# ST: From 007 to ... NCC-1701???



## Ranger REG (Jan 8, 2007)

Source: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070108p.php

Though unconfirmed or unsubstantiated, it seems Matt Damon may have a good contender for the Kirk role, in the form ... ladies, I do not mean his abs ... of Daniel Craig.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 8, 2007)

I'm ok with this.  I'm less concerned with the casting of this than the plot/story.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 8, 2007)

"Restarts" seem to be the new thing, eh?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> "Restarts" seem to be the new thing, eh?



Meh. Like introducing a new edition of _D&D_ to a new generation of sci-fi fans. Or rebooting the James Bond franchise with a fresh actor.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 9, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. Like introducing a new edition of _D&D_ to a new generation of sci-fi fans. Or rebooting the James Bond franchise with a fresh actor.





I do get it.  I just don't know if it is such a good idea.  I wish the effort would be spent inventing something new rather than putting a new saddle on an old horse.  Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of almost all things Trek.  Likely I'll watch and enjoy whatever it is they will produce.  But, I still find it to be a bit of a disappointment conceptually.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 9, 2007)

Bond or Bourne for Kirk? AWESOME!   

Seriously though, I don't see the need for _Star Trek_ to go back to it's roots in order to catch fire again. And as much as I like Damon or Craig, I just don't see them as the good captain of the Enterprise. Shatner will always be Kirk, and unless there's some spectacular revelation that Kirk is a Timelord who can morph from one actor to another, you can't convince me otherwise.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I do get it.  I just don't know if it is such a good idea.  I wish the effort would be spent inventing something new rather than putting a new saddle on an old horse.  Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of almost all things Trek.  Likely I'll watch and enjoy whatever it is they will produce.  But, I still find it to be a bit of a disappointment conceptually.



Well, either the franchise can try to persuade JJ Abrams to make something new, despite the fact that he's pretty much locked onto the concept, or find someone else.

Personally, while I don't like rehashing Kirk & Co., I do like going back to the 23rd Century but with a new ship and crew. Besides, twice we went forward and all we got were _INSURRECTION_ and _NEMESIS._ So what, third time's the charm?


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 9, 2007)

We need a DS9 movie, stat.

With Garak.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 9, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> We need a DS9 movie, stat.
> 
> With Garak.



 Naw, I don't trust it.  The story is told.  I like remembering it fondly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 9, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Naw, I don't trust it.  The story is told.  I like remembering it fondly.



I tend to agree. DS9 was great, but it's also over. 

But I still would prefer a new series/movie set after the DS9 events (if neccessary, also taking Voyager into account, but I prefer to forget most of it  ). 
Going back will always hurt a bit because of the thousand continuty issues arising from it. 
I am not certain that they can pull off a Battlestar Galactica reboot (BSG had only 2 seasons to "forget", Star trek has 5 whole series and 10 movies) with Startrek. (But if they can, more power to them.  )


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 9, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I do like going back to the 23rd Century but with a new ship and crew.





I could be on board with that.  I'm not tied to which era, just that the characters and stories be new.


----------



## Prince Atom (Jan 9, 2007)

Here's another vote for another ship and crew.

Shatner, Nimoy, &c. were _the_ Kirk, Spock, &c. There can be no replacements!

On the other hand, I am not particularly interested in seeing them involved in another movie. I want something new, with a new ship (not necessarily a _Constitution_ class) and a new crew. Hell, I wouldn't even mind 23rd-century Klingons with ridges or Romulans with pronounced temples. A new movie with Kirk and Spock is like last week's pizza.

Of course, I mean no disrespect to the actors or any of the creative team. I would just rather have something fresh.

TWK


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I tend to agree. DS9 was great, but it's also over.



It is unfortunate that _DS9_ is considered the "neglected middle child" of the franchise, mainly because Rick Berman didn't soiled it (Ira Steven Behr was lucky that Berman focused on Braga's _VOYAGER_ than on his _DS9_).

But like the other poster, I do agree there is more to that storyline, like the Return of Sisko, the Dominion after the War, Cardassian-Bajoran relations(?), the still-mysterious Gamma Quad, etc.

Sure, there are novels that did continue after the TV series, but I'm already of the mindset that novels are non-canon when it comes to _Trek._


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2007)

The Whiner Knight said:
			
		

> Here's another vote for another ship and crew.
> 
> Shatner, Nimoy, &c. were _the_ Kirk, Spock, &c. There can be no replacements!
> 
> On the other hand, I am not particularly interested in seeing them involved in another movie. I want something new, with a new ship (not necessarily a _Constitution_ class) and a new crew. Hell, I wouldn't even mind 23rd-century Klingons with ridges or Romulans with pronounced temples. A new movie with Kirk and Spock is like last week's pizza.



IOW, wait 'til you die before they can re-imagine the franchise?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 9, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Bond or Bourne for Kirk? AWESOME!
> 
> [...] Shatner will always be Kirk, and unless there's some spectacular revelation that Kirk is a Timelord who can morph from one actor to another, you can't convince me otherwise.



So, James Bond is a Timelord, then?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> So, James Bond is a Timelord, then?



Well, it would be a first to have a Timelord that is neither ugly nor homely.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 9, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Source: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070108p.php
> 
> Though unconfirmed or unsubstantiated, it seems Matt Damon may have a good contender for the Kirk role, in the form ... ladies, I do not mean his abs ... of Daniel Craig.




Fascinating.




"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a doctor, not a secret agent!"


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 9, 2007)

I more than anything want them to go back to the 24th century.  They had 3 different series take place during that time, and would prefer if they went forward rather than backwards.  And certainly I'd like to see some sort of epilogue to DS9 (likely having to do with the aftermath on Cardassia), since it was the best series out of those 3.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 10, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> "Dammit, Jim!  I'm a doctor, not a secret agent!"



I don't think Mr. Craig is up for the role of "Bones" McCoy.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 10, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I more than anything want them to go back to the 24th century.



Well, I don't particularly limit myself to one time period in the _Star Trek Universe._ I just don't want Rick Berman to be in charge.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 10, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I don't think Mr. Craig is up for the role of "Bones" McCoy.





Dame Judi Dench, perhaps?


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 10, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, either the franchise can try to persuade JJ Abrams to make something new, despite the fact that he's pretty much locked onto the concept, or find someone else.




Eh... I think trying to introduce a brand new crew in a movie would be a bad idea. Iconic characters dont grow on trees.

Kirk and crew are the most iconic characters of the Trek universe. I think the proof of that is in how hard it was to translate the TNG crew up onto the big screen. They didn't translate as well. 

Not to mention, there's been LESS done with them than either the TNG or DS9 crew (or hell, even the Voyager crew).

So the concept is far from played out imo.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Jan 10, 2007)

I'm kinda ambivalent about this.  I think it's a bit early for a remake of Trek, though if it's pulled off well, I think I could like it.

However, I think one of the big things about Trek was that it more or less progressed along a certain continuity; a _good_ Trek series set further in the future (possibly past most or all of the lifespans of the TNG/DS9/Voyager crews) would be acceptable, and it'd just add to the Trek universe (rather than reworking it).

Have to wait & see what happens.  Then again, i wonder how long it'll be `til they reboot other franchises (Star Wars, perhaps?--maybe not long after Lucas kicks the bucket).


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 10, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Eh... I think trying to introduce a brand new crew in a movie would be a bad idea. Iconic characters dont grow on trees.
> 
> Kirk and crew are the most iconic characters of the Trek universe. I think the proof of that is in how hard it was to translate the TNG crew up onto the big screen. They didn't translate as well.
> 
> ...



I think the TNG crew's failures on film had more to do with the subpar stories and lame execution. I mean sure, _Generations _ wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it was hardly an awful film. They then followed that with the excellent _First Contact_, which I think was proof enough that the TNG crew could carry on the franchise. But rather than building on the success of that film, they backtracked and came up with what was in my mind a glorified extended TV episode called _Insurrection_. Talk about lame. Finally we end up with what I think was the writers desperate attempt to retread the success of _The Wrath of Khan_ by introducing a villain who was Picard's equal (literally), but ended up with a pale imitation. I speak of course, of the dull and uninspired _Nemesis_.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 10, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Dame Judi Dench, perhaps?



Can she do a Southern-style Alabama accent?


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 10, 2007)

Wait, wait! There needs to be one where the _Voyager_ crew finds a space anomaly that shunts them back to the days of Beckett--uhh, I mean, Archer--and have the two crews race to save the future--or past, whatever--from *ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION!!!!!!* That'd be the _best_ Trek movie evar!!!!

. . .

I didn't like _Casino Royale_, but Daniel Craig as Kirk (or any other Captain type) would do it for me. Especially if he has his shirt off most of the time. Mmm. No Matt Damon for me!

Edit: I should add something somewhat relevant, and that will be this: I'm not too keen on a restart of Trek, but I understand the need to use easily marketable characters. As long as they don't fudge it up too terribly, I'll be okay with it. My expectations will be low, but I'll definitely be one of the first in line to see it.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 10, 2007)

AFGNCAAP said:
			
		

> Have to wait & see what happens.  Then again, i wonder how long it'll be `til they reboot other franchises (Star Wars, perhaps?--maybe not long after Lucas kicks the bucket).



Reboot Star Wars?  No need at this point.  Say what you want about the prequels but maybe add more to the story but a six movie franchise doesn't need a reboot.

Reboots should really be reserved for things like TV shows and I guess TV shows that have movies count.


----------



## David Howery (Jan 10, 2007)

Phooey.  I was hoping they'd continue a storyline that Enterprise never finished... the Romulan war....


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 10, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Reboot Star Wars?  No need at this point.  Say what you want about the prequels...



