BBK View of Trek XI

[Eddie Roth]

I can understand those who assert that Enterprise will be the only series standing, but it seems a shame to ignore everything that's been established. I can imagine Trek fans in 40 years grumbling over a "reboot" that would wipe out what they have gotten out of the franchise.

I don't think we should see it that way. Now I don't know what precisely will happen in ST09 because I purposely stay away from spoilers as much as I can, but from the writers' and Abrams' interviews, the idea here is to tell an origin story/prequel that gives itself some leeway regarding what is "supposed" to follow after it. Like Batman Begins or Casino Royale.

Both these franchises went back to the origin of their iconic characters and kept it somewhat in line with what had been established in previous installments, yet they began an entirely new take on the material. The James Bond of Casino Royale is an entirely different person than, say, Connery or Moore. Much the same, Nolan's Batman has little to do with Burton's, much less Schumacher's or the 1960s TV series. But were they fresh and exciting? Yes they were. And they made ailing franchises viable again. I hope it will be the same for Trek.

Now the way I imagine this story, it will be about old Spock trying to set right certain changes made to history by the time-travelling Nero, including making sure that Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise. This will no doubt be achieved by the end of the film. Could one imagine that the events of TOS happen the same way we saw them before? Maybe. But if they don't, would that take away from my enjoyment of TOS or the other shows? No. In fact, wouldn't it be a lot more exciting for future films if we didn't know how it all turns out in the end?

A total reboot might even open the door for a new version of TNG at some point in the future

 

[Captain Robert April]

Difference: Batman was never one, continuous storyline, nor did it ever pretend to be. Hell, Bob Kane himself rebooted the storyline within a year or two of launching the character, and there were plenty of changes well before the Adam West series was even conceived. As for Bond, the movies diverged from the novels pretty early on, not to mention the fact that long time fans of the books grumbled rather loudly that they went with a relative unknown (Connery) than sticking with the novel's portrayal and casting someone like David Niven. For that matter, every time a new Bond was chosen, it amounted to a semi-reboot.

Star Trek, on the other hand, despite occasionally crossing itself up on timeline issues, has always at least attempted to maintain a single, consistent universe and history.

JJ's little alternate timeline idea effectively chucks that concept right out the window.

And THAT, among other reasons, is why I'm opposed to this film.

 

[Eddie Roth]

Well, I for one saw no chance back in 2005 that Star Trek would ever return in the form we had known until then. There was a long process of the franchise going downhill creatively and when that happens, there is no coming back except in a very new and different form (cf. Batman and Bond franchises!)

The TNG movies had, for the most part, been pretty middle-of-the-road for me, as far as the actual strengths of Star Trek were concerned - you know, where the exciting space adventure always tried to say something about the fabled "human condition" and succeeded; where the characters developed, changed (the TOS movies) and where there was a sense of wonder about space. None of these last four films had that for me. I attribute that to the fact that Rick Berman was behind them all and that his vision had been limited by too many years working on Star Trek. It must have become business as usual for him, and it shows in the product.

The same is true of ENT. And in 2005, when, in addition to the box-office failure of Nemesis, the current Trek TV series was cancelled, it felt like fans voting with their remote for a change of "government" that had been in power for too long. (I'm thinking here of our former Chancellor Helmut Kohl - who everybody sure held dear for bringing the reunification of Germany and many other things - but after 16 years of the same politics, even if you liked them, you desire change... and he lost the election.)

This is the reason I laughed off the early rumors way back about Berman planning a new film about a Romulan War set after ENT and before TOS. It just showed that he had lost all touch with what made Star Trek work and why the franchise had become a niche product that a general audience wouldn't even go near: Star Trek's fictional past is irrelevant if it doesn't hold interesting stories for characters people care about. Needless to say, that project never came to pass.

So when the once-mega-successful TNG cast fails to make their latest film a hit and Trek on TV gets cancelled for the first time since Trek had become the phenomenon it is... you know it will not return. The long-developed intricacies of Trek lore were a part of why the franchise stumbled years ago. I mean, even some diehard fans, me included, just couldn't muster up enough enthusiasm for stories about some starship in space before Kirk's time that showed us who invented the transporter (yawn) or why Klingons didn't have ridges on their foreheads in TOS. Why would this attract any new fans?

