Do they really need to use the past??

[Jared]

I still dont understand why they went backwards in time to use Enterprise as the new series, and that failed.
And now I cant understand why they're staying in the past for the next movie! If this movie shadows Enterprise at all we wont have new Trek for a very long time.
Why is it not possible to come up with new stories in the "present" Trek timeline sometime after the Dominion War and return of Voyager?
I would have really enjoyed to have a combination of characters from each series (mixed with new characters) in a special ops assignment.

 

[Skywalker]

No, they don't have to, but there's nothing wrong with it. Trek doesn't need to "move forward" to be interesting.

 

[Jared]

No thats true, and I really enjoyed parts of Enterprise. But I think that using characters and actors that we're all famaliar with would make for more popular Trek.

Not to mention I'm really curious whats happening after the Dominion War!!

 

[Sharr Khan]

Past and future tense do not apply to works of fiction - in fiction all points in a timeline are viable storytelling tools. (This is a bit of a hot button with me people who insitst that "You need to move forward to be 'original'" have no grasp of the creative process.

Seen hours and hours or "present day" Star Trek and it was often not 'original' or fun...

Where this movie takes place in the timeline is in many ways totally irrelevant to if its a *good movie* or *good story telling* - at the moment I'll take Nimoy's word and expect the best.

Enterprise didn't fail because of its placement in the timeline... some might say it failed because it was more 24th Century Star Trek then 22nd or even 23rd... but even then that wasn't the roots of its failure.

Sharr

 

[Skywalker]

Jared said:
No thats true, and I really enjoyed parts of Enterprise. But I think that using characters and actors that we're all famaliar with would make for more popular Trek.

Not to mention I'm really curious whats happening after the Dominion War!!

Then read the (excellent) books. :thumbsup:

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm curious about the post-Dominion War too. But most people don't know what the FRAK that is. Right now, Trek needs to get back up on its feet, via the most recognizable and "safe" elements - Kirk/Spock/Enterprise.

That needs to be the immediate goal. The post-Dominion-War milieu will always be there for us to explore later...

 

[EyalM]

Jared said:
But I think that using characters and actors that we're all famaliar with would make for more popular Trek.

You're argument is valid, and it's actually why the producers are doing what they are doing.
What characters are more familiar then Kirk and Spock? What actors are more familiar then Leonard Nimoy (and maybe Shatner)?

 

[C.E. Evans]

It's perhaps inevitable for any long-running franchise to reboot itself in order to revitalize itself or to simply get back to basics after going off into different directions. With Trek, it may have been a case of one or two spinoffs too many or too many spinoffs right after another. To someone that only has a passing familiarity with Trek, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT might have all seemed to blend together even though they are quite different. Others still might not even be aware that there was another Trek series after TOS, much less four.

Issues of continuity and canon aside, I see Trek XI as simply getting back to basics--and you really can't get more basic than Captain Kirk and Mister Spock. Even some people who never watched a single episode of Trek know of Kirk and Spock, so if the studio really wants to give Trek a major worldwide relaunch, going back to these guys is the best way to do it.

Now what happens after Trek XI, however, is where a major decision will have to be made to the direction the franchise goes in next. Should the movie be a success, it will have served as the major jump-start the franchise needs right now...

 

[ChristopherPike]

Enterprise is one of my favourite series and there are seemingly 101 reasons why it didn't have the longer life it deserved. Star Trek XI has a better chance of success than it ever did, given it has the total support of the studio, features iconic characters known across the globe and a specific story to tell. Leonard Nimoy's participation is just the icing on the cake.

 

[Larris of Metropi]

Look at the Batman movies, for example. It started out with the Joker in the first movie, then had the Riddler, then Poison Ivy, and only then did they decide to go back to the beginning; how Batman became Batman.
The Star Wars Movies started at a midpoint in the middle of the Empire war, and only after the Empire was destroyed, did Lucas go back to the beginning to tell the story of how 'Anni' became Darth Vader.
I think the success of any series is to have the ability to go back to the beginning in order to define how the various characters were developed into who they are.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Jared said:
I still dont understand why they went backwards in time to use Enterprise as the new series, and that failed.