The prequels need to be rebooted. No can helped, gotta say'um.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 10, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> I think the TNG crew's failures on film had more to do with the subpar stories and lame execution. I mean sure, _Generations _ wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it was hardly an awful film. They then followed that with the excellent _First Contact_, which I think was proof enough that the TNG crew could carry on the franchise. But rather than building on the success of that film, they backtracked and came up with what was in my mind a glorified extended TV episode called _Insurrection_. Talk about lame. Finally we end up with what I think was the writers desperate attempt to retread the success of _The Wrath of Khan_ by introducing a villain who was Picard's equal (literally), but ended up with a pale imitation. I speak of course, of the dull and uninspired _Nemesis_.




I agree the TNG movies could have been better.

My larger point was I keep hearing people talk like TOS is this tired old part of Trek, when in fact, it's UNDER used.

All the series since TNG were set in basically the same universe. So that's 25 seasons of TV and 4 movies.

As opposed to 3 seasons of TV, two seasons of animated cartoons and 6 movies. 

That's my point. Ranger Reg basically said, if I understood him right "do something new".

TOS is much more new than anything in the TNG era.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 10, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The prequels need to be rebooted.



That makes no sense.  How do you "reboot" 3 movies?

To me, a reboot is simply using the original concept and going another direction with it and continuing it.  If you are arguing that they be redone because they didn't meet your expectations that's just the same thing as kvetching about the acting/plot/midiclorians.


----------



## Ilium (Jan 10, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I agree the TNG movies could have been better.
> 
> My larger point was I keep hearing people talk like TOS is this tired old part of Trek, when in fact, it's UNDER used.
> 
> ...




I agree with this but think, as others have said, that a different ship and crew back in the 23rd century would be better.  TOS introduced a bunch of really interesting ideas, then abandoned them, since the episodes were all written by different people.  Some elements that could lead to further storylines:

The Tholians: What ever happened with those crazy rock guys?

The Horta: Ditto

Landru: Ok, the enterprise destroyed their entire way of life and left a bunch of sociologists to "humanize" them.  Well if I was part of the "body of Landru," I'd be pretty ticked off.

The Guardian of Forever: 'nuff said

The First Federation: What ever happened to these guys?  Little-kid aliens with enormous ships and advanced technology!

The Gorn: Big lizards with starships.  And we never heard from them again?

You get the idea.


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 11, 2007)

I'm not so up on my pre-NG Trek, but aren't there some other semi-canon crews out there? Why not something about Pike?


----------



## Ilium (Jan 11, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> I'm not so up on my pre-NG Trek, but aren't there some other semi-canon crews out there? Why not something about Pike?



 I thought of Pike, too.  But everybody knows how he ends up so it takes some of the suspense out of things.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 11, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> I'm not so up on my pre-NG Trek, but aren't there some other semi-canon crews out there? Why not something about Pike?




There were three episodes with Pike yes. 

There are rumors that Pike will be in the upcoming TOS movie.

But come on... movies are about iconic characters.

Did people really think Kirk and Spock were never going to be played by different actors?


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But come on... movies are about iconic characters.
> 
> Did people really think Kirk and Spock were never going to be played by different actors?




Well, the same two people have been playing the same two characters for 40 years.  I just don't recall any reboot/recasting of characters that are so strongly identified with 2 people for such a long time.


Personally, I think animation is the way to go.  Either that or puppets.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 11, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, the same two people have been playing the same two characters for 40 years.  I just don't recall any reboot/recasting of characters that are so strongly identified with 2 people for such a long time.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think animation is the way to go.  Either that or puppets.



Absolutely! Where's Gerry Anderson when you really need him?


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 11, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, the same two people have been playing the same two characters for 40 years.  I just don't recall any reboot/recasting of characters that are so strongly identified with 2 people for such a long time.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think animation is the way to go.  Either that or puppets.




Yes, the characters have been around for a long time with those actors.

But again, who seriously thought those characters were not going to outlive those actors?

That's what happens with iconic characters. They outlive their creators, both writers and actors. 

I knew this day would come, I just thought they would wait till after Shatner and Nimoy were dead. 

Im personally excited to get another adventure with those characters.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 11, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That makes no sense.  How do you "reboot" 3 movies?



Well, for starter, we must "persuade" George Lucas to proclaim an Edict that his Prequels are apocryphal.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jan 11, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, for starter, we must "persuade" George Lucas to proclaim an Edict that his Prequels are apocryphal.



 Good luck on that one.


----------



## Lockridge (Jan 11, 2007)

I hate to sound negative but I think any new star trek movie would have to attract new fans to be successful.

Star Trek fans are far far far too finicky for anything new to be successful.  When Enterprise came out it was disowned by many fans just because it didn't have perfect continuity or because it didn't match their view of what early Trek would be like or just because there were words in the theme song.

I've been to the Star Trek boards during that time and I couldn't believe how fans were turning away from what was a good show for no real reason (in my opinion).

Very few producers will look at Enterprise's failure as "we did it wrong" - they'll look at it as "Star Trek failed lets leave it alone".  For fans this is a loss.

Perhaps some well-known talent from other non-trek sources would attract fans.  Perhaps if it were just a very good sci-fi starring well know actors that just happen to be playing characters named Kirk and Spock then perhaps it would be accepted by the general public and be successful.

For example, some fans would like it to be darker in atmosphere while others want it to be bright and positive.  What would sadden me is that if the movie were either, some fans might refuse to see it thereby cutting the fan base in half - and eliminating any producer's interest for years to come.


----------



## Rykion (Jan 11, 2007)

I would like to see more Star Trek set in TOS era, but not involving the Enterprise or its crew.  The problem is most Trek movies have been hit or miss.(mostly miss in my opinion)  I think Star Trek works much better on TV than the big screen.  I really fear that a reboot of TOS is not a good direction to take the franchise.


			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Personally, I think animation is the way to go.  Either that or puppets.



Wait, you're saying William Shatner isn't a puppet?


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 11, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> I would like to see more Star Trek set in TOS era, but not involving the Enterprise or its crew.  The problem is most Trek movies have been hit or miss.(mostly miss in my opinion)  I think Star Trek works much better on TV than the big screen.  I really fear that a reboot of TOS is not a good direction to take the franchise.




Well, JJ Abrams has said it wont be a reboot continuously.

It will have different actors in the roles though.

Again, and I don't know how many ways I can say this, this was inevitable. I'll even go further and say that whoever they cast to play him THIS TIME won't be the last person to play him either. 

Kirk is as likely to outlive his creators (Roddenberry and Shatner) as Don Quixote.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 11, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I don't think Mr. Craig is up for the role of "Bones" McCoy.




No...  I think we'd have to reserve that role for William H. Macy.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 11, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> No...  I think we'd have to reserve that role for William H. Macy.




Gary Sinise baby, all the way.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 11, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Gary Sinise baby, all the way.




Oh, yeah...  He'd be another good one.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 11, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Wait, you're saying William Shatner isn't a puppet?




I don't think puppets could gain that much weight...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 11, 2007)

Lockridge said:
			
		

> I hate to sound negative but I think any new star trek movie would have to attract new fans to be successful.
> 
> Star Trek fans are far far far too finicky for anything new to be successful.  When Enterprise came out it was disowned by many fans just because it didn't have perfect continuity or because it didn't match their view of what early Trek would be like or just because there were words in the theme song.



Meh. That's a minor issue. Besides, many of us prefer the trailer's theme song ("Everywhere We Go" by the Calling) over the theme music from the movie _Patch Adam._




			
				Lockridge said:
			
		

> I've been to the Star Trek boards during that time and I couldn't believe how fans were turning away from what was a good show for no real reason (in my opinion).



It's classic Braga. He sets the pace of the episode for the first 45 minutes and then quickly concludes it in the last 5 minutes. Even as a Fan of All Things Klingons, never did like them appearing on the first episode. Never consider that to be the first meeting between humans and Klingons. The show should have started off with meeting the Andorians (which they finally did a few episodes later).

The series's only saving grace is when Berman and Braga stepped back and let Manny Coto run the show for the fourth and sadly the final season. By then, it was already too late.

But then there were other disappointments in the film area, such as the back-to-back  _INSURRECTION_ and _NEMESIS._ At this point, we fans pretty much lost confidence in the franchise's leadership (Rick Berman, who's more of a "social" producer than a creative one ... he knows who to schmooze in the Paramount lot).


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 11, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> No...  I think we'd have to reserve that role for William H. Macy.



If you're going to do a film about a young Kirk, you need a young McCoy. Either Matthew McConaughey or Josh Lucas (both have distinguished Southern accent) can fit the role.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 11, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. Like introducing a new edition of _D&D_ to a new generation of sci-fi fans. Or rebooting the James Bond franchise with a fresh actor.




Heaven forfend.


----------



## qstor (Jan 11, 2007)

David Howery said:
			
		

> Phooey.  I was hoping they'd continue a storyline that Enterprise never finished... the Romulan war....




Me too! But I'm pretty sure from what I remember, they "junked" that script in favor of an idea by JJ Abrams.

Mike


----------



## qstor (Jan 11, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If you're going to do a film about a young Kirk, you need a young McCoy. Either Matthew McConaughey or Josh Lucas (both have distinguished Southern accent) can fit the role.





I think that would be fine. But for *me* we have to see what date the movie is set in. Matt Damon might be to old if the movie was set right after the Academy where Kirk was supposed to be around 22. It could be 2264-2266 before the TOS dates? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek

I'm thinking that Abrams will junk the dates and make up other stuff like Berman and Braga


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 11, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully  said:
			
		

> (if neccessary, also taking Voyager into account, but I prefer to forget most of it)



Around two months back a friend loaned us the DVD's of the whole Voyager series.   My kids had never seen it and my wife and I hadn't watched it since it was being aired on the original run.    We're now around half-way through the series and I can honestly say the episodes have improved with age.   My prior complaints about the series are minimized, in part because I know what to expect.   And when you watch it in three or four episode blocks the stinker episodes can be quickly ignored in favor of the better ones.   I have some newfound respect for that series.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 12, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But then there were other disappointments in the film area, such as the back-to-back  _INSURRECTION_ and _NEMESIS._ At this point, we fans pretty much lost confidence in the franchise's leadership (Rick Berman, who's more of a "social" producer than a creative one ... he knows who to schmooze in the Paramount lot).