So I'm very happy, and I think we all should be, that the new approach is an actual new approach. That things are done differently and will hopefully lead to renewed success, because only that way might there one day be a new Trek TV series, more movies etc. So I stand by my comparison to the Batman and Bond franchises. It doesn't matter what kind of continuity had come before so long as the reboot is good and fresh and renews interest.

 

[The Academic]

And whoever that boy Pine pretends to be - he'll never be Kirk!

Right you are...
He will never be THE Kirk... but at least he will be A Kirk!

 

[Captain Randy Hall]

I can understand those who assert that Enterprise will be the only series standing, but it seems a shame to ignore everything that's been established. I can imagine Trek fans in 40 years grumbling over a "reboot" that would wipe out what they have gotten out of the franchise.

I don't think we should see it that way. Now I don't know what precisely will happen in ST09 because I purposely stay away from spoilers as much as I can, but from the writers' and Abrams' interviews, the idea here is to tell an origin story/prequel that gives itself some leeway regarding what is "supposed" to follow after it. Like Batman Begins or Casino Royale.

Both these franchises went back to the origin of their iconic characters and kept it somewhat in line with what had been established in previous installments, yet they began an entirely new take on the material. The James Bond of Casino Royale is an entirely different person than, say, Connery or Moore. Much the same, Nolan's Batman has little to do with Burton's, much less Schumacher's or the 1960s TV series. But were they fresh and exciting? Yes they were. And they made ailing franchises viable again. I hope it will be the same for Trek.

Now the way I imagine this story, it will be about old Spock trying to set right certain changes made to history by the time-travelling Nero, including making sure that Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise. This will no doubt be achieved by the end of the film. Could one imagine that the events of TOS happen the same way we saw them before? Maybe. But if they don't, would that take away from my enjoyment of TOS or the other shows? No. In fact, wouldn't it be a lot more exciting for future films if we didn't know how it all turns out in the end?

A total reboot might even open the door for a new version of TNG at some point in the future

You've got some interesting ideas there. Perhaps the focus of the heroes in the movie is to try and PREVENT an alternative timeline from being created. I hope we don't have to see Trek have to recycle all its "generations," but it kinda bugs me to see people working on a project and not doing his darnedest to use the items already established in the franchise. Everything I see says that Abrams and company are doing their best to stay within the boundaries of Trek.

Of course, we'll have to wait until early May to see what happens.

 

[Eddie Roth]

Well, Randy, it's my opinion that the only reason the writers have been going on about alternate universes and quantum-whatever is to preemptively cover all their bases once some fundamentalist fan argues "Oh, but in TOS Episode 74 it was said in a barely audible, improvised line that Crewman Smith died ten years ago, yet you had him on the bridge" or such.

Writing Star Trek must have been a royal pain the ass for the folks on VGR, ENT etc. because they had this massive background to keep in mind all the time lest they contradict previous information that the very vocal hardcore fans would use immediately to shit on the whole story. So in order to have some dramatic license, I suppose they put their alternate universe theory out there just in case. The changes they end up making, I believe, will be far less severe than some are thinking right now.

I mean, let's look at the people this film mainly targets, which are those who have not seen every Trek episode, and maybe not even a single one: new fans, as it were. For them, the film tells the story of how THE Kirk and THE Spock (not some alternate universe version, but THEM) got to meet each other and how they ended up on the Enterprise. Under this prequel notion, it wouldn't make sense if they changed so much that one could not (with a the usual bit of suspension of disbelief) watch TOS and accept it as plausible follow-up to this story. About Pike for example: I don't think they'll let him die. Because otherwise what would the Trek newcomer think when he gets to watch The Menagerie? "But didn't Captain Pike die in the movie? How come he's alive and in that wheelchair?" They could however show us in the film how he got poisoned by Delta rays or whatever it was, saving his cadets. In this case, the hardcore fan would still argue "It didn't happen that way!" but for the casual (or new) fan, it all still fits reasonably well together.

 

[Captain Randy Hall]

Well, Randy, it's my opinion that the only reason the writers have been going on about alternate universes and quantum-whatever is to preemptively cover all their bases once some fundamentalist fan argues "Oh, but in TOS Episode 74 it was said in a barely audible, improvised line that Crewman Smith died ten years ago, yet you had him on the bridge" or such.

