Star Trek To Return Christmas 2008

Tycoon Guy writes "Paramount today announced the new Star Trek film is scheduled for release on Christmas Day 2008. The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.' Also today, rumors are out claiming Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise will play Kirk, Spock, and Scotty, respectively."

I've got a bad feeling about this

Somehow those rumours frighten and shock me. A Kirk that isn't Shatner and a Spock that isn't Nimoy?
What about a DS9 movie?

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.

I hear Shatner is in negotiations.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

How would a DS9 movie break such a rule?

-jcr

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

Bullshit. DS9 had the only really good story arc in Star Trek's history. Generally speaking the episodes were well written and well acted. Sure, they had their share of corny episodes, but nearly as many as ST:NG (I watched some of the episodes of that series first season and it was laughable). Voyager was a joke, but Enterprise was just plain goddawful. ST:NG got better as time went on, but I still think DS9 was the better of the two series.

Actually, what I found interesting as how much liked the Original Series. My wife got me the first two seasons on DVD for Christmas, and there are some episodes they made in the way-back-when which kick the crap out of anything that came later. The Doomsday Machine has got to be my favorite all-time Star Trek episode. You actually forget that they're battling a giant badly-rolled cigar.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

Does that mean this will be a Star Trek "holiday special" ? (http://www.starwarsholidayspecial.com/)

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

I am afraid that a DS9 movie WOULD suck. The reason that DS9 was so good, was that the characters had real developments and had to deal with problems that were not easily solved with technobabble. With 40-minute episodes, you can afford a "bad" ending, in which a major character suffers a great loss, or fucks up big time, or discovers that he or she did exactly what the enemy wanted. This happened frequently in DS9. With a movie, it has to end well in order not to alienate the general public (or so Hollywood thinks).

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

Unless I'm getting a percentage of the revenue, why do I care how much money a movie makes?

On the other hand, whether it sucks or not certainly has an impact on my enjoyment.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

What about a DS9 movie?

(Warning: spoilers)

At the end of the series, they dismantled basically the entire crew (Sisko ended up in the celestial temple/wormhole, Odo went to join the great link, Garek stayed on Cardassia, Dukat died, etc. They'd need to either use a different cast (which would suck) or come up with an excuse to reunite everyone (which would most likely seem ridiculously contrived), which makes a DS9 movie relatively unlikely.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

Actually, there are books that continue the story (an "8th season" of sorts) of Bajor, DS9, the Gamma Quadrant, etc. in some pretty cool ways. At the end of the first "arc" (that's as far as I've read) they even managed to get everyone back on Bajor in a way that made sense (at least in the context of DS9). I won't spoil any of it for those who might be interested in reading the books and I'll give a reading list/order below for anyone who cares:

1. Avatar 1-2
2. Section 31: Abyss (haven't read)
3. Gateways: Demons of Air and Darkness (haven't read)
4. "Horn and Ivory" from Gateways: What Lay Beyond (haven't read)
5. Mission Gamma 1-4
6. Rising Son (haven't read)
7. Unity
8. Worlds of Deep Space Nine (three books - haven't read)

Again, from the list above (cribbed from a post on trekunited.com by "wildcard1377") I've read seven of the books and only missed a few references while still enjoying the primary arc of the story. I'll get to the rest at some point when I have time to get down to the "big bookstore" and grab them up, but I definitely recommend the ones I have read to DS9 fans.

Re:MAT DAAAAA-MON MAT DAAAAAA-MON 8-O

"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."

Triumph robot dog voice: You have read this deeply into an article about the casting of a Star Trek movie.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

What about a DS9 movie?

Well, since Babylon 5 is over, what storyline would they have to steal? I suppose the writers at Paramount could just ask JMS to please write a few more episodes, so they'd have something to copy from, but I hear he's pretty busy these days with other projects... ;)

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

Somehow those rumours frighten and shock me. A Kirk that isn't Shatner and a Spock that isn't Nimoy?

What about a DS9 movie?

