Questions

[FabiusMaximus]

Months ago, as news of the new Trek film began to trickle in, many of us (myself included) tried to figure out the direction that Abrams would be taking our beloved franchise. That first teaser poster with the blue and gold of the original series got the speculative ball rolling and was emphatically spun when Abrams said that the original characters could “live again.” (We should have taken notice of the dominant blue in that poster and perhaps surmised that it would be a Spock-centric film) The casting of Quinto, the Comic-Con announcements, the Shatner debate all have added a great deal of fuel to the fire that this film has become. And now that we know much of the cast, have heard several unconfirmed rumors and have even seen glimpses of the production, I have a series of simple questions for this group. Based on your limited knowledge of the film, do you give the producers a passing grade so far? If the rumored time-jumping element is true, will it prevent you from embracing the film? Has casting been to your liking? Is Shatner’s appearance a make or break for you? And finally, look beyond your own scope – do you foresee the potential for this film in the general public’s eye?

I don’t post here much, but I believe this group to be savvy and honest to a fault. Please share your thoughts. The producers have stated that they want to know what you are thinking – so let them hear you.

 

[Superman]

Well, Fabe, I'll be the first to bite.

Here's the thing: this is a tough endeavor to be sure.

Not so much recasting TOS, which is, granted, a HUGE undertaking that my ultimately fail.

No, I'm referring to the very approach it seems the studio is taking to Trek: prequel.

I have nothing against good prequels that build up and add to an existing mythology. The Star Wars prequels did this to some extent, though not completely successfully.

Star Trek: Enterprise was a disaster in execution, if not conceptually.

The big question I keep asking is: do we really NEED to revisit these characters? Folks keep making comparisons to James Bond, but I don't see Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest in quite the same light.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just start afresh. Not a reboot, but a new ship, a new crew, set in the timeframe of TOS with updated aesthetics.

Would fewer people have cared about such a film? Possibly.

But I wonder if many people will care about Trek XI, outside of the fans.

And if they do, where does the franchise go from here? Keep telling stories in the TOS time frame until...what? We catch up to the films?

Then what?

If the production can get Bill Shatner in the film (assuming he's not in already), then I'll give it a shot because I want to see my favorite Trek character in one more adventure.

But if they can't even get Kirk in there, if that spirit of adventure and awe that he embodied is too far beyond them, and all they can do is a pale imitation of these icons, a la Superman Returns, well...

...I will always have my TOS series and film DVDs.

\S/

 

[ancient]

I haven't seen any faith-shattering revelations yet, so I'm good with it all.

Shatner, I love the guy, but my fanboy desire to see him play Kirk again is vastly outweighed by how unessessary and odd it would be. I think he could only hurt the movie.

 

[johnconner]

FabiusMaximus said:
Based on your limited knowledge of the film, do you give the producers a passing grade so far?

Absolutely. First off, I love LOST, ALIAS was full of ideas and fun but no more really than a diversion, never saw FELICITY (and don't want to). MI:3 I thought was the best in that series; tight, moving action. If anything, I thought it might have been a little short (but then I might be comparing it to the ridiculous 3-plus hour blockbusters).

If the rumored time-jumping element is true, will it prevent you from embracing the film?

Hell no! Some of the best Trek stories incorporate time travel. And as far as I'm concerned, if LOST is any benchmark, the man in charge knows how to jump in time.

Has casting been to your liking?

Sure. Yeah, count me among those who thought a big name in a smaller part - like Pike, for instance - would be REALLY cool, especially for a Trek film. Instead we get a good choice - Greenwood's awesome, just not a big name. As for the characters themselves, who knows? Lookswise, they've done it without veerying TOO much into teenybopperville. And Pegg? I'm all for it. Let's see what he can do. I really think Scotty (the role, the actor, his part in the story) will surprise us all.

The only really geeky thing I'll say is: "Don't fuck it up, Urban. De Kelley's my boy."

Is Shatner’s appearance a make or break for you?

No, I'll see the movie regardless, but BY GOD, how in the hell can they leave Shatner out? Fuck, I went to see Shatner twice at Trek cons back before Boston Legal because I thought he might kick the bucket at any time. But now that he's going strong - and he STILL might kick the bucket any day now - having Spock in it without Kirk (same age, wiseasses, I KNOW Kirk's in the movie, hoo hoo haw haw ... groan ) pisses me off on a fundamental Trek level. There's really no excuse as long as Shatner wants to do it.

Looks like all the Spockophiles got their wish for a Spockfest.

And finally, look beyond your own scope – do you foresee the potential for this film in the general public’s eye?

Oh, I think it'll succeed on a general pop-culture level IF they do the retro thing with class and sincerity. This doesn't mean it's dry; hell, it means it needs to be exciting! Dazzle me with updated TOS, wink at me with inside aplomb, have fun with it. The death knell for this thing will be if they take it TOO seriously. Somber Trek bores me to tears. I'll watch it, but it always leaves me wanting. But there's a balance - no one wants to see something on the level of the DUKES OF HAZZARD remake. In short, Action! You've only got a couple hours to kick ass, so make it count.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I'm giving the producers a passing grade. If nothing else, I tihnk they're taking this project very seriously. The security, the careful leaks (I'm personally one of the people who thinks JJ let Quinto be seen without a hood), the fact that all of this is being done very carefully, it's a good sign. If a crew is taking their project seriously, it's a good sign for the project.

For the casting, I haven't heard of most of them, but the ones I do know excite me. I look forward to seeing them in action.

