Abrams: ST Movie is Not a Traditional Prequel

[Holytomato]

"The changes are so extensive, his friends wouldn't even recognize themselves in the mirror."

Theorizing that one could time-travel within his own lifetime, Ambassador Spock led an elite group of scientists into the desert, to develop a top-secret project known as Bring Back Shat. Pressured to prove his theories or lose funding, Ambassador Spock prematurely stepped into the project accelerator, and vanished...

He awoke to find himself in the past, suffering from partial amnesia and facing a mirror image that was not his own. Fortunately, contact with his own time was maintained through brain-wave transmissions with Bones, the project observer, who appears in the form of a hologram, that only Ambassador Spock can see and hear. Trapped in the past, Ambassador Spock finds himself leaping from life to life, putting things right that once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home.

 

[ralph]

I remember that in Trek Movie, Abrams has chated with fans. He said that cast was shooting on the bridge of the Enterprise. I remember something about the last scene.
If I am right, so everybody were present in the end.
I think that nobody of the Enterprise crew will die.

 

[archeryguy1701]

ralph said:
I remember that in Trek Movie, Abrams has chated with fans. He said that cast was shooting on the bridge of the Enterprise. I remember something about the last scene.
If I am right, so everybody were present in the end.
I think that nobody of the Enterprise crew will die.

Ah, but when Quinto (I think) said that they were filming with everyone on the bridge, maybe he meant everyone who survived...

 

[debush24]

Any of you been to comic-con?

 

[BTX]

Seriously, I'm beginning to think the best way to look at ST XI as an out of continuity one-off, sort of like "Never Say Never Again". Sean Connery returns as Bond, but the rest of the movie is recast and a much older Bond has his first encounter with SPECTRE.

BTX

 

[StarMan]

Well, it's not traditional in the sense that characters from "present" Trek are being imported back into the past. I would say their fate is more uncertain than that of Kirk and crew. If they'd said it's an outright retelling (retelling being a more preferable word than friggin' reboot) of Kirk and crew's adventures, I'd say nothing was certain.

But the vibe I get - especially from Orci - is that things will unfold in a way that leads us to the adventures of Kirk and crew we know so well.

And - just to reassure you all - I will no longer us the term "Kirk and crew".

edit: They're more than welcome to kill Chekov, though.

 

[Woulfe]

Holytomato said:
"The changes are so extensive, his friends wouldn't even recognize themselves in the mirror."

Theorizing that one could time-travel within his own lifetime, Ambassador Spock led an elite group of scientists into the desert, to develop a top-secret project known as Bring Back Shat. Pressured to prove his theories or lose funding, Ambassador Spock prematurely stepped into the project accelerator, and vanished...

He awoke to find himself in the past, suffering from partial amnesia and facing a mirror image that was not his own. Fortunately, contact with his own time was maintained through brain-wave transmissions with Bones, the project observer, who appears in the form of a hologram, that only Ambassador Spock can see and hear. Trapped in the past, Ambassador Spock finds himself leaping from life to life, putting things right that once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home.

Wouldn't that be Archer instead ? After all he's more the kinda guy one would expect to be Quantum Leap-ing....

- W -
* Sorry, to hard to pass up *

 

[Cyrus]

The rumor I heard is that the old Porthos dies in the movie. There would not be a dry eye in the house when that happens.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Perhaps Nero goes back in time and alters history and then we see that alternate timeline. Then old Spock goes back and fixes it and we are back to the old timeline but with some things altered.

 

[archeryguy1701]

The thought I almost have is a Obi-wan Kenobi type situation. Nero goes back in time, attempts to kill Kirk young, possibly when his mum is pregnant with him. Old Spock succeeds in stopping him, but is trapped in the past. He then lives out the rest of his life looking over young Kirk. Personally, I wouldn't dig that story too much, but whatever. I would end up watching it anyways.

 

[Kinnison]

One other possibility re: the "non-traditional prequel" concept, is that the story of the film doesn't end before "Where No Man Has Gone Before," but the story ends well into the Five Year Voyage. The story arc could essentially overlap the first several episodes of Star Trek. Several incidents during Kirk's early career than eventually add up to mean something, y'know?

As far as people dying goes, I doubt they'd kill Spock. It's been done a couple of times already.

 

[dru]

bassomatic said:This example is off topic, but I am also dumb struck with the relaunch of KnightRider. I mean come on is there no one in Hollywood that can get a new idea for a show.

They're working Greatest American Hero too. And the A-Team.

 

[biotech]

Yes, they should make more original films, like King Kong, and Lord of the rings.