Starring Will Smith [imdb.com] as Cisco, Macaulay Culkin [imdb.com] as quark, and Wilmer Valderrama [imdb.com] as Dr. Bashir

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this

I - I would pay to see that, I'm afraid to say.

One correction...

Instead of Will Smith, get Samuel L. Jackson.

"Fire the GOD DAMN PHASERS AT THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS."

oh good

The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'

It's great that the guy charting that course is best known for a show called LOST.

Re:oh good

Considering Lost has a suspiciously large number of similarities to an old show called "The New People", perhaps Abrams is the right person to resurrect the spirit of another show from the sixties.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063935/plotsummary [imdb.com]

So...serious?

Re:oh good

Not that similar. If you want to get technical, both are ripping off Lord Of The Flies, but the details are so different that it's basically a non-issue. There's only so many basic settings like "people crash on a mysterious island"; you're going to have some repetition of the basic plot. If anything, Lost is ripping off The Prisoner more than The New People.

LOST in space

I heard the working title of it was going to be "LOST in Space"

Re:LOST in space

I don't get it: why is the latest Enterprise the NCC-4 8 15 16 23 42?

Scotty != Bones

I don't know if the editors decided not to RTFA, but TFA doesn't talk about Scotty at all, rather is saying that the role is for Bones.

Re:Scotty != Bones

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a mechanic!! Oh, wait..."

or

"This is normally a 5 hour surgical procedure, but I'll have you buttoned up in two!"

Re:Scotty != Bones

I don't know if the editors decided not to RTFA, but TFA doesn't talk about Scotty at all, rather is saying that the role is for Bones.

Shhhhh .... scotty doesn't know.

Only One Question

Will dax be in it!?

Fascinating...

...they are attempting to build a vehicle to harness the power of the stars. I wonder if they will achieve worf capability?

Re:Matt. . .

Damon, Matt..... so the Ferengi are in it too?

Lets just hope the audience doesn't just walk out screaming:

    We've been Khaaaaaaaannnnnnneeeedddd!!!

Re:Beating a Dead Horse

On a serious note, there is plenty of room for reimagining Star Trek, retelling the adventures with fresh faces or perspectives, or picking up on story lines open but never followed. What happens to future crews on the shore leave planet? What happends to the star ship that goes to collect next years taxes on the planet in "A Piece of the Action"? Just look at the evolution of Batman from camp series to the Keaton movie to Batman Begins.

On a humorous note, imagine John Madden playing Spock:

Spock: Captain, if you look here (circles empy space on viewer) this is were the bird of prey would be if you could see it, but you can't see, so it's invisible, and you can't see it. And when you can't see a ship, it's cloaked. Now as it moves laterally (Draws diagonal line from empty circle), and you can't see it, but you fire photon torpedoes, sort of like a Brett Farve pass that explodes, and it hits the bird of prey, well then, BOOM, and that's one dead bird of prey.

Kirk: Sulu, fire at Spock's coordinates!

Sulu: Aye Captain! .... A hit! We destroyed the bird of prey!

Kirk: No Sulu, I meant shoot Spock, I can't take this any more!

Gary Sinise?!?!?! Gary Sinise?!?!?! Gary Sinise?!?

NOoooooooo! Why not Brendan Gleeson? Both Him and Gary where born in 1955, so they're the same age. And Brendan looks and TALKS much more like what I would settle for a Scotty. I could see Sinise as McCoy, hell he even looks a bit like him. Ohhh wait.. submitter got it wrong. [trektoday.com] Sinise will be McCoy and James McAvoy is going to be Scotty. James McAvoy?!?!?!? He's a slight and frail little man! He's not close to passable as the boisterous and strapping chief engineer before his more plump years. He better start gorging on meat pies.

The Navigator

Funny One:
http://www.videosift.com/video/George-Takei-respon ds-to-Tim-Hardaways-homophobic-comments [videosift.com]

I wonder who will replace our flamboyant navigator.