Yeah, if you listen to Ron Moore's stories about how Michael Piller and Ira Steven Behr got things done, you really needed a producer with a lot of vision and drive who could stand up to Berman and convince him their way was right.

Once you DID that, Berman was really really good at organizing things and making the show run smoothly, but he had very bad instincts for what should actually go into the shows creatively.

When paired with a milk toast like Braga... things went bad. 

I mean, let's not forget Berman didn't want Nog to lose both his legs, or even a WHOLE leg (he was ok with a loss of leg below the knee) because it was "too depressing".  That's the way the man thought. Half of one leg? Ok. A whole leg or two legs? Depressing.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 12, 2007)

Lockridge said:
			
		

> I hate to sound negative but I think any new star trek movie would have to attract new fans to be successful.
> 
> Star Trek fans are far far far too finicky for anything new to be successful.  When Enterprise came out it was disowned by many fans just because it didn't have perfect continuity or because it didn't match their view of what early Trek would be like or just because there were words in the theme song.
> 
> ...



If you're not going to do it right, don't do it at all. If they do it badly, and it's a big hit, that just means we'll get more bad Trek. (Of course, how you define bad may not agree with my definition, or someone else's.)


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Once you DID that, Berman was really really good at organizing things and making the show run smoothly, but he had very bad instincts for what should actually go into the shows creatively.



Actually Ira Steven Behr was glad that Berman was focusing on _VOYAGER_ to meddle with _DS9_ development.

As for Nog's legs, meh. 24th-Century Medicine would have given him both cybernetic legs anyway. But his story after having lost his leg shows one of the few "human" images of a very lengthy Dominion War.

That and the baseball episode between Sisko and a rival Vulcan captain.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Around two months back a friend loaned us the DVD's of the whole Voyager series.   My kids had never seen it and my wife and I hadn't watched it since it was being aired on the original run.    We're now around half-way through the series and I can honestly say the episodes have improved with age.   My prior complaints about the series are minimized, in part because I know what to expect.   And when you watch it in three or four episode blocks the stinker episodes can be quickly ignored in favor of the better ones.   I have some newfound respect for that series.



I'd rather watched the episodes BEFORE Jeri Ryan/Seven of Nine joined the cast.

And episodes spotlighting either the Doc or B'Elanna.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 12, 2007)

I am so sick of these new hot shot producers coming in and remaking old shows. How about something new? If they want to do a new Trek do one but how about setting it in the future or in an era not really covered already. Why do we need another Kirk or Spock story?

If they are going to go into the past how about covering the Romulan War that could be an awesome movie on the big screen.

Or if they want a dark and gritty Trek how about a movie set in the Mirror universe. 

As a Trek fan from the time it first showed on NBC when I was six I will not go see a movie or watch a new Trek if they take it and make it dark and gritty ala  Battlestar Galatica (unless it is set in mirror universe or Romulan War) One of the things that always attracted me to the Trek universe was the message of hope. That we do evolve as a species.

I also have to wonder how many of these restarts and remakes have been that succesful? Lost In Space sucked, Starksy and Hutch awful, Bewitched stank, BSG dying in the ratings though it had a great start.

The only two I can think of are the Batman and Bond movies but both of those have always had different actors playing the rolls.

I know people compare Kirk to say Sherlock Holmes or James Bond and say how many other actors have played those rolls and it was fine. 

I guess my problem with that is simply that those characters originated in fiction the personality coming from the author. 

Where as the personality and mannerism of Kirk and Spock had a lot to do with the actors who created the rolls. 

As far as I am concerned William Shatner is James T Kirk.

The Trek universe is huge I can't believe that it is impossibe to come up with a new part of it to explore and if they can't then maybe it is time to just let it go.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 12, 2007)

I"ve always wanted to see another ship, I'd suspect that if the enterprise d/e was the flag ship, but a family ship, they'd have had to have a "war" flag ship too. Even a 23rd century new crew would be cool. 

DS9 would be cool to show up some wear, but I'd love it if they left the best star trek alone and let me have good memories. Probably the only series that didn't use time travel too much.


----------



## Aaron L (Jan 12, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> One of the things that always attracted me to the Trek universe was the message of hope. That we do evolve as a species.





That whole message of hope thing was pretty much retconned in by Roddenberry in the 80's with TNG after he started believing the hype people were saying about Star Trek.  The Original Series was about guys in ripped shirts killing evil aliens.  The aspect of a better future was kinda there in TOS, but it played second fiddle to fight scenes.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As a Trek fan from the time it first showed on NBC when I was six I will not go see a movie or watch a new Trek if they take it and make it dark and gritty ala  Battlestar Galatica (unless it is set in mirror universe or Romulan War) One of the things that always attracted me to the Trek universe was the message of hope. That we do evolve as a species.



My gawd, you're older than me. (Born in 1969, seen _Trek_ in syndication when I was 10).

But in all of my viewing, _Trek_ have never been darker nor grittier. Granted, _DS9_ went beyond what _Trek_ is about by doing a very long _Dominion War_ story arc. (Not to mention, a _Trek_ series that took place on a space station rather than a starship.) But from what I have seen of Ron D. Moore's _BSG,_ the franchise would never go down that deep, dark path. _Trek's_ too clean to go there.




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I also have to wonder how many of these restarts and remakes have been that succesful? Lost In Space sucked, Starksy and Hutch awful, Bewitched stank, BSG dying in the ratings though it had a great start.



_Lost in Space_ film was okay, just not as blockbuster as the original series.

_Starsky and Hutch_ have taken the comedic route, deviating from the original series.

_Bewitched_ use a different story (doing a show about _Bewitched_ and finding an actress who is secretly a withc) from the original series.

_BSG_ too dark, yet you want _Trek_ to go there?




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The only two I can think of are the Batman and Bond movies but both of those have always had different actors playing the rolls.



Well, _Batman_ did start off as a TV series and a whole slew of animations (including _Super Friends_), but the film version directed by Tim Burton have taken the franchise from light and campy to dark and gothic.

As for _Bond,_ it was a movie-based-on-novel franchise to begin with.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As far as I am concerned William Shatner is James T Kirk.



William Shatner is also TJ Hooker, and lately Denny Crane (who slept with 5 NOLA hookers).

It would be sad to think that the character is tailor-made for or attached to one actor. I mean considering that the original cast are slowing disappearing, I don't think we can end the franchise because he is no longer with us.




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The Trek universe is huge I can't believe that it is impossibe to come up with a new part of it to explore and if they can't then maybe it is time to just let it go.



It's possible, but it won't draw mainstream audience in if you don't include an iconic. I mean, could George Lucas do the Prequels without having Anakin/Darth, Palpatine, and Obi-Wan characters in the story?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 13, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> That whole message of hope thing was pretty much retconned in by Roddenberry in the 80's with TNG after he started believing the hype people were saying about Star Trek.  The Original Series was about guys in ripped shirts killing evil aliens.  The aspect of a better future was kinda there in TOS, but it played second fiddle to fight scenes.




Yes it was an adventure series no doubt about it. But there were a lot of messages about hope. You had Kirk's speech about today we choose not to kill. You had a starship that had people of color and woman in important jobs. 

You had the Frederation and a Untited Earth. Yes these were often subtle but they were very important messages of hope. Whoppi Goldburg has talked about how Trek meant so much to her because of Uhura a woman of color who was on TV and not a maid.

If you ever read the Harlan Ellison version of The City On the Edge of Forever you will see it is much darker with drug abuse in it. Roodenberry changed because Starfleet officers were the brightest and the best.

Growing up I wanted to live in the future that was TOS.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 13, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> My gawd, you're older than me. (Born in 1969, seen _Trek_ in syndication when I was 10).
> 
> But in all of my viewing, _Trek_ have never been darker nor grittier. Granted, _DS9_ went beyond what _Trek_ is about by doing a very long _Dominion War_ story arc. (Not to mention, a _Trek_ series that took place on a space station rather than a starship.) But from what I have seen of Ron D. Moore's _BSG,_ the franchise would never go down that deep, dark path. _Trek's_ too clean to go there.
> 
> ...





I said I would not watch Trek if it went dark and gritty unless it was a mirror universe story or maybe a romulan war story. Lets face it the mirror universe is not a nice place and the romulan war happpened before TOS so I could see it being a little gritty.

If they made it like the new BSG I would be sick at heart. I don't want to see fraked up selfish addicts as heroes in my Trek. I would watch it if they went that route.

All those movies I mentioned did not do well in the box office nor did they do well with the critics they bombed. I don't want to see another Trek movie bomb.

Batman did not start off as a TV series it started off as comic so the first Batman you see was not interpreted by an actor but by a writer and illustrater. 

Yes William Shatner has played other roles that is not by point. My point is that he helped create Kirk and to me it would bother me to much to see someone else play the roll. Especially if they want to keep it has cannon and part of the timeline of trek.

I watch BSG both versions and while I will freely admit I wanted a continuation not a remake I can watch it because it so different than BSGTOS. For example to me Capatin Apollo and Lee Adama are not the same character at all the same with Commander Adama and Admiral Adama and while I know it pisses off the new fans to say this but to me the new show is Galatica in name only. I think it is an good show but as a fan of the old show it is not the same at all and to me it is not even set in the same universe.