It didn't fail because it "went backwards in time." It failed because of weak writing, few good actors, and a desire to be middle of the road science fiction.

If the writing, originality and a great cast had been in place and it still failed, then perhaps the prequelness might have been a problem.

But even then...Star Trek had been on for so long, maybe people were just bored.

And now I cant understand why they're staying in the past for the next movie! If this movie shadows Enterprise at all we wont have new Trek for a very long time.

What do you mean by shadowing? Fails? If this movie fails, yes, we won't have Trek for some time. But, it is a franchise that has made a lot of money, it won't be gone forever.

They are staying in the past because a Kirk/Spock story is what JJ Abrams wants to tell. Paramount liked his idea, they are going with it.

Why is it not possible to come up with new stories in the "present" Trek timeline sometime after the Dominion War and return of Voyager?

It is possible. But that's not what they are doing. JJ Abrams wanted to do this story, and Paramount agreed.

I would have really enjoyed to have a combination of characters from each series (mixed with new characters) in a special ops assignment.

And I would have been bored to death.

To me, lately, the 24th C Trek (including Enterprise...which felt like 24th C Trek) was BORING. Spacial Anomolies, Resets, Technobabble.

What ever happened to the human adventure? I am THRILLED they are going back to Kirk and Spock.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Last time I looked, this was August of 2007. Both "Star Trek Enterprise" and "Star Trek" take place several centuries in the future, not the past - however stodgy and mannered Trek may be.

 

[Zachary Smith]

If it takes place in a time when there is no use of frickin' holodecks, I'm greatly encouraged.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They could retcon holodecks into TOS times with no difficulty at all. What they couldn't do as easily is claim that they existed aboard spaceships.

After all, we're far more likely to invent a gadget like a holodeck in the next century than we ever are to build FTL spaceships.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

last time I checked...tos takes place in the future

 

[seigezunt]

UWC Defiance said:
They could retcon holodecks into TOS times with no difficulty at all. What they couldn't do as easily is claim that they existed aboard spaceships.

After all, we're far more likely to invent a gadget like a holodeck in the next century than we ever are to build FTL spaceships.

if the porn industry has anything to do with it...

also, didn't they have a holodeck in a TAS episode? Or am I mixing that up with a novelization?

 

[Woulfe]

PTM, even moreso if one counts Enterprise as part of Canon, as TOS hapens AFTER that, so what's this going backwards BS ?

- W -
* Gotcha ! *

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Woulfe said:
PTM, even moreso if one counts Enterprise as part of Canon,

Counting "Enterprise" as canon isn't optional - it is canon. Paying any attention to it is optional.

seigezunt said:
also, didn't they have a holodeck in a TAS episode? Or am I mixing that up with a novelization?

Yep - the one in which the ship turns into a "practical joker." Kirk's Enterprise has a primitive kind of holographic environment for recreation.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

seigezunt said:

UWC Defiance said:
They could retcon holodecks into TOS times with no difficulty at all. What they couldn't do as easily is claim that they existed aboard spaceships.

After all, we're far more likely to invent a gadget like a holodeck in the next century than we ever are to build FTL spaceships.

if the porn industry has anything to do with it...

also, didn't they have a holodeck in a TAS episode? Or am I mixing that up with a novelization?

You're correct.. the TAS episode "The Practical Joker" wherein the main computer of the Enteprise is corrupted, and starts playing pranks... replicating dribble-glasses and so forth. There is a scene where several characters on on the "recreation deck" (which is EXACTLY like a holodeck) and it goes haywire and the crew nearly drown, nearly freeze, etc...

I've always assumed that this is part of why Roddenberry later swore off TAS... because he wanted to pretend that he'd come up with the idea of this sort of facility himself (instead of giving credit for the concept to the author of that animated episode).

 

[Woulfe]

UWC, some would argue otherwize just to say that we're going backwards =P

- W -
* I do count Enterprise as Canon, well, except for TATV *