• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Star Trek XI .. after all?

IMO there is simply no Trek movie idea imaginable that would be both interesting and true Trek. The pouring over continuity and characters is missing the whole point of Trek. Star Trek was about exploration and the unkown, along with progressive social values filtered through the experiences of loveable pop-culture archetypal characters, providing an television medium for science fiction templated story telling. With 726 episodes and 10 movies of Star Trek already having been produced and shown to the public, along with hundreds of other sci-fi shows and movies, there is simply nothing left to tell that is new. Star Trek's purpose is gone.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you where I disagree with that.

Another big piece of Trek (particularly in TOS), was taking on social and political issues of the day, but doing it in a sufficiently removed (SF) setting that people's knee-jerk emotional responses could be minimized to plant a seed of more rational thought (al least, that's the idea). Whether it was racism, sexism, superpowers using underdeveloped client states to fight wars by proxy, increasing mechinization of warfare, or the generation gap ...... Trek took them all on (and yes, generally from a liberal leaning POV).

As long as there are social and political issues in the real world, there will be fodder for Trek stories. Of course, the producers, writers, and distributors (whether movie distributors or TV networks) have to be willing to take the heat that goes along with that.
 
As long as there are social and political issues in the real world, there will be fodder for Trek stories.
Click to expand...

But the whole point of doing Trek that way (and The Twilight Zone got there first) was that you couldn't address controversial issues on network television. They had to smuggle those stories onto the air in SF drag to get them told at all. But within a few years we had All in the Family and Maude and a million imitators turning the evening news into sitcom fodder. (With the result that the reruns are almost unwatchable today, because they were so relentlessly topical that if you don't remember the details of that week's big story - or no longer feel passionate about it - the shows are painfully dull.) We no longer need SF to be the vehicle for slipping controversy past the network censors, because controversy is all around us on every channel. Trek's new mission should be to smuggle genuine drama past the the network buyers who want either reality shows or scripted series that might as well be reality shows. Maybe SF can be the genre that finally gets some human stories about regular life and love and work and paying taxes back onto network TV. :)

Regards,

Joe
 
(Quote snipped down to what I considered to be the core kernal of the point)

But the whole point of doing Trek that way (and The Twilight Zone got there first) was that you couldn't address controversial issues on network television. They had to smuggle those stories onto the air in SF drag to get them told at all. We no longer need SF to be the vehicle for slipping controversy past the network censors
Click to expand...
It's true that they no longer need to hide in SF to get past the network censors. However, I would argue that the network censors were only half of the reason for needing to couch those things in an SF setting.

The other half is to get past the (potential) audiance's internal emotional censors. And *that* is an issue that is just as much in force today as it ever was.

When you set issues in present day with all of the real current history and details you also run into all of the audiance member's (often not terribly rational) emotional investment in a position ..... all of the "Well, he/they did such-and-such to me!" sorts of things. If, in the late-1960's, you dealt directly with the US and the USSR arming the South and North Vietnamese then you run into all kinds of "better dead than Red" and "it's for their own good" sorts of knee-jerk responses without ever really considering the question. When Trek does the same story with the Federation and Klingons arming tribes on a previously agrarian planet, more people actually consider the question of whether it is really for their good as opposed to being to advance our agenda. Even if the answer is still that we need to do this for any number of reasons, it is still worthwhile to have people spend a couple minutes turning over the issue in a more dispassionate, less emotional manner.

Trek could still be doing that. I don't know that there are 22 of those episodes to be made a year (heck, TOS never did that many per year either) .... but they could still be fulfilling that role with a portion of the population.



Maybe SF can be the genre that finally gets some human stories about regular life and love and work and paying taxes back onto network TV. :)
Click to expand...
That's a worthy goal, too. I'm just not sure that it is particularly a "Trek" thing to do.

To a certain extent the new BSG does some of that, in a way similar to how Hill Street Blues brought that element to the police drama genre.
 
Trek could still be doing that. I don't know that there are 22 of those episodes to be made a year (heck, TOS never did that many per year either) .... but they could still be fulfilling that role with a portion of the population.
Click to expand...

Maybe the sheer amount of air time is what repulses me about the idea of a Trek revival. If Trek were to hypothetically be a social-issue-in-space thing done well but only, say, 12 eps a season, than it might actually mean something. Look at how HBO fans cherish each and every episodes of their favorite shows (I know I do this with Deadwood).
 
