# The Future of Star Trek (revealed)...



## John Crichton (Mar 24, 2004)

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=17250

Relevant text reprinted below...


> _*TO BOLDLY BLOW LIKE NO TREK HAS BLOWN BEFORE!!*_
> 
> *Paramount is a studio that seems to be scrambling to figure out just what its identity is. For the last five years, it seems like they’ve been the home of stalled, desperately un-hip franchises, Ashley-Judd-in-peril movies, and weak Billy Friedkin pity gigs. They seem to be working to change that, though, with films like SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW and A PRINCESS OF MARS in the pipeline. I want to believe that Paramount can turn it around.*
> 
> ...



*Um, ugh? I'm I'll for a new man in charge but this doesn't sound like the direction I want to see Trek go. I am curious to hear more, tho. Actually, it really doesn't matter what they do as long as they hire good writers and a good director to take control.*


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 24, 2004)

I need to see more and the scripts need to be well written. I to am in favor of dumping B&B but I am equaly leary of putting someone in charge whose claim to fame is comedies. I little humor in Star Trek is ok but overall the franchise is about adventure.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 24, 2004)

I have said it before and I will say it again; they have a great story in the founding of the Federation, they just have to use it!  Bring in the Klingons as the bad guys, then build the on the myth of why the fed was born, why the prime, why the Klingons were hated so.  They have a box, a very good box with a lot of toys inside, they don't need to think outside it.  

If that does not work for you, Captain Logs - run and mix different stories from different views of different Captains and ships.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Mar 24, 2004)

Yikes.  I would hate to see Trek reduced to some kind of comedy.  Stupid hollywood.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 24, 2004)

Hopefully, the three films mentioned are just rumors. 

The 'civil war' would almost have to be the Eugenics Wars, which I admit would be an interesting film in and of itself. They'd need to get a young Ricardo Montalban lookalike, though... 

The second.. I can't imagine how you could have a film like that. I'd assume we'd be using fusion power for quite some time before wossname invents the Warp Drive.

The third...if that's about the founding the Federation and the Academy, I'm all for that. That would be a nice little link to the rest of the 'universe', to have the last scene be where 'Ensign Kirk, reporting for duty sir,' is the last thing you hear before the credits (or left as the last thing before the screen goes black) -- don't even have to see the actor, just hear that line.


----------



## The_Universe (Mar 24, 2004)

I suppose the last few second intro of Kirk would be cool...

But I don't really think the idea of doing a "history" of the star trek universe is a good idea. Not only do malevolent demi-deities play havoc with the timeline on a nearly daily basis, but the strength of Trek has never been its consistency. 

Consistency in Star Trek sucks! Zephram Cochrane appears in an episode of the original series, and he looks nothing like the guy who plays him in First Contact. In the original series, the warp drive goes up beyond 14, but in TNG warp can never exceed Warp Factor 10. There are even inconsistencies from within each series (watch how ferengi change throughout the run of TNG, and then change more in DS9).

The guy at AICN is right! The strength is in the characters, not the overarching storylines. Why did I watch trek? Because I cared about Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu and Checkov. I gave a damn what happened to Uhura and even nurse Chapel, and ocaisonally Yeoman Rand. Why? Because they were these beautifully constructed characters. 

TNG was the same way! Picard, Riker, Data, Geordi, Worf (but not Troi. I draw the line at Troi) were all people that you wanted to spend an hour (or more) with every week.

Even in DS9, it was worth the time to see Quark, Garak, and Odo (the rest of the characters, save the direct transplants from TNG, were total throwaways for me). 

Neither of the newest Treks have done that. 'Enterprise' hardly even LOOKS like Trek, and they've done precious little time exploring! No acidic concrete monsters! No hippie love flowers! Not even a planet filled with humans from Time Period X on earth. These are the things that make Trek! Bring them back!


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 24, 2004)

Sounds rather suspicious to me.  I'll believe it when I hear it from Paramount.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Consistency in Star Trek sucks! Zephram Cochrane appears in an episode of the original series, and he looks nothing like the guy who plays him in First Contact.




