PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek XI



PeeDee
01-06-2007, 08:35 PM
(this is the musing of a Star Trek fan; if you're not, it won't do you much good, I bet)

So. Right. They announced that they were making a new Star Trek movie a little while ago (and a new cartoon, for that matter) which makes me terribly happy. Really, really happy, actually, which surprised me.

I loathed Enterprise (the "Let's Kidnap Archer!" show) and I watched most of Voyager but enjoyed only sporadic moments throughout. Deep Space 9 remains my all time favorite, very, very closely followed by the Next Generation, wedged up against The Original Series.

So, I'm giddy that they're making a Star TRek XI. I was immediately worried, though, when they said it was going to be a prequel. Enterprise sucked runny eggs, and I didn't want a Star Trek movie equivalent to that. I really did.

They announced it was going to be Kirk&Spock era, and I thought "Okay, that could be interesting, I enjoyed that." Then they announced that it was set during The Original Series, and that they were going to find new actors to play Kirk and Spock and the others.

Urk.

AND Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner are rumored to be coming back for other rolls in the movie.

Double urk!

This bothers me a lot, actually. I've recently gotten back onto this Star Trek kick after seeing First Contact on television the other night. It made me go out and find Season 1 of Deep Space 9, so I could watch it all through again with my wife. I'm very nostalgic now. So this news bugged the crap out of me.

Then, a minute ago, I read this article (http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,,20986562-7642,00.html) talking with the wonderful David Gerrold.

Interesting article, yes, and I agree with what he's saying all the way through it. The bit that caught my attention, though, was:


News that the next Star Trek feature film, tentatively titled Star Trek XI, will revisit a young Kirk and Spock is heartening for Gerrold.
"If it were my choice I would reinvent the original series," he says.
"Wipe the blackboard clean and you go back to Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the Enterprise, with new actors to find different interpretations of the characters. And I think there's a possibility, just as we've see different interpretations of Superman and Batman, maybe that's how Star Trek is gonna survive."


THAT suddenly shifted how I was looking at the whole matter. Suddenly, I looked at replacing characters with new actors on Star Trek the very same way I look at Christian Bale (yay!) coming in to play Batman instead of George Clooney (boo!) or Val Kiler (BLARGH!).

Suddenly, I'm very interested, and actually getting excited at the prospect. I have no problem with new bonds and new Supermen (unless the writing is done badly by Bryan Singer) and certainly no problem with new Batmen. So maybe, maybe I don't have a problem with new Kirks and Spocks.

I don't know yet. I just know that after that article, I'm at lot less nervous about the prospect than I was before the article.

Zoombie
01-06-2007, 08:44 PM
I don't know...I always wanted a Star Trek show that doesn't have a major case of "makestuffupitis"

I don't mean like having aliens and fantastical technology like warp drives and shields...I mean things like rerouting the dilithium matrix to correlate with the quantum flux of the local binary star system, allowing the ship to phase through the subspace folds that are preventing them from reaching Rigel 3!

And so on. You know what kind of star trek show I always wanted to see? The show where the main character is a Ensign who just signed up to Starfleet, a few years before the start of the Next Generation. And the show is about his carrier and the different ships he's assigned too. So the show would track his carrier from ship to ship and how he bounces around Starfleet, has an amazing carrier and eventually, at the end of the show, becomes a captain and gets his own ship.

So needless to say, this guy would bump into some of the famous characters like Riker and Data (They were assigned to more ships than just the Enterprise) and get into the background of famous events/battles.

Doesn't that sound fun?

PeeDee
01-06-2007, 08:50 PM
They did that as a book series, as well as a fanfiction series. They were both sort of like "A Walking Tour of Star Trek," and I enjoyed them not at all.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Star Trek series about a small ship, with a handful of people, who are not necessarily the most vital people in the Federation. I wrote some stories like that, back in the day.

Of course, if we're talking fantasy Star Trek series, then I want Joss Whedon to write Star Trek. I don't care what, just Joss Whedon writes Star TRek.

LloydBrown
01-06-2007, 08:52 PM
You want to see Horatio Hornblower in space, do you?

I know what you mean, PeeDee. It could be (Superman Returns) bad, or it could be (Battlestar Galactica) better than the original. It's a scary thought, but very exciting at the same time.

PeeDee
01-06-2007, 08:55 PM
Another thing is, Star Trek seems to be in resurgence right now (when, just a little while ago, everyone was saying how glad they were it was finally dead). What I find really interesting about that is, it's matching pretty closely my own personal resurgence in a desire to watch Star Trek. I wonder what's collectively making people miss it.

For me, it's things like seeing TOS episodes online (They stream whole episodes online now, you know) or watching First Contact. With TOS, I was once again impressed by the quality and strength of the writing. With First Contact, it was just sheer happiness. Around that time was my personal Star Trek heyday, and I don't mind being reminded of that.

greglondon
01-06-2007, 08:57 PM
Maybe they'll start running it like the James Bond series, and just get different actors every movie.

PeeDee
01-06-2007, 09:00 PM
Maybe they'll start running it like the James Bond series, and just get different actors every movie.

I think I still have limits to this, though. I could handle new actors doing Kirk and Spock (I think. I'm still shaky. I'm working into this). But new actors playing Picard? Data? Worf? I think that would still just feel wrong.

On the other hand....I adapted just fine to a new actor playing Dumbledore. And James Bond, and the others I mentioned. If they did good actors, I would probably handle it okay once I sat down to actually watch it.

Zoombie
01-06-2007, 09:07 PM
"They did that as a book series, as well as a fanfiction series. They were both sort of like "A Walking Tour of Star Trek," and I enjoyed them not at all."

Bah! I'm sure it can be done and done well...

Ol' Fashioned Girl
01-06-2007, 09:23 PM
Okay... I stumbled in here out of my usual haunts on AW because... well, because anything Star Trek catches me eye, it does. It calls to me... and here I am.

New actors as Kirk and Spock? Bones and Scotty? Oh. My. Gods.

I... I... I dunno.

I'm like PeeDee. I need to let it grow on me; I guess. Like... oh... moss? Mold? I am so firmly astraddle the fence right now that I'm seriously risking vivisection on the ragged edge of the pickets. I liked Next Gen, after I let it grow on me, so maybe... but I didn't finish out the seven-year run.

Never got into DS9, either. Yeah, I watched some... but it couldn't hold me. That's about the time I started the fanfic on a local BBS, eventually running my own BBS and hosting several ships.

I had such hopes for Voyager! I mean, after all, a card-carrying, charter member of NOW? Which one of us wouldn't want to see a female captain of a starship? But... I drifted away. Did they ever get home?

Enterprise worried me from the beginning. Even though I loved ol' What's-His-Name in the lead, I drifted away from there, too. Couldnt' tell you to save my life how they ended up.

I guess I'm just an Ol' Series Girl, at heart. Which brings me back to this conundrum... new actors as Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov?

