Star Trek XI FAQ 1.01

[AlexR]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Plum said:
... yea but, Wesley was a teen, right?

Right, but he wasn't an Academy graduate or a serving officer. He was a civilian family member who got special privileges, due in part to his talents and skills. (Families themselves were not that common on starships prior to that time, and in the wake of the Dominion War seem very much to have been a discontinued experiment.)

I understand the "top gun" reference, but I think it's off, the "Horatio Hornblower" air of trek always had kids on board (think Master and Commander). Even kirks ship had 16 year olds (Charlie X) serving.

Umm... Nope. Charlie Evans was a rescued castaway, on board as a passenger.

I gotta think that, as portrayed, starfleet academy was more a navel academy with young kids serving on ships from time to time as well as their regular studies.

All the aired evidence seems still to point to the idea that StarFleet Academy is still the equivalent of, say, Annapolis or West Point, rather than high school. In fact, IIRC, The Making of Star Trek spec'd that the minimum age to enter in the 2250s or so was 17, and by the 2360s, an episode of TNG ("Coming of Age", IIRC) suggests that the age had been lowered to 16.

Yea, I was drinking at the cottage.

I hope it was good stuff!

Best,
Alex

 

[Wowbagger]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Anyone notice this on the StarTrek.com website, BTW? I haven't seen a thread about it yet:

Shatner Refutes Damon Casting Rumor

The recent rumors suggesting that Matt Damon is to play a young James T. Kirk may be true, but sources close to William Shatner say that this is news to him. Shatner, the man responsible for the iconic character, has yet to speak to the producers of the announced "Star Trek XI," nor has his opinion been solicited as to who should play the young future captain of the Enterprise.

To recap: Since the announcement of "Star Trek XI" back in April of this year, rumors have been flying, most of which have been refuted. The original story in Variety suggested that the movie would be a sort of prequel to the Original Series, with Kirk, Spock and others in their Starfleet Academy days. This idea was quickly shot down by producer and long-time Star Trek fan J.J. Abrams. And now, according to Shatner, he has yet to be contacted about the possible choices of actor to play his younger screen character or even give his blessing to the project.

One thing we do know about "Star Trek XI" is that no major details — movie title, stars, setting, release date — have been confirmed. And, until you read it here, please treat it as a rumor!

Might bear adding to the FAQ that our only credible rumor is now under attack.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Wowbagger said:
Anyone notice this on the StarTrek.com website, BTW? I haven't seen a thread about it yet:

Shatner says....

Might bear adding to the FAQ that our only credible rumor is now under attack.

I will be putting up a 1.01 version sometime soon (I have to actually have a mod do it for me because of the silly time limit)

It seems to me since the big announcement that we are seeing the dividing line between CBS Paramount and Paramount Pictures. CBS controls ST.com and so far that site has been using published reports and not really providing anything. This is the first time they have had their own source.

as for them noting that Abrams has denied the prequel...well that is a bit of a stretch. He has neither confirmed nor denied...then turns around and drops giant hints about Kirk and Spock, as have others associated with the film.

but as the FAQ says...nothing is confirmed.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

zhu said:

PowderedToastMan said:
Screenplay: Abrams with Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Kurtzman and Orci also written Paramount’s 2007 Transformers film)

It's nice to see Abrams honor the early TOS tradition of employing elite prose science fiction writers to pen Star Trek XI.

Name for me some elite prose SciFi writers that have written a summer blockbuster???

Orci and Kurtzman are long time Abrams collaborators on TV and wrote MI3...which was a good script. Fans should also take heart that they are big Trek fans and even fans of Trek books. My main point in putting in the Transformers ref was that STXI will be their 3rd big budget film for Paramount...showing that Paramount has faith in them (writing a screenplay isnt as easy as all the waiters in LA will have you think) It will be interesting to see how the fanboys accept their work in Transformers and how they can take something soo incredibly geeky and turn it into a mainstream film. Personally I find the Transformers one of the dumbest dorkiest franchises on earth...if they can make that into a hit...then Trek shouldnt be a problem.

 

[Beyerstein]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

You can tell the person who wrote that faq is very much infavor of the movie/rumors. Especially in the complaints parts.