(heck, TOS never did that many per year either)
Click to expand...

In an era when twenty-six episodes per year was the standard, ST:TOS managed to do twenty-nine in its first season and the usual twenty-six in its second. When it was cancelled "early" in its 3rd season it had produced and aired twenty-four episodes, a standard order for TNG and two more than a season of B5.

Regards,

Joe
 
Sorry, I wasn't sufficiently clear.

I meant that they never produced as many as 22 of those "socially or politically relevant" episodes in any given year.
 
Just a quick update. I read this from Neil B's post over at the moderated group, the "Boldly go..." thread:

===
Abrams: Report "Not Entirely Accurate"


In his first comments to the press regarding his deal to produce an 11th
Star Trek film (related story), J.J. Abrams says the news that was
broken last week by Daily Variety was premature and somewhat erroneous.


"The whole thing was reported entirely without our cooperation," Abrams
is quoted by Empire Online yesterday. "People learned that I was
producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear
rumors of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is
not entirely accurate."


In addition to clarifying that he may or may not direct the film, Abrams
also distanced himself from Variety's report that the plot of "Star Trek
XI" would revolve around a young James T. Kirk and Spock at Starfleet
Academy.


"We've made a pact not to discuss any specifics," he said.


At the same time, though, he confessed to being a fan of the Original
Series and remarked, "Those characters are so spectacular. I just think
that... you know, they could live again."
===
Click to expand...
 
I like JJ Abrams's stuff. I just saw MI3 and was impressed. It was as good as the original IMO (the second one sucked). I think he would do a good job with Trek and am glad he is a TOS fan.
 
I enjoyed the hell out of MI3 until the last 10 minutes or so... then it got corny as all get-out. Plus I was kinda upset that Brandt didn't have much screen time.

(I call Philip Seymour Hoffman that all the time because his character in The Big Lebowski absolutely owns me every time... "Mr. Lebowski is secluded in the west winnnggg...." :LOL:)
 
I was debating on posting this tidbit here as well. I'm very reluctant to think that we will see either of them IN the movie and on the big screen again. I do know that at least Nimoy needs to give approval of anyone else to play Spock. So them being contacted could be for as little as that. The rest could be hopeful thinking and conjecture.

However, I must admit, that having those two, even for just a few scenes looking at the events of the movie as flashback, would bring great credibility to the others playing their younger selves, and also go a long way to undo what Berman and Company did to Roddenberry's Star Trek.

Interesting rumor though, far more interesting than the Matt Damon one. :)
 
WOW some good arguements on ds9 .Personally it was the best Star Trek out of all the series .To me the others shows TNG,TOS and voyager were all rehashed versions of the same thing .Ds9 was different in soooo many ways.The one complaint I do have is the ending to the dominion war ..Does the federation ALWAYS have to win a major war ,how about a big loss ? Alllright so they had the klingons,romulans but that is one thing that bugs me about this universe.But of course I heard that when they preparing for the ending to ds9 that was one of the proposals is to have the feds lose it.Oh yawn now lets have em win.............AGAIN. :rolleyes:
 
Thats ironic Shaal,

There are many Trek "purists" that believe that anything that followed TNG isn't "real" Trek and Gene Roddenberry had intended it. I have to agree in some ways. When he passed on, we were left with Chris Berman running the franchise, and run it he did...into the ground. While many think DS9 is the best Trek series (I like it very much myself) it is so vastly different than everything Roddenberry had set out to say, that it almost can't be compared to the rest.
 
I have read this many times over at trekkbbs where I post .Many TNG fans don't like ds9 simply for the reasons you stated.But I also think that you have to change a franchise in order to survive and I think ds9 did that.From the very start and this is IMHO that when Emissary aired and Sisko appeared .His conferanation ? with Picard over the death of his wife is what may have turned many original fans off,you don't start out a new series by insulting a popular character. I like TNG and there are many eps that Berman penned that I like I am not saying I don't like TNG .I think they ran into the ground by using the TNG cast again and again.I think Ds9 would have made a good movie for the big screen .Or better a mixed cast.
 