Re:Good news!

This is Slashdot. You may not post "Good News" without the "Everyone".

Hey. Stop it.

Seriously.
Quit it.

Star Trek was a fantastic series - heck, I enjoyed all of the runs, which is more than a lot of fans would claim - but if you want to bring back the brilliance and optimism of Roddenberry's world (FTA), you don't do it with a "when-they-were-young" storyline which would most assuredly contain:
1 - A necessarily predictable storyline, to the extent that we know who manages to pull through into their later years.
2 - Shameless references to the more familiar versions of the characters (e.g. A young Scotty trying unsuccessfully to fix a coffee machine and making references to a lack of available power OMGHILARIOUS.)

So yes.
Stop it.
Okay?
...okay.

kill it

No really.

It was good, well in places it was great, but not everywhere, but all they are doing is trying to get more money from a story that has been told and retold until they are inescapably trapped in a quagmire of ever repeating storylines.

Enterprise was a good example. They assembled a team of great actors, then forced them to regurgitate shit storylines until even the diehard fans started to cry out in pain. Its the only star trek where if I see its on I won't flick over to watch it.

If they left it for a decade or three that might be good. Let the dust settle, let some fresh talent tackle the story in a new way.

Re:kill it

You must have missed the last season of Enterprise. It sucked for a long time, but it got good again - right before they cancelled it.

-Graham

Re:kill it

Yes, that's a common complaint. However, most of the episodes were actually pretty good. Even the shameless super-anachronistic vague Borg reference episode.

You clearly suffer from what I like to call "Bad Theme Song Syndrome." The theme song was so unbelievably not-trek that you couldn't get over that (and your misplaced nostalgia: no trek has ever been the height of literary greatness) and enjoy some good television.

Further, there was only one character who was static and uninteresting, but still miles ahead of the previous character played by Scott Bakula.

Re:Hey. Stop it.

How about: "Star Trek: The Crusher Adventures", in which Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton, of course, who is about the right age now) uses his Traveller powers to explore far reaches of the Universe. During the first six or seven episode, Wesley roams the known part of the Galaxy to round up a crew of ultra-geniuses whom he can also teach the Traveller gifts. No Vulcans, since they are too "logical" for such advanced knowledge, and no Klingons because they are too stupid. Several humans, of course, such as Mature-Guy, Black-Guy, and Hot-Babe, and several aliens, such a Plaster-Face, Funny-Hair, and a CGI-generated energy-based lifeform. Perhaps even Orion-Slave-Girl. While originally being able to travel without any visible means of transportation, Captain Wesley decides in season 2 that it would be a good idea to have a cool ship, as a place to call home and to transport aliens and goods. As an hommage to his mentor, he calls it the USS Traveller.

I am joking, of course, but I would not be surprised to find that this has already been the subject of several novels and a whole lot of fanfic.

Re:Hey. Stop it.

Actually, they have an all-new concept:

- Scotty has wry humor and uses the sentence "I'm an engineer, Jim, not a *" all the time.
- McCoy maintains that logic is the answer to everything.
- Spock has slept with every female on the planet.
- Uhura can fix any machine in half the time she should be able to.
- Kirk is rarely seen without a metal dongle in his ear. And a mini skirt. Starfleet Academy wasn't his most glorious time, you see.

Also, every character who wears any kind of red uniform cannot be killed by any means whatsoever. Indeed, Starfleet is experimenting with ship plating made of redshirts.

I can't say those actors are a bad choice.

I mean, I'm not a gargantuan star trek fan - I enjoyed 4 (who didn't?) I loved 2 and well the original series is camp fun at best.
Also TNG is good but yeah I'm not a circle jerk star trek loon (sorry guys, I know I should leave now)

honestly I don't see a need for anything to be re-made BUT - well gee wizz those 3 actors are pretty darn good for their roles.
could be interesting.

Boldly going where we went in the Sixties...