I dunno.

I'll have to get back to ya on that one.

LloydBrown
01-06-2007, 09:39 PM
For me, it's things like seeing TOS episodes online (They stream whole episodes online now, you know)

Where can you find that? My sister would love it.

BiggerBoat
01-06-2007, 09:44 PM
I'm interested in seeing what some fresh blood can bring to Star Trek. It's been a while since I enjoyed it much. I was into TOS as a kid and I loved TNG once it started rolling (right around the end of season 3). I was ambivalent about DS9 and all of the rest. I still think the movies peaked at #2 (Khaaaan!).

PeeDee
01-06-2007, 10:01 PM
It *was* on TV Land, but my twenty minutes of hunting just now failed to find it. The original link I had doesn't work anymore. Grrrrumble. I'll keep poking.

AzBobby
01-06-2007, 10:21 PM
Agreed, a new Star Trek has the potential to be either really bad or really good. Personally, I'm nervously optimistic.

I stopped watching Enterprise early on, but I was excited about it when it was announced. I've felt ever since The Next Generation closed that Star Trek was suffering from a certain homogeneity, if that's what it may be called -- kind of a plastic sameness that went on year to year without taking any chances. This is not what has happened with the treatment of "classic" characters and stories, from Robin Hood to James Bond to Batman.

Here's what I mean by homogeneity -- it's a superficial thing but it affects my interest level in the show: The editing style, the music style, the straining to sustain consistency for its own sake, amounting to almost no style left at all in the show. TNG alone had balls, at least the first few years; it was a new look at a classic show on all counts, tone and style included, and they made it work despite enormous leaps (including departures from continuity). Deep Space Nine took some new ideas (stationary setting, antagonistic co-stars, etc.) and I remember a few great stories but it oddly retained all the same look and feel and the same boring la-la-la elevator music opening every scene, the same lifeless editing, and so on, that has come to mark a Star Trek show. The "Lost in Space" setup of Voyager made me hope for a return to the fresh feeling of the original show, where they were still making up the Star Trek universe as they went along and you wouldn't know what to expect of it as they explored strange new worlds and encountered nothing but strangers -- but no, it felt all the same too, only duller still. The odd opening of Enterprise with the pop song (I didn't care that it was sappy and Richard Marxish) and cool montage in place of slow space shots against elevator music made me hopeful that they were trying something different altogether, but the show itself fell back into that dull rhythm that defines Star Trek for me.

So I guess what I'm getting at is directorial style, even over story strength. The former can't possibly be more important than the latter, but it comes darned close. The original Star Trek series was made like most programs of its day, with its own homogeneity in place of directorial style (it was a producer's medium and sameness week to week was expected). Yet it is packed with idiosyncratic style -- heightened melodrama in everything from lighting to music to acting style, plus a type of story strength that depends on rounding all important contents of the story within the time limit as if appealing to a viewer who has never seen the show before and never will again (and I miss that value terribly when I try to watch soaps like Battlestar Galactica). It stands out more today than it did then, not only because pacing and acting norms are different now, but so are visual trends -- color and lighting. This makes it fun to watch the newly remastered old episodes with modern effects shots interspersed into the old show in such a way that they don't change much of the look and feel and original pace of the show.

No, I don't mind it a bit if they take the "classic" approach to Star Trek and just re-work whatever they want in order to make it interesting again. The more it angers the die-hard Trekkies the better -- nothing will piss off some of these kinds of fans more than a real improvement. What improvements would really work depends more on directorial style, in my opinion, than the relative strength of the story (assuming the story comes above a certain grade to begin with).

Enterprise failed in its chance to do something like that, but an easy comparison to make is the new Doctor Who series. It retains much of the defining tone of the original series -- it's even in continuity with the old show, rather than "starting over" -- while making almost everything about it look and feel different. It's one of the best shows I've ever seen -- I mean I can't think of a better one, it's that well done -- but I understand it still makes some old Doctor Who fans sniff and huff with indignation... as in, "Wait a minute, the Doctor isn't supposed to say that," or, "I liked it better back when there was less character development," or whatever, despite the fact that the old show last over 25 years and changed style in many ways, many times.

Another example I can think of where direction alone seemed to make all the difference to me was in the third Harry Potter movie. I'm no real fan of Harry Potter, but the third film was the first one that had any style in visuals and editing, the first one that didn't feel like watching an episode of a TV show (regardless of the expensive production values). I wouldn't mind a return to cinematic values for Star Trek. That hard-to-define quality is nailed in the new Doctor Who series, as well as in the cliches of music and editing that were part of the cheaper routine of the original ST series. Assuming substance is provided -- and it will, as even the first ST movie that no one likes had a story of substance -- I believe style could really make the difference.

Zoombie
01-06-2007, 10:35 PM
And that, my freind, is why Babylon 5 rules.

Oh wait, this is a Star Trek thread, nevermind...

WriterInChains
01-06-2007, 10:40 PM
This makes me shudder. New actors playing Kirk, Spock & co? Are you kidding me?? No way. Why would anyone think TOS needs to be re-done? I've been in love with the world since 1973, and it doesn't need any interference from hacks (or even good writers/producers/actors) who think they're the next Roddenberry to stay relevant. Every time someone tries to do something new and different since Gene's death, it flops because the stories themselves suffer for the benefit of whatever new gimmic is the basis of the series. If a story could work in any other world, it shouldn't be done on Star Trek -- that was Gene's original vision and what made TOS & TNG so compelling.

TOS & TNG are two of the best things to ever happen to TV. I have the full DVD collection of both, and if its possible to wear them out I'm sure I will. None of the others even come close. I do admit to being skeptical in the year leading up to the first season of TNG, but I doubt I'll be surprised like that again. The whole lightning doesn't strike twice deal.

That said, I'm sure I'll watch whatever's generated under the ST name, but if they do this it'll have to be spellbindingly brilliant to win me over.(For the record, I don't see why anyone felt the need to re-do Superman either, especially since it turned out so dismal and passionless.)

I doubt I'm the target audience for this, though. In the past few years I've heard so many Trek insiders moan and complain about the lack of interest in the franchise, to a full hall of fans hanging on their every word. They're after the young teens with disposable income, who won't watch anything without CGI & all the latest FX. :Shrug:

I'm all for someone giving a new Trek series/movie/etc. a good try (as long as they stay true to Gene's vision), but this just sounds wrong. Just as wrong as Spiner getting his writer-buddy to kill off Data in the last movie. The more authorial interference there is, the worse the stories get.

Just my $0.02.

greglondon
01-06-2007, 10:42 PM
Who's gonna play Spock? I mean, come ON, people. There aren't any young actors with the chops to pull off a good, believable Vulcan.

PeeDee
01-06-2007, 10:53 PM
Who's gonna play Spock? I mean, come ON, people. There aren't any young actors with the chops to pull off a good, believable Vulcan.