I don't want to see that happen with Trek.

You don't neeed to end the franchise because the old stars are as you put it leaving. There are four other casts that could be used if you are worried about that. Also the Trek universe has several series of books that do quite well  with orginal characters.

I think Trek is well enough known that you don't need a familiar name to get people to watch it.

As for the prequels of Star Wars well that is not the same. Lucus wanted to tell how the Empire came about and how Skywalker became Vader and how the twins were separated. So it would have been silly not to have the characters in it. Besides if you watch Ewan Macgreor he studied the mannerism of Alec Guiness and they even made him look like him as he aged.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 13, 2007)

> I guess my problem with that is simply that those characters originated in fiction the personality coming from the author.
> 
> Where as the personality and mannerism of Kirk and Spock had a lot to do with the actors who created the rolls.




What about Dr. Who?

I mean, what you're basically saying is every iconic character that starts on screen is inviolate and can never be played by anyone else. 

I've asked this before, but did anyone really think Kirk would never appear on screen again?

I mean really? 



> The Trek universe is huge I can't believe that it is impossibe to come up with a new part of it to explore and if they can't then maybe it is time to just let it go.




Yes yes, 1000 times yes. 

There's a million things they COULD do.

But this is one of them. 

Why is every movie idea BUT a TOS remake good? I am eager to see anything other than the TNG era.

It's been. Done.

25 seasons of freaking TV. 4 movies. 

Im sick of TNG. And DS9 is my favorite series.

But something new excites me. 

And yes, this isn't totally new. But it's a hell of a lot more new than another TNG show or movie. 

Also, this is far from the only thing being pitched. There's a clone wars style cartoon idea floating at CBS tv for a "fall of the federation" animated series. 

That also sounds cool to me.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Yes William Shatner has played other roles that is not by point. My point is that he helped create Kirk and to me it would bother me to much to see someone else play the roll. Especially if they want to keep it has cannon and part of the timeline of trek.



I dunno. I'm not that attached to the whole actor-character symbiotic thing (as in "only actor X can play character Y").

Besides, if there are more stories to be told about Kirk, wouldn't you want it? And don't tell me "only in print." I don't see why it cannot be made into motion picture.




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As for the prequels of Star Wars well that is not the same. Lucus wanted to tell how the Empire came about and how Skywalker became Vader and how the twins were separated. So it would have been silly not to have the characters in it. Besides if you watch Ewan Macgreor he studied the mannerism of Alec Guiness and they even made him look like him as he aged.



And you think no other actor can study Shatner to play a younger version of Kirk? Even if the Shat took the actor under his wing?


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 13, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And you think no other actor can study Shatner to play a younger version of Kirk? Even if the Shat took the actor under his wing?




Or even just do something totally DIFFERENT. 

Nicole Williamson and Laurence Olivier are VERY different Hamlets but they are both excellent Hamlets and each brings out a different dimension to the character.

Heck, Kevin Kline was also an excellent Hamlet and again, brought something totally different to the role, while still being Hamlet.

Oh and Hamlet was a role originated by an actor.

I guess we're lucky audiences in the 16th century weren't like audiences today, or else we'd have a play on paper and some stories about how great that Burbage guy was, so great in fact that no one else was ever allowed to play the role.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 13, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I dunno. I'm not that attached to the whole actor-character symbiotic thing (as in "only actor X can play character Y").
> 
> Besides, if there are more stories to be told about Kirk, wouldn't you want it? And don't tell me "only in print." I don't see why it cannot be made into motion picture.
> 
> ...




Sure if they want to show Kirk as a young man younger than his days at the helm of the Enterprise but don't screw anymore with the continuity of the timeline. 

Kirk and Spock were not the academy together as students Spock is older as is McCoy and Scotty where as Sulu and Chekov are younger.

IMO I don't want to see restarts and new actors in old rolls. If they do it I won't be watching it. I want to see the Trek universe do something new with new characters. There are 12 other Constellation style ships of that era how about telling their stories or how about a story set after Kirk's time but before Picard or what about after the time of Voyager and DS9.

We have had stories set in the Gamma and Delta sectors how aboit stories set in the Beta sector.

Like I said this is how iI feel if you want to see more Trek stories with Kirk then that is what you want.

I am sure whatever they do they won't satisfy everyone but they will give tons of fodder for internet debates.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 13, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Or even just do something totally DIFFERENT.
> 
> Nicole Williamson and Laurence Olivier are VERY different Hamlets but they are both excellent Hamlets and each brings out a different dimension to the character.
> 
> ...




To me it is not the same thing. Yes they are playing Hamlet but not a new Hamlet with a new story. It is the same character in the same play saying the same dialogue telling the same story.

A new TOS Trek movie would not be the same as Hamlet because they would not be (I hope) redoing the old scripts.

I go to the theatre all the time. I have seen Phantom of the Opera several times with different actors and have enjoyed the shows. I have opinions who did the better job. It is the same with the A Chorus Line and Grease.

Its like the movie The Philadelphia Story with Cary Grant and Katerine Hepurn and High Society they are the same movie, same story mostly same dialogue.

It is not the same as a three year TV show and seven movies with the same actor playing the same character. At least to me.

I don't want to see a BSG reimaging with Trek.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 13, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> What about Dr. Who?
> 
> I mean, what you're basically saying is every iconic character that starts on screen is inviolate and can never be played by anyone else.
> 
> ...





Dr Who a favorite of mine is not the same either. Each time another actor came in to play the doctor his personality and mannerism changed due to the regeneration. For example Peter Davison did not emulate Tom Baker but added some of the whimsy of Troughton's doctor. Colin Baker added the crankiness  of Hartnell.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 13, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I'd rather watched the episodes BEFORE Jeri Ryan/Seven of Nine joined the cast.  And episodes spotlighting either the Doc or B'Elanna.



Actually I'd say that Season Four, which is the one after she joined, is actually the best season of the series.   She added an interesting twist but the show still remained an ensemble-cast theme at that point.   A while back fans rated their favorite five episodes from each Star Trek series  - from the Voyager list (which included two 2-part episodes) five of the seven hours selected were from Season Four.   

And despite the show's flaws, Kate Mulgrew made an excellent Captain.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Sure if they want to show Kirk as a young man younger than his days at the helm of the Enterprise but don't screw anymore with the continuity of the timeline.
> 
> Kirk and Spock were not the academy together as students Spock is older as is McCoy and Scotty where as Sulu and Chekov are younger.



If you go with many sources, they didn't enter SFA in the same year. Spock (who was just three years older than Kirk) entered SFA one year before Kirk. Chances are they could have met at the Academy.

McCoy may have either have entered into Starfleet Medical School (after graduating from University of Mississippi) or a nearby medical school in San Francisco to have met Kirk. Then again, SFA have many campuses and learning centers, including one near Saturn.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 13, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Actually I'd say that Season Four, which is the one after she joined, is actually the best season of the series.   She added an interesting twist but the show still remained an ensemble-cast theme at that point.   A while back fans rated their favorite five episodes from each Star Trek series  - from the Voyager list (which included two 2-part episodes) five of the seven hours selected were from Season Four.



That's because they didn't vote with their brain, but the other body part. I don't blame them. Braga was captivated by her that they both became an item throughout the series run. But from Season Four and on, it's all about her character.



			
				Silver Moon said:
			
		

> And despite the show's flaws, Kate Mulgrew made an excellent Captain.



She's a human captain, sometimes prone to mood swings, but I wouldn't say she's an excellent one. I certainly don't think she deserves a promotion to admiral and a desk job (well, maybe the desk job, so long she's stays out of a captain's chair).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 14, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> That's because they didn't vote with their brain, but the other body part. I don't blame them. Braga was captivated by her that they both became an item throughout the series run. But from Season Four and on, it's all about her character.
> 
> 
> She's a human captain, sometimes prone to mood swings, but I wouldn't say she's an excellent one. I certainly don't think she deserves a promotion to admiral and a desk job (well, maybe the desk job, so long she's stays out of a captain's chair).



She didn't do that bad, but she clearly had a few issues.  But who knows how Picard, Kirk or Sisko would have fared "stranded" in the Delta Quadrant. It was clearly not the same situation as the other Captains had. 

If you think about it, probably each of the Captains where in a unique situation. Kirk and Picard had probably the most similar "job", but somehow I think Kirks Federation/Starfleet was not as strong established as Picards one, which can explain the big differences in command style...


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 14, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If you go with many sources, they didn't enter SFA in the same year. Spock (who was just three years older than Kirk) entered SFA one year before Kirk. Chances are they could have met at the Academy.
> 
> McCoy may have either have entered into Starfleet Medical School (after graduating from University of Mississippi) or a nearby medical school in San Francisco to have met Kirk. Then again, SFA have many campuses and learning centers, including one near Saturn.




Mccoy had a grown daughter Checkov's age he joined Starfleet after his marriage broke up. He was about 15 years older than Kirk.

Roodenbeery once said that Spock was 50 when Kirk was 30.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 14, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Dr Who a favorite of mine is not the same either. Each time another actor came in to play the doctor his personality and mannerism changed due to the regeneration. For example Peter Davison did not emulate Tom Baker but added some of the whimsy of Troughton's doctor. Colin Baker added the crankiness  of Hartnell.




Right. Just not the same.

Please give me a rational reason why.

You can watch Hamlet with a different actor but not Kirk? 

Kirk is a harder part than Hamlet?

I'm sorry, this was inevitable.

You don't have to like it, but characters that good outlive their creators.

In terms of an actor on screen, the creators consist of the writers and the actor. 

Basically what you said in your two responses was that you enjoy it when a different actor plays a familiar character on stage, AND in science fiction TV, but just not Kirk.

So Kirk is a totally unique circumstance in the 3,000 year old history of drama? 