Ah, yes.    You yourself say it is about character.  If it is about character, than looks are unimportant.  The movie Cochrane had far more character depth than the series one.  



> In the original series, the warp drive goes up beyond 14, but in TNG warp can never exceed Warp Factor 10.




Your geek fu is weak, my friend.  This disrepancy is explained in the technical manuals.  Warp theory advances in the time between Kirk and Picard, so the numbering system for warp changes.



> Not even a planet filled with humans from Time Period X on earth. These are the things that make Trek! Bring them back!




Geek fu even weaker! Check out "North Star", first aired back in November, last aired on March 10: "Enterprise discovers a settlement of humans living a 19th-century Western lifestyle on a Delphic Expanse planet, so Archer and crew set out to learn how they got there."

Before you start talking about what Enterprise should be doing and isn't doing, you ought to be up to date on what it is doing


----------



## Orius (Mar 24, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> [Relevant text reprinted below...
> Um, ugh? I'm I'll for a new man in charge but this doesn't sound like the direction I want to see Trek go. I am curious to hear more, tho. Actually, it really doesn't matter what they do as long as they hire good writers and a good director to take control.[/size][/b]




Well, since it DID come from AICN, I'll assume that good portion of it was groundless rumors and outright bull.  I do not consider AICN to be a trustworthy source of information on the Net.


----------



## Dreeble (Mar 24, 2004)

Heya:

 I like the idea of adding William Shatner's head to a younger actor's body with a few restrictions: 1) Like the rumor states: for 20 minutes only since it would be too expensive because of 2) Dynamically digitally make Shatner's face age-appropriate to the younger actor.  We've all seen programs that "age" peoples' images.  Something similar that does the same thing in reverse in realtime as the image (the actor on screen) moves about would be a cool effect.

Take care,
Dreeble


----------



## The_Universe (Mar 24, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Your geek fu is weak, my friend.



You misunderstand me, grasshoppah!  I am well aware of after-the-fact explanations of warp scale changes, and even of the Northstar episode (good episode).  I was trying to say that discrepencies don't matter, and are in fact part of what made the previous series good.    

Enterprise is an okay series, and there are a few episodes that are very good.  I just don't really care about Archer et al.  They just seem to lack the magic of earlier casts.  Would that be aided by not being stuck on UPN, and having a higher budget?  Almost certainly.  I feel like the show is slipping hard and fast, and the idea presented wasn't going to salvage it for my tastes.

Lastly, I LOVED the Cromwell Cochrane, even though he was NOTHING (visually or in personality) like the one from the original series.  I'm just pointing out that trying to "nail down" the past of the series is better fodder for novels, etc. rather than movies and TV.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 24, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Consistency in Star Trek sucks! Zephram Cochrane appears in an episode of the original series, and he looks nothing like the guy who plays him in First Contact. In the original series, the warp drive goes up beyond 14, but in TNG warp can never exceed Warp Factor 10. There are even inconsistencies from within each series (watch how ferengi change throughout the run of TNG, and then change more in DS9).



Actually, of all the _Star Trek TNG_ films, I only like _FIRST CONTACT._

As for the warp speed inconsistencies, it is possible they have reformed and recalculated the scale, which is plausible since warp does not exist within the laws of physic without bending it. And FYI, the final _TNG_ episode have made mentioned of "warp 14" or something above the maximum limit of 10. But it is not set in stone since it it was Q's test of humanity with Picard once again the champion of this uncouthed, pitiful, child-like, savage species.

The only hangup I have with the new franchise's administration is their disregard for continuity.

As for the rumors, until it is concrete, I'll reserve my judgment.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 24, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> Well, since it DID come from AICN, I'll assume that good portion of it was groundless rumors and outright bull. I do not consider AICN to be a trustworthy source of information on the Net.



Not to mention the time of year.  A lot of this loony drivel gets peddled leading up to April 1st.  Personally, I think it's all a load of crap.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 24, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> Well, since it DID come from AICN, I'll assume that good portion of it was groundless rumors and outright bull. I do not consider AICN to be a trustworthy source of information on the Net.



