K/S? JJ!

April 21, 2006 7:59 AM

Trek fans, geeks, meet your new leader!
Rick Berman is out, out, out. JJ Abrams, with Paramount's blessing, is taking over Star Trek for an eleventh journey to the big screen which will apparently have a "Kirk and Spock: The Early Years" flavor.
posted by WolfDaddy (108 comments total)

To boldly go where everyone has gone before.
posted by ColdChef at 8:02 AM on April 21, 2006

As long as the bring back Welshy I'll be happy.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:02 AM on April 21, 2006

The Kirk and Spock will reportedly be "young." Academy, maybe?

Warren Ellis is already referring to this pseudo-prequel project as "Ultimate Star Trek."
posted by grabbingsand at 8:03 AM on April 21, 2006

Shatner and Nimoy better start hitting the gym. Stat.
posted by Danf at 8:05 AM on April 21, 2006

Ultimate? If only. Won't this ever die?
posted by trondant at 8:06 AM on April 21, 2006

But-but Rick Berman had faith of the heart, man!

While it's laudable of Paramount to finally ditch the jackass who ruined Star Trek for me, it's too little, too late.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:07 AM on April 21, 2006

(I'll bet Wolfdaddy is holding out some hopes for some Kirk/Spock scenes. . .God knows that there is enough liturature out there to cobble something together.)
posted by Danf at 8:08 AM on April 21, 2006

jesus fucking christ i thought everyone had agreed to lay off on the star trek spinoffs for a while

everything since TNG has blown huge chunks. and don't argue with me about it, there is no changing my mind
posted by poppo at 8:09 AM on April 21, 2006

DS9? huge chunks? Are you on crack? That's as much of an argument you'll get from me.
posted by lyam at 8:11 AM on April 21, 2006

No more Berman. YES!
posted by grubi at 8:11 AM on April 21, 2006

I just hope he's avoiding the "Star Trek Babies" route.
posted by Bromius at 8:11 AM on April 21, 2006

everything since TNG has blown huge chunks.

That was pretty much entirely Rick Berman's fault. Note that Roddenberry died early on in TNG's run, and ever since, the suck ratio of Star Trek has been directly proportional to Berman's involvement in it.
posted by jefgodesky at 8:13 AM on April 21, 2006

I can't imagine this anything but sucking. So let's cast it! C'mon it'll be fun! I'll start:

Young Spock: Christian Bale
Young Kirk: John Favreau

(I've left plenty of headroom for improvement there on purpose)
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:16 AM on April 21, 2006

That was pretty much entirely Rick Berman's fault.

Of course, and now we're getting JJ Abrams. While I am a monster Lost fan, it must be acknowledged that he is also the creative force behind Felcity and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

So, which JJ Abrams will this get?
posted by poppo at 8:17 AM on April 21, 2006

Young Spock: Bob Odenkirk
Young Kirk: David Cross

In your heart, you know it's right.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:19 AM on April 21, 2006

Note to casting directors: DeForest Kelley may be gone, but cast Gary Sinise as younger Dr. McCoy. Trust me on this.

posted by brownpau at 8:20 AM on April 21, 2006

Note that the article does not in any way say that Berman is out. It just says Abrams has been hired to make this one movie.
posted by jjg at 8:21 AM on April 21, 2006

!

Berman's touchy-feely Star Trek had its occasional moments, but was mostly just insipid. Give me some hard SF and broad story arcs and people that can kick ass when they have to... oh, wait... we've done this.... Firefly, Stargate, Bab-5....

Still, I like the Federation Universe as its the one I grew up on, and would be delighted to see something with a more intense feel (and I don't mean vaseline-on-the-lens) once again.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:21 AM on April 21, 2006

While I am a monster Lost fan, it must be acknowledged that he is also the creative force behind Felcity and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

People tell me that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was really good in its later seasons.

I don't know, because I'm wary of wasting an hour of my life on something titled, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
posted by jefgodesky at 8:21 AM on April 21, 2006

So are they going to try to stay within the Star Trek continuity or do a complete reboot like Battlestar Galactica? Trek is so weighed down by it's history now that it would be really hard to do anything interesting without breaking continuity.
posted by octothorpe at 8:23 AM on April 21, 2006

Er... Actually, the later seasons of BtVS (after it went to UPN for example) was when it started to suck. People have misinformed you.
posted by Karmakaze at 8:25 AM on April 21, 2006

I paused after mousing-over the "J J Abrams" link and noticing that the URI ends with "abramsuncut.htm". Heh. Maybe we will see some Kirk/Spock slash after all. Or maybe he'll leave the canon intact, if you know what I mean. Okay, that's enough of that.

I've always been interested in seeing the Starfleet side of Star Trek on a larger scale; let's see how Starfleet as a massive organization operates, and with a linear storyline - not just a few wacky characters (one for each stereotype!), on one ship, in an episodic mush.