Is that really your argumant? 

I mean, every example people have given is dismissed as casually as you just did.

Hamlet? Not the same. 

Bond? Batman? Sherlock Holmes? Not the same. Created by a writer and virtually cast in the minds of millions of readers. 

Dr. Who? Not the same, even though he's an iconic science fiction character created on TV by an actor.

What about Obi-Wan Kenobi? Created on screen by an actor, who was associated with that part for decades (Star Wars is 1977, Phantom Menace is 1999).

Now I'm almost positive you're going to throw up something like, Alec Guiness didn't play Obi-Wan CONTINUOUSLY for all those decades (even though the character never left the public imagination, not to mention the airwaves). 

But seriously.

I mean... you're basically down to arguing that you're ok with every part ever written being recast EXCEPT James T. Kirk.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 14, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> What about Obi-Wan Kenobi? Created on screen by an actor, who was associated with that part for decades (Star Wars is 1977, Phantom Menace is 1999).
> 
> Now I'm almost positive you're going to throw up something like, Alec Guiness didn't play Obi-Wan CONTINUOUSLY for all those decades (even though the character never left the public imagination, not to mention the airwaves).
> 
> But seriously.




That's actually an argument I agree with.  Alec Guiness played Obi-Wan for what, 1 movie? And tiny bit parts in the other 2. 

Shatner played Kirk for what, 3 years on TV, another year (or 2, depending on how you count it) in the Animated series, 6 movies (plus a role in Generations), and a few video games.  Not to mention commercials, in character appearances in things like Futurama, and even I think he supposedly wrote a Star Trek novel (probably ghost written) about Kirk - sort of a sequel to Generations. All over the course of 40 years.

I know other characters have been re-cast, but I can't think of one like that of Kirk, where one actor played him for so long.  Dr. Who only went a few years before being changed.  Sherlock Holmes was played by a lot of people when movies came out, rarely by the same person until Basil Rathbone took over.  Sean Connery did 5 james Bond before getting replaced.

The only comparable character I can think of is Perry Mason.  There were a lot of different Perry Masons in the movies in the 30s, but once Raymond Burr took it over, he was pretty strongly identified with the character, and all newer attempts to do Perry Mason him flopped.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 14, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> That's actually an argument I agree with.  Alec Guiness played Obi-Wan for what, 1 movie? And tiny bit parts in the other 2.
> 
> Shatner played Kirk for what, 3 years on TV, another year (or 2, depending on how you count it) in the Animated series, 6 movies (plus a role in Generations), and a few video games.  Not to mention commercials, in character appearances in things like Futurama, and even I think he supposedly wrote a Star Trek novel (probably ghost written) about Kirk - sort of a sequel to Generations. All over the course of 40 years.
> 
> ...




So one actor has played the character for a long time.

And?

Either this character is totally unique in the thousands year old history of drama or he, like every other character ever created, or he, like every other character ever created, can be recast.

I mean, there's no analogy that will satisfy people.

Because really, Shatner PLAYED Kirk for 3 seasons of TV, 2 years of voice work and then 6 movies... so what's more important is the time he has been ASSOCIATED with the role, like Alec Guiness and Obi Wan.

No, there is no PERFECT ANALOGY.

Just a sea of millions of characters, all of whom can be recast, and 2 or 3 who cant.

That's what people seem to be arguing here and it's bunk.


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 14, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I think he supposedly wrote a Star Trek novel (probably ghost written).



Actually, it probably wasn't ghost-written, as Shatner is a published novelist. No comment on the _quality_ of his writing, just the fact of it. 


			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> A new TOS Trek movie would not be the same as Hamlet because they would not be (I hope) redoing the old scripts.



Now wouldn't _that_ be interesting! New actors, same script, updated effects . . . I'd see it, though I doubt many people would. It definitely wouldn't be worth the money to make.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 14, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So one actor has played the character for a long time.
> 
> And?
> 
> ...




As I said in another post that this is my opinion. I don't want to see another actor play Kirk I have explained why it is different to me than the examples you brought up. I really don't appreciate having my personal opinion of why I don't want to see a new Kirk labeled as bunk. 

None of those examples were the same. I will give you an example Tigh on Battlestar Galatica or any character for that matter on the new show. In no way at all are they anything like the characters on BSG TOS. They are not meant to be, the shows are not even ment to be related. The new show is not a contiunation of the old show nor is it the same show as before having new stories told about it.

So the actors playing these roles are not playing the same character as the actors who played them before.

In the case of Obi Won it was two actors playing the same role at the characters different stages of life the same as River Phoenix playing a Young Indy in the last movie or the actor playing the young indy. Or even on Stargate when the Asgard cloned Jack and made a younger version of him. All these actors worked on their mannerism to make the younger version of the character the same as the older version.

As I said before if they want to make a new Trek using a young Kirk that would be one thing. I personally am tired of recycling of shows and would like to see something new. But if they are just planning on retelling the voyages of the Enterprise under Kirk's command then I am not interested in seeing it because to me there is only one James T Kirk and that is William Shatner. Or any of the other character as well.

I am a major trekkie and while the restart of BSG bothered me a little there is no way I am intrested in seeing that done in the Trek universe. I don't want to see everything that came before just waved away and a new timeline and cannon started. This is my personal opinion. Now for people who don't care or would love to see a new Trek made like this that is their opinion and neither opinion is more valid than the other.


As for some of the other examples you mentioned I know several people who won't watch any Bond other than Connery. I don't care because I read the Bond novels before I ever saw a movie the same way I read Sherlock Holmes before seeing a movie or tV show. I had a pretty good idea in my mind about the characters and how they were supposed to me long before I saw it acted out. Which is why some of the actors who play Holmes I like better than others because I feel that they captured who Holmes is better than some others. I hate the way they portray Watson as a bumbling idiot in the Basil Rathbone movies he is not Watson as far as I am concerned.

Right now in Stargate fandom a lot of fans are up in arms over the idea of Devlin making the sequels he had planned after the first movie mainly because he wants to use the original actors Kurt Russel and James Spader. They feel that it is an insult to the actors who have played the characters on the tV show for the last ten years.

I don't feel that way because the movie has a different mythos than the TV show the aliens are a different species than the Gou'ld as one example. To me the movies characters are different even O'neil name is spelled differently. So I don't see a problem with it. But if they decided to make Stargate SG 1 movies with all new cast I would feel the same way as I do about replacing the original  trek actors. I would not want to watch it.


In another example when they replaced Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies after Richard Harris's death a lot of the fans did not like Michael Gambon. I liked him better than Richard Harris because to me the new actor was more how I pictured Dumbledore from the books. But when they replaced Peter Duel's character in Alias Smith and Jones after his death I could not watch it no matter how good the actor was he was not Hannibal Hayes to me and not to most of the other fans either the ratings plummented. 

You brought up Hamlet as an example. Here is why that is different to me in the play hamlet the character starts at one point of the characters development moves through the play until his death at the end. It does not deviate from this path. Sure I have seen Hamlet done with a full set and medevial costumes and props and I have seen it done on a bare stage no props with the actors in street clothes. The sets may be different but Hamlet's journey is not. The actors playing Hamlet don't change that journey. Hamlet does not evolve and change every actor who plays Hamlet takes the same journey.

In the Bond movies they are not really related they don't really tell one continuous storyline. What happens in one movie does not carry on into the next. This is very unlike a TV show where the character evolves and changes as the show goes on. It is why TV actors are often more closely identified with a role than an actor who plays a role in a play or movie.

Anyway I hope this long post has explained why *I* don't want to see another play Kirk as an adult. Or any of the other characters replaced.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 14, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Mccoy had a grown daughter Checkov's age he joined Starfleet after his marriage broke up. He was about 15 years older than Kirk.



If you consider the animation's timeline (I don't), his daughter Joanna (born c. 2249) would be 2 years old while McCoy, a Starfleet Medical student (probably a reserve officer training program at University of Misssippi, to be graduated in 2253) is leading a mass innoculation program at Dramma II at 2251.

Even the animation's timeline puts McCoy at least 6 years older than Kirk (supporting sources).




			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Roodenbeery Roddenberry once said that Spock was 50 when Kirk was 30.



Maybe. And Joanna McCoy was supposed to be in the "space hippie" episode, "The Way to Eden," written by DC Fontana, but they rewrote her script and replace the Joanna character with Irina, whom Chekov fell in love.

It's Kirk who was about 14-15 years older than Chekov. Don't confuse the two.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 14, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If you consider the animation's timeline (I don't), his daughter Joanna (born c. 2249) would be 2 years old while McCoy, a Starfleet Medical student (probably a reserve officer training program at University of Misssippi, to be graduated in 2253) is leading a mass innoculation program at Dramma II at 2251.
> 
> Even the animation's timeline puts McCoy at least 6 years older than Kirk (supporting sources).
> 
> ...




I know that they changed Joanna to Irina that was not Rodenberry's idea he was not as involved in third season, But the Trek bible always had Mccoy having a daughter. Which is why DC wrote the episode the way she did.

I used to do the conventions back in the 70s not as a guest but as staff and I spent several cons talking to Gene and one of the conversations we had was the relative ages of the characters. One of the reasons they cast De in the role of McCoy was the fact that the actor was 11 years older than Shatner. They wanted to show that the character was older and not a contemporary of Kirk. 

He was have supposed to already finished medical school and was practicing as a doctor before he joined Starfleet.


Spock because vulcans live longer than humans had already had the start of career at the Vulcan science academy before he joined Starfleet. It was always my understanding that he did not go through the academy the way Kirk had done.

As for what is considered canon and not that has always been a debate among fans. I know that the books are not considered part of the official cannon. A lot of fans do consider the Animated show to be cannon. 

As for the creator of the show sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't I have heard him take both stands on it.