Could be. But Moriarty isn't exactly your typical scooper. He's actually got many friends in the industry and has some cred to back it up. He's the reason many people (including myself) go to AICN. Do I take it as 100% truth? No. But even if 50% of the report is true than there is something to talk about.

I'd say that somewhere between the press releases from the studios and the rumor mill is the truth. But this source has proven to be trustworthy in the past and he corrects himself if and when more facts come out. It ain't word-o-God but it's something to talk about.

EDIT:  Besides, this is a work in progress at the studio.  The concepts and plans will most likely morph and change a 100 times before it ever gets released to the public through official channels.


----------



## driver8 (Mar 24, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I have said it before and I will say it again; they have a great story in the founding of the Federation, they just have to use it!  Bring in the Klingons as the bad guys, then build the on the myth of why the fed was born, why the prime, why the Klingons were hated so.  They have a box, a very good box with a lot of toys inside, they don't need to think outside it.
> 
> If that does not work for you, Captain Logs - run and mix different stories from different views of different Captains and ships.




I agree 200% (is thats possible). The birth of the Federation has plenty of space to fill in a great stroy. I hate prequels, but it could have touched on so many classic races-the Andorians the Klingons, etc. The myth is there, so use it.

The Captains Log is a cool idea, too good to ever be used. But having short mini series or story arcs focusing  on different crews, ships and races would be great. Give a different perspective to an old formula. I mean the universe is a big place...


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 25, 2004)

*Bah...*

We don't need to see more Federation/Starfleet, that's all every series has been. I would be more interested in seeing series, seasons or story arcs about other races important episodes, like Kahless, or the Vulcan philosopher that pioneered the way of logic ( I don't remember the name ). Maybe something on the Trill, or whatnot. Even one exploring the history of the Borg.


----------



## Gronin (Mar 25, 2004)

the answer to the whole thing is given by the people at bringbackkirk.com.  In fact they have a nine minute movie trailer there that has a much better story idea than anything I read in that stuff at AICN.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Mar 25, 2004)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> We don't need to see more Federation/Starfleet, that's all every series has been. I would be more interested in seeing series, seasons or story arcs about other races important episodes, like Kahless, or the Vulcan philosopher that pioneered the way of logic ( I don't remember the name ). Maybe something on the Trill, or whatnot. Even one exploring the history of the Borg.




Sorry but as much as the races the humans encounter are interesting Star Trek is about the human race exploration of space (and learning about ourselves in the process).  the races are, imo, window dressing for the story to be played out against.  Humans, and hence Starfleet, would pretty much have to be intregal to any new series for it to even be Star Trek.  All of the ideas you present would make excellent multi-part episodes of a series but none would be able to stand up as a full series.

Personally I think it is just he overabundance of Star Trek we have been fed in the last decade that is the problem.  Familiarity breeds contempt and all.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 25, 2004)

Star Trek is still around?!

Huh, go figure.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 25, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Star Trek is still around?!
> 
> Huh, go figure.



 No, it isn't.  Actually, the entire UPN network is a figment of your imagination.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 25, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Huh, go figure.



That's the same reaction of _Dr. Who._


----------



## Ashwyn (Mar 25, 2004)

Has it been explained what happened to the Klingons that changed them from how they looked in the original series to looking like they do now? I think that would make a good story and I really want to know. Well, since on Enterprise they look like they do after the change, I suppose I want to know what happened to change them and change them back.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 25, 2004)

I like the Captains Log idea.
There is a way around Starfleet, by the way - there seem to be some federation citizen with their own starships, that use to trade. Something along the linkes of Startrek Firefly, maybe. 
Okay, must of us begin to hate all the time travel stuff, but maybe they should use it as the groundings for a new series: Startrek, the 27th Century. The Federation has acquired reliable time travel technology, and now historians and similar people are visiting the past - a visit to Kahless, the Emperor (and what the hell does the Romulan Assassin do here, several centuries before Romulans and Klingons ever came into contact? We must find and stop him before he changes the timeline!), Surak, the Founder of the Vulcan Philosophy and so on...

Or maybe we have to work on a lower scale, with the occassional visits to important points in the past - Startrek - Quantum Leap. 