I realize that that makes for more difficult storytelling, or at least more challenging production, but so what? Make something that is worthy of the adulation that so many people have for the universe! Is it so much to ask?
posted by dammitjim at 8:26 AM on April 21, 2006

While I am a monster Lost fan, it must be acknowledged that he is also the creative force behind Felcity and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

1. Abrams had nothing to do with Buffy. You may be thinking of Alias, which Abrams did create.

2. Buffy was a way better show than any of those Abrams has produced.
posted by jjg at 8:26 AM on April 21, 2006

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was great throughout its entire run. JJ Abrams, however, had absolutely nothing to do with that show. Poppo is indeed on crack.
posted by jimmy at 8:26 AM on April 21, 2006

JJ Abrams never worked on Buffy, that's Joss Whedon.

And Roddenberry died a little past the midway point of TNG's run.

What the hell kinda fakeass nerds are you people?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:27 AM on April 21, 2006

Hey, I don't think Abrams had anything to do with Buffy... ah, you already know that.
posted by goatdog at 8:30 AM on April 21, 2006

jimmy, let's not fight again. I am now a kindler gentler poppo. Sorry about the Buffy thing, but still, there's Felicity to consider.
posted by poppo at 8:32 AM on April 21, 2006

As long as they stop leaning on blowing-up the fucking ship, I'm willing to give them a chance.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:38 AM on April 21, 2006

PinkStainlessTail, I'm ready to start a letter-writing campaign the moment you give the word.
posted by saladin at 8:40 AM on April 21, 2006

Don't read this if you can't stand sheer unmitigated truth: Star Trek started sucking with the first episode of the first season of the original series, and has boldy kept up the tradition all these years.
posted by signal at 8:45 AM on April 21, 2006

Yes.
posted by trondant at 8:54 AM on April 21, 2006

Abrams, huh? Maybe he'll try something original, like have the new Star Trek movie raise tons of interesting questions that can then be entirely ignored in subsequent movies.
posted by Gamblor at 8:55 AM on April 21, 2006

TNG was great stuff. DS9 was good starting about the fourth season when the writers were informed that there were characters other than Quark (someone had neglected to tell them). Everything else - the horrid original series, the even worse Voyager and the torture-apologist/continuity-breaking Enterprise - sucked sucked sucked.
posted by Ryvar at 9:02 AM on April 21, 2006

7o9 can suck me anytime she wants..

btw. I didn't know Tom was out of the closet, will he star in this Star Trek flic? Then my guess would be it taking place many years BC, aliens ruling the world 'nd stuff..
posted by borq at 9:04 AM on April 21, 2006

Is it too early to call "Godwin?"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:05 AM on April 21, 2006

Oh, come on. The last two seasons of Enterprise were some of the best Trek ever.
posted by magodesky at 9:08 AM on April 21, 2006

On the one hand, i'm sick to death of the Star Trek universe, on the other hand Abrams has impressed me with at least two of his series. i agree with the above posters concerns that he will follow his typical path of asking questions that he never answers, but perhaps in a feature length film he will have less of an opportunity to do so.

That said, perhaps he will look to the excellent SciFi that has been produced lately (Firefly, Battlestar, Farscape, etc) for guidance in what a revamped Star Trek universe should look like.
posted by quin at 9:21 AM on April 21, 2006

...the writers were informed that there were characters other than Quark

Glad somebody else noticed this, too. When DS9 first started, a friend of mine would only refer to the show as "Quark's Place", and would say things like, "Oh look, 'Quark's Place' is on. What's that lovable scamp is up to this time?"
posted by Gamblor at 9:22 AM on April 21, 2006

Can't they PLEASE let it die. The creator of "ALIAS"? C'mon.

So in the new Abrams Star Trek we can look forward to a young teddy-clad pink-wigged Uhura spin-kicking her way through a flaming Klingon battle cruiser? GREEEEAT. Just great.
posted by tkchrist at 9:28 AM on April 21, 2006

So in the new Abrams Star Trek we can look forward to a young teddy-clad pink-wigged Uhura spin-kicking her way through a flaming Klingon battle cruiser?

Wait, this is bad, why?
posted by interrobang at 9:34 AM on April 21, 2006

Yeah, that almost just made me change my opinion.
posted by Gamblor at 9:35 AM on April 21, 2006

I'm wary of wasting an hour of my life on something titled, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
posted by jefgodesky

Buffy was one of the best TV shows ever. Seriously. Don't worry about the name; the storylines and the characters were, more than not, engaging and moving and generally excellent.

So in the new Abrams Star Trek we can look forward to a young teddy-clad pink-wigged Uhura spin-kicking her way through a flaming Klingon battle cruiser? GREEEEAT. Just great.

Indeed!