I know one thing the LP that Mark Lenard did where he is Sarek being interviewed was considered cannon by Gene.

Anyway I knew know that they were not all at academy together.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 14, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> I'm not so up on my pre-NG Trek, but aren't there some other semi-canon crews out there? Why not something about Pike?




Or Captain April.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 14, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I tend to agree. DS9 was great, but it's also over.
> 
> But I still would prefer a new series/movie set after the DS9 events (if neccessary, also taking Voyager into account, but I prefer to forget most of it  ).
> Going back will always hurt a bit because of the thousand continuty issues arising from it.
> I am not certain that they can pull off a Battlestar Galactica reboot (BSG had only 2 seasons to "forget", Star trek has 5 whole series and 10 movies) with Startrek. (But if they can, more power to them.  )




I don't agree that DS9 is over there are a lot of stories that could still be told. I know the books are not considered cannon but the books being written set DS9 after the series have some excellent ideas.

You have Ro as the new security chief, the new science officer is an andorian and they have been getting into their culture. Odo sent a Jemhadar to help Kira.

The new first officer is an older man who like Bashir has had dealings with section 31. Garak is on Cardassia trying to help rebuild that shattered world. 

And just nitpicking about Battlestar Galactica it had one season and then the horrible reboot of Galatica 1980 which not even the creator considers part of the cannon and would have ingnored it if he had done a continuation.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 14, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Dame Judi Dench, perhaps?




"By God I miss the Temporal Cold War!"

 -- N


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 14, 2007)

::snicker:: I love it!


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 14, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I know that they changed Joanna to Irina that was not Rodenberry's idea he was not as involved in third season,



Not involved in third season? Roddenberry practically sabotaged it, in protest of NBC putting his show after _Laugh-In_ in the 9/10pm Friday night timeslot.

Don't get me wrong. I revere Roddenberry for creating _Trek,_ but I'm not going to deny what he did. Maybe he wasn't involved in the rewrite of that particular episode.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 15, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not involved in third season? Roddenberry practically sabotaged it, in protest of NBC putting his show after _Laugh-In_ in the 9/10pm Friday night timeslot.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I revere Roddenberry for creating _Trek,_ but I'm not going to deny what he did. Maybe he wasn't involved in the rewrite of that particular episode.




He was not involved with the day to day running of the show and with the scripts as he had in first and second show. he was busy developing a new series.

I have no clue about what you are talking about when you say he sabotaged the show can you please explain what you mean.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 15, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But when they replaced Peter Duel's character in Alias Smith and Jones after his death I could not watch it no matter how good the actor was he was not Hannibal Hayes to me and not to most of the other fans either the ratings plummented.



Wow!  I hadn't thought of that show in years.  You realize that we're probably the only two on this messageboard who remember that show from when it first aired. 

As for the analogy, let's see now, even in the Trek Universe they've have two actors playing Lt. Savvik, two playing Christopher Pike and two playing Zephram Cockrum (plus the TNG Episode "Rascals" if you want to look at older/younger).   I haven't heard any fan complaints about any of those.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 15, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Or Captain April.




Well there are rumors that Pike and April will be in the movie. I think Abrams has confirmed the story will be about a young Kirk and Spock (not necessarily at the academy) but won't be a reboot.

Shatner has confirmed that Abrams wants him and Nimoy in the movie as well.

Given that Abrams loves non-linear stories involving flashbacks (you see this on Lost, Alias and in MI:3) I think it's likely that the story will involve both Shatner and the new actor.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 15, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Wow!  I hadn't thought of that show in years.  You realize that we're probably the only two on this messageboard who remember that show from when it first aired.
> 
> As for the analogy, let's see now, even in the Trek Universe they've have two actors playing Lt. Savvik, two playing Christopher Pike and two playing Zephram Cockrum (plus the TNG Episode "Rascals" if you want to look at older/younger).   I haven't heard any fan complaints about any of those.




Alias Smith and Jones is coming out in DVD soon.  

I know but again I will say what I have been saying Saviik when she was replaced had been in one Trek movie, Cochran had been in one episode and the actor that replaced Jeffrey Hunter as Pike did nothing but sit in a wheelchair and look burned. 

This was a conversation at gaming yesterday and last night at dinner with with some friends. And the opinions seem to be mixed some feel hey as long as they do a good job anything is fine to no they don't want to see a restart of the universe with new TOS stories being told with new actors.


I did notice that the ones who were okay with it were either not old enough ( or even born) to watch TOS when it first came out or were casual trek fans. It seemed to be us old fart diehard trekkies who had the biggest problem with it. ( and yes I know this hardly a scientific study and I am sure that some old fart diehard trekkies are just fine with it   )


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 16, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> He was not involved with the day to day running of the show and with the scripts as he had in first and second show. he was busy developing a new series.
> 
> I have no clue about what you are talking about when you say he sabotaged the show can you please explain what you mean.



Most of third season's episodes sucks, with "Spock's Brain" leading the pack. Maybe he wasn't involved to correct some of the stupidities that aired but Roddenberry is pretty much fed up with NBC's suits.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 16, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well there are rumors that Pike and April will be in the movie. I think Abrams has confirmed the story will be about a young Kirk and Spock (not necessarily at the academy) but won't be a reboot.



Hmm. Daniel Craig as Captain Pike? It could work.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 16, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Most of third season's episodes sucks, with "Spock's Brain" leading the pack. Maybe he wasn't involved to correct some of the stupidities that aired but Roddenberry is pretty much fed up with NBC's suits.




From what I understand Gene was fed up with NBC and the fact that he had often daily fights with them over scripts, costumes, belly buttons you name it. I think he was a little burned out and the day to day running of the show the apporval of the scripts was something he was not doing.

A lot of the creative staff who were involved in the first two seasons had left.

So that is why you see such a drop of quality stories.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 16, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hmm. Daniel Craig as Captain Pike? It could work.




That would rock. 

To Elf Witch: I think they ARE going to do TOS stories with new actors and NOT restarting the universe. 

Abrams has stated many times the movie will adhere to established continuity, be for Trekkies and non-trekkies alike (fellow producer Damon Lindeloff went so far as to say "for my mother in New Jersey" in a recent interview) and will focus on character and drama. 

I don't think using different actors makes for a reboot. I mean, even during the 5 year mission, Id guess we've seen a year's worth of stories. And of course there's the semi-canon "Phase II" that comprised a second 5 year mission between between TOS and the original movies. 

So with the movie not being a reboot and including Shatner playing the older kirk... it just doesn't seem like there's much to offend the "old farts", which is why I'm not offended 

Chuck


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 16, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> From what I understand Gene was fed up with NBC and the fact that he had often daily fights with them over scripts, costumes, belly buttons you name it. I think he was a little burned out and the day to day running of the show the approval of the scripts was something he was not doing.



That was part of it, but the main reason was that he was producing a motion picture that year, a High School sex comedy that was probably a decade ahead of its time.   It bombed at the box office, so he chose to not emphasize that fact.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 16, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> That would rock.
> 
> To Elf Witch: I think they ARE going to do TOS stories with new actors and NOT restarting the universe.
> 
> ...




I was talking with one of my best friends today. We met 30 years ago at a Trek con and a life long friendship came out of it.

We talked about why we are both so bummed about this project. For her she feels that another important part of her life is being conscripted by people who were most likely not even around or old enough to be involved during TOS day. 

She was very involved with running cons in the 70s and ran several Trek clubs. She was personal friends with Jimmy Doohan. Trek in the 70s was a major part of her life.

She also was also a big Battlestar Galactica fan and was heavily involved in several actors fan clubs and enjoys a personal relentionship with several. She was involved in trying to help raise the money for Richard Hatch's short preview shoot for his idea of a continuation of the show. She like a lot of the TOSBSG fans put time in trying to get the studio to see that BSG was still a viable project and finally it looked like we might get it , then 9/11 happaned and the project got delayed amd then  Moore got his hands on it and we ended with what we have now.

It not so much that the show is so different that what we wanted, Its all the crap that went down before the show even aired you had one of the actor's telling the old fans "don't bother watching the new show" Moore didn't even bother to talk to any of the actors who were involved with the old show. Over the years the actors had been on a ride that yes we are doing it with you guys to no we are not ( Singer at first) to a change of heart from Singer because of fan pressue then to not only are you not wanted for the new project but we want to do another show entirely. Fans in the know knew all this before the miniseries ever showed.

A lot of them had been involved in BSG for 26 years at this point and felt a great bitterness. We already knew that most of us now fell out of the demographic of what the studios want for their viewers and our opinions and taste don't matter at all anymore. But then you has the new fans of the show just rubbed salt into the wounds.

They were dismissive and scornful of the older fans and the older show. On BSG forums it was like a warzone. You had to hear crap like the old show sucked, it was cheesy ,the actors couldn't act. It split the fandom up. Several long running boards kicked off any discussion of the new show. And it was impossible to go onto some of the forums for the new show and say you were an old fan but also liked the new show, but there were something you liked better on the show and some that you liked better on the new show. If you just mentioned the old show your opinion was labeled as being a troll.

The worse offenders of this were mostly young people who had not been born or old enough to have watched the show the show when it was first on or they were kids who remember running around in the playyard yelling "by my command".

At a con in California some of the new actors were at an autograph table next to some of the old actors. My friend was there helping run that table.  There were sercal fans enough to have made the day unpleasant who felt the need to speak loudly telling the new actors how wonderful they were and how great the show was and how they were not fans of the awful cheesy 70s show. It was uncomfertable for the new actors and the old actors. 

These young fans didn;t seem to grasp the simple concept that if it had not been for the cheesy old 70s show and the fans who kept it alive they would not have the show they loved today.

So for my friend she is afraid that this will happen in Trek fandom. 