 

[Kirk the Jerk]

IMO its gotta be old Spock that dies, however, i think that 90% of the fans would be expecting that to happen so it could just as well be someone else. If it is someone else, it would have massive effects on the timeline. Lets just hope Abrams knows what he's doing and doesn't screw with canon. I'm liking the look of this movie so far, from what little ive seen it has a different feel to it. Figures remain crossed until xmas lol

 

[Ovation]

I wonder what people who don't like re-makes think of theatre. I mean, why should anyone do Shakespeare after Olivier? Why do we need to have new actors/singers in Broadway musicals? Don't you all have your original cast recording of Guys and Dolls?

Re-visiting existing material and bringing a fresh take to it is a time-honoured artistic tradition--in music, the fine arts, theatre and movies (hell, Hitchcock did his own remake with The Man Who Knew Too Much and they were both good). Are there bad remakes? Of course. But that does not make the idea of doing a remake (in whatever variation) bad in and of itself. And even in those works of art and entertainment that purport to be "original"--the originality is in the arrangement of details (and there is more "borrowing" and "re-visiting" than most people are aware of).

So, "traditional" or not, I have no problems with a prequel--AS LONG AS IT IS WELL DONE. And by that I mean it is well acted, well written and well directed and, ultimately, entertaining. I certainly don't care if the buttons have different colours or whether Kirk's middle initial is R instead of T.

 

[Sketcher]

Maybe it'll be Chekov that bites it

 

[Woulfe]

- Ovation -

The problem it seems to me is that Star Trek fans or at lest a verry vocal bunch of them seem to think that Star Trek can't be re-made / re-visited as it's a 'special' case and therefore shouldn't be touched at all.

However like all forms of "Entertainment" it can be, at the end of the day it's just another franchise that bows to the whims of the studio that owns it.

Back when this thing was announced WAY back when it was like " Make it look like the show from the 1960's " while that might work for " The Brady Bunch Movie " it certinly wouldn't work for Star Trek, unless you want it to be viewed as a " Comedy " by Joe Blow Average American.

Some people fail to understand that basic concept.

One must face the fact it's 2008, not 1968, and if your spending $150 million it had better LOOK like your spending that much on the screen by god !

Galaxy Quest didn't use the sets they had for "the show" as part of the film itself, well except for the "Historical Records" but the point is that they knew in order to be taken seriously even for a comedy movie, they had to make it for the 21st century film going public.

In fact I often refer to this new movie as, what if Galaxy Quest had happened for real, someone intercepted the transmissions of Star Trek from Earth and then went and bulit the Enterprise for real only useing the tech they had availible to them thus giving a look that's different from the actual show itself because thier tech isn't the same as the shows tech or even our tech, being aliens and all.

If one just apprroches it from THAT point all will be fine.

- W -
* No matter where you go, there you are *

 

[scotthm]

Ovation said:
Re-visiting existing material and bringing a fresh take to it is a time-honoured artistic tradition... Are there bad remakes? Of course. But that does not make the idea of doing a remake (in whatever variation) bad in and of itself.

No, it doesn't, and sometimes a remake can be brilliant.

I think the problem is that when remaking an already popular and well made 'original' it's very difficult to equal, let alone surpass, it in the eyes of its fans. And if it's not at least as good, why bother? That the remake may inspire new fans who don't know or appreciate the original is of little consequence to the devoted fan of the original work.

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

scotthm said: That the remake may inspire new fans who don't know or appreciate the original is of little consequence to the devoted fan of the original work.

But it may be of great consequence to the people making it and to the new fans, and that's reason enough for doing it.

The fannish tendency to assert ownership or a protective interest in what they admire is understandable, but it's a doomed fight in every time and place because it's based on false premises.

 

[Ovation]

scotthm said:

Ovation said:
Re-visiting existing material and bringing a fresh take to it is a time-honoured artistic tradition... Are there bad remakes? Of course. But that does not make the idea of doing a remake (in whatever variation) bad in and of itself.

No, it doesn't, and sometimes a remake can be brilliant.

I think the problem is that when remaking an already popular and well made 'original' it's very difficult to equal, let alone surpass, it in the eyes of its fans. And if it's not at least as good, why bother? That the remake may inspire new fans who don't know or appreciate the original is of little consequence to the devoted fan of the original work.

---------------

Well, I'm afraid the "devoted fan" will just have to live with it. The "devoted fan" already has the object of his affection. He is free to like, dislike, ignore, etc. the new version. If all forms of art and entertainment were held captive to the wishes of the "devoted fan", we'd still be looking at cave paintings from the Cro-Magnon era. Beethoven revolutionized "classical" music, Picasso had a profound impact on visual arts (I could name many more) and each of them "revisited" things that had been done before. Before someone has a brain haemorrhage, I'm not suggesting Abrams is the film equivalent of Beethoven or Picasso (whose work is not to my taste, though I recognize his importance to the art world--as a "devoted fan" of other portrayals of the same subjects as Picasso, I've accepted his influence and moved on). I'm merely pointing out that "the devoted fan" should NOT be the final arbiter of any particular form of art--including pop culture.