.....Jude Law?

Hugh Laurie can be Doctor McCoy. :D

dpaterso
01-06-2007, 11:11 PM
As long as they turn up contrast levels so the uniforms look as bright and colorful as they did in TOS, I'll be happy. Just gimme some adventure, some romance, lots of phaser fire, and of course the occasional double ax hand against swarthy Klingon scum, and I'm in.

-Derek

greglondon
01-06-2007, 11:13 PM
.....Jude Law?

Hugh Laurie can be Doctor McCoy. :D

Ya know, Jude Law might actually pull that off pretty well, now that you mention him.

Hugh Laurie as McCoy would be fricken AWESOME! He's got plenty of practice showing the same bedside manner as Bones.

tourdeforce
01-06-2007, 11:14 PM
I find it very reassuring to know that TREK XI is in the more than capable hands of J.J. Abrams.

With ALIAS, LOST and MI:3, Abrams has moe than proven that he knows how to create a rolliking adventure.

PeeDee
01-06-2007, 11:23 PM
Do we know who the screen writer is yet?

Because I would give my left arm for Joss Whedon. Since that's not happening, I would be a happy man if David Koepp did it. He is a damn good writer.

EngineerTiger
01-06-2007, 11:43 PM
Well, if they go back to YOUNG Spock, Kirk, and McCoy, I could see the possibilities. A series that showed their FIRST service together could have possibilities. Obviously, you can't replace the original but remember, Kirk was a captain when we met him, Spock a commander. A lieutenant Kirk and ensign Spock could be interesting if handled properly.

PeeDee
01-06-2007, 11:47 PM
Well, if they go back to YOUNG Spock, Kirk, and McCoy, I could see the possibilities. A series that showed their FIRST service together could have possibilities. Obviously, you can't replace the original but remember, Kirk was a captain when we met him, Spock a commander. A lieutenant Kirk and ensign Spock could be interesting if handled properly.

I believe that's the plan.

If the movie ended with them in a shuttle, heading toward the Enterprise together, then I would walk out with shivers and goosebumps.

greglondon
01-07-2007, 12:56 AM
I heard it was Kirk at StarFleet academy. i.e. we might get to see Kirk cheat at the Kobiyashi Maru training exercise. not sure if we'll see that specific exercise, but it's supposed to be the StarTrek Begins sort of prequel which takes place before teh TV series. Like Batman Begins and any other "Begins" movie title.

Roger McMillian
01-07-2007, 02:01 AM
I loathed Enterprise (the "Let's Kidnap Archer!" show) and I watched most of Voyager but enjoyed only sporadic moments throughout. Deep Space 9 remains my all time favorite, very, very closely followed by the Next Generation, wedged up against The Original Series.

I was 15 when Star Trek premiered on TV. I grew up a sci-fi buff and Trek fed my appetite for 'what-if". TNG was great. I had read in the TNG writer's guide that Roddenberry had promised that there'd be no time travel story lines (STIV was the last). I couldn't have been happier. (Don't get me wrong- I love a good time-travel story. But not on Trek!) I enjoyed TNG and DS9 but Voyager and Enterprise took a back seat to their predecessors.


They announced it was going to be Kirk&Spock era, and I thought "Okay, that could be interesting, I enjoyed that." Then they announced that it was set during The Original Series, and that they were going to find new actors to play Kirk and Spock and the others.

Have you checked out the fan films? I've been watching the progress on the production of "Star Trek: New Yoyages (http://www.startreknewvoyages.com)" . Walter Koenig, George Takei and DC Fontana have all been part of the crew, so far with David Gerrold reportedly coming on board, soon. Even the Roddenberry family is backing the venture.

Urk.
AND Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner are rumored to be coming back for other rolls in the movie.
Double urk!
Then, a minute ago, I read this article (http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,,20986562-7642,00.html) talking with the wonderful David Gerrold.
THAT suddenly shifted how I was looking at the whole matter. Suddenly, I looked at replacing characters with new actors on Star Trek the very same way I look at Christian Bale (yay!) coming in to play Batman instead of George Clooney (boo!) or Val Kiler (BLARGH!).
Suddenly, I'm very interested, and actually getting excited at the prospect. I have no problem with new bonds and new Supermen So maybe, maybe I don't have a problem with new Kirks and Spocks.


Amen! Perhaps there is hope for a rebirth of the franchise.

ChaosTitan
01-07-2007, 03:22 AM
It's difficult to compare Bond/Batman/Superman to characters like Kirk and Spock. The former began in print, as novels or comics. We were left to interpret those characters using our imaginations, and it is easier (IMHO) to replace actors when the source was words.

Kirk and Spock were not given life on the page, but on the screen. By Shatner and Nimoy. They embody those characters from the time of TOS through the current films.

I understand the idea of doing a prequel, and the need to cast younger actors to play younger versions of familiar characters. It could work, it could backfire. Dunno.

My one reservation (and I can't believe this isn't occurring to JJ Abrams) is that the prequel thing has already failed once. I seem to be in the minority of folks who truly loved "Enterprise," but it failed to capture and maintain an audience for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest reasons was the fact that we kinda knew how things would turn out. We knew that Starfleet would end up at war with the Romulans. We knew that they were establish the Federation in ten years. They could only make up so much in the past, because we knew the future.

Exactly how dramatic can you make a movie about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy when you know they stay in Starfleet, you know they become friends, you know they end up on Enterprise? I'd be sitting there thinking, "I bet they all live through this."

Prequels are just very hard to get right and make interesting. Hello, George Lucas??

Shadow_Ferret
01-07-2007, 09:31 AM
Trek XI? Where the hell have I been? I thought they only made like 6 movies.

JDCrayne
01-07-2007, 10:08 AM
I never carred much for the Star trek movies. The plot lines seemed a little thin to stretch into feature-length films. Of course, my memories date back to the first showing of "The Menagerie," so I'm prejudiced. I think Gerrold is right; that the franchise would be better off reinventing itself with an entirely new cast and a return to the original format. Just think what modern digital effects could do with some of those old concepts!

Inkdaub
01-07-2007, 03:11 PM
I love Star Trek and this sounds like good news to me. I think new Kirk and Spock sounds fine because it's when they are much younger as I read it.

I wish they would have tried a little harder to make a solid run of TNG movies. TNG is my favorite...edging out TOS...and I wanted to see more movies with that cast in that timeframe.

That said, my favorite of the movies is The Voyage Home. "Pavel Chekov...commander...Star Fleet." I love it! Plus whales! I loved the whole idea of the humpbacks being extra terrestrial in origin and the obelisk coming in to see why contact had been broken. The environmentalist in me loved the storyline.

I didn't like First Contact. I thought it was cheap to have Kirk included in what should have been the first TNG movie. The whole Nexus thing was cool enough but the movie just felt...off somehow.

