t be a Star Trek fan without considering it to be art??
AND
Any real Star Trek fan would want to live on the bridge????????????

Wow, you guys have lost all sense of reality.

You might want to spend some time out in the sun….maybe even get off of the bridge and find yourself a life.

I really enjoy original trek, but to call it art????WTF???

Check out the Opera.

181. Vultan - August 29, 2010

#180

It was a joke, Mr. Data—a play on words—a ship bridge and a regular bridge where a troll… oh, never mind.

And believe it or not, many of us have lives and get regular sun and fresh air. I just came back from jogging, which I do every evening. Anyway, to call classic Trek not art and spiderman and new Trek art… you may be the one who’s oxygen-deprived. Granted, art is in the eye of the beholder, but to use it in such a pointed, arrogant manner—well, maybe wrestling would be more to your liking. I’ve heard that SyFy puts on a “totally bitchin” show.

As for opera… I love opera, especially Wagner’s “Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!” ;)

182. bo - August 29, 2010

I am happy that you get out of your basement and jog.
This is a productive activity, and will greatly enhance your life.
Please check out what real art is all about….there is more to life than your worship of a single television show. Also, get active in your community. One man can make a difference. In conclusion…..get off the bridge…save yourselves……avoid the planet earth at all costs.
VULCAN IS GONE>>>>>>>>IT HAS BEEN ERASED FROM CANNON>

183. Andy Patterson - August 29, 2010

@ 182

“VULCAN IS GONE>>>>>>>>IT HAS BEEN ERASED FROM CANNON>

Just getting in on this….but I don’t consider anything in the new movie as cannon.

184. bo - August 29, 2010

If it is on the screen, then it is cannon. Star Trek 09 is the new cannon.
Long live the new cycle that begins anew upon the arrival of the green dog that is wary when the gatfosk is here upon itself.
All hail the teleporter

185. Vultan - August 29, 2010

Oh boy… get out the butterfly nets…

186. Disinvited - August 29, 2010

#181.

I’m partial to Menotti’s THE TELEPHONE, but then I like the minimalism its staging and short form share with founding episodic Trek, and the fact that, like Trek, its topic and humor transcends the decades to remain relevant, even today.

In the 1960s, the only award around acknowledging the best science-fiction dramatic art presentation was The Hugo Award. And STAR TREK won in 1967 and 1968 for its 1966 and 1967 work, respectively, in a field that included all other forms of drama, i.e. stage, film, radio, etc. – even opera. In ’68 Trek shutout the category filling all the slots available for nomination with its own episodes. IN ’67 it bested the films, THE FANTASTIC VOYAGE and FARENHEIT 451. Many films have won The Hugo but to this day none of them have been Trek.

187. Vultan - August 29, 2010

#186

Thank you for that informed comment, Disinvited. I certainly hope bo is taking notes… He’s a little off in his delivery.

188. Disinvited - August 29, 2010

#187.

You are welcome.

In performing opera in its original Klingon libretto, it’s all about the delivery. ;-)

189. cd - August 29, 2010

Lens flares for the sake of lens flares.
>;>}

190. bo - August 30, 2010

@188 That is one nice presentation of the wikipedia entry. Good job pozer. I really hope you get some aer in your life.
I would hope that you someday learn to be happy.
It is very clear that you are very angry.
Let help you.
Help you
You You You You You You YOu YOu YOu yOu yOu
minimalism……get art

191. ensign joe - August 30, 2010

#184 bo

“Star Trek 09 is the new cannon.”

here are some wiki entries you should read if you want to try to establish some geek cred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon

192. Vultan - August 30, 2010

Don’t feed the troll.

193. Alex Rosenzweig - August 30, 2010

#167 – “If the fans were really there, they would not have needed to reboot TOS. It is as simple as that.”

They didn’t need to. They wanted to. Rather a difference there, I’d say.

#182 – “VULCAN IS GONE>>>>>>>>IT HAS BEEN ERASED FROM CANNON>”

Only in the alternate continuum. Funny, I thought the movie made that rather clear. ;)

194. bo - August 30, 2010

#193
Please state your difference. They had to reboot it, or star trek might have died and eaten alive by fan made productions.
Have a good day:)

195. Disinvited - August 30, 2010

#192.

I have to agree.