Oh wait, were you joking?
posted by jokeefe at 9:36 AM on April 21, 2006

how Starfleet as a massive organization operates

I love this idea. Give us some "destroy this village to save it" decisions, but on a planetary scale, some rogue administrators, some really bad captains. Stop making everyone so damnably perfect so that even the ones we're supposed to dislike seem pleasant - unless they are aliens, of course. Create an bureaucratic organisation just like the one's we all know and love, that lurch from crisis to crisis and only gets pulled back from the brink despite itself by a few heroic individuals - then give them photon torpedoes.

In other words, try to entertain us, not preach to us. We'll all back you.
posted by rootz at 9:40 AM on April 21, 2006

I'M SO EXCITED. I can't help it, I was sad without a trek on-going. Even if it needed work.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:42 AM on April 21, 2006

Wait, this is bad, why?

Let me refer you to a little classic film named "Cat Woman" with Shakespearean talent Halle Berry.

It's one thing to get to see some booty on broadcast TV where you feel like your "getting away with something." It's quite another to pay $10 bucks to sit for two hours of the same formulaic crap action tease. Where all you can think is "That top better fucking come off in the next minute or I am outta here" and the top never comes off.
posted by tkchrist at 9:42 AM on April 21, 2006

I vote for Beyonce as the new Uhura. Pink haired, tedd-clad Beyonce.

I'd go to the theatre... go again, buy the DVD, the HD DVD, hell I'd even buy the UMD and I don't even have a PSP.
posted by AspectRatio at 9:44 AM on April 21, 2006

rootz: have you seen farscape? sounds like their Peacekeepers. I liked the idea of a non-corrupt system, since I already see enough of the darkside on the news...
posted by borq at 9:47 AM on April 21, 2006

Hey guys. I've come in from the animation thread to call you all nerds and kick sand in your face.

Seriously, though, it would be cool to see some new life (TNG, Half of DS9) breathed into Trek rather than the marrow stripped from its bones (Enterprise, Half of DS9, any part of Voyager where the camera did not focus on 7-of-9's boobs). I'd hope for a rogues-on-the-run (Farscape, Firefly, BSG) show set in the Trek universe rather than the threat of an OC knock-off in sppaaaaaccee (This week: Will Seth tell Summer that he didn't make it into Starfleet Academy? Will Captain Sandy Cohen spend less time with his Starship and more with his wife? Tune if for all this and needless indie-pop on the next The OC: Year 2250!).
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:48 AM on April 21, 2006

I'd go to the theatre... go again, buy the DVD, the HD DVD...

Man. You guys need to get laid more. Seriously. It's clouding your judgement.

Let it die for God's sake. While we still have some good memories of the franchise.
posted by tkchrist at 9:48 AM on April 21, 2006

an OC knock-off in sppaaaaaccee

yes, thank you for putting into words what I could not
posted by poppo at 9:52 AM on April 21, 2006

The Trek universe is fine; the writers just need something to do with it besides light-weight SF drama. How about comedy? Or police procedurals? CSI:DS9-- you heard it here first.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:53 AM on April 21, 2006

call you all nerds and kick sand in your face

Teddy-clad pink-haired Uhura will come to my rescue. I just have to close my eyes tight enough...
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:57 AM on April 21, 2006

I'm quite excited that a new Trek film is coming out. This one will probably use advanced new techniques like 'Phaser Time' filming and motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking Enterprise.
And Teddy-clad pink-haired Uhura, she'll be in my dreams tonight.
posted by sebas at 9:59 AM on April 21, 2006

^ Now THAT is funny.

Haters suck it. Trek has its good moments and it's bad moments. Kinda like everything else so just relax, get the stick out of your a$$ and leave us to watch what we want. Don't like Trek? Dont go see it. Sheesh.
posted by Dantien at 10:13 AM on April 21, 2006

You know what Viacom should do? Give Starship Exeter funding and consultants, then release whatever they put out as Star Trek XII.
posted by brownpau at 10:19 AM on April 21, 2006

Thing is, everyone who wants a "shit goes wrong on backwater planet" or "Firefly with warp drives" show is forgetting that Star Trek was conceived as a utopia. The closest we ever came to breaking that utopia was DS9, where the Federation was being invaded. But even during DS9, there's no such thing as poverty or wealth, and everyone has high-minded ideals except for a couple of baddies who appear for a couple of episodes and are eventually marginalized. For Trek to actually depict the dark side of life would be to go against 30 years of development in the opposite direction.

Which isn't to say you couldn't do it, but arguably it wouldn't be Trek. On the other hand, Trek is a relic best left behind. It certainly shouldn't be revived by the guy who made Lost and Alias (much as I like Lost, it has a completely different sensibility) and definitely not by the guy who did Mission Impossible 3 (which has made me re-examine how much I should like Lost, seeing as how MI3 will be the biggest steaming turd ever).
posted by chrominance at 10:20 AM on April 21, 2006

Hey, JJ Abrams is fine in his own niche, but it means we can forget about that sciencey part of science fiction, as well as any of teh making rational sense part...