Zoombie
01-07-2007, 09:26 PM
Er....I think you are confusing some movies. First Contact is the movie with the Borg travling in the past with Zephrim Cochrin and trying to take over the world. I thougt the movie before that one had the Nexus.

WriterInChains
01-07-2007, 10:33 PM
Yep, it was Generations.

ChaosTitan
01-07-2007, 10:58 PM
"Chekov....Pavel....rank....Admiral." *said with a silly smile*

Richard White
01-07-2007, 11:01 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing a Star Trek series about a small ship, with a handful of people, who are not necessarily the most vital people in the Federation. I wrote some stories like that, back in the day.

PeeDee - If you're looking for something like that, you should check out the Corps of Engineers series by Pocket Books (both collected novellas and e-novellas). It's a monthly series following a Engineering team in a Sabre class ship (the da Vinci) as they go through space dealing with all the neat things that the Enterprise (and other ships) find and try to figure out who made them and how they work.

(Course, the fact that I wrote one and have a couple of novellas waiting for Paramount's approval should not influence your decision in the least. There are some REALLY good stories in the series.)

ChunkyC
01-07-2007, 11:25 PM
My one reservation (and I can't believe this isn't occurring to JJ Abrams) is that the prequel thing has already failed once. I seem to be in the minority of folks who truly loved "Enterprise," but it failed to capture and maintain an audience for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest reasons was the fact that we kinda knew how things would turn out. We knew that Starfleet would end up at war with the Romulans. We knew that they were establish the Federation in ten years. They could only make up so much in the past, because we knew the future.
I think the biggest reason it didn't work was because they fell into the trap of using all the same old same old they used in all the other series. There was nothing NEW.

For example: in the pilot episode of Enterprise, they pull out these neato experimental phase pistols. A phaser by another name, strike one for the writers there. Then, when the ship was attacked, the hull plating started deteriorating under the enemy fire. Hello, deflectors. Strike two. This was before the first season even got off the ground. Then, lo and behold, the transporter showed up. Strike Three.

The problem was that they had tied themselves into these particular 'tools', therefore the same things would have to happen when they were used. Beams of light coming from their guns. Gee, where have we seen that before? Then whatsisgoober (Malcolm?) saying to Archer, "Captain, hull plating down to 15 percent." Give me a break. Archer's in trouble? Dammit, the transporter's acting up ... but Trip fixes it just in time and beams him off the exploding whatever. I can't watch this anymore.

They had a chance to do something new, and fell back on all the old tired cliches from the other series. We wanted something fresh, and got stale instead. No wonder the show tanked, the writing SUCKED. Every character was a carbon copy of characters from the previous series. You could have taken half the scripts from Enterprise, swapped out the appropriate names and had an episode suitable for the original series. BOO!

I believe a prequel movie has the potential to be good, but they have to write a compelling story with something new in it.

Zoombie
01-07-2007, 11:28 PM
The funny thing about prequels needing new things is that, in story terms, they actually need OLD things.

Why didn't the Enterprise crew come packing projectiles, thick armor and missles? Why was their ship so big? It should have been like a submarine, for crying out loud...

ChunkyC
01-07-2007, 11:31 PM
The funny thing about prequels needing new things is that, in story terms, they actually need OLD things.

Why didn't the Enterprise crew come packing projectiles, thick armor and missles? Why was their ship so big? It should have been like a submarine, for crying out loud...
Exactly! One of the few good episodes of Enterprise was one where Meriwether (?) took some time off and joined his family on a cargo vessel that took months to cross between star systems. It was different than what we'd seen before on Star Trek, therefore, new to the audience.

But instead they give us all the stuff I mentioned, plus an ongoing storyline in season 3 about this area of space with this group of alien races planning to destroy the Earth... good grief, THE DOMINION FROM DEEP SPACE NINE! The whole series was recycled from the other series'.

Stuff like this is why so many think Enterprise ruined the francise. It was sad.

Tanatra
01-07-2007, 11:43 PM
Is Rick Berman still behind all of this? If so, then rest assured that it will suck.

tourdeforce
01-07-2007, 11:51 PM
Rick Berman must have some very incriminating pictures of very powerful people at Paramount in order to have been allowed to drive ST into the garbage over and over and over again.

dpaterso
01-08-2007, 12:55 AM
Well said. :e2smack:

-Derek

AzBobby
01-08-2007, 01:35 AM
Chaostitan has a good point about the difference between the Enterprise crew and other classic characters such as Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes -- how we apply different rules to the former because for most of us, they originated as specific actors' creations. The portrayal of the classics is left more to our imaginations because they came to us in print. Yeah, it's a different paradigm.

Thing is, in our present world of visual media, we can stretch the comparison quite a bit. You mentioned Batman and Superman among those that came to us in print, but come on, as comics they were visual media also. So the faces, costumes, and some small aspects of personality (as rough as they might have been in the old days) were established beyond what the printed word conveyed, albeit less than what actors might have conjured up. And Bond originated in print, but have you read any Bond novels? They're very popular on the small scale of spy novels, so maybe you have; but like most commoners I have not. Roughly half of us were introduced to Bond in the form of Sean Connery, the other half divided between Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan with a few strays having first watched the remaining actors. (I'm sure most of us can name more examples -- I've read some Sherlock Holmes, but not before seeing Basil Rathbone in the role in my childhood. Jeremy Brett had to be great to wrench my mind out of that one interpretation.) You'll still hear fans mutter that Connery is the only Bond, as they feed the pigeons from their park benches. I guess this is a defining characteristic of a fan -- they're like Grandpa that way. Denying improvements upon classics comes with the territory.

So while films, TV and even comics, radio and sound recordings are still too new to count many legitimate "classics" among their contributions to our culture, enjoying this stuff into the new century might require us to acknowledge that some of it is among the classics proper. Music fans managed this early on, as reinterpretations of old songs and orchestrations that originated in the recording studio have become accepted and expected. A kid's first listening of some remake is often their favorite version, but that song had to be damned good to survive one era to the next even with some form changes. Similarly, without experiencing a show like Doctor Who the first time around and enjoying it in a bygone age when you could enjoy a silly story regardless of how cheap the show looked (because everything on TV and even most films were still shoddy in production compared to now), it appears pretty much impossible not to prefer the newer production and newer actors.

If a fan is going to claim Star Trek is a classic at all, they ought to acknowledge its versatility as a classic -- that includes whether it can survive reinterpretations with favorable results. If someone makes a lousy Robin Hood movie this year, the franchise won't be dead; someone might damn well make a great Robin Hood movie five or ten years later, hell, maybe next year, and still have a hit. That's how actual classics work, and the variations make them really fun. (The big difference, of course, is that Robin Hood isn't limited by copyright and more filmmakers are free to try it...) If Star Trek isn't up for risking a few screwed up reinterpretations without dying out, then it's just another TV show belonging to its own three years in TV Land history.