I also find it most distressing that people who profess to be admirers of science-fiction as art and therefore science itself, don’t know the first thing about its rudimentary axiomatic principles such as evidentiary proofs. For example, thoughtless rote repetitions do not make the repeated statement true nor does it demonstrate it to be so in any way whatsoever.

But back to opera. Did you know that Jonathan Harris who worked for the competition was a great fan of opera? Some say he could have challenged Tony Randall himself for the title of “Opera’s Biggest Fan”. Harris even managed to work some operatic bits into his show, LOST IN SPACE. Do you think some quarters would take the fact that he was and did as sufficient to label that series as art?

STAR TREK was most definitely an NBC staple in my youth in the 1960s, but so was AMAHL AND THE NIGHT VISITORS before it as incredulous as some may find that to be.

196. PhilCollins - August 30, 2010

JJ is a pretty awful director. Hooking the camera up to a paint mixer and jerking off into the lens while shining a dozen flashlights into it for every scene is pretty lousy. I’m 23, but I guess people these days don’t have the attention spans they once did.

ST09 was marginally enjoyable in spite of his influence, hopefully for the sequel somebody will remember to give him his ADD meds so he can calm down long enough to actually shoot the movie properly.

Then again, Trek hasn’t really been worth watching since DS9 ended, so it’s not like they can screw it up even more badly.

197. bo - August 30, 2010

#195
You are a very smart person, and your use of big words is impressive. I really wish I were you. Oh well, perhaps someday. It is certainly something to aspire to. Thanks again for your demonstrations of wisdom.
You must be very proud of yourself. Have a great day.
Know ART.

198. Vultan - August 30, 2010

#197

Okay, I’ve got to ask. You say “know ART,” but just what is your definition of art? How does JJ Abrams’ film qualify as art but the rest of Trek does not? Really, I’d like to see your reasoning behind this statement…

As for myself, I’d place all of Trek in the entertainment category rather than pure art—2001: A Space Odyssey being the definitive example of pure sci-fi art in film. But, hey, to each his own…

199. bo - August 30, 2010

I stand corrected. All Star Trek is entertainment.
Know Art.

200. Vultan - August 30, 2010

#199

Very well… um… yeah, I guess it serves me right for trying to engage in a philosophical debate with someone on the internet.

Anyway, I wish you all the best in school this year. Fifth grade can be very rough.

201. Alex Rosenzweig - August 30, 2010

#194 – “Please state your difference. They had to reboot it”

There was, and is, no need for a reboot. All they had to do was make it compelling to audiences again. They could very easily have done that with a true origin story, the “Star Trek Zero” they originally claimed they were producing.

Once they eventually came clean, what they said was that they didn’t want to be constrained by what had already been done. Simple as that. Nothing was *forcing* them to throw the original continuity away. They didn’t want to be bothered with it. No more, no less.

And that is the difference.

I guess we should be grateful that they went through this whole song-and-dance to explain the difference, but it all still rings hollow for me. But, then, for me, Star Trek (and, for that matter, any other fictional universe I embrace) is very much its world, not just a few characters, so when you throw away the world, it’s tantamount to throwing away Star Trek.

My answer is that if one doesn’t want to be bothered by what’s established for an existing property, go do something different. J.J. Abrams himself once said: “I figure if you re-imagine something you should just imagine something else.”

But apparently he didn’t feel the need to follow his own belief in this case.

“or star trek might have died and eaten alive by fan made productions.”

Obviously this is rather subjective, but for my money, the fan-made productions that have remained true to the unrebooted universe of Star Trek are doing far more to keep it alive than will any reboot.

The assumption that Star Trek’s universe couldn’t sustain continued interest just doesn’t hold water for me. The fact that even the fifth TV series started out with 12 million viewers largely disproves the claim. It’s a shame that the series itself couldn’t hold that audience, but clearly the interest in Star Trek as a whole remained, and remains.

Equally, one of the most compelling, and popular, Trek series currently in print is also not any sort of reboot, but a series grounded firmly in the Prime Universe of Trek. What’s compelling are its powerful storyline and mature treatment of the characters, demonstrating that the original Trekverse still has room for lots of solid stories. Again, no reboot necessary.

