Star Trek XI FAQ 1.01
- Thread starter PowderedToastMan
- Start date
- Status
Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0
That just means that Stephen Colbert will be voted in as the star.
That just means that Stephen Colbert will be voted in as the star.
Re: Star Trek XI FAQ 1.0
this reminds me I do need to update this.
I am currently updating the Trek XI section on TrekMovie.com
http://trekmovie.com/trek-xi-movie-info/
when i complete that I will aks the mods here to modify this sticky or maybe create a new one
this reminds me I do need to update this.
I am currently updating the Trek XI section on TrekMovie.com
http://trekmovie.com/trek-xi-movie-info/
when i complete that I will aks the mods here to modify this sticky or maybe create a new one
If this is an earlier Trek movie in the TOS era, I'd like to see:
Captain Robert April and the launch of the Enterprise,
Captain Pike and an adventure of the Enterprise with a Lt. Kirk who catches Pike's interest as a promising officer,
Kirk's first mission as captain of Enterprise, having command handed over by Fleet Captain Pike. Gary Mitchell, his best friend, is also on the ship.
or
the final mission of the Enterprise before setting into Drydock for refit to TMP.
Those are some ideas I'd go see.
Captain Robert April and the launch of the Enterprise,
Captain Pike and an adventure of the Enterprise with a Lt. Kirk who catches Pike's interest as a promising officer,
Kirk's first mission as captain of Enterprise, having command handed over by Fleet Captain Pike. Gary Mitchell, his best friend, is also on the ship.
or
the final mission of the Enterprise before setting into Drydock for refit to TMP.
Those are some ideas I'd go see.
Some of your ideas are similar to mine opinion of what the plot should be:
Young Lieutenant Kirk on the Farragut during the Tycho IV cloud-entity incident. Captain Garrovick and half the crew is killed, and Kirk feels personally responsible. This has to be the biggest event in Kirk's life, and it is important to know about it.
The Enterprise, commanded by Chris Pike, comes to the aid of the Farragut after the incident, and is set to accompany the (now Kirk commanded) Farragut back to Earth (or a starbase or something)
Of course, Kirk is guilt-stricken by the Tycho IV incident, and he begins to feel unworthy to wear the uniform and begins to rethink the direction of his life. (maybe this is the Academy Flash-back part).
But, Pike and The Enterprise is ordered to some other emergency, and must leave the Farragut alone. But before Pike leaves, he decides to "lend" some of his best young officers to Kirk, Since the Farragut is operating on a skeleton crew. Among those "borrowed" officers is Spock and Scotty.
(I may need help from canon experts here, but I'd like to see McCoy and Gary Mitchell in this film, either as part of the Farragut's regular crew, or as officers "borrowed" from the Enterprise. Is this consistent with canon?? I've always liked the character of Gary Mitchell, and love the fact that Mitchell, not Spock, is Kirk's best friend.)
While on their way back, the Farragut learns that things are not going too well for Pike and the Enterprise, and the Enterprise is having great trouble handling the emergency to which they were dispatched. Kirk decides to turn around and go to the aid of Pike, even though half of his crew is dead. (this is the "exciting space adventure/exploration" part of this film)
During this action/adventure part of the film, the Farragut comes to the aid of the Enterprise, and the two ships work together to save the sector from...whatever. Kirk and the Farragut's crew show great heroism and leadership while aiding the Enterprise, thus creating their stellar reputation in Starfleet. BTW, An adventure such as this would also cement the friendships of all that are invovled.
And then....
Star Trek XII - Kirk takes command of the Enterprise.
I'm just a fan of the show, not a canon-expert, so I welcome any comments regarding canonical inconsistencies. Hopefully none of the inconsistencies will make this post irrelevant. I think this plot outline satisfies all the requirements for a good film: Interesting characters, character development, a stage for great dialogue amongst the characters, and a great adventure for the characters to experience together. Characters need to grow throughout a film, and I think the adventure/action part will allow them to grow.
Did "Godfather 2" suck? (the answer, btw, is no -- Godfather 2, which is a prequel, is considered by many to be one of the greatest films of all time.)