I'd further point out that the Star Trek makers have done plenty of this reinterpretation already without killing the franchise. Actors with important roles have been replaced before, albeit not Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And consistency between the 1960s series and the later ones was hopelessly lost even before TNG began. The technology changed; the politics changed; the backstory and history changed; the list goes on. There's no point in turning that broken continuity into a religion (how I hate fandom's use of the word "canon" for stuff like this) at the price of the fun to be had with some fresh takes on Roddenberry's original, somewhat more romantic and innocent vision of space explorers going where they hadn't gone before.

Rabe
01-08-2007, 12:54 PM
And that, my freind, is why Babylon 5 rules.

Oh wait, this is a Star Trek thread, nevermind...

Well, it was certainly a contender for the throne up until halfway through the fourth season when the end to the Great Shadow War was:

"get the HELL out of my galaxy!"

Which, the two big, bad kick everyone else's asses races went:

"urk...uhm, okay, we're only here doing what we're doing because of separation anxiety anyway...y'know, when the First First Ones abandoned us here for this babysitting job anyway!"

Or, how about the end of the Great Civil War With Earth?

"We're here to arrest President Clark!"

"Uhm, attacking force? So sorry to inform you but Clark just blew his brains out, decided to destroy his own planet and uhm...oh yeah...the entire REST of the corrupt government is suddenly playing all nicey nice with everyone. So sorry for all the time, effort and deaths but our bad."

Or how about the end of the Centauri/ISA war?

"I'm the CRAZY WHACKY regent and I'm going to die so that YOU Londo can be the puppet emperor and issue the surrender of our people to the bloodthirsty and manipulative aliens who refused to follow the ISA orders and went ahead to BOMB our planet (when they saw that we *conveniently* sent all our defense ships away). You can blame it all on me, I won't mind. I'll be quite crazy. And uhm...oh yeah, dead."

Or how about "Gosh Delenn I LOVE YOU SO MUCH! That I've decided to go off and die in the vast, lonely coldness of space - instead of here, in your arms, letting YOU be the last thing I see."

Or maybe the end where there were profuse thanks to JRR Tolkien, without which Babylon 5 would NOT have been possible?

See, JMS could, apparently, create an interesting and involved storyline over three and a half years but couldn't come up with a good, dramatic ending for them to save Ivanova's life.

Rabe...

Rabe
01-08-2007, 01:00 PM
Suddenly, I'm very interested, and actually getting excited at the prospect. I have no problem with new bonds and new Supermen (unless the writing is done badly by Bryan Singer) and certainly no problem with new Batmen. So maybe, maybe I don't have a problem with new Kirks and Spocks.

I don't know yet. I just know that after that article, I'm at lot less nervous about the prospect than I was before the article.

This actually isn't a new concept. What started off as ST:TMP was supposed to be a second Star Trek series which played with the idea of going back and doing "Star Trek: The Academy".

Then along came ST:TNG which was for a while hotly contested with Star Trek: The Academy. Harve Bennet actually left the show to produce other things over the issues with not being able to do an 'academy' type show/movie. He wanted to go back to show Spock, Kirk, et al in the Academy. It was supposed to have been made into a movie long ago.

Oddly enough, they can finally go back and do it now because of two things:

Gene Roddenberry died.
JJ Abrams was given Star Trek by Paramount.

J.M. Stracynski also has a treatment out there where he wanted to go back and remake all the old series but in a (wait for it) FIVE YEAR STORY ARC! He wanted to reshoot some of the episodes but add in (WAIT FOR IT!) SECRET SHADOWY THREATS! I read the eleven page proposal and it made me sick in a way I've not been before.

But apparently Abrams is able to go back and do the prequel which is supposed to be something along the lines of what Harve Bennet fought for so long ago: Star Trek: The Academy.

I keep TRYING not to think of this as Star Trek: Muppet Babies.

Rabe...

Inkdaub
01-08-2007, 02:47 PM
Er....I think you are confusing some movies. First Contact is the movie with the Borg travling in the past with Zephrim Cochrin and trying to take over the world. I thougt the movie before that one had the Nexus.

Yes you're quite right...Generations is the movie I was thinking of.

PeeDee
01-08-2007, 06:58 PM
Dear Rabe,

You're treading all over some very big Babylon 5 fanboy toes here. You may think I won't break your kneecaps and throw you in the river, but you would be inaccurate. I also mean this in a humorous fashion. Yes.

Also, I would really ask that you edit your first post, since in the course of your ranting, you manage to give away quite a lot of vital storyline information for Babylon 5. I don't really care if you didn't like it, you don't have to expose all the bits for those who have perhaps not yet watched it but are about to.

And by the by, what The Motion Picture rose out of was itself. There were plans for a second Star Trek series early on, called "Star Trek: Phase II" which they later made into a ho-hums series of books. It was on the verge of production. Actually, I believe they already produced stuff for it. There's a book on the history of it out there. I don't know if it's in print anymore.

The Motion Picture was mostly in response to the first Star Wars movie, and the noise of Star Trek fans.

...

Rick Berman, thank goodness, is gone from Star Trek. Officially they said nothing, but I can't help but notice that they put Star Trek on hiatus pretty much until his contract ran out, and then they failed to renew it, and then Star Trek began to make noise and reappear. Rick Berman was a lunatic and an idiot, and I'm very happy he's gone.


...

Generations SHOULD have been just a TNG movie! ANd yes, I also just wish they'd done more with the TNG crew. I really enjoyed all the Next Generation movies they made (except Insurrection; I was unimpressed) and particularly thought Nemesis was the best of the bunch. Considering it took a very silly concept, it turned a really wonderful movie out of it. Especially with Rick Berman gone, I'd love a new TNG movie.

Meerkat
01-08-2007, 08:36 PM
I'm with PeeDee regarding which...generations...were worth watching. With wife and daughters finally at the mall saturday, I watched Nemisis, including for the first time the extras. Before we trash Rick Berman, consider what he and the others did with this film. The next movie should hopefully follow this template, and be as much about the deeper theme than the faces involved.

PeeDee
01-08-2007, 08:41 PM
I'm with PeeDee regarding which...generations...were worth watching. With wife and daughters finally at the mall saturday, I watched Nemisis, including for the first time the extras. Before we trash Rick Berman, consider what he and the others did with this film. The next movie should hopefully follow this template, and be as much about the deeper theme than the faces involved.

The thing that was done with Nemesis was, a new director who had a mind of his own, and a damn good screenplay. Rick Berman actually did less with Nemesis than, say, Insurrection.

It also had the advantage of being an even-numbered Star Trek movie. That helps. This next one is an odd-numbered one, that might not work so well.

ChunkyC
01-08-2007, 09:44 PM
Generations had a 'finding their way on the big screen' feel to it. Some good moments, but a bit uneven. I was able to forgive much about that film for those reasons.