I will see it with or without Shatner. I am capable of liking it with or without Shatner. If Shatner isn't there, I will likely not even think about until the next day when I read the first, "Damn. Shatner really wasn't in it." thread.

As for the public, I don't know. I think with enough hype, it'll be a sure shot, but I think Trek has kinda isolated itself to the point where many non-fans may not spend $7 to see a "geek-film"

 

[Therin of Andor]

Superman said:
The big question I keep asking is: do we really NEED to revisit these characters? Folks keep making comparisons to James Bond, but I don't see Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest in quite the same light.

I do! I'm thrilled to be seeing new TV-TOS adventures onscreen at last. I recall a certain sadness that day in the 1980s when I caught up with my last unseen episode.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just start afresh. Not a reboot, but a new ship, a new crew

DS9, VOY and ENT all failed (miserably by comparison) to garner the huge audiences that syndicated TOS built up in the 70s and TNG built up during Seasons 3-6.

A new ship and new crew - and on the big screen - doesn't have enough of a nostalgic pull. (Mind you, I say this as a member of the cast of the first "Starship Exeter" fan film, which did achieve that dose of nostalgia, but usually because it reflected some of the cheesier aspects of TOS: the bits we love to parody.)

Would fewer people have cared about such a film? Possibly.

Yep. It would have been a hard sell.

But I wonder if many people will care about Trek XI, outside of the fans.

I think it will be huge, actually. I was really surprised that ST:TMP managed to do so extraordinarily well, esp. when it was thought to be long and boring by so many.

And if they do, where does the franchise go from here? Keep telling stories in the TOS time frame until...what? We catch up to the films?

That's a long way off. I think we'll get a trilogy of early adventures, and then there might be new cast changes or a spin-off of some kind, or it'll be time to revisit a more mature Riker and Troi on the Titan for some telemovies.

 

[johnconner]

Therin of Andor said:

Superman said:
I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just start afresh. Not a reboot, but a new ship, a new crew

DS9, VOY and ENT all failed (miserably by comparison) to garner the huge audiences that syndicated TOS built up in the 70s and TNG built up during Seasons 3-6.

A new ship and new crew - and on the big screen - doesn't have enough of a nostalgic pull. (Mind you, I say this as a member of the cast of the first "Starship Exeter" fan film, which did achieve that dose of nostalgia, but usually because it reflected some of the cheesier aspects of TOS: the bits we love to parody.)

Yeah, I don't understand the whole "let's have a new crew, ship, etc."

There's one crucial difference - IT'S NOT THE SAME.

TNG was the closest beyond TOS to have the cross-cultural pull. By that I mean, more people than just Star Trek nerds would wanna see it. (I say that AS a Star Trek nerd, mind ya. ) But they couldn't sustain it, they weren't as iconic.

When the general public thinks of Star Trek, they think Kirk and Spock (and maaaaybe McCoy, but probably not at first blush), "Beam Me Up, Scotty", pointed ears and Shatner's acting and ripped shirts.

They don't think of Worf, T'pol, Janeway, Neelix (and thank God they don't think of him anyway ), Quark ... you get the point.

I know WE see a lot more than that in Trek, but if you plan to make money to the mass market, ya gotta go back to Trek Classic.

Plus which, on a personal note, I'm really kinda pumped to see youthful TOS action, especially since the movies - which I love - not only addressed their aging, it was part of the story. So let the flying leg kicks, judo chops and neck pinches begin!

 

[T'Cal]

ancient said:
I haven't seen any faith-shattering revelations yet, so I'm good with it all.

Shatner, I love the guy, but my fanboy desire to see him play Kirk again is vastly outweighed by how unessessary and odd it would be. I think he could only hurt the movie.

Ditto!

 

[xanderwess]

My favorite trek is whatever is on at the moment, ENT, DS9, TOS (remasted stuff is alot of fun) so I am easy and I can't wait until next Christmas.
Here is what I want out of the next trek movie. Its the same thing I wanted to see when I was watching reruns in the 70s when I was a grade schooler: Ships going fast, nerve pinches, stupid karate looking fighting, phasers and green tits. I love that stuff, and hope to heck we get all that in this film. Time travel, sure...why not. This is not a documentary, nor a 'history' lesson, its Star Trek. BTW: I really hate when people say how much they hate ENT. I thought it was pretty good and was disappointed when it ended. Prequel trek is better than no trek at all.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

johnconner said:
TNG was the closest beyond TOS to have the cross-cultural pull. By that I mean, more people than just Star Trek nerds would wanna see it. (I say that AS a Star Trek nerd, mind ya. ) But they couldn't sustain it, they weren't as iconic.

There must eventually have been someone amongst the old guard at Paramount who realized that ending TNG and moving it to the movies was the biggest misstep the studio made with "Star Trek."

There would have been problems and costs to address to keep it going for nine or eleven years (or longer), and it certainly would have had to evolve (we'd be here today arguing about which later season finally "jumped the shark") but even with some inevitable decline that series would almost certainly have continued to support the Franchise far better than the TNG movies or later spinoff series did.

As for the new movie - right now I can only give the producers an "incomplete." That said, everything I've seen or read about the movie thus far is pretty wonderful. :thumbsup:

 

[Franklin]

T'Cal said:

ancient said:
I haven't seen any faith-shattering revelations yet, so I'm good with it all.

Shatner, I love the guy, but my fanboy desire to see him play Kirk again is vastly outweighed by how unessessary and odd it would be. I think he could only hurt the movie.

Ditto!

Ditto squared. (Except I plead ignorance on whether or not Shatner's appearance would only hurt the movie. )