I'm not going to claim that Star Trek was the most original piece of entertainment ever conceived. (They could have called it The Forbidden Planet: Weekly) However, it was at least somewhat fresh since nobody had made a TV show quite like it before. (just movies) Some of the subsequent spinoffs managed to carve out their own niches, but the last couple (i.e. Voyager and Enterprise) were unabashedly formulaic retreads. Boldly going where no man had gone before somehow became little more than cashing in on an old idea. Safe Trek. Safe Trek became marginally profitable Trek and eventually TV ratings rat poison.

So what does the franchise need? A couple years of laying fallow after the abysmmal Nemesis? (I am one of the few nuts who dutifully went to see that flick in theaters. I wanted to like it very badly. It was an even numbered Trek episode after all! But what did they give us? Picard expounding upon the appreciation of finer things in life, such as joy-ridding through pre-contact societies in a monster truck.) Well, Nemesis did suck, but its Enterprise that really killed Trek off. Sure, maybe it got better in its third season, but who was watching after the first two seasons?

Now, I'm sure we could debate the finer points of why Enterprise lost its audience for days. However, I would contend that there was one insurmmountable problem with the show that made it a sure fire failure.

TV Series #3 aboard the freakin' Star Ship Enterprise.

The Star Trek universe is vast and filled with limitless possibilities. Why keep going back to the same bloody ship? Give us a border-patrol ship with the rejects and misfits of the acadamy instead of a bunch of the same boringly perfect people. Heck, dive into the seedier side of the Trek universe. Give us a show about the orion syndicate or privateers. Heck, even Maquis terrorists would be a change. (Voyagers crew didn't really count since they were perfectly assimilated into perfect star trek life from day #1.)

Is this against Gene Roddenberry's vision? It's against his vision for the *first* Star Trek show. However, if the fellow were alive today I'm sure he'd realize it's time to move on and open up other aspects of the Trek universe instead of retreading the Enterprise yet again. Just because the setting is less than ideal doesn't mean your characters can't tell inspirational tales. (Likewise, despite its "perfect" setting one could easily critisize Enterprise for turning the Vulcans into hypocritical pricks and relentlessly extolling superiority of mankind like aryan suprecists.)

That being said, not only are we going back to the Enterprise (If not in this movie, certainly in the sequels, profits allowing), we're retreading the same characters! It's possible J.J. could make a good movie, but frankly, be choosing to do yet another retread of the same tired old Trek he's really making things more difficult for himself.

Re:Boldly going where we went in the Sixties...

P.S. I'm posting about Star Trek while sloshed. Life can sink no lower.

Gritty can be good, but it's not Star Trek

I definitely agree that Trek should get grittier with more imperfect, and hence BELIEVABLE, deeper characters; when DS9 was at its best it was really good for that reason. However, the fact that DS9 was never as popular as TNG ratings-wise may sadly persuade the studio execs away from that direction.

The thing is, what sets Star Trek apart from other sci-fi shows is exactly that it isn't gritty and believable. It is sci-fi in a near-perfect universe. The ships are clean inside and out, and the uniforms are pressed immaculately (unless the bridge is already on fire). When an entire starship blows up, the crew of the Enterprise take it stoically. Whole wars go on, yet the main characters are mostly unaffected either physically or emotionally. Poverty is eliminated. Medical science can cure almost anything.

Compare and contrast with any of the other major future/space sci-fi series in recent years, from Babylon 5 to Battlestar Galactica. Consider the obvious plot device of killing off a character...

[[[Warning: Spoilers for early Star Trek films, early TNG series, Voyager finale, Babylon 5 season 4 and early reimagined BSG series follow]]]

In the TNG episode Thine Own Self, Troi is training to become a command officer, and is faced with a dilemma of sending a friend to his death to save the ship in a simulated test. In the Babylon 5 episode The Long Night, Sheridan sends a whole group of Ranger ships to certain death for real, with no guarantee that his plan will even work. He asks the captain of the lead ship whether he's married, after he's given the order. The episode later watches Sheridan sitting in his office listening to the radio chatter as they all die.