My fave TNG movie is First Contact. Great film, and the best title sequence music I think I've ever heard. I have it as an audio file and listen to it every now and then and it gives me chills every time. It's now available in streaming format here (http://www.trekconnection.com/sounds/mp3/st8.asp). Put your headphones on, close your eyes, crank it up and listen without any visual stimulus. It's a stunning piece of music that evokes the overall feel of the movie better than any other in the series. By the time the opening credits are over, you're in the Star Trek universe all the way. Jerry Goldsmith is a genius.

Insurrection also had a few decent moments, but it was probably the worst of the TNG ones, a big step backward after First Contact.

I liked Nemesis too, second-best of the four TNG films imho.

PeeDee
01-08-2007, 09:46 PM
I agree on all points with you Chunky, but mostly....I just wanted to thank you for the link. The soundtrack for First Contact is one of my all time favorite pieces of music (favorite Star Trek music: The Sleeping In Light Suite)

(edited to add: Listening to First Contact now. Has goosebumps. Is a very happy person.)

ChunkyC
01-08-2007, 09:54 PM
:)

One thing Trek has always done right is the music. The title music for the original series is so memorable, so was TNG. You can hear adventure in every note. George Lucas showed he'd learned this lesson well when he tapped John Williams to score Star Wars. There's nothing more beautiful than a talented symphony orchestra playing well written music.

PeeDee
01-08-2007, 09:56 PM
I'm sorry, Sleeping in Light was Babylon 5's final episode. Sheesh.

The Inner Light was the absolutely heartbreaking Next Generation episode.

http://www.trekconnection.com/sounds/mp3/tng2.asp

At the bottom is the suite of music I'm talking about. Listening to it still crushes me.

I always enjoyed Star Trek music. I wish I had more of it around the house. Star Wars produced some damned good soundtracks too, but Star Trek has my heart, I'm afraid.

(Ironically, the soundtracks for the Star Wars prequels were infinitely better than the original movies. I thought. Anyway.)

ChunkyC
01-09-2007, 12:15 AM
The Inner Light -- yeah, that has to be the most memorable piece of music from TNG.

But ... this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlTMXiqbDZU) has to be the best Trek music of all time. :)

PeeDee
01-09-2007, 12:37 AM
Mein gott, they made a video for it. How magnificant.

ANd you're right, of course. I've had that song bouncing around this house for ages, and it never gets old.

And it's better than, for example, Leonard Nimoy doing the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins......

ChunkyC
01-09-2007, 12:47 AM
I love that tune....

"We come in peace: shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill...." :roll:

PeeDee
01-09-2007, 12:51 AM
I'm happily listening to the First Contact soundtrack over and over again. When my wife gets home, we'll go watch some more Deep Space 9.

I'm turning into a junky all over again. I'm a Trekkie rising. Oh dear.

ChunkyC
01-09-2007, 01:04 AM
I dig it, man ... the missus and I are in the midst of another watching of Babylon 5. We finished season one last night and will probably get started on season two tonight.

I want to get the original Trek on DVD, but it's just so dratted expensive compared to other shows. We probably paid the same for all five seasons of B5 as we'll have to pay for three seasons of Trek.

PeeDee
01-09-2007, 01:06 AM
I've watched B5 more times than I can count. My wife and I have watched it once together. I think it's high time for another run through.

No matter how many times I watch it, I always find some new detail that I never noticed before. I love it.

Rabe
01-09-2007, 12:31 PM
Dear Rabe,

You're treading all over some very big Babylon 5 fanboy toes here. You may think I won't break your kneecaps and throw you in the river, but you would be inaccurate. I also mean this in a humorous fashion. Yes.

Hey, don't get mad at ME!

Perhaps if JMS spent less time whining about all the respect he *didn't* get for the first three years of Babylon 5 (say like, winning the Hugo award?) and more time looking at what he was creating and the epic majesty of it, maybe then he would have pulled part of the stick out of his ass enough to let other writers on the show to pull off the ending of the Shadow War the way it *should* have been done.

But to have it all end in five minutes at the end of an episode (which seems to have been inspired after a visit to David Lynch's house) in the *middle* of a season is the biggest let down to sci-fi fans everywhere (and I'm including the poor box office of "Serenity" and Jake "Manniquin" Lloyd here!)

The fabric of the first three years of Babylon 5 was the Shadow War. Watching each episode to get the small hints and treats of what was going to happen and trying to figure out everything is what drove my friends, roommates and I to put aside all other business and gather around the television set (mother, father - secret lover) in order to NOT MISS A SINGLE THING! However, the ONLY channel we got in this rural area had this nasty habit of deciding to pre-empt the eminently great sci-fi for *dear lord in heaven could it be possible?* basketball?!?

So it took me YEARS to get all of Babylon 5 viewed and what did I finally see? Well, my previous post pretty much summed it up. Here's the problem though. They went ahead and filmed the fourth season like it was going to be their last and had to hurry up and rush everything. Except, well, they got new life and a fifth season. By this time the story had already been told and they had to go back and do all this filler.

The fifth season is a 25 episode long goodbye which seemed as if it was taking forever (I mean, hell, even Tolkien finally ended the damned story after 88 pages) to finally just get to the end. It was a three episode story arc drawn out for eight times longer than it needed. To me it feels like JMS did a fifth season just to prove his original goal about doing a fifth season.

But seriously, all these HUGE story ideas suddenly dropped into little, teeny, tiny moments that make you sit there and think "oh, boy! He's gonna get whupped for THAT for sure!" Only, well. He doesn't. Because apparently the universe is too afraid of Sheridan to actually work properly.

So, yeah, Babylon 5 would definitely have been a contender for the throne (and perhaps a favorite of the Centarum) but unfortunately it stumbled in the last leg to get to the finish line.

So if I seem like a bitter, disappointed fan - well that's because I am.

Of course, it's not the first time a sci-fi show let me down. I mean, after all, I'm still angry with Joss "The Bastard" Whedon. Not to mention the numerous wax voodoo dolls of Brian "He did WHAT?" Henson. (but of course, Henson gets a bit of amnesty, Farscape being the Heir Apparent to Star Wars after all.)

As for Trek? Well, I saw Nemesis in the theatres. Hated what Brent Spiner did in the story concept and then still went out and bought it on DVD. Cause - with all due fear of having my mivonx twisted and my kneecaps broken (only one though, I've already broken the other one) and forced to bathe in the river - I AM a Random Fandomboy!

((and why is it that G'Kar and Londo were only 'featured' actors? Without them the show was nothing. Really, they should come back and redo another series as "The At-Odds Couple"!))

Rabe...

ChunkyC
01-09-2007, 08:54 PM
Actually, being a featured actor in the credits is a nod to their importance. Whenever you see that in movie or TV credits, it means this is not just a member of the crowd. It sets them apart from the rest of the actors.