Also his vision for Superman shows the level of respect he has for exosting properties, so Star Trek is basically screwed.
posted by Artw at 10:43 AM on April 21, 2006

Dear Paramount:

Please stop raping my fond memories of a series I once enjoyed. It's has been long dead and I'm beginning to view this constant desire to make shitter movies an act of necrophilia.

And I'm still pissed off that you killed Data.

Maybe a teddy-clad pink-haired Uhura will return to TNG and bring Data back....
posted by rand at 10:45 AM on April 21, 2006

Kinda like everything else so just relax, get the stick out of your a$$ and leave us to watch what we want. Don't like Trek? don't go see it. Sheesh.

Oh. Your right. I won't go see it because I am a big fan and was totally satisfied with the story as it was told twenty years ago and in my mind concluded.

You want to devour the same formula pap over and over. Fine. Who's stopping you? You can do what you want. Love it. Good for you. As long as you're there they will keep churning it out and you will be happy.

However, let me make a bold prediction. 15 seconds after you leave the NEW Star Trek movie you will say to your self "That really DID suck."

(I am betting most of you have said that more than not.)


Now I will leave you all to geek out freely - buzz un-harshed.
posted by tkchrist at 10:47 AM on April 21, 2006

I knew Star Trek was dying when I went to see Nemesis and there was no one under 30 in the theater.

Star Trek does need reinvention. There's no place left for it to go, creatively, under the premises of the original series and the modern spinoffs. If it's just popcorn sci-fi, it'll bomb. Even if it somehow is good popcorn sci-fi, the sci-fi market is much more saturated than in the days when the original series and TNG were the only real sci-fi on television; even DS9 really only needed to compete with Babylon 5 and to some extent the X-Files.

The answer, I think, is not to jettison its utopian ideals but to update them. Showing how a person can become a great leader with integrity and ideals in a less-than-perfect world would make for more interesting stories than when everyone's already perfect. Star Trek needs to show people rising above circumstances, in ways we can relate to.

That's my pop-psych sci-fi geekery for the afternoon.
posted by Chanther at 11:00 AM on April 21, 2006

I am as big a Star Trek fan as they come (well, as big a fan as one can be without owning prosthetic ears and/or a Klingon forehead). I still enjoy the original series, obsess over TNG and lose myself in the sweeping history of DS9.

Trek needs to stop. While I can't identify I specific movie or episode, the series reached a natural conclusion a while back. It's time to move on.

The same is true of Star Wars. Science fiction has been saddled with these giant franchises for decades. Because they generate lots of money, produces are unwilling (for the most part) to take risks with new and innovative stories. Unless, of course, it can serve as a Will Smith vehicle.

It's time to put these classics on the shelf (where they'll still be watched repeatedly) and unburden the genre of their dead weight.
posted by aladfar at 11:08 AM on April 21, 2006

Signal wrote: Don't read this if you can't stand sheer unmitigated truth: Star Trek started sucking with the first episode of the first season of the original series, and has boldy kept up the tradition all these years.


I disagree; I think it sucked from the second episode of the first season of the original series (after Number One was changed from a woman to a man). Not saying that it would have been a better series with Majel Barrett as Number One, but it would have been nice to find out...
posted by parilous at 11:18 AM on April 21, 2006

Also: Start Trek Enterprise was basically Star Trek: GOP and deserved to die. In fact it deserved to die for the title music alone.
posted by Artw at 11:30 AM on April 21, 2006

Yup. Should be this:

the Starfleet side of Star Trek on a larger scale; let's see how Starfleet as a massive organization operates, and with a linear storyline - not just a few wacky characters (one for each stereotype!), on one ship, in an episodic mush.

Will be this:

Will Seth tell Summer that he didn't make it into Starfleet Academy? Will Captain Sandy Cohen spend less time with his Starship and more with his wife?

And this

there's no such thing as poverty or wealth, and everyone has high-minded ideals except for a couple of baddies who appear for a couple of episodes and are eventually marginalized

is the problem.
posted by dreamsign at 12:07 PM on April 21, 2006

post-preview: THEY KILLED DATA???!!!
posted by dreamsign at 12:10 PM on April 21, 2006

THEY KILLED DATA???!!!