In the final episodes of Voyager, we see an alternate Janeway sacrifice herself for the good of her ship. It's brief, and then we're back to celebrating. In B5, Sheridan is told long before leaving for the Shadow homeworld that if he goes there he will die, and deliberately chooses to go anyway. The story arc of the consequences of that decision runs right up to the final episode, Sleeping in Light, set 20 years after the main story. That last episode contains one of very few TV moments that still brings a tear to my eye.

In one of the early Star Trek movies, Kirk's son is killed by a Klingon. Kirk swears and makes a pained expression. In BSG, Adama's son is killed in an accident, caused by the negligence of someone very dear to him, and we see the consequences and how they both have to live with it.

[[[End of spoilers]]]

You can look at many other issues from the series the same way. In Star Trek, we have hints of underclasses. In B5, we have the area of "down below", which features prominently in several episodes, where real people suffer real problems because of real mistakes. In Star Trek, when a shuttle is in trouble we bounce it off an atmosphere and tractor beam it home. In BSG, it crashes or explodes, killing or stranding whoever was on board, even if there are major characters involved. In Star Trek, admirals are good guys or traitors. In BSG, we have the whole Pegasus story arc, where very bad stuff happens because two good people have different perspectives.

Basically, the thing that makes the Star Trek franchise different from everything else is the fact that their universe is clean and tidy and full of good people Doing The Right Thing(TM) and with a happy ending to each episode. Many other series have done Gritty Realism(TM) already, probably better than anyone in the ST world ever will. They should not go there.

Resuming

who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'

Resuming, it'll 'embrace and extend'. I just hope the warp drive keeps compatibility with earlier versions.

Film by committee

The series were successful in other time, where what they offered was novel, and wearing spandex as a uniform wasn't ridiculous.

I can't be too wrong that they will come out with a mix of references/cliches from the original series, in attempt to please the fans, and also try to modernize everything, to make it look plausible for a new audience.

The result would likely be something like the upcoming Transformers movie. Pissing off both the fans and the new audience looking for a serious movie in attempt to please both.

It doesn't matter however, since a new Star Trek movie isn't about movie making. It's about reusing a very very popular brand to sell many tickets. Even if it sucks, many people will go to see it.

Obligatory

Mmmaaaatt Daaaamon

Re:Obligatory

Spock: "Captain, the warp coils are overloaded and the enemy has us locked in weapons range".

Kirk: "Yes Spock, looks like we need a montage".

Probably another time travel episode

Adrian Brody as Spock, huh?

The plot: Kirk, Spock, and crew travel back in time to early 21st century Earth using the tried-and-true slingshot effect. They are arrested by police for their suspicious activities as they recon various historic landmarks in the United States. When a policeman removes the dew rag that Spock is wearing around his face, Kirk must convince him that Spock's appearance is due to a childhood accident in which his nose was caught in a mechanical rice picker.

Who are these uninitiated?

They're going to worry about it being viewable by the UNINITIATED? Like, the 3 of them who will see this movie?

Guys, you've already lobbed ten of these over the fence and saturated 2nd tier television stations with reruns of the myriad TV versions. ANYBODY (okay, anybody who was older than 6 when the last one came out) who is likely to see this stinker is pretty going to have to know at least the basics about Star Trek - except perhaps for that Bedouin family that's been lost in the deserts of Cleveland since the Korean war ended 24 years ago.

Of course, they'll probably have to find a mysterious advanced technology device from the past, with a drawing of Kirk embedded in its design along side a warning. No worries, that's actually Kirk's sister. Spock's father will play a role in having deceived the Andorians into helping form the Federation, and his mother will have hidden his lost sister away behind a mysterious hatch on a jungle moon. Everything will go topsy-turvy when the Klingons take off their masks and turn out to have been from Secion 31 the whole time, and everything will end with no satisfying explanation having been given for any of this. But by that time, everybody will have forgotten why they entered the theater in the first place.