The ultimate is to have your name before the title of the show. That says this actor is more of a draw than the show itself. Basically, the first person listed is considered top billing, whether before or right after the title. Next in importance is to be the last one listed with some extra tag like 'featuring.' Then comes being right after the first billed. Lowest billing is the group of people between those and the 'featured' actors at the end of the opening actor credits.

You can see this at play in movies especially, it's the reason 'Directed By' is always the last thing you see in the opening credits. The director is the one who made the film, he's gonna make sure his name is in an important spot. Same thing with Londo and G'Kar. Though Sheridan was technically the star and therefore was listed first in the credits, Londo and G'Kar received second billing by being put at the end like that. Everyone else was lower in the hierarchy.

PeeDee
01-11-2007, 09:22 PM
Here we go, some interesting Star Trek XI info. I've emboldened the bit that particularly caught my eye.



Shatner Leaks Trek XI Details

William Shatner revealed to SCI FI Wire that the upcoming 11th Star Trek movie will indeed, as rumored, deal with the early years of Capt. James T. Kirk and Spock—and that he will definitely appear in the movie if director J.J. Abrams can find a place to use him. Shatner, who originated the role of Kirk in the original Trek series and several subsequent films, said in an interview that he was invited to meet with Abrams (Mission: Impossible III), who is also co-writing the movie.

"I met with J.J., and they told me they would like me to be part of their film, but they have to write the role," Shatner said in an interview promoting his new SCI FI Channel film, Alien Fire.

As for the many rumors concerning the sequel's story, Shatner said that Abrams will explore Kirk and Spock during their Starfleet Academy years. "Yes, we know the story is based on young Kirk," Shatner said. Up until now, everyone connected with the film has maintained strict silence about the storyline, though rumors have run rampant that they concern Kirk and Spock's first missions.

As for Shatner's place in that storyline? "They need to figure out how to put the dead captain in with the young captain," he said. "It's a very complex, technical problem of how to write the character in, and I'm not sure how they will solve it." It sounds like Shatner may play an older version of Kirk.

Coincidentally, the Starfleet storyline is one Shatner is already working on for his latest Trek-based novels. "I'm writing with Gar and Judy Reeves-Stevens two books on the academy, with the young Kirk and the young Spock," Shatner revealed. "We've submitted the first book to the publishers, and I think it will be out in the beginning of 2008. It's got a working title of The Academy, but I don't think that will stick."

Meanwhile, Abrams told Entertainment Weekly (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20007719,00.html) that a draft of the Trek XI script is done and will be trimmed sometime soon. The sequel will be targeted, "on the one hand, for people who love Star Trek, the fix that they will get will be really satisfying," Abrams told the magazine. "For people who've never seen it or know it vaguely, I think they will enjoy it equally, because the movie does not require you to know anything about Star Trek. I would actually prefer [that] people don't know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind."

AzBobby
01-11-2007, 10:16 PM
This is darned interesting. Double-dumbass interesting.

Well, old Kirk could have a flashback with bookend appearances -- one of those touching Saving Private Ryan kind of deals. He doesn't have to be "the dead Captain" since the old Kirk could be from any point in time when he's, well, old.

What sounds more likely is that Shatner will be worked in for a cameo a la Charlton Heston in Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, in a whole new role. I'm one of the five or six people on earth who loved the Maverick film with Mel Gibson -- maybe cuz Jodie Foster can do no wrong -- and I think James Garner's presence in a (holding spoilers) new role, a mighty clever one, was one of its most winning aspects for me.

Why not cast Shatner as another Kirk family member? And I wonder if they'll remember that Kirk wasn't an only child -- that he has a brother around his age that looks exactly like him except mirror-opposite and with a mustache? :)

BTW this interview reminded me of an interview with Nichelle Nichols that appeared some time between ST6 and Generations. She reported talk of the next film combining the casts of the old and new series. The next film turned out, of course, not to include her. The chances seem higher that they'll include Shatner in a new Kirk movie, but this kind of interview goes to show you how much the actors are on top of what goes on in story/script development for most of these things. Shatner's speculations are interesting reading but probably not much of a hint about the story line or even his own role in it.

PeeDee
01-11-2007, 10:19 PM
I agree it doesn't provide anything definite, but it does provide some interesting ideas. What about time travel? How many Star Trek time travel movies have we had now? We could have older-Kirk join up with younger Kirk.

It sounds cheesy, but it was the same premise they used in "Night Watch" by Terry Pratchett, and that was a magnificant novel. Done well, it could make a great Star Trek movie.

Regardless, they need to hurry the heck up, because I want to be watching this movie sometime soon. Like, by the end of the week. I'm in a huge Star Trek mood these past couple of weeks. It's getting frightening. (I'm enjoying it no end.)

ChunkyC
01-11-2007, 10:47 PM
I'd like nothing more than to see Shatner play young Kirk's dad and get on y-k's case about joining Starfleet. Add in brother Sam and a mention of his not wanting to be part of Starfleet and instead going off to the colony on Deneva.

It could be wicked cool if they really delve into the formative years of a yound Kirk and how he met Spock.

PeeDee
01-11-2007, 10:51 PM
I don't know if anyone here has read NIght Watch by Terry Pratchett, which I referenced above, but the storyline for it was really something I'd love to see here, the more and more I think about it. Let me see if I can find a description....

Here we go, from Amazon:


Pragmatic Sam Vimes, Commander of Ankh-Morpork's City Watch, can't complain. He has a title, his wife is due to give birth to their first child any moment and he hasn't had to pound a beat in ages but that doesn't stop him from missing certain bits of his old life. Thank goodness there's work to be done. Vimes manages to corner a murderer, Carcer, on the library dome at Unseen University during a tremendous storm, only to be zapped back in time 30 years, to an Ankh-Morpork where the Watch is a joke, the ruling Patrician mad and the city on the verge of rebellion. Three decades earlier, a man named John Keel took over the Night Watch and taught young Sam Vimes how to be a good cop before dying in that rebellion. Unfortunately, in this version of the past, Carcer has killed Keel. The only way Vimes can hope to return home and ensure he has a future to return home to is to take on Keel's role. The author lightens Vimes's decidedly dark situation with glimpses into the origins of several of the more unique denizens of Ankh-Morpork. One comes away, as always, with the feeling that if Ankh-Morpork isn't a real place, it bloody well ought to be.

I love the thought of Kirk going back, taking on a different name, whipping his young self into an idealistic and strong young man. Imagine older Spock coming back with him, for that matter. I love it. If I still wrote fanfiction, I would be writing this right now.

ChunkyC
01-11-2007, 10:53 PM
My take:

Did a little research ... Sam was Jim's older brother, a research biologist. It would be cool to play Kirk's family as scientists, with Jim being the black sheep wanting to join the military instead of following his brother into science. It would provide an interesting bit of backstory ... perhaps Kirk sees in Spock a replacement for his older brother who he is estranged from.