Yay!
posted by Artw at 12:11 PM on April 21, 2006

Maybe they could make like Battlestar Galactica and rip off teh West Wing in a half hearted way for some sections.
posted by Artw at 12:12 PM on April 21, 2006

The biggest problem wasn't that Data died, it was that Data's death sucked. He could have gone out in some bad-ass blaze of glory, but noooo...
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:34 PM on April 21, 2006

I say they should produce a movie and miniseries tie-in to it

you run the miniseries and a week later premier the movie
posted by Megafly at 12:39 PM on April 21, 2006

It should be sorta like "Meatballs," with the poor kids' dorm at the academy and the snotty rich kids. Might as well get Bill Murray, too. Celine Dion can sing the new theme music, something really stirring, like "I-I-IIIII-III am flyyyyyyyying to spaaaaaaaace in my heart!"

And the "young Data" can be in it, too. But it's pretty early in robotics history, so Data is just a Real Doll with a police motorcycle helmet.

They should totally show the part where Kirk got his brains smashed in, by a wookie, and his long (ultimately unsuccessful) struggle against retardation. And then the youthful good times end when Arabs Klingons fly airplanes into the twin Starfleet towers ... now it's war, and this time it's personal.

This is gonna be awesome.
posted by kenlayne at 12:40 PM on April 21, 2006

I love this idea. Give us some "destroy this village to save it" decisions, but on a planetary scale, some rogue administrators, some really bad captains.

Yeah, that would get back to the roots a bit.

I've noticed the "Trek is a utopia" myth keeps coming up. But it really wasn't conceived as a utopia so much as a Western in space, Society as depicted in the original Star Trek wasn't the plastic luxury cruise seen later.

In the first two years, we saw a Federation society rife with power-mad starship commanders, interstellar pimp hustlers, abusive mental health facilities in need of legislative oversight, Stalinist planet governors pretending to be thespians, bigots who hate Vulcans, warlike Earthling space captains from Iowa who'd shed needless blood if peace-loving energy beings didn't step in, and planet-mining policy that disregards local ecosystems. The Trek society took 20th century problems into the 22nd, but didn't pretend to have solved them.
posted by johngoren at 12:52 PM on April 21, 2006

And the "young Data" can be in it, too. But it's pretty early in robotics history, so Data is just a Real Doll with a police motorcycle helmet.

Ken if I can scare up some ovaries, may I have your babies?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:05 PM on April 21, 2006

Which isn't to say you couldn't do it, but arguably it wouldn't be Trek.

On-screen (big and little) Batman has been successfully reinvented twice, and it's still what it always was. The fundamental truth of human progress is that no matter how much we advance, we are still a dumb beast. Our favourite stories are about how we overcome this, and Star Trek presents the ideal opportunity to do this on a canvas the size of a galaxy.

Having said that, Firefly is now my favourite sci-fi franchise.
posted by rootz at 2:04 PM on April 21, 2006

I've noticed the "Trek is a utopia" myth keeps coming up.

Because it's right there in Roddenburys mission statement?
posted by Artw at 2:28 PM on April 21, 2006

"Captain's Log, Stardate 6051: Had trouble sleeping last night; my hiatal hernia is acting up. The ship is drafty and damp. I complain, but nobody listens."

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F03.html
posted by jrb at 2:33 PM on April 21, 2006

I'm still waiting for "The Adventures of Worf and Data".
Just the two of 'em, stuck in a shuttlecraft, going from planet to planet. Lots of "comedy trombone" (wa-waaaa).
Warrior with bloodlust-management issues + effete android + confined space = comedy gold!
posted by bartleby at 2:45 PM on April 21, 2006

The fundamental truth of human progress is that no matter how much we advance, we are still a dumb beast. Our favourite stories are about how we overcome this

That's probably why you (and I) like Firefly. Seems to me Trek was always about "Ha ha ha, someday, Spock/Data/miscellaneous alien you'll realize the value of the human spirit." It got old. Fast.
posted by dreamsign at 2:45 PM on April 21, 2006

Hey Rootz it turns out I know Jayne. My friends want me to convince him to sing the Jayne song for us. If I ever do and we get it on tape I'll let you know.
posted by filchyboy at 2:50 PM on April 21, 2006

Because it's right there in Roddenburys mission statement?

Since when is "Wagon Train to the stars" the same as a utopia? A final frontier isn't a utopia, it's a frontier.
posted by johngoren at 3:07 PM on April 21, 2006

dreamsign: Seems to me Trek was always about "Ha ha ha, someday, Spock/Data/miscellaneous alien you'll realize the value of the human spirit." It got old. Fast.

Wow, no kidding. It was tolerable in the first series, where it was rarely the main subject of a show and it was done better (also, it was just as often it was about showing Kirk the value of being Vulcan.) The second series, with Data, was just ridiculously patronizing at times, especially considering his supposed intelligence (it was especially bad in the movies.) DS9 did it a couple of times with Odo and sometimes others, but it wasn't as common. I think Voyager did it to 7 of 9 sometimes... I didn't pay too much attention to it. I'm still trying to pretend Enterprise didn't happen.

