Star Trek XI

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?

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.

Maybe they'll start running it like the James Bond series, and just get different actors every movie.

"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...

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.

PeeDee said:

For me, it's things like seeing TOS episodes online (They stream whole episodes online now, you know)

Click to expand...

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

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!).

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.

And that, my freind, is why Babylon 5 rules.

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

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.

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.

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 said:

.....Jude Law?

Hugh Laurie can be Doctor McCoy.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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 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.

STXI

PeeDee said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

PeeDee said:

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.

Click to expand...

Have you checked out the fan films? I've been watching the progress on the production of "Star Trek: New Yoyages" . 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.

PeeDee said:

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 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.

Click to expand...

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