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## DMScott (Mar 25, 2004)

Ashwyn said:
			
		

> Has it been explained what happened to the Klingons that changed them from how they looked in the original series to looking like they do now?




Improvements in TV makeup and a higher budget. For the in-continuity explanation, Worf gave the official word in the Tribbles crossover episode: "We do not speak of it."


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Mar 25, 2004)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I like the Captains Log idea.
> There is a way around Starfleet, by the way - there seem to be some federation citizen with their own starships, that use to trade. Something along the linkes of Startrek Firefly, maybe.




Love this idea!  just get rid of the 'Star Trek' rider 



> Okay, must of us begin to hate all the time travel stuff, but maybe they should use it as the groundings for a new series: Startrek, the 27th Century. The Federation has acquired reliable time travel technology, and now historians and similar people are visiting the past - a visit to Kahless, the Emperor (and what the hell does the Romulan Assassin do here, several centuries before Romulans and Klingons ever came into contact? We must find and stop him before he changes the timeline!), Surak, the Founder of the Vulcan Philosophy and so on...
> 
> Or maybe we have to work on a lower scale, with the occassional visits to important points in the past - Startrek - Quantum Leap.
> 
> Mustrum Ridcully




The only drawback to this I can see is that the technobabble content would reach critical mass, implode in on itself and render all Star Trek writers mute and sterile.


Hmmmm, maybe it's *not* such a bad idea afterall.


----------



## Pants (Mar 25, 2004)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> The only drawback to this I can see is that the technobabble content would reach critical mass, implode in on itself and render all Star Trek writers mute and sterile.



Besides, if something went wrong, they wouldn't be able to bring in Geordie to reroute the polar conduits or reverse the metric stabilizers.


----------



## PoppaGunch (Mar 25, 2004)

How about this?

Q teaching his son about the universe!  It could be a series like Amazing Stories, or the Twilight Zone.  Narrated by Q, telling his kid about all the lower life forms and their histories.

While funny, that could only be a one shot episode for the show.  Still I do think John Delancie is funny as all hell...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 25, 2004)

Here is an idea!

Star Trek: The Adventures of the Young Harkan Mudd


----------



## Asmo (Mar 25, 2004)

I want to know what happened to Harry Kim. And Chakotay. I miss Voyager.
Really.

Asmo


----------



## Benben (Mar 25, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> They'd need to get a young Ricardo Montalban lookalike, though...



I now have the horrible image of Paramount using Ricky Martin for a young Kahn Noonian Singh.

"Burried aliiiiiiive.  Burried aliiiiiive."


----------



## Krieg (Mar 25, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> No, it isn't.  Actually, the entire UPN network is a figment of your imagination.




Unfortunately that really isn't too far from the truth.


----------



## Orius (Mar 25, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Enterprise is an okay series, and there are a few episodes that are very good.  I just don't really care about Archer et al.  They just seem to lack the magic of earlier casts.  Would that be aided by not being stuck on UPN, and having a higher budget?  Almost certainly.




I agree.  I think the fact the show's stuck on that non-network called UPN is part of its woes.  First of all, UPN doesn't even have affiliates in every Nielsen market in the country.  Because of that simple fact, _Enterprise_ is naturally going to pull in lower ratings.  That's one of the reasons UPN is the lowest rated network, that and they pretty much air shows that have been rejected by the other networks (I can't imagine a producer pitching a show to UPN first.)  
  Secondly, the fact that the show is on a network means that brain-dead network execs are going to screw with it.  How many Sci-Fi series that had good potential were trashed because a network couldn't resist tinkering with it, and mostly to increase viewership of the highly coveted 18-35 male demographic.  This is why TNG and DS9 were syndicated, and were successful in syndication: Roddenberry was burned by networks twice and he had the brains not to go back to them again.
  Third, I think Berman and Braga are burned out, and they didn't have the strength of will to actually get into exploring the origins of the Federation.  They had a great idea, but just ended up doing the same boring recycled stories that have been done for years on Star Trek.  The whole TCW and Xindi plot are really part of this.  It's not that they're bad ideas, it's just that I think it would have worked better in the future.  The Xindi plot in particular, while having some good stories, doesn't present the sort of tension it should for me, because I know Earth will overcome the challenge in the end.  The fact that Berman and Braga are saying the Xindi plot is creating an alternate timeline is really an excuse to retcon on a galactic scale and is irritating and insulting to the fans as well.
  Look at the good shows that have aired.  The Andorian episodes seem to be the biggest fan favorites.  And some fans complain about the Klingons in Enterprise, but I think their presence in the sedries has been mostly good (except for that lame-ass episode _Unexpected_)   Showing more aliens like Tellarites, Romulans, Orions, etc.  and exploring these classic races I think would have generated far more fan interest than than the TCW, Xindi plot, etc.