QED

I guess what makes Harve Bennett’s “Academy Years” project so interesting to me is that it set out to do something akin to what Messrs. Abrams, Lindeloff, Orci, and Kurtzman did, except that Mr. Bennett didn’t feel any compulsion to do it by throwing out–or at least marginalizing–prior Trek. On that basis alone, his approach has more of my respect. That the script description I read was a very positive one only makes me regret the missed opportunity that much more.

“Have a good day:)””

You, too! :)

202. Basement Blogger - August 31, 2010

Okay, I ‘ve read enough of the fighting between New Trekkers (Star Trek ’09) and the serious Trekkers. You guys are fighting about the definition of art. First, here’s my credentials. I have a fine arts degree in music therory. Ohio University. I have a doctor’s degree in law. Chase College of Law. Northern Kentucky University. I have loved Star Trek since 1969. I remember watching the star field at the beginning of the original series and hearing William Shatner intone the prologue with goose bumps. So I think I’ve got an idea what is art.

Listen up Bo and all new Trekkers who want to see Trek turned into “GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra” . Star Trek is intelligent science fiction. I’m not going to go over the original episodes that teach tolerance, science and heart. I’ve done that, and I’m sure that this website is tired of my long arguments slowing down the loading times. Just because I’ve been critical of Star Trek ’09 as being shallow, doesn’t mean I did not like it. I have seen the film many times and there are many moments that I loved. But it is not the best Trek. The best Star Trek film is “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.” Yes, IT HAD NO SPACE BATTLES. THERE WAS NO VILLAIN. BUt IT HAD A MESSAGE. SAVE THE WHALES, SAVE THE WORLD. It had an envriomental message from the sixties. Look, I just spent the last week sweating and wondering when the world would end. Maybe it’s time we take global warming seriously.

You will hear me argue this point many times. Star Trek is the vision of Gene Roddenberry. If he’s too liberal. Sorry. It’s his vision. If he’s too cerebral. Sorry. It’s his vision. As a Trekker, I agreed with his vision. That’s why I loved the show. No matter what Bad Robtot does with the next film, they have got to adhere what Star Trek is. Otherwise, it’s not Star Trek.

My young Trekkers, check out this Wikipedia article below on the Star Trek pilot, “The Cage.” NBC regected it as being too cerebral. It was made into the two part episdoe “The Menagerie.” By the way, we’ve learned that NBC was wrong and wrong many time about Star Trek. Leonard Nimoy has said this over and over. (“Wrath of Khan” Special Edition. Disc Two) Great Star Trek works on multiple levels. I will distill them for you and Bad Robot. Adventure. Heart. AND INTELLIGENCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cage_(Star_Trek)#Overview

203. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#200.

I’m impressed that you got a correction. It definitely had the aura of something set in alabaster.

204. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#202.

Not that you need it, but in support:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

art – human endeavor thought to be aesthetic and have meaning beyond simple description. Includes music, dance, sculpture, painting, drawing, stitchery, weaving, poetry, writing, woodworking, etc. A medium of expression where the individual and culture come together.

I would describe the founding STAR TREK series as having a definite impact on the culture of North America beyond that which some would label merely as entertainment – not that art and entertainment are ever mutually exclusive.

205. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#200.

Research indicates that you will discover that the only correct response to “Know Art” is “Star Trek: Nemesis” and not “Jackie Gleason” or “Paul Simon”.

206. bo - August 31, 2010

…….dogs jumping through hoops. Thanks for the response. You guys are hilarious!
Know trolls.

207. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 31, 2010

#201 “There was, and is, no need for a reboot. All they had to do was make it compelling to audiences again. They could very easily have done that with a true origin story, the ‘Star Trek Zero’ they originally claimed they were producing”

But if they had, would you be one of those fans (and you know there would be many!) complaining that the Enterprise didn’t look exactly like it did in The Cage? Or that Kirk’s cadet uniform didn’t match the one Finnegan wore in Shore Leave? And suppose this “true origin story” had been successful? What then, a trilogy of big budget films with a retro 60’s, In A Mirror Darkly look? As a fan, I loved those episodes, but general movie going audiences would kinda scratch their heads at it. And we Trekkies would all be more than familiar with the fate of all the characters. No thanks. After 40 years of storytelling in one universe, it WAS time to break clean from predictability.