Personally, I think they should have taken the series into the future instead of the past, into a time when technology had solved a lot of the issues that made the crews in the other series more human. Basically, showed a time when technology had progressed so much that they could indeed raise the dead (assuming the body wasn't destroyed), aging had been eliminated, human culture had transformed considerably due to integration with alien species, cybernetic augmentation of both intelligence and physical traits was common, and the seal on genetic engineering of humans had been lifted. A time in which the society of the federation, which was still basically a society like our own, was transforming into something completely different, with all the associated problems. Throw some aliens in for good measure and maybe introduce intergalactic travel.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:03 PM on April 21, 2006

I look forward to it. If it's not good, I won't bother looking at it all. Simple.

DS9 would be my favourite of the series, and it's no surprise the BSG mirrors some of it's themes and atmosphere what with Moore working on both.

The worst, I'd say, was Voyager and the first seasons of TNG when Roddenberry was still involved. Grade school level "drama" for the most part. The actors are giants for having lived through it.

Loved Enterprise though, particularly the last season.

Star Wars is clearly the largest sci-fi travesty and I dreaded the coming series until I heard Lucas was not to be directly involved in the writing. Good writing, directing, and acting can make anything watchable and enjoyable. All the my sci-fi dick is bigger than yours nonsense is entirely secondary.
posted by juiceCake at 6:11 PM on April 21, 2006

THEY KILLED DATA???!!!

Well, he memory dumped into a retarded brother before he got offed. Or something. I think Spock did something like that, once, which is where Data probably got his "inspiration."

bartleby - if you're not already acquainted, I think that you might enjoy Alien Loves Predator.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 6:12 PM on April 21, 2006

I would watch this over and over if they just included some Roman Catholic Vulcans.
posted by thecaddy at 6:31 PM on April 21, 2006

They should ditch Star Trek and just make a show about Contact (with some Special Circumstances episodes).

But then I would say that, wouldn't I?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:11 PM on April 21, 2006

"motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking Enterprise"

OMFG. Best - line - EVER.

Back on topic: loved TOS, mostly loved TNG, never got into DS9, not a huge fan of Voyager, loathed Enterprise.

And the movies: well, it's mostly true: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 were all better than 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. But 1 gets major cool points due to the simple fact that it was made and enabled the series to live on. 3 gets dissed an awful lot, but it gets slightly better each time I see it. First Contact was, for me, one of the best, even though I usually hate hate hate time-travel plots.

And I will plunk down my $7.50 see the next ST movie in a theatre, almost certainly (if any teeny-boppers are in the ads, I'll skip it). If there's even a chance of ST being "reborn" and breathing new life into The Federation, I'm all for it.

Cross your fingers.
posted by davidmsc at 7:25 PM on April 21, 2006

I want more Star Trek. Specifically, I want more Star Trek, which there hasn't been any of since DS9 ended.

I love Lost and enjoyed Alias. I'm willing to give this new movie a shot. But I seriously doubt it'll be any good. Kirk and Spock are only any good if they're Shatner and Nimoy. This has serious potential to suck because it'll be percieved as Star Trek: 90210. Can't they just make a god damn DS9 movie already?

Plus, it's an odd numbered film. The signs, they are not a'promisin'.
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:57 PM on April 21, 2006

johngoren*: Yes, a frontier is a wild an lawless land, but that wagon trail is bringing, along with small pox infested blankets and grain alcohol, utopic civilization, mister!

Star Trek is white man's burden writ large: Prime directives are made to be broken, the ends justify the means, and don't get me started on how the Federation is just a gussied up stand-in for White American Colonization, and how every alien race conforms to a racial stereotype!

And with that out of the way, I have six words for all of you: The SEXAY New Adventures of Lore!!!
Go ahead, roll it around on your tongue, say it out loud!
Feels good, doesn't it? You know it does!!!


*Freaky coincidence, I had to check your profile to make sure you weren't the the teacher I accidentally called Mom when I was in the sixth grade.

Stop looking at me, lots of kids do that!!!

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:12 PM on April 21, 2006

One thing I'm a little tired of hearing about is how Star Trek died of old age. It didn't. It was brutally murdered by Rick Berman. The Trek universe still has a lot of potential, though. But it needs to be handled carefully. Frankly, I don't think the Starfleet Academy idea is going to cut it.

Now what Star Trek could really use is something along the lines of DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths to clean out all of the problematic contradictions of their increasingly convoluted universe and reboot the series from scratch.
posted by magodesky at 9:17 PM on April 21, 2006

And I'm still pissed off that you killed Data.

NOOOOOO SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ARRRGGGHGHHHHHHHHGHRHGRHGH

...

ok.
i needed a moment.

sigh.
yeah it's been a while but not all of us watch movies right after they come out.
posted by poweredbybeard at 10:14 PM on April 21, 2006

Well, I'm signed on, especially for teddy-clad, pink-wigged Uhura kicking her way through a Klingon battle cruiser. Woot!