Because there is no way that TOS will look as good as ahow made today. Because we live in a different time the storied will be better and the original will be labeled cheesy. Some young Trek fans already do this.

We both remember the tension with some of the fans of Next Gen back in the early days. It smoothed out after awhile mainly beacuse you had the tOS movies being made at the same time and there was no internet to spread the flames. In the end it became we are all Trek fans. 

In my long winded way I guess what I am saying is that for some of us who are more than just fans who watch the show but have parts of our life heavily involved in the actual fandom of the show feel a lot of unease over this. We don't want to see Trek fandom split like BSG fandom.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 16, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> That was part of it, but the main reason was that he was producing a motion picture that year, a High School sex comedy that was probably a decade ahead of its time.   It bombed at the box office, so he chose to not emphasize that fact.




That to.  A lot of his ideas were a head of their time.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 17, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> So for my friend she is afraid that this will happen in Trek fandom.



Dudette, it already have happened.

I have already met with fans who are anti-_TOS._ Some of them happened to like _VOYAGER_ and _ENTERPRISE_ (I can only agree with the fourth and last season of that series).

As much as you want to retain the traditional integrity of the franchise, it won't work on the younger generations. They need to be retold in a way that would interest them.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I"ve always wanted to see another ship, I'd suspect that if the enterprise d/e was the flag ship, but a family ship, they'd have had to have a "war" flag ship too. Even a 23rd century new crew would be cool.




I recently read David Gerrold's _Blood and Fire_, which was originally intended as a Trek script that never happened; instead, he rewrote it as a Star Wolf novel.

In the afterword, he talks about the long-suffering plans for a Star Wolf TV series.

In the pilot episode, we would begin aboard the _Endeavour_, the 'Big E', the flagship and pride of the fleet.  Everything clean and shiny and modern, the crew in perfectly pressed uniforms with glossy boots, etc, etc.

The 'Big E' gets blown up in the first fifteen minutes, and then we're introduced to the _actual_ star of the show... an old, grimy, outdated light cruiser, where half the systems don't work properly, and _nobody's_ uniform is perfectly pressed... 

The other part of the sketch he gives that appealed to me was that the main character is the first officer; we would get a new captain every three or four episodes, since they keep dying in a variety of exciting fashions... 

-Hyp.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Dudette, it already have happened.
> 
> I have already met with fans who are anti-_TOS._ Some of them happened to like _VOYAGER_ and _ENTERPRISE_ (I can only agree with the fourth and last season of that series).
> 
> As much as you want to retain the traditional integrity of the franchise, it won't work on the younger generations. They need to be retold in a way that would interest them.




I know not all fans don't like all the shows. I for example don't like Next Gen or Enterprise (except for the last season as well). My friend who I was talking about does not like DS9. And though I came into Trek fandom through TOS and it will always have a soft spot in my heart DS9 is my favorite Trek.

But on the whole there is not so much negative anger direct over this in the fandom like there is in BSG fandom or like what is happening and happened in Stargate fandom.

And yes I know that they will change it to bring in the new fans all I can hope is that they won't be as rude and arrogant as some of the new BSG fans are.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 17, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I know not all fans don't like all the shows. I for example don't like Next Gen or Enterprise (except for the last season as well). My friend who I was talking about does not like DS9. And though I came into Trek fandom through TOS and it will always have a soft spot in my heart DS9 is my favorite Trek.
> 
> But on the whole there is not so much negative anger direct over this in the fandom like there is in BSG fandom or like what is happening and happened in Stargate fandom.
> 
> And yes I know that they will change it to bring in the new fans all I can hope is that they won't be as rude and arrogant as some of the new BSG fans are.



Meh. Just got to live with them, and hope they grow up to appreciate the franchise as a whole.

At least the _Trek_ franchise have so many series and films to cover a wide variety of audience's taste. I still like _TNG_ even if you don't. I like _DS9_ even if they critically call it a "soap opera in a floating station that goes nowhere."


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 17, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In my long winded way I guess what I am saying is that for some of us who are more than just fans who watch the show but have parts of our life heavily involved in the actual fandom of the show feel a lot of unease over this. We don't want to see Trek fandom split like BSG fandom.




So, you'd rather another TOS movie never happen because it might create a schism in fandom and make cons less fun to go to? 

You'd rather have the cons than the actual works that inspire the cons?

And btw, this idea that the show being an integral part of your life will somehow influence how you feel about a potential recasting isn't true in my case. My first television memory is watching TOS on Saturday morning at about the age of 8. It was a two hour block of one TOS episode and two TAS episodes which I watched instead of cartoons. 

Again, I love the old show. That is EXACTLY why this movie appeals to me. The idea of seeing more stories about Kirk and Spock. 

I like the New Voyages fan films, I always thought it was a great idea to do new stories set during the old series. 

And yeah, they could use a different crew... but what folks seem to be missing is that the CHARACTERS are what's great about the old show. 

Chuck


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So, you'd rather another TOS movie never happen because it might create a schism in fandom and make cons less fun to go to?
> 
> You'd rather have the cons than the actual works that inspire the cons?
> 
> ...




I would rather see something new and fresh not a rehash of the 23 century. I would like to see the Trek universe evolve on the big screen or on TV. For me the books are enough they have done a wonderful job of filling in the holes as well as the thousands of pages of fanfic I have read in the last 35 years.

I also enjoy the New Voyagers because I feel like they are a loving tribute done by fans of the show. Not people who just want to milk the cash cow that is Trek.

I don't see why they need to set it in the 23 century to bring in new fans who think TOS is a cheesy old sixties show. I would think that if they wanted to bring in new fans the young ones they would pick something newer. They have already shown that going back in the timeline did not bring new fans into the fandom.


And yes I will be very honest I would rather never see another Trek made if it is anything like the new BSG and I would rather see Trek fandom age and wither way then have it become as fractous and nasty as BSG fandom became. But I also reconize that how I feel about it has no influence on what is going to happen. 

As I have said before this in my opinion and how I feel about it. I am certainly not trying to say that someone who feels differently is not as much a Trek fan as I am or their opinion is any less valid. If you are looking forward to something like what the rumors say then I hope you enjoy what they make.

Who knows maybe it will be so good that I will change my mind about it, that has happened in the past.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. Just got to live with them, and hope they grow up to appreciate the franchise as a whole.
> 
> At least the _Trek_ franchise have so many series and films to cover a wide variety of audience's taste. I still like _TNG_ even if you don't. I like _DS9_ even if they critically call it a "soap opera in a floating station that goes nowhere."




I just could never get into the Next Gen I just found the characters to be so perfect and sometimes they came off so smug. I do think Next Gen had some excellent writing of stories. I really liked the movie First Contact it is up there as one of my favorite Trek movies.

I am a character person I am more into the characters than the story. Which is why I enjoyed Voyager because I really liked the characters even though I think the show itself never really found its voice and had some poor wrtiting.

I like DS9 so much because of the character development that went on in the show.

I really wanted to like Enterprise. I am big fan of Scott Backula so I was exicited to see him in a Trek show. But I found myself bored with the show it did not hold my attention. I just slowly stopped watching until Manny Coto came on board. I had really enjoyed Odyssey 5 so I wanted to see what he was going to do. And I found his season except for that awful final episode to be a wonderfully written show. It was really to bad that they didn't give it a second chance.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 17, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I would rather see something new and fresh not a rehash of the 23 century. I would live to see the Trek universe evolve on the big screen or on TV. For me the books are enough they have done a wonderful job of filling in the holes as well as the thousands of pages of fanfic I have read in the last 35 years.
> 
> I also enjoy the New Voyagers because I feel like they are a loving tribute done by fans of the show. Not people who just wnat to milk the cash cow that is Trek.
> 
> ...




Two things: 

First, I don't think a movie is the right place to introduce a new crew. Maybe it could work. Joss Whedon managed to pull off introducing crew+ship+universe but that doesn't mean it wasn't a huge stupid human trick (my proof of this is that my dad saw Serenity and loved it without ever seeing a single episode of Firefly). 

Second, this wasn't a proposal for new trek from dozens of movie offers. If we were going to get Trek anytime in the next several years, this is the trek we were going to get. Paramount was not actively looking for a Trek movie, they were looking for projects with JJ Abrams, a director they think is the next Spielberg. 

It was HIS passion for Kirk and TOS that set all this in motion.

So I like the idea of more Kirk stories, but I could have been sold on just about anything that wasn't another TNG movie. But since this proposal was the only chance I had for more trek in the forseeable future, then yeah I support it.


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 17, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In the afterword, he talks about the long-suffering plans for a Star Wolf TV series.



Whoa . . . you have access to the afterworld?

Oh, wait. You said after_word_, not after_world_. My bad. 


			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I really wanted to like Enterprise. I am big fan of Scott Backula so I was exicited to see him in a Trek show. But I found myself bored with the show it did not hold my attention. I just slowly stopped watching until Manny Coto came on board. I had really enjoyed Odyssey 5 so I wanted to see what he was going to do. And I found his season except for that awful final episode to be a wonderfully written show.



I felt the same way. I really enjoyed _Quantum Leap_ and was really excited to hear that Bakula would be in the new Trek. But, like you, it bored me. Unfortunately, I lost interest long before the last season. I did tune in to see the final episode and because I had missed pretty much all of the last three seasons, it confirmed my opinion that _Enterprise_ was a load of crap. Unfortunately. Eventually I will go back and watch the entirety of the series, because I'm like that, but I was highly highly disappointed.

I also thought it was interesting that of all the Treks, _Enterprise_ had the highest percentage of Beautiful People (IMO, of course). I kind of had the impression, due to the poor quality of the show itself, that they did that to compensate. :\


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Two things:
> 
> First, I don't think a movie is the right place to introduce a new crew. Maybe it could work. Joss Whedon managed to pull off introducing crew+ship+universe but that doesn't mean it wasn't a huge stupid human trick (my proof of this is that my dad saw Serenity and loved it without ever seeing a single episode of Firefly).
> 
> ...