Damn, we should be writing the script. ;)

PeeDee
01-11-2007, 10:54 PM
My take:

Did a little research ... Sam was Jim's older brother, a research biologist. It would be cool to play Kirk's family as scientists, with Jim being the black sheep wanting to join the military instead of following his brother into science. It would provide an interesting bit of backstory ... perhaps Kirk sees in Spock a replacement for his older brother who he is estranged from.

Damn, we should be writing the script. ;)

Well, in our free time we can bung out the script really quick and send it to J.J. Abrams. And he'll go "Ye gads, why are we writing this garbage! Look what these men have produced! Quickly, get them a wheelbarrow of money for it!"

I do want to write it, actually. I wonder if Simon & Schuster are going to contact me to write a Star Trek novel. I'm ready now, damn it.

ChunkyC
01-11-2007, 10:57 PM
Go for it!

PeeDee
01-11-2007, 10:59 PM
I think querying the Star Trek bit of S&S would probably be futile, it's all in-house.

If AW people donate another $400, then I'll write it. :)

Otherwise, I'll just watch Star TRek and my head will fill up with ideas and I'll just fidget myself away.

ChunkyC
01-11-2007, 11:03 PM
At least we can see how our ideas stack up against the movie when it comes out.

badducky
01-11-2007, 11:11 PM
Now, now, just because it's technically "in house"...

Far, far too many trekkies want desperately to write such things. Thus, they'd have to be careful about allowing submissions.

I suspect the best route is to find someone who wrote a star trek book or two (really wrote them, not just planted a name on the cover), and ask them who to contact or query.

Or, you could channel all this trekkie love into a different project entirely with your own brand of vaguely homo-erotic hippy space navy.

PeeDee
01-11-2007, 11:16 PM
I've avoided the topic of "I wanna write a Star Trek novel," because I've seen it pop up as a newbie question and just mostly dismissed it. I suspect they get fifteen queries an hour from kids wanting to have their Kirk/Spock love fiction published. Call me pessimist, but I suspect short of someone leaving their senses at home and phoning me up and saying "Oi, do us a Star Trek novel, huh?" I probably won't.

By the way, the phrase "homo-erotic hippie space navy" presents the most disturbing imagine imaginable. Yikes.

Biggest thing I hope for with this movie is a closing scene where young Kirk and Spock (and maybe old Kirk and Spock too?) take a shuttle to the space dock, round the corner, and come across the original Enterprise. Sort of like the wonderful scene in Star Trek IV when they round the Excelsior and on the Enterprise-A. (I adored that moment. I still do.)

ChaosTitan
01-11-2007, 11:19 PM
I suspect the best route is to find someone who wrote a star trek book or two (really wrote them, not just planted a name on the cover), and ask them who to contact or query.

I've been told numerous times that one of the best ways for Pocket Books to notice you is to submit to (and be selected for) one of the "Strange New Worlds" anthologies. Several authors picked for the earliest anthologies have gone on to write e-books and novels in the Trek Universe.

Outside of that, you'll probably need an agent and a sales track record.

Anonymous Traveler
01-12-2007, 12:31 AM
That's where Dr. Who has the advantage. Keeps regenerating

Richard White
01-12-2007, 06:18 AM
Well, considering I've written Star Trek (Corps of Engineers) and am currently working on a Next Gen Short story for this year's anthology and a Doctor Who short story for an anthology in 2008, what questions do you have. :)

Course, if you're really interested, you could always go to the forums at http://www.trekbbs.com and go to the Trek Literature forum where there are nearly 30 Star Trek authors on most any given day.

ChaosTitan
01-12-2007, 08:03 AM
I knew Rich couldn't stay away from this thread for long. ;)

Richard White
01-12-2007, 09:24 AM
Hey, I may not have many credits, but at least they seemed appropriate for this thread.

Inkdaub
01-12-2007, 02:43 PM
They should have young Kirk and young Spock get arrested by TJ Hooker. The family then hires Denny Crane as legal counsel.

ChaosTitan
01-12-2007, 09:08 PM
:ROFL:

ChaosTitan
01-12-2007, 09:09 PM
Hey, I may not have many credits, but at least they seemed appropriate for this thread.

:Hug2:

PeeDee
01-12-2007, 10:06 PM
Well, considering I've written Star Trek (Corps of Engineers) and am currently working on a Next Gen Short story for this year's anthology and a Doctor Who short story for an anthology in 2008, what questions do you have. :)

Course, if you're really interested, you could always go to the forums at http://www.trekbbs.com and go to the Trek Literature forum where there are nearly 30 Star Trek authors on most any given day.

Wow. What cool forums. A fellow could geek out for quite some time there. You're not helping my spate of Becoming A Star TRek Geek Again.

(I didn't realize that you were author of the Corps of Engineers. How terribly, terribly cool.)

Okay, questions. How does one come to write for Star Trek? Come to that, how did you wind up writing for Star Trek?

Do you have J.J. Abrams' number so Chunky and I can call him up and tell him he doesn't have to worry about the story front for his movie, we'll go ahead and take care of it for him. ;)

Richard White
01-13-2007, 05:17 AM
The easy question first: Nope, no phone numbers for Abrams or anyone like that. We're authors. The Hollywood types ignore us as much as they can.

Second question: Let's see, I started out in small press comics, met a guy who wound up going to work at Byron Preiss as an editor. He had an author pull out of an anthology, asked if I could put together a pitch for Marvel Licensing. They liked my story and I got published in the Ultimate Hulk in 1998.

Keith DeCandido used to work at Byron Preiss. We met at Dragon*Con in 2000. Later, in 2003, I ran into him at Balticon and took him out to lunch to ask about the Star Trek program and how to pitch. He knew I couldn't pitch to Strange New Worlds because of my prior published works, so he asked me to pitch something for the Corps of Engineers. Four pitches later, "Echoes of Coventry" passed editorial and licensing review and I wrote it in Spring of 2005. It was released in 2006.

Based on my SCE work, I've pitched one story that's waiting licensing approval, which lead to the opportunity to pitch for the ST:TNG anthology this fall (the editor made it clear, he asked for more pitches than he accepted, so the fact it looks like I'm going to be in the book (pending licensing approval) makes me pretty proud. The editor of the anthology actually called me at work twice to discuss the story and make some "changes". Hopefully, if my SCE story and the TNG story do well, he'll be receptive toward a novel I've pitched him, but I'm not holding my breath with the drawdown on the line (only one MMPB a month - down from two a month a couple of years ago).

And that's pretty much the story in a nutshell. Right place, right time to get the chance, but my pitches and ideas had to pass muster before I ever got a chance to write them.

PeeDee
01-13-2007, 05:21 AM
I was mostly just curious. :) That's very interesting and, like most of publishing in my experience, does indeed help by being in the right place at the right time, or Knowing Someone.

I love the Ol' Boys network aspect of publishing, actually. I think it's great.