#201 “The assumption that Star Trek’s universe couldn’t sustain continued interest just doesn’t hold water for me. The fact that even the fifth TV series started out with 12 million viewers largely disproves the claim. It’s a shame that the series itself couldn’t hold that audience, but clearly the interest in Star Trek as a whole remained”

It’s not an assumption when a feature film bombs and a tv series gets cancelled due to low ratings. Star Trek was a business that had run dry in 2005. It roared back to life last year, and I’m pleased as punch about that.

208. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#207.

It takes more than one bomb to definitively declare a market closed. One blip is not enough information to declare a trend.

209. Red Dead Ryan - August 31, 2010

208

“Voyager” also had declining viewers in its last couple of seasons. Combine that with the box office disappointment of “Nemesis” the struggles of “Enterprise” and the poor sales of Star Trek merchandise it was clear that a new vision and set of eyes were needed to revive the franchise for the mainstream audience.

210. Red Dead Ryan - August 31, 2010

And for people claiming that J.J Abrams’ “Star Trek” had no message, you are wrong. The central theme was about how a group of young people who didn’t necessarily get along or like each other were able to come together in the face of adversity.

211. Alex Rosenzweig - August 31, 2010

#207 – “#201 “There was, and is, no need for a reboot. All they had to do was make it compelling to audiences again. They could very easily have done that with a true origin story, the ‘Star Trek Zero’ they originally claimed they were producing”

But if they had, would you be one of those fans (and you know there would be many!) complaining that the Enterprise didn’t look exactly like it did in The Cage? Or that Kirk’s cadet uniform didn’t match the one Finnegan wore in Shore Leave?”

Speaking solely for myself, I was perfectly willing to accept a certain amount of design variation, simply because there’s no realistic way to make it look *exactly* like it did 45 years ago. I tend to be looser about what I refer to as “visual continuity” than I am about what I call “story continuity”, just for practical reasons.

That said, I’ve seen some outstanding “modernizations” of the original Enterprise (deg’s comes to mind right off), sets, etc. that are very up-to-date but also much closer to the original than what Abrams and crew did. Still and all, that’s a bit more fluidly subjective, to my way of thinking.

“And we Trekkies would all be more than familiar with the fate of all the characters. No thanks. After 40 years of storytelling in one universe, it WAS time to break clean from predictability.”

Still not sold, I’m afraid. But, then, I’m not looking for the question of whether the charaters will survive or whatever, but rather *how* they resolve the situation at hand. Equally, I have no propblem with saying, “okay, you don’t want to know the characters’ fates? Create new characters. Done.”

For me, throwing out the whole universe was blatantly unacceptable. Still is. Of course, others’ mileage may vary.

“#201 “The assumption that Star Trek’s universe couldn’t sustain continued interest just doesn’t hold water for me. The fact that even the fifth TV series started out with 12 million viewers largely disproves the claim. It’s a shame that the series itself couldn’t hold that audience, but clearly the interest in Star Trek as a whole remained”

It’s not an assumption when a feature film bombs and a tv series gets cancelled due to low ratings.”

But, again, that same series started with 12 million viewers. It had a big audience that tuned in to a new Trek show, and the potential to either hold them or not. It didn’t. Based on reactions to the fourth season, there’s some argument to be made that if they’d changed showrunners much earlier, the show might well have survived a lot longer.

And fan disenchantment with the TNG films had been building for years. A long time earlier, I’d speculated that TNG would tarnslate badly to the big screen, based on teh sort of show it was, and that prediction more-or-less bore out.

“Star Trek was a business that had run dry in 2005. It roared back to life last year, and I’m pleased as punch about that.”

Ironically, in 2005, we lost one series (“Enterprise”) and gained two (“Vanguard” and “Titan”). Market had run dry, huh? I think not.

What came back last year was something that bears the name “Star Trek”, but it is not Star Trek’s world. To be fair, it’s not as obnoxious a rejection of what came before as that thing that bears the name “Galactica” (the alternate universe sidestep, and Spock serving as the bridge, wasn’t the worst thing they could have done, by far), but it’s hard for me to care about this other universe, or any of the people in it, for the reasons I gave before. For me, if I embrace a fictional world, I embrace its *world*. Lose that, lose me. And Abrams and co. did. Last summer, instead of spending lots of money on the movie, I took the same money and went to my favorite summer Trek convention.