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 25, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> Look at the good shows that have aired.  The Andorian episodes seem to be the biggest fan favorites.  And some fans complain about the Klingons in Enterprise, but I think their presence in the sedries has been mostly good (except for that lame-ass episode _Unexpected_)   Showing more aliens like Tellarites, Romulans, Orions, etc.  and exploring these classic races I think would have generated far more fan interest than than the TCW, Xindi plot, etc.




I totally agree.  Those were the episodes I liked.  They had a rich tapestry of "firsts" they could have explored - orions, tellarites, etc.  And they dumped it all for the Xindi.  Sad, really.  I haven't been watching it this year.  

The only thing I have liked about the Xindi was seeing how it make Archer start to make moral compromises and get really ruthless in a way you'd never see someone in later series do.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 25, 2004)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> Love this idea!  just get rid of the 'Star Trek' rider
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh don`t be so harsh. Remember that Startrek does, unlike many other series, not have a strong regular "cast" of authors. They take many outside scripts. This causes the lack of continuity, I guess, but it also gives "young" authors a chance. Unfortunately, young and unexperienced writers sometimes don`t produce the best plots. But maybe, in a few years, it might pay off - unfortunately again, it might not affect Startrek. :-(

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 26, 2004)

Ok, I think the initial post is disingenuous. This guy claims to be a dispassioned observer, i.e. 'not a trek fan', and yet he talks about how this possible script messes with the 'timeline'. 

More flagrantly, he claims Star Trek has always been about 'characters'. Uh no. Every trek film and show i've ever seen has only had the most broadly drawn characters; mostly they are just mouth pieces for whatever theme or grand idea that a particular episode/movie is trying to push on its audience. Nothing wrong with this; there is place for that kind of idealism, though its obviously more and more dated with each passing  year; it also tends to come off as naive and 'juvenile' to a degree. My point being is that Trek has always been about stories, not characters; they only differ with big budget epics in that their themes.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 26, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Ok, I think the initial post is disingenuous. This guy claims to be a dispassioned observer, i.e. 'not a trek fan', and yet he talks about how this possible script messes with the 'timeline'.



You don't need to watch every ep of Trek to know about that.



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> More flagrantly, he claims Star Trek has always been about 'characters'. Uh no.



Actually, he is spot on.  Trek is almost always about the characters.  Every original cast Trek film was basically a character piece or about the big 3 (Kirk, Spock & Bones).  Even the new films (I haven't seen Nemesis) are about the characters, usually focusing on the captain.



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Every trek film and show i've ever seen has only had the most broadly drawn characters; mostly they are just mouth pieces for whatever theme or grand idea that a particular episode/movie is trying to push on its audience. Nothing wrong with this; there is place for that kind of idealism, though its obviously more and more dated with each passing year; it also tends to come off as naive and 'juvenile' to a degree. My point being is that Trek has always been about stories, not characters; they only differ with big budget epics in that their themes.



The writers would beg to differ.  Yes, some of the stories are about current issues and Trek is certainly famous for that.  But at the same time the stories on the shows and in the movies focus on the characters and how these issues effect them and that's what the audience draws on.

So, I disagree about Trek being more about stories than characters.  It is more about the characters and the stories that revolve around them.  It even applies to Enterprise.  The 'Expanse' mission is about Archer and the changes and compromises he has to make to accomplish his goals.  I could give examples of each series except for Voyager as I haven't seen many eps.