IMO, being a prequel (or not being a prequel) will have nothing to do with the success or failure of this film. A "prequel STXI" could be a good film or a bad film. A "post-Nemesis STXI" could be a good film or a bad film. The time frame is irrelevant -- the process of making a good film is all about the story, the writing, the directing and the acting.
Sigh... must I say "there are exceptions to every rule"?
Allow me to rephrase... Generally speaking, most prequels suck.
If you feel Trek 11 will be the next Citizen Kane, feel free. I rather doubt it... but hope springs eternal in that if reports are correct, Berman and Braga won't have anything to do with it. As such, it might have a chance.
And I'm sure this goes without saying, but I know people who both A: Hate Citizen Kane and B: have never heard of Citizen Kane.
Hope, however, does survive...primarily because it is the one thing no one has figured out how to kill yet. I look forward to Trek 11 - whatever it may be.
Hope, however, does survive...primarily because it is the one thing no one has figured out how to kill yet. I look forward to Trek 11 - whatever it may be.
Exactly correct.
The reason that most sequels suck is because of one of two equally horrific things that they tend to do:
1) Try to EXACTLY REPLICATE the first movie in all pertinent ways,
or
2) Try to "set it apart" from the first movie in all the wrong ways.
A sequel, or a prequel, should look like the first movie, should "feel" like it's in the same reality as the first movie... but should tell a different story, and should involve real change and growth that is CONSISTENT with the world seen in each film.
A great example of this would be "Pitch Black" and "Chronicles of Riddick." Granted, they're "niche" films... but they are two parts of a very consistent universe, and while being dramatically different in every meaningful way, they are still very much part of a whole.
That's how sequel movies work best... and for that matter prequel movies. (Doesn't really matter which movie you watch first, after all... they're not that closely related in terms of plot.)
Ultimately, the trick is just to tell a good story, and if you can tell additional good stories that just happen to be set in the same "reality" as the first good story, you're just that much more likely to have a success.
Most sequels have sucked, and most prequels have sucked, not because they were sequels or prequels, but simply because THE STORIES SUCKED.
'Nuff said...
Paramount is being rather secretive about this whole thing.
What's happening RIGHT NOW possibly is the following.
The head honchos at Para are reading said script / screenplay nodding or shaking their heads as they look it over, making suggestions possibly ( I hope they aren't but you know Studio heads they love to change things ) maybe even asking for a rewrite, who knows at this point ?
However, before they green light the film they need to figure out what the budget will be based on said script, as well as a few other things, like what soundstages they have available, yadda yadda yadda.
The point is that because Para seems to be so hush-hush it might have gotten said green light only they didn't tell anyone so they can keep what they're doing a secret.
Of course this means it'll be all over the internet yesterday once someone does find out what they are up to.
What's happening RIGHT NOW possibly is the following.
The head honchos at Para are reading said script / screenplay nodding or shaking their heads as they look it over, making suggestions possibly ( I hope they aren't but you know Studio heads they love to change things ) maybe even asking for a rewrite, who knows at this point ?
However, before they green light the film they need to figure out what the budget will be based on said script, as well as a few other things, like what soundstages they have available, yadda yadda yadda.
The point is that because Para seems to be so hush-hush it might have gotten said green light only they didn't tell anyone so they can keep what they're doing a secret.
Of course this means it'll be all over the internet yesterday once someone does find out what they are up to.
There is nothing unusual about the development process that Trek XI has been going through. The deal was struck about 7 months ago, some movies stay in development for years (remember superman). Plus this is only one of many projects Abrams has at Paramount and he has projects at other studios too.
This FAQ will be updgaded to 1.1 soon, waiting for the next bit of news which should be soon.
for the time being the info section on trekmovie.com has the latest:
http://trekmovie.com/trek-xi-movie-info/
This FAQ will be updgaded to 1.1 soon, waiting for the next bit of news which should be soon.
for the time being the info section on trekmovie.com has the latest:
http://trekmovie.com/trek-xi-movie-info/
I will be updating this later this week now that the deals are in place. And Broccoli i believe how my site has been debunking the 'abrams wont direct' rumors for weeks (amongst many other things) that I am not 'making it up'.
- Status
Similar threads