Yeah, this sounds a lot like the Academy Days concept that's been kicking around as a series idea since roughly the germination of DS9, and is close behind Captain Sulu in terms of fan support (although also far ahead of it in terms of fan contempt). I think it would be better with a new, young crew instead of Young Tiberius Kirk, but we'll have to see.

I didn't get to watch most of Enterprise so I'll have to reserve judgement. I detested Voyager mainly for the insane reset-button plot-o-matic that the staff used on that series -- some of the characters were OK, although there were large parts I didn't take very seriously. The show got significantly better with Seven of Nine around, because they used her Borgness as a foil to Janeway's espousal of Federation (i.e. Trek, and to a lesser extent late-20th American) ideals. Sometimes that tension was used quite well indeed.

I thought DS9 was more complex and interesting and yet somehow almost not Trek. The ways in which it fell short of, say, Babylon 5 were, of course, precisely the ones in which it was most Trek.

The number one problem that this will have as a Trek film is the lack of established actor/character combinations, but then plenty of TV-based movies get made without using the original actors. Given that they've started beaucoup new series, mostly successful, I think they can do this, but we'll just see.
posted by dhartung at 10:20 PM on April 21, 2006

I concur that Exeter should get the bucks, but it's New Voyages that Paramount and Abrams are aping here. Those guys have one epsidoe guest starring Walter Koenig in the can and another with George Takei on the way.

Dollars to dimes they shut down the burgeoning Trek fanfilm genre before it really gets going. That, if it goes down, would suck like the tentacles of the salt vampire.
posted by mwhybark at 12:34 AM on April 22, 2006

Oh, and one other point: Galactica is TNG and DS9 honcho Ronald D. Moore's vengeance project upon Berman and Braga after getting the boot post-DS9, as I've posted here in the past. Lazyweb, bring me thine liknkage.
posted by mwhybark at 12:37 AM on April 22, 2006

Not only did JJ Abrams have nothing whatsoever to do with Buffy, but it was the creater of Buffy, Joss Whedon, who made the brilliant Firefly. And I seriously doubt that Whedon would ever be interested in doing Trek, seeing as how Firefly was a kind of anti-Trek. That said, for a minute I did confuse JJ Abrams for Ronald Moore, the creater of Battlestar Galactica and thought, hey that could be cool. (I didn't know about any bad feeling between him and Star Trek, but BSG is beautiful revenge - it's more powerful and engrossing than Start Trek ever was. Though it probably won't have the same fan appeal, because you can't imagine yourself into that universe, off in some corner, in the same way. That's what really makes Star Trek appeal.)

I loved Star Trek so much when I was younger, but as an adult I have found myself far more satisfied with Firefly, Farscape and Battlestar Galactica. (Farscape is even sillier (in a good way), but the characters are just more real).

And it's not the difference between the earlier series and the later - I rewatch TNG and get bored now. It was important for what it did, but the stories are too predictable to me now. Okay, maybe seeing every single episode twice didn't help, but I've tried reading the novels lately and the recent ones are much too simple and formulaic for me now.

The one recent exception to this has been Peter David's New Voyages series, partly because he is a very good writer, but also because the characters and the universe are more fully fleshed than much of the rest of Start Trek.
posted by jb at 5:23 AM on April 22, 2006

JJ Abrams? amazing they didn't hold out for Mc G.
posted by a. at 6:02 AM on April 22, 2006

JJ Abrahms working on a ST:TOS prequel? Whatever.

Methinks Brad Grey and Gail Berman are just following the crowd – a smarter and braver thing to do would've been to approach Whedon or to cash in on the good faith that JMS and Bryce Zabel offered-up when they did the free development work on a ST prequel show a year or two ago.

A Straczynski-backed Trek sow would be to die for – especially after the plagiarism of DS9...
posted by vhsiv at 7:58 AM on April 22, 2006

JMS' own words:

"Over time, Trek was treated like a porsche that's kept in the garage all the time, for fear of scratching the finish. The stories were, for the most part, safe, more about technology than what William Faulkner described as "the human heart in conflict with itself." Yes, there were always exceptions, but in general that trend became more and more apparent with the passage of years. Which was why so often I came down on the later stories, which I did openly, because I didn't feel they lined up with what Trek was created to be. I don't apologize for it, because that was what I felt as a fan of Trek. That's why I had Majel appear on B5, to send a message: that I believe in what Gene created.

"Because left to its own devices, allowed to go as far as it could, telling the same kind of challenging stories Trek was always known for, it could blow the doors off science fiction television. Think of it for a moment, a series with a forty year solid name, guaranteed markets...can you think of a better time when you take chances and can tell daring, imaginative, challenging stories? Why play it safe?

"When Enterprise went down, those involved shrugged and wrote it off to "franchise fatigue," their phrase, not mine.