More evidence (and conjecture) to support the rumor of the Trek XI movie being about Kirk/Spock meeting at Star Fleet Academy

Shatner and Nimoy have been asked if they might be interested in being involved, and Nimoy speculates this may be to introduce a flashback.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why the flashback notion is seen as "evidence" of the Starfleet Academy idea in particular. Shatner and Nimoy are in their 70s. When the show went off the air 37 years ago they (and their characters) were still in their 30s. We were never told where in their five-year mission they started and ended the series, but anything set during that time period would, by definition, be a flashback from the standpoint of a 70 year old Kirk or Spock, and would clearly need different actors to play the younger versions - even if those younger versions were in their 30s, 40s or (probaby) 50s. The idea of a flashback doesn't mean that they're flashing back to Kirk in his 20s.

Regards,

Joe
 
WOW some good arguements on ds9 ... Ds9 was different in soooo many ways.
Click to expand...

B5 fans tend to like DS9 best because it is grittier and less sanitized than the other shows - because it ismore like B5. Trek purists often dislike it for exactly the same reason. (BTW, I would tend to argue that TOS was less prone to the "man is perfected" fantasy than the later shows. Kirk could still have plenty of flaws that Picard, Roddennberry's ideal Federation captain, could never be allowed.)

The one complaint I do have is the ending to the dominion war ..Does the federation ALWAYS have to win a major war
Click to expand...

In a word, yes. To paraphrase JMS, "Let's have a show of hands. How many of you thought I was going to have our heroes fight a major war for over two years and then have them LOSE? Uh-huh. The next sound you heard would have been millions of remote controls switching to another channel." As he always said, it is the journey, the process, not the destination. The Federation could lose a minor war on a Trek show - but only if they came back from the loss. Since the Federation are the good guys they aren't going to launch a war of conquest. That means any war they get involved in is going to be a defensive war. And if the Federation loses a defensive war, it gets conquered by somebody else and ceases to be the Federation. You might get an interesting series out of the story of former Federation worlds under the thumb of the Dominion, but it wouldn't be DS9 anyomre. And you can bet at the end of that hypothetical series that the underground Federation resistance would WIN.

Regards,

Joe
 
In a word, yes. To paraphrase JMS, "Let's have a show of hands. How many of you thought I was going to have our heroes fight a major war for over two years and then have them LOSE? Uh-huh. The next sound you heard would have been millions of remote controls switching to another channel." As he always said, it is the journey, the process, not the destination. The Federation could lose a minor war on a Trek show - but only if they came back from the loss. Since the Federation are the good guys they aren't going to launch a war of conquest. That means any war they get involved in is going to be a defensive war. And if the Federation loses a defensive war, it gets conquered by somebody else and ceases to be the Federation. You might get an interesting series out of the story of former Federation worlds under the thumb of the Dominion, but it wouldn't be DS9 anyomre. And you can bet at the end of that hypothetical series that the underground Federation resistance would WIN.
Click to expand...

All good points to make JD and I am afraid I still disagree.But then maybe that's why I am also losing intererst in both tv and Star Trek in general it seems that all they do is a rehash of the same boring thing .The good guys always have to win at some in the storyline.Boring this post should also tell you how much tv I watch virtually none.But back to the Ds9 thing with the millions of sets turning off mine would have stayed on had JMS and the producers of Ds9 had their heroes lost the war that would have made me tune in with even more enthusiam.To each his own.
 
B5 fans tend to like DS9 best because it is grittier and less sanitized than the other shows - because it ismore like B5. Trek purists often dislike it for exactly the same reason. (BTW, I would tend to argue that TOS was less prone to the "man is perfected" fantasy than the later shows. Kirk could still have plenty of flaws that Picard, Roddennberry's ideal Federation captain, could never be allowed.)
Click to expand...

Perfect example for that is probably Errand of Mercy - one of my favourite episodes of everything ever. I loved the way in the end, Kirk is left to wonder if he's in any way better than Kor, and the audience with him, that had firmly seen Kirk as the good guy throughout the whole episode - the kind of situation later trek shows aside from DS9 would never have had the balls to do. Yeah, characters were put in "moral dilemmas" .. but they were always about figuring out just what would be the MORE holy thing to do.

The way Voyager dealt with "morale" honestly made me want to throw up.
 
JMS always talked about the bell curve too, and Shaal, your sliding off the edge. :p You can have your heroes lose a war at the start, if need be (think Firefly) but not at the end. How much of a downer would that be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 504 (members: 0, guests: 504)

Share this page

Back
Top