----------



## Mark (Mar 26, 2004)

There's simply no way to please most of the fan base.  I think part of the problem with the show is that they even bother to try.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 26, 2004)

I disagree. Although they have bothered to try, such great story episode are rare. I mean there is usually one good episode for every three or four months' worth of episodes. And they're the ones not directly related to the the side arc (Xindi WMD Threat) or the main arc (Temporal Cold War or TCW).

So it's hard to stay on to watch, wondering if this episode will be one of the GOOD ones. Otherwise, I wasted that one hour a week.

Then again, I have been watching _Trek_ all my life, so I'm basically tired of it.

The only good _Trek_ movies are usually Nicholas Meyer's. Even his two _Trek TOS_ films (II and VI) trump the only one _Trek TNG_ film I like. If Berman has at least a kilo of functioning gray matter between his ears, he'll bring Nick Meyer.


----------



## Ashwyn (Mar 26, 2004)

DMScott said:
			
		

> Improvements in TV makeup and a higher budget. For the in-continuity explanation, Worf gave the official word in the Tribbles crossover episode: "We do not speak of it."



I know, but I still want to know what happened. I guess I'll have to make it up for myself.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 26, 2004)

Ashwyn said:
			
		

> I know, but I still want to know what happened. I guess I'll have to make it up for myself.



Thought it was discussed in a book or such that the Klingons poisioned the home planet of the Tribbles to dust then made it into a prision.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 27, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The only good _Trek_ movies are usually Nicholas Meyer's. Even his two _Trek TOS_ films (II and VI) trump the only one _Trek TNG_ film I like. If Berman has at least a kilo of functioning gray matter between his ears, he'll bring Nick Meyer.



Hear! Hear!

Nemesis was horrid. They literally managed to recycle the best parts of the Nicholas Meyers scripts, but somehow managed to make them incredibly lame. I watched that movie with the terrible sense of having seen all this before, only better. I remember after Nemesis flopped I saw an interview with Berman where he was practically scratching his head trying to figure out why it failed. He thought it had a good script. He thought it had good character development. He actually made a case for how this followed in the tradition of all the other even numbered Trek movies. Did he even bother to read the script or watch the movie? It was awful!

Actually all the Next Gen movies were a major disappointment to me. I wanted to see movies with an ensemble cast that were driven by different characters, much like the show was. Instead what we got were 4 movies with _The Star_ _of TNG_, Patric Stewart. Don't get me wrong, I like him fine as the captain, but there just weren't enough moments revolving around the other cast members. I suppose behind Picard, there was Data, who certainly got more than his share of camera time too, but the rest of the cast was seriously lacking throughout all four of them. It would have been far better if they would have shifted the focus from one or two characters in one movie to a different pair in the next movie. At least the original cast had the big 3. These had the big 2, which was incredibly unfair to the rest of the cast.

They should have been setting up Riker to take the reigns when Stewart finally caled it quits. While they did give him his own ship in the end, there is no indication that we'll ever see him or any of the other characters again. They should have gotten Worf off that klingon outpost that they unceremoniously dumped him on at the end of DS9 and put him back on the Enterprise where he belongs rather than making up lame excuses for why he was on the ship in time for each major feature film. They didn't even make an effort to explain his presence in Insurrection. The cast of TNG the show was a family, but the movies didn't give them this treatment, and that is why their movies were cut short at 4. They should have outlasted the original cast. 

Bah! Berman and Braga have created the text book example of how to take a perfectly fun and wonderful franchise and utterly destroy it. They should have bowed out of Trek and given it to someone else as soon as they ruined Voyager.


----------



## Ashwyn (Mar 27, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Thought it was discussed in a book or such that the Klingons poisioned the home planet of the Tribbles to dust then made it into a prision.



Interesting.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 27, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Actually, he is spot on.  Trek is almost always about the characters.  Every original cast Trek film was basically a character piece or about the big 3 (Kirk, Spock & Bones).  Even the new films (I haven't seen Nemesis) are about the characters, usually focusing on the captain.