Writing Star Trek must have been a royal pain the ass for the folks on VGR, ENT etc. because they had this massive background to keep in mind all the time lest they contradict previous information that the very vocal hardcore fans would use immediately to shit on the whole story. So in order to have some dramatic license, I suppose they put their alternate universe theory out there just in case. The changes they end up making, I believe, will be far less severe than some are thinking right now.

I mean, let's look at the people this film mainly targets, which are those who have not seen every Trek episode, and maybe not even a single one: new fans, as it were. For them, the film tells the story of how THE Kirk and THE Spock (not some alternate universe version, but THEM) got to meet each other and how they ended up on the Enterprise. Under this prequel notion, it wouldn't make sense if they changed so much that one could not (with a the usual bit of suspension of disbelief) watch TOS and accept it as plausible follow-up to this story. About Pike for example: I don't think they'll let him die. Because otherwise what would the Trek newcomer think when he gets to watch The Menagerie? "But didn't Captain Pike die in the movie? How come he's alive and in that wheelchair?" They could however show us in the film how he got poisoned by Delta rays or whatever it was, saving his cadets. In this case, the hardcore fan would still argue "It didn't happen that way!" but for the casual (or new) fan, it all still fits reasonably well together.

First off, let me say that I've been a Trek fan since the mid-1970s and no matter what, I will see the fillm, probably at the midnight Thursday shows. I still love Trek but I like the others as well, the many Stargates, Doctor Who, and that sort of thing. I'm just airing some concerns I have about the movie, which centers on Kirk.

My hope is this not a total reboot and we get to see the early moments of Classic Trek. I don't understand dumping to the curb what some great talents have done. Still, I understand the overwhelming a new fan faces. When I first got into Doctor Who, I was awestruck with how many episodes and how many Doctors there were. It took me time to see them all, but I did it.

Given a perfect world, I'd hope this film tells the "untold stories" in the crew's past. I understant that in one scene, one of the characters says they can't go forward since there's no captain or first officer. Kirk says "Maybe we do" and sits in the captain's chair for the first time. Now, done well, that can be a terrific moment; or it could be a total letdown. We'll see.

I remember when Generations came out, and how hugely disappointing it was to see Trek kill its best known character not once but twice. That's why the BBK group got started. We felt our favorite character was being given the shaft because Rick Berman wanted to have Classic Trek pass the torch to TNG. I just wish it wasn't fatal.

That would be the same as Picard dying at DS9 and passing the torch to Sisko. And I wouldn't like it much.

OK, I'm rambling. I know when I'm rambling and I can stop rambling. I just have to stop rambling about rambling....

 

[Eddie Roth]

I understand. In fact, one of the reasons why Generations is my least favorite of the movies is the cavalier way in which they disposed of Kirk. It felt like Berman saying "Oh, so you like Roddenberry's Star Trek better than mine? OK, look here, Kirk's dead, Old Star Trek is dead. Take mine or have no Star Trek at all" It wasn't necessary to kill him off, especially in that lame way.

But remember, J.J. Abrams is not Rick Berman. And for all intents and purposes, Kirk has now been resurrected. Different actor, yes, but still. I for one never thought, about, say, six or seven years ago, that I would ever see a new Star Trek story that was about Kirk and Spock. So in that sense I'm very glad.

 

[Captain Randy Hall]

I understand. In fact, one of the reasons why Generations is my least favorite of the movies is the cavalier way in which they disposed of Kirk. It felt like Berman saying "Oh, so you like Roddenberry's Star Trek better than mine? OK, look here, Kirk's dead, Old Star Trek is dead. Take mine or have no Star Trek at all" It wasn't necessary to kill him off, especially in that lame way.

But remember, J.J. Abrams is not Rick Berman. And for all intents and purposes, Kirk has now been resurrected. Different actor, yes, but still. I for one never thought, about, say, six or seven years ago, that I would ever see a new Star Trek story that was about Kirk and Spock. So in that sense I'm very glad.

I agree with your sentiments, but I think Berman had a more financial reason for dumping the Classic characters. Since he had nothing to do with their creation, he got no money if they were used. But he had a part in creating the TNG crew, so he got a check everytime one of them appeared on screen.

Randy

 

[Eddie Roth]

Which would be precisely why he killed him off. No more Kirk - no more clamoring for films with the original cast!