Trek XI is TOS based...does this speak to the continued relevance of TOS or is it merely an indication that the old gal needs a makeover?
Self Righteous, Smug TOS SOBs and XI
- Thread starter Proximity_Phaser
- Start date
I think that it's the logical place to go from a money point of view (Kirk/Spock/McCoy are the best known characters probably in the entire Trekverse). It's familiar ground for the writers etc. The effects can be updated more easily this way and it's a way to sell the concept to a brand new generation that maybe feels TOS suffers from lack of modern design/effects.
I'm just surprised the TOS re-imagining(?) took this long. I was expecting this closer to 2010 or 2015 when they'd just reboot the entire thing.
I'm just surprised the TOS re-imagining(?) took this long. I was expecting this closer to 2010 or 2015 when they'd just reboot the entire thing.
It just means that, if you're going to make a Star Trek movie, the safest bet is to actually make a Star Trek movie.
Star Trek means two things:
1. Star Trek; a TV series from the 1960s. Cult status, iconically popular. Much of its terminology, characters and so on have passed into pop culture legend. Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are as enduring as Bond and Batman in the public consciousness.
2. The Trek Mythos. The financial success of Star Trek: The Next Generation proved that a series without the iconic characters, but with elements from Trek's mythology - transporters, Klingons, the Federation, etc. - could work. The decline (in ratings terms) of Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise proved that was never certain.
Abrams and his pals are interested in 1. They don't care much for 2. That's just the way it is, for better or worse. Here's hoping 'better'...
Star Trek means two things:
1. Star Trek; a TV series from the 1960s. Cult status, iconically popular. Much of its terminology, characters and so on have passed into pop culture legend. Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are as enduring as Bond and Batman in the public consciousness.
2. The Trek Mythos. The financial success of Star Trek: The Next Generation proved that a series without the iconic characters, but with elements from Trek's mythology - transporters, Klingons, the Federation, etc. - could work. The decline (in ratings terms) of Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise proved that was never certain.
Abrams and his pals are interested in 1. They don't care much for 2. That's just the way it is, for better or worse. Here's hoping 'better'...
It shows that TOS is the most iconic of the Star Trek shows. It's the one the general public knows about even if they haven't seen it.
Yup, phasers, warp speed, beam me up all came into use as somewhat common phrases before TNG and the other series came along.
If you want to get something good, go to the source :thumbsup:
It's JJ Abrams' idea, but the Paramount suits prolly took a cold, hard, profit-driven look at the situation and decided:
1. Star Trek is FAR too big a brand name to let languish long. They'll resurrect Bewitched and Get Smart? Of course they'll resurrect Trek!
2. The cachet that Trek still has is: Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. Hey I think DS9 is the best of the series, but if I were a Paramount suit, I'd never greenlight a DS9 movie. I'd do just what they're doing, because as a suit, my first priority is to serve the interests of my bosses, aka Paramount's shareholders, and to hell with Niners, Trekkies or other unwashed heathen.
1. Star Trek is FAR too big a brand name to let languish long. They'll resurrect Bewitched and Get Smart? Of course they'll resurrect Trek!
2. The cachet that Trek still has is: Kirk-Spock-Enterprise. Hey I think DS9 is the best of the series, but if I were a Paramount suit, I'd never greenlight a DS9 movie. I'd do just what they're doing, because as a suit, my first priority is to serve the interests of my bosses, aka Paramount's shareholders, and to hell with Niners, Trekkies or other unwashed heathen.
If signifies the need to return to Trek's roots.
The whole Trek world is made up of 2 types of Trek. The original series and original cast movies and the Berman era of Trek. You can't get any farther apart than these two types of programming. They are litterally different as night and day.
The 24th century era took off for awhile and a lot of people tuned into it...but after year after year of familiar mediocrity, it wore out it's welcome and people stopped watching.
The only real choices Paramount had were to either:
1) create a whole new show, beyond the era of Voyager and re-invent the wheel.
2) continue with more Bermanized Trek, which cleary had become stale and un-interesting.
Or 3) return to Star Trek, with the iconic crew everyone knows. The studio went with the obvious scenario that had the best chance of erasing recent bad Trek memories and bringing back something fond and familiar.
I wish them luck, they're gonna need it!
The whole Trek world is made up of 2 types of Trek. The original series and original cast movies and the Berman era of Trek. You can't get any farther apart than these two types of programming. They are litterally different as night and day.
The 24th century era took off for awhile and a lot of people tuned into it...but after year after year of familiar mediocrity, it wore out it's welcome and people stopped watching.
The only real choices Paramount had were to either:
1) create a whole new show, beyond the era of Voyager and re-invent the wheel.
2) continue with more Bermanized Trek, which cleary had become stale and un-interesting.
Or 3) return to Star Trek, with the iconic crew everyone knows. The studio went with the obvious scenario that had the best chance of erasing recent bad Trek memories and bringing back something fond and familiar.
I wish them luck, they're gonna need it!
I'm thinking there is more to the choice than "TOS came first".
Igrokbok has come pretty close to putting my thinking in to words.
Igrokbok has come pretty close to putting my thinking in to words.
Especially after seeing what was possible with the "New Voyages" web-based series, I decided a good whle back that doing more of the original with new actors was an excellent choice.
I just wish NOTHING else was changed but the faces of the characters. They didn't seem to have a problem showing the original Enterprise-type design during the "In A Mirror Darkly" episode of "Enterprise". It still "flew".
Why change anything from the original? Just rebuild the old sets and props, stitch up some TOS uniforms in the new cast's sizes, and get going!
I just wish NOTHING else was changed but the faces of the characters. They didn't seem to have a problem showing the original Enterprise-type design during the "In A Mirror Darkly" episode of "Enterprise". It still "flew".
Why change anything from the original? Just rebuild the old sets and props, stitch up some TOS uniforms in the new cast's sizes, and get going!
that is as bad as the thought to attempt and release again a NEW animated series like they did the first time between the original series and the first movie... 
Although i saw the animated trek for sale at a electronics store, for 50 bucks and bought it... I remember this series, I thought it was *NOT* that bad. I really thing they shouldn't think about another animated trek series.
It wouldn't be the same without Deforrest Kelley and James Doohan.
Although i saw the animated trek for sale at a electronics store, for 50 bucks and bought it... I remember this series, I thought it was *NOT* that bad. I really thing they shouldn't think about another animated trek series.
It wouldn't be the same without Deforrest Kelley and James Doohan.