Thankfully, the fan films, novels, and comic books are keeping Primeverse Trek alive and well, and it is there that I shall spend my Trek entertainment budget. Gotta vote with my dollars, as it were! :)

212. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 31, 2010

#211 “Ironically, in 2005, we lost one series (Enterprise) and gained two (Vanguard and Titan). Market had run dry, huh? I think not.”

Alex, I consider myself to be a fairly large Trekkie, and I don’t know what those series you refer to are. I’m assuming they’re either books or web series, but you see, Star Trek needed to be bigger than that. It needed to be a hit on tv or in theaters in order to live up to its potential. Now it’s doing so.

Shifting gears…I’ve been re-reading Shatner’s Movie Memories book for the first time since it was published (1994), and Harve Bennett, who is interviewed extensively, is a very interesting guy. Very smart, very talented, obviously. But also a tough guy who apparently had to battle with everyone. He talks about how he ignored Roddenberry (Bennett considered him a nuisance) and wasn’t even speaking to Nimoy by the time TVH was complete. He also admits that after Paramount passed on this Starfleet Academy script we’ve been discussing, it drove him to alcoholism. Pretty interesting, candid stuff.

213. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#209.

But each of those product lines are separate as are their marketing efforts. The entertainment industry just doesn’t connect those dots as you propose.

Marvel doesn’t cancel publication of all SPIDERMAN comics just because Sony decides to reboot its film franchise, or because the SPIDERMAN TV series or cartoons are canceled.

Neither did Paramount nor CBS ever cease re-runing STAR TREK in one form or another which continues to be the bedrock of its corporate viability. There certainly wasn’t any downturn in the market of DVD products for STAR TREK: VOYAGER, STAR TREK: NEMESIS, and ENTERPRISE up to 2006 when the die was cast for reboot. I’m sure the same could be said about their printed publications.

I would also draw the distinction – especially with regards to STAR TREK – that declining viewers for new lines of products is NOT the same as declining viewers for existing products. In February of 2009 the number of fans was known to number 25 million worldwide. Please indicate the higher number from which that declined and how it was tracked.

214. Red Dead Ryan - August 31, 2010

213

The difference between “Spider Man” and “Star Trek” is “Spider Man” being first and foremost a comic book property. The television shows, cartoons and movies were offshoots. Rebooting “Spider Man” films has nothing to do with the comics. It was strictly a business decision by Sony (who have nothing to do with the source material except to draw story ideas from) “Star Trek” on the other hand, was always first and foremost a television show. Only after did it become what it is today. I would say that the main franchise composes of the series and movies. Novels and comics are an offshoot. However, unlike “Spider Man”, the Star Trek franchise cannot survive if the live action (big screen or small) versions do not make money and appeal to broader audiences. The number of people who by Trek novels, comics and other merchandise are a tiny fraction compared to those who buy Spider Man comics.

A few years ago, Pocket Books was struggling to sell its novels. They quit doing non-fiction Trek and CBS nearly folded the Trek line. There was a direct connection between the health of the live action portion of the Star Trek franchise and the book version. There was a sense of over saturation in the marketplace, as well as the fact that people devoted their time and money to other things that were of greater interest to them.

On the other hand, in spite of “Spider Man 3″s relative failure (it made a ton of money, but was critically panned) it had NO IMPACT on the overall franchise, since it is the comic books that continue to be the base of the franchise.

J.J Abrams’ “Star Trek” hasn’t just breathed new life into the film franchise, but the whole property in general, including the novels and books. Whether you liked the new movie or not, NO ONE can deny the effect that it had on the overall franchise.

215. Basement Blogger - August 31, 2010

@ 206

Thanks, Bo for introducing me to the concept of trolls. AND THANKS FOR ADMITTING THAT YOUR ARE A TROLL. You may be laughing at us but you’ve opened up a larger discussion of what Star Trek is. Maybe there are some Trekkers who believe Star Trek should become Star Wars. Your trolling certainly will help us to educate those Trekkers of what Star Trek is. There is nothing wrong with that. By throwing out the term “art”, you’ve also launched a discussion of that too. So while you’re laughing at us, take some credit for starting an inellectual debate.