I took a freind to see Serenity who had never seen Firefly and they loved it.

And you maybe right about making a new Trek movie from scratch.

I will say this about JJ Abrams he made the last Mission Impossible film have the feel of the old show soemthing the first had not ben able to do. So maybe he will do a good job and I will be happy with the finished project.

I like Anne Rice had to eat crow over my belief that there was no way in hell that Tom Cruise would be able to pull of Lestat. maybe I will end up having to do that with this project as well.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> Whoa . . . you have access to the afterworld?
> 
> Oh, wait. You said after_word_, not after_world_. My bad. I felt the same way. I really enjoyed _Quantum Leap_ and was really excited to hear that Bakula would be in the new Trek. But, like you, it bored me. Unfortunately, I lost interest long before the last season. I did tune in to see the final episode and because I had missed pretty much all of the last three seasons, it confirmed my opinion that _Enterprise_ was a load of crap. Unfortunately. Eventually I will go back and watch the entirety of the series, because I'm like that, but I was highly highly disappointed.
> 
> I also thought it was interesting that of all the Treks, _Enterprise_ had the highest percentage of Beautiful People (IMO, of course). I kind of had the impression, due to the poor quality of the show itself, that they did that to compensate. :\




some of the characters really bugged the hell out of me. I could not stand either of the females. Jolene Block is a beautiful woman but I felt like she was cast to just turn on the young boys.

Not that there is anything wrong with having sexy woman but it should feel like there is more to why they are there than just to tantilize.


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 17, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Jolene Block is a beautiful woman but I felt like she was cast to just turn on the young boys.
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with having sexy woman but it should feel like there is more to why they are there than just to tantilize.



Exactly. I thought most of the male leads were above-average in looks as well. Nothing wrong with that, except when it's compensation for something else.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 17, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I just could never get into the Next Gen I just found the characters to be so perfect and sometimes they came off so smug. I do think Next Gen had some excellent writing of stories. I really liked the movie First Contact it is up there as one of my favorite Trek movies.



What did you expect? We have already gone through the "Frontier Train to the Stars" routine.

_TNG_ was supposed to represent the Renaissance, which is what Roddenberry laid down during the first season.

It's only AFTER he was replaced by Berman did they started to create conflicts for the "civilized" Federation.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I really wanted to like Enterprise. I am big fan of Scott Backula so I was exicited to see him in a Trek show. But I found myself bored with the show it did not hold my attention. I just slowly stopped watching until Manny Coto came on board. I had really enjoyed Odyssey 5 so I wanted to see what he was going to do. And I found his season except for that awful final episode to be a wonderfully written show. It was really to bad that they didn't give it a second chance.



For the record, Manny Coto is not responsible for the series finale episode. He got trumped by his former bosses.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> What did you expect? We have already gone through the "Frontier Train to the Stars" routine.
> 
> _TNG_ was supposed to represent the Renaissance, which is what Roddenberry laid down during the first season.
> 
> ...




You can have a renaissance and still not have such perfect people with no flaws *yawn* Wesley would have been a much better character if had been a smart kid trying to find a place to fit in instead of a genius who saved the ship and never had trouble fitting in.

One of the things I find interesting is the journey that characters make. To me I always felt that most of the next gen characters had already finished their journey and had nothing really new to learn about themslves.

And while I respect Gene he forgot an important rule for drama you need conflict. In romance stories the curtain usually falls after boy and girl get together because happily ever after may great for real life but it is boring to watch. 

I am not saying that characters need to be as flawed as the frak up on BSG. One of the things I really liked on DS9 was the characters who were a little rough around rhe edges amd had personal things to overcome.

And I know Manny had nothing to do with the final episode.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> Exactly. I thought most of the male leads were above-average in looks as well. Nothing wrong with that, except when it's compensation for something else.




Yep. I really felt that Scott Backula was often so wooden and I know the man can act. I always felt that it was kind of sad that my favorite character was Porthos the dog. :\


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 17, 2007)

I wished they would have really made the later movies more epic and combined some of the casts. I envisioned a trillogy to permanently take out the borg that envolved DS9, TNG and those left from Voyager. Each movie having a climatic ending that influenced the cast. 

The problem with rehashing history is that we already know the outcome. Thats why I dont like prequels. YOu pretty much alreaedy know how this thing ends, so the story does not feel epic because it changes nothing. 

Seeing some of the cool things TOS did in the movies, I can't really see how a new movie would top it. There's just no way of making this movie epic like wrath of khan or first contact.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I wished they would have really made the later movies more epic and combined some of the casts. I envisioned a trillogy to permanently take out the borg that envolved DS9, TNG and those left from Voyager. Each movie having a climatic ending that influenced the cast.
> 
> The problem with rehashing history is that we already know the outcome. Thats why I dont like prequels. YOu pretty much alreaedy know how this thing ends, so the story does not feel epic because it changes nothing.
> 
> Seeing some of the cool things TOS did in the movies, I can't really see how a new movie would top it. There's just no way of making this movie epic like wrath of khan or first contact.





I would have enjoyed seeing something like this as well. They would not have had use the entire casts of all the shows.

Going after a big threat involving more than one ship so you could see Voyager, Defiant, Enterprise and maybe Riker's new ship the Titian. That would be a dream movie for this fan.

Also I wouldn't mind seeing a movie dealing with those parasite creatures that tried to take over Starfleet in Next Gen. Last we knew they were coming. I guess they got lost. :\


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 18, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I like Anne Rice had to eat crow over my belief that there was no way in hell that Tom Cruise would be able to pull of Lestat. maybe I will end up having to do that with this project as well.



Whoa...

If there is one thing that will stop me from watching JJ Abrams' _Trek_ film, and that is if he cast his friend, Tom Cruise, in it. I don't care if it's a cameo, I don't want Tom's face or voice in it.

Sounds unreasonable and illogical, but that's why they're called quirks (in this case, it's MY quirk). No logical answer to it, I just cannot stand Tom Cruise anymore.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 18, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> Actually, it probably wasn't ghost-written, as Shatner is a published novelist.



All of Shatner's _Star Trek_ novels are co-written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. So, by "co-written" we mean "Shatner thinks up the plot, the Reeves-Stevens write the books".

The first one, _The Ashes of Eden_, takes place six months before _Generations_; _The Return_ takes place directly after _Generations_. There's a direct sequel to the second book, _Avenger_.

They also wrote a trilogy following on to these books, about Mirror-Kirk (who is, like the original, somehow alive in the present) trying to conquer both universes - _Spectre_, _Dark Victory_, and _Preserver_.

There's another trilogy apparently set after the Dominion War - _Captain's Peril_, _Captain's Blood_, and _Captain's Glory_.


----------



## ShadowX (Jan 18, 2007)

_Short of that "Enterprise" pilot scene where the busty Jolene Blalock and the muscular Connor Trinneer rubbed oil all over their muscles whilst dressed only in their all too tight underwear_

Sorry to hijack the thread.  Is this really how the series starts?  If so, maybe I should finally satiate my curiousity for the show...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 18, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> All of Shatner's _Star Trek_ novels are co-written by *Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.*



They also helped Manny Coto on the fourth season of _Enterprise_ ... after their _Lost World_ syndicated TV series silently cancelled.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Whoa...
> 
> If there is one thing that will stop me from watching JJ Abrams' _Trek_ film, and that is if he cast his friend, Tom Cruise, in it. I don't care if it's a cameo, I don't want Tom's face or voice in it.
> 
> Sounds unreasonable and illogical, but that's why they're called quirks (in this case, it's MY quirk). No logical answer to it, I just cannot stand Tom Cruise anymore.




I can understand quirks I am that way over Jim Carrey I just can't stomach watching him in anything.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 18, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> They also helped Manny Coto on the fourth season of _Enterprise_ ... after their _Lost World_ syndicated TV series silently cancelled.



I think they are the same authors that wrote the Making of Deep Space Nine book, I book I heartily recommend to any Star Trek fan. It helped me see DS9 in an entirely new light at a time I wasn't too fond of it. Today, it's my favourite trek show, which includes the first few seasons (which were the only one addressed in the book) before the big Dominion war started. 

My impression is not only that they are good authors, they also love Star trek strongly - and understand it, too.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 18, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Yep. I really felt that Scott Backula was often so wooden and I know the man can act.





I have a feeling that was planned, and something that would have changed over the course of the show had it lasted longer.


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 18, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> All of Shatner's _Star Trek_ novels are co-written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. So, by "co-written" we mean "Shatner thinks up the plot, the Reeves-Stevens write the books".



I wasn't speaking of his Trek stuff. He's published in his own right, and I can't imagine that the Shat would hand the reins over *entirely* to someone else. Sure, they may have done the bulk of it, but he probably had a lot of input beyond the initial stages. Of course, I don't know him, the Reeves-Stevens, or either of their publishers or editors personally, so this is all mere speculation on my part. 


			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that was planned, and something that would have changed over the course of the show had it lasted longer.



This intrigues me. Explain, please?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 19, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> My impression is not only that [Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens] are good authors, they also love Star trek strongly - and understand it, too.



Why Berman and Braga did not tap into their talents during the first three seasons of _ENTERPRISE_ is beyond my and possibly any _Trek_fan's comprehension.  :\


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 19, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Why Berman and Braga did not tap into their talents during the first three seasons of _ENTERPRISE_ is beyond my and possibly any _Trek_fan's comprehension.  :\




Because things were going so well?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 19, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Because things were going so well?



*scoffs*

Ha! In their dreams.


----------