I did. I didn't mind Nemesis, actually. The plot was weird, and the Scimitar itself and Shinzon himself needed a lot of suspension of disbelief, since 



Spoiler



The Scimitar was nearly indestrutable ("52 disruptor banks, 27 Photon Torpedo banks, primary _and_ secondary shields," is what Worf said) even after the Enterprise and two other Romulan Warbirds slammed the hell outta it, and only had 70% of its shields drained), as well as a "perfect" cloak, and this whole "Clone" story... not a lot of background on it...


. But the 



Spoiler



sacrifice


 ending was well done.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 27, 2004)

Ashwyn said:
			
		

> Interesting.



For the life of me I don't know where, when or even if this is correct but for some reason it is in the back of my mind.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Mar 28, 2004)

Benben said:
			
		

> I now have the horrible image of Paramount using Ricky Martin for a young Kahn Noonian Singh.
> 
> "Burried aliiiiiiive. Burried aliiiiiive."



*shivering*....not--fun-ny..m-an..


----------



## Ashwyn (Mar 29, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> I did. I didn't mind Nemesis, actually. The plot was weird, and the Scimitar itself and Shinzon himself needed a lot of suspension of disbelief, since
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I cried when Data sacrificed himself. Then I cried when I saw they were replacing him with his brother, or at least setting it up that way. But then again, they had to come up with a way to explain why "Data" was in the future in the last episode.


All in all, I liked the movie.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 29, 2004)

Ashwyn said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



They don`t have to explain this. It was an alternate future - the Enterprise D did also exist in the last episode, although heavily modified. 
Actually, I think the whole "datas brother" story wasn`t a really good idea. I heard Spiner wanted to end the role, especially since his growing age will, at some time, not fit to Data`s character. But now, since they use him in a double rule, the whole thing was useless in this regard.
And I loved the idea that data would still be around in 100, 200 or 500 years, if he isn`t destroyed. This would have given great story-telling oppertunity - imagine a series, a movie or even only an episode with the theme "Data´s memory." Well, one oppertunity gone


----------



## Ashwyn (Mar 31, 2004)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> They don`t have to explain this. It was an alternate future - the Enterprise D did also exist in the last episode, although heavily modified.



I missed that.


			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think the whole "datas brother" story wasn`t a really good idea. I heard Spiner wanted to end the role, especially since his growing age will, at some time, not fit to Data`s character. But now, since they use him in a double rule, the whole thing was useless in this regard.



I am confounded why they chose to do it then, since they aren't going to make any more Next Gen movies. 



Spoiler



I guess they did it to ease the pain of Data dying, that's the only thing I can think of that makes any sense at all.





			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> And I loved the idea that data would still be around in 100, 200 or 500 years, if he isn`t destroyed. This would have given great story-telling oppertunity - imagine a series, a movie or even only an episode with the theme "Data´s memory." Well, one oppertunity gone



I'd have loved to see something like that.



Spoiler



A thought I had is that, and I hope it isn't true, they did it to not anger the fans. Aside from cloning, which was done so many times in Star Trek, Data is the only one who is able to die yet still "live", via his brother. They wanted to kill someone off for the last movie, but didn't want to make anyone mad. Make any sense?


----------



## Orius (Mar 31, 2004)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Spiner wanted to end the role, especially since his growing age will, at some time, not fit to Data`s character.






Spoiler



Yeah, I've heard that too.  That's why Data's heroic sacrifice at the end of the movie didn't bother me.  Spiner I believe was one of the writers for this one, and if he wants his character to go out in a heroic sacrifice, then that's fine by me.  I think it's also in appropriate for the character, given Data's constant quest to explore humanity.


----------



## Kilmore (Apr 1, 2004)

Bill Shatner could be made as good as new if you get some epoxy, wood stain, and furniture polish.


----------



## Silver Moon (Apr 1, 2004)

Well, at least Enterprise looks to finally be living up to its initial hype.  They said that it would be reminiscent of classic Trek!  Well, classic Trek was also cancelled after three seasons due to mediocre ratings.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 1, 2004)

True, but if it wasn't for _TOS_ that relived in syndication, it would not have such a cult following. It was a show ahead of its time.

Who knows. Ten years from now, your kids will probably praised _ENT_ for being a show ahead of its time. That would be a good time to sign a medical DNR order.


----------