216. Basement Blogger - August 31, 2010

@ 204

Disinvited, thanks for the definition of art. I agree with the definition. I didn’t want to get into what art is because it is subjective. One man’s junk is another man’s art. The issue becomes what is art and what isn’t. When I wrote atonal music, it was not designed to sell a ton of records. It was a total expressive medium. I might argue that heavy metal rock and roll is not art but a form that is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. But some will say it is an art form. Maybe the question is the difference between “high” art and other forms. Regardless, art is subjective.

How does that relate to Star Trek? I remember reading science fiction for classes in junior high and college. So, I would argue that science fiction is an art form. Will Star Trek try to appeal to the lowest common denominator or will it try for a balance between popularity and art? Even at its most cerebral, Star Trek was accessible to the masses. So, I don’t see any reason to go towards a Star Wars model.

217. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#214.

A few years ago was 2006. I’m not interested in the corporate spin trying to take the chaos of splitting the two Trek corporate entities apart and blaming the costs of that on Trek’s “fatigue”.

In April of 2006, Variety announced that the reboot was on. Simon Schuster didn’t become CBS controlled until that same year.

All I’m asking is rather simple: show some evidence that Trek’s 2009 25 million fans declined to that amount from a substantially higher number in years past.

218. Vultan - August 31, 2010

#215

Good point. Who would’ve thunk it that trolls could be useful? Then again, I suppose every nasty element has its purpose in the world. :)

219. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#214.

As comic books are to SPIDERMAN, continuing syndicated reruns are to STAR TREK.

220. Cookie - August 31, 2010

Except that comic books are new stories each month. Star Trek reruns are just that.

221. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

#220.

Except there’s no denying that despite being “just that” it wasn’t the then “new” episodes airing in 1966-1969 that established the wide base that drew Paramount’s interest and still does.

222. Disinvited - August 31, 2010

Roddenberry fathered STAR TREK and raised it. But in a very real sense Lucille Ball gave birth to it. And like its mother ST enjoys an extremely successful and long life in syndicated reruns that alone continually adds new fans (I dare say at least monthly if not daily.)

223. Alex Rosenzweig - September 1, 2010

#212 – “Alex, I consider myself to be a fairly large Trekkie, and I don’t know what those series you refer to are. I’m assuming they’re either books or web series,”

Both “Vanguard” and “Titan” are novel series. Totally worth the time if you want to check them out. Actually, they’re better than most of the stuff Trek’s had on film over the past couple of decades. ‘Course, that could be said of print Trek in general, though to be fair that may have something to do with the fact that it could be better science fiction by virtue of not having to appeal to the “Joe Sixpack” audience that a TV series or feature film must. (Y’know, that audience that mostly won’t admit to even *liking* science fiction. ;) )

“but you see, Star Trek needed to be bigger than that.”

Actually, all it really needed to do was make money. They continued running it on TV until it reached the point where it stopped doing that (even after the producers were recommending that a break would be a good idea for the long-term health of the franchise, but oh, well…). Ditto films. But in one medium or other, creation of Star Trek product hasn’t stopped in decades.

“It needed to be a hit on tv or in theaters in order to live up to its potential. Now it’s doing so.”

Well, I have no objection to Star Trek being a hit on TV or in theaters (though obviously my preference would be that it actually be Star Trek, not some pseudo-entity with Star Trek’s name on it ;) ). But I think much more of Star Trek’s potential has been realized on the printed page than either the TV series or films have allowed.

Also, when a Star Trek fan film is reaching enough audience to be nominated for a Hugo Award, it certainly says a lot about Star Trek’s ongoing ability to reach its potential, without the need for a reboot. (The fact that more people were watching and downloading the fan films than the Paramount-produced series at the time also says a lot about that series contrasted with interest in Star Trek as a whole. ;) Though there’s also an argument that a substantially larger number of people were actually watching “Enterprise” than were being listed in the usual audience reports, if one factored in DVRs and such.)

Perhaps ironic, given that Star Trek began as a TV series, but I think Trek transcended being limited to only a single “medium of importance” decades ago, and it is both narrowminded and limiting to try to keep stuffing it back into that box.

#214 “A few years ago, Pocket Books was struggling to sell its novels. They quit doing non-fiction Trek and CBS nearly folded the Trek line.”