I don't think it is that objective.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Beyerstein said:
You can tell the person who wrote that faq is very much infavor of the movie/rumors. Especially in the complaints parts.

I don't think it is that objective.

omg how horrible...a Trekkie in favor of a new Trek film on a Trek BBS...call the police...send in Ann Coulter and/or Micheal Moore

...and may I call you attention to the following

Complaints
The following are some of the common complaints and criticisms. Comments are based on a combination of media reports and ->subjective<- opinion

 

[Beyerstein]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

so basically it's more of a 'why i think the rumored star trek movie is a good idea' than a faq

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

no the faqs are the faqs...they are based on the linked info.

none of the complaints comments claim that the film is guaranteed to succeed, it only provides the counter arguments to many of the 'common complaints'.

a new faq will be done next week...as I have stated in this thread the next version may add some more 'negative' comments for the pessimists

 

[Saul]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

The listed complaints seems to be another way for PowderedToastMan to get across his argument about how he is right and everyone else who disagrees with him is wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Good FAQ. Thanks for doing all the work, PowderedToastMan.

 

[ancient]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Good FAQ, PTM. Thanks.

ZZYFRX said:
There needs to be just one minor modification...

Star Trek XI FAQ 1.1

Will the new movie suck?

Jeeze, is it possible for someone to miss the point more than this?

I'll have to check my cystal ball.


...nope, still nothing.

If you look at it from a statistical stand point, there were only four Star Trek films out of ten produced that were generally considered by critics and fans to be any good (i.e. WOK, TVH, TUC & FC). That's only a 40% positive rating, which means that more Star Trek films have sucked than have not.

And? That's a totally meaningless statistic. Please don't make me explain why.

...Ok, fine.
1. New creative team
2. 9 of 10 movies made a profit and spawned a sequel.
3. I didn't know there was an official list of which movies were good and which weren't.

[rant]...and, therefore, suck giant hairy monkey balls.

Great job being objective about a movie you know nothing about.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Nice FAQ. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Reaperman]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Ok, some ground rules for this thread and any future FAQ topics. Well, when I say "some", I really mean "one" and that is; KEEP THE CONTINUITY vs. RE-BOOT BATTLES OUT OF HERE. By all means, if you want to discuss or add something, then please feel free to do so. But you're all going to have to do it without the snide asides and personal comments.

There are plenty of other topics for discussing the pros and cons of both sides of the argument, and I must say that I've been pretty lenient in allowing some of those arguments to get a bit heated. I'm not after stifling discussion on what Trek should or should not be. Trekkies have been arguing about that since Season 3 of TOS and I'm not naieve enough to believe thats going to change any time soon, but try and keep it civil guys.

 

[jtkirk]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Matt Damon is the WORST choice for Kirk! Almost as bad as JLO for the role of Sue Ellen Ewing in the upcoming Dallas film. They should take a vote & ask the fans who they would like to portray their iconic heroes.

 

[Reaperman]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

I've edited the opening post with changes PTM sent me.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

thank you Reaperman

the update includes some of the latest info as well as taking into consideration many of the comments here. I have changed the second section as you can see...I have narrowed it to three questions and renamed it 'the great debate' that tries to show a balanced approach...but admits there are no firm answers to some questions (like will people accept new actors). For those who have decided they dont want to see Trek XI and want me to put in 'how much will trek suck?' as a question...i suggest this isnt something for you. The faq is mainly for people coming here to find out whats going on and to avoid 'whats the latest' or 'Did Kirk and spock meet before TOS' type of posts




also I think Reaperman's point about keeping the debates in the main forum are good. I suggest that comments in this thread should focus on additions, suggestions, comments, critiques of the FAQ itself.

 

[Tomalak]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Good stuff PTM. I haven't really been keeping up with all the rumours and debates, so this is very welcome.

 

[Australis]

Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0

Good stuff PTM. Please keep it up to date as much as possible (allowing that real life can interfere with more impoertant things like this).

 

[Russ]

Great work PTM.

:thumbsup:

 

[Elysium]

Throws hat off to PowderedToastMan, thank you.