They never even considered folding the Trek fiction line, though it is the case that they reduced the overall output. However, it should be noted that most of that reduction was in response to a general downturn in book sales, not specifically in response to Trek’s specific popularity. As the editors pointed out at the time, Star Trek remained, and remains, one of the healthiest lines that Pocket/Simon & Schuster had. That it went from nearly 30 new books a year to “merely” 18 still made it one of the healthiest and most popular ongoing tie-in lines out there, and there’s some indication that instead of splitting up audience sales between two books every month, having there be only one wasn’t hurting the per-book results.

The lack of “non-fiction” Trek is notable, though if one asks the readership, there are a number of points-of-view as regards the reasons why. A common view is that the quality of the non-fiction line was simply poor, with even the best of what was coming out feeling like a promissory note for something greater. For example, _Starship Spotter_, for which I was fortunate to be able to co-write text, was felt to be a “teaser” for a real “Big Book of Starships”. _Star Charts_, similarly, was felt to be a “teaser” for a more complete Star Trek atlas. Many of the other more recent offerings seemed to be more “fluffy’ than substantial, and the readers didn’t want to spend the money on that sort of fluff.

“There was a direct connection between the health of the live action portion of the Star Trek franchise and the book version. There was a sense of over saturation in the marketplace, as well as the fact that people devoted their time and money to other things that were of greater interest to them.”

I think that, to a point, is true, though it’s also worth noting that Star Trek has thrived in print in multiple periods where little was happening on film. There’s actually been some argument to be made that the print lines have benefited from Paramount’s change of attention, since they were freed from having to worry about whether each new episode or film would derail their ongoing storylines, and the result has been a richer, deeper reading experience.

“J.J Abrams’ “Star Trek” hasn’t just breathed new life into the film franchise, but the whole property in general, including the novels and books. Whether you liked the new movie or not, NO ONE can deny the effect that it had on the overall franchise.”

Now with that I’ll certainly agree. The film had many weaknesses, completely aside from the base reboot=fail aspect, but it’s certainly true that it got audiences’ attention. :) (It also had a phenomenal cast, which doesn’t hurt at all.)

So far, I’m not sure if there’s been a clear crossover from folks being intrigued by the movie to exploring the rest of Star Trek, but if that occurs, then it certainly does help the franchise overall. If it’s only a phenomenon related to the film, though, then it may be more like the Spiderman films than anything “core” to Trek.

#220-“Except that comic books are new stories each month. Star Trek reruns are just that.”

OTOH, between novels and comic books, Star Trek has continued to have new stories told every month, as well, irrelevant of whether there was a TV series or film in production.

I think an irony that may be lost on some folks is that the “refresh” of Star Trek’s popularity didn’t actually come strictly in response to last year’s film. After the low-point of “Enterprise”‘s cancellation, Trek as a whole was starting to rebound as early as a year later, so much so that an entirely different Star Trek movie was either greenlighted or close to greenlighted (various sources disagree over whether it had reached the point of full greenlight) in 2006, but subsequently canceled when the studio leadership changed. (That happens all the time in Hollywood, so it’s not clear that it had anything to do with perceived interest in Trek. Heck, we have the new Trek film(s) mainly because, in 2006, Paramount wanted a deal with J.J. Abrams, and Abrams made doing a Star Trek film part of the deal.)

224. Disinvited - September 1, 2010

223.

Excellent points.

“They continued running it on TV until it reached the point where it stopped doing that …” – Alex Rosenzweig

It’s probably more than obvious by now that I would draw the distinction that continuing in syndicated reruns counts as “…continued running it on TV …”

FWIW the TV voice of a single new Trek series can definitely sing a different tune than that of a series of motion pictures:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435531552525078.html

And you are right , it is an enviable position to be able to choose from a large menu of Trek options across a wide swath of media, as opposed to being in one where the menu lists only a meager few options.

225. Thalo - October 9, 2010

When Matt Damon was rumored to play Kirk in ST11, I think it would have made sense to cast him instead of Ethan Hawke for the role had ST6 been made a prequel; considering that at the time of Damon’s film career he was a relative unknown. It was how Christopher Reeve got the part for SUPERMAN when Richard Donner wanted an unknown actor instead of a celebrity (imagine Robert Redford, even Nicholas Cage as Superman). It escapes me how Harve Bennett would not think to do that like Donner did.

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