"Last year, Bryce and I sat down and, on our own, out of a sheer love of Trek as it was and should be, wrote a series bible/treatment for a return to the roots of Trek. To re-boot the Trek universe. Understand: writer/producers in TV just don't do that sort of thing on their own, everybody always insists on doing it for vast sums of money. We did it entirely on our own, setting aside other, paying deadlines out of our passion for the series. We set out a full five-year arc.

"But when it came time to bring it to Paramount, despite my track record and Bryce's enormous and skillful record as a writer/producer, the effort stalled out because of 'political considerations,' which was explained to us as not wishing to offend the powers that be."

posted by vhsiv at 8:15 AM on April 22, 2006

I think it's going to be Smallville in Space. (with similar wooden, lesson-learning, coming-of-age "hero" stuff instead of "superhero" stuff, and some asinine Odd Couple light stuff thrown in)
posted by amberglow at 8:54 AM on April 22, 2006

I haven't been interested in Sci-Fi since they cancelled Space : Above and Beyond.
They made the second half of Full Metal Jacket into a TV series, set it in space, pulled in some Sci-Fi inheritance and squeezed the watery drek from it's corpse. It wasn't quite dirty enough to be perfect, the marines were still beautiful, but it was still the best thing my TV gave me and I loved it.

Only BG has come close since, and I feel ashamed about wanting to like it because the got rid of the massive, chromed Cylons in miniature hotrod spaceships talking through jew's harps/toasters and that-was-the-single-greatest-motherfucking-thing-anyone-has-ever-birthed-into-television-fiction-goddamnit. Still, they cast Adama to perfection and Katie Sackhoff gives me teh hunger. I know I'll have to do a hell of a lot of catching up when I give in to the temptaions.

...Star Trek? You like Star Trek?
I'm sorry, I must be in the wrong room.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 10:33 AM on April 22, 2006

This isn't even really a matter of skill and judgement; it will be ruined by its starting objective: to find the widest possible audience.
posted by dreamsign at 10:38 AM on April 22, 2006

I think that refusing the expertise--and love for the subject matter--of JMS is pretty much the nail in the coffin, sad to say. How fucking brilliant was B5?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:47 AM on April 22, 2006

I've the only person in the world who liked Voyager, aren't I?
posted by jokeefe at 5:03 PM on April 22, 2006

I've the only person in the world who liked Voyager, aren't I?

Hoo, boy--someone else can have that straight line.

There were some good episodes, but I couldn't handle it after "we turned into lizards and had sex" story.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 10:47 PM on April 22, 2006

I liked it too, jo--but it wasn't as good as next generation, which i really liked.
posted by amberglow at 11:28 PM on April 22, 2006

NinjaTadpole: I loved Space: Above and Beyond, too. It was hit or miss but there were some really solid fucking hits.
posted by Ryvar at 2:47 AM on April 23, 2006

Don't read this if you can't stand sheer unmitigated truth: Star Trek started sucking with the first episode of the first season of the original series, and has boldy kept up the tradition all these years.

I'm sure there's someone out there who believes the whole franchise just taints the memory of Forbidden Planet.

OT: There are some Doctor Who fans who believe that An Unearthly Child was that show's best twenty-minutes and everything else after that was a let down....
posted by feelinglistless at 2:50 AM on April 23, 2006

Ryvar: I'm coming clean - I got nostalgic about half an hour after I posted and I'm torrenting it now.



... and the full Battlestar Galactica.
Good lord, I've surely got better things to do with my life. It's just I haven't got any of them to hand just now.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 6:07 AM on April 23, 2006

JMS is correct, the series needs a total reboot, not to mention a kick in the ass for every stupid exec at Paramount. I loved Star Trek's first three incarnations but the last two were utter shit. B5, Firefly, and BSG have taken this tired franchise to school and only a serious reworking will bring it back to life. And Abrams, a man who hasn't met an incredulous plot hole he hasn't fallen in love with, is not the guy to handle hard science fiction.

And here's how stupid Paramount execs are, how clueless they are about their own core audience. The disaster that was Nemesis was released 5(!) days before the release of the little film LOTR: The Two Towers. So, you release a tepid film from a beloved franchise that features the lame death of a favorite character only 5 days before a genre film that has all of Hollywood scrambling to release their holiday movies WEEKS away from it. This is not just dumb, this is FUCKING MONUMENTAL SUICIDE. Didn't someone, anyone at Paramount figure out that every geek in the country was not going to watch Data die over and over again when there are Orcs to kill, Eowyn and Orlando to swoon over, and Gollum comes to life right before our eyes. That is the point where Berman and the rest should have lost their jobs.
posted by Ber at 8:19 AM on April 23, 2006

The world clearly needs a Blake's Seven movie.
posted by alasdair at 9:24 AM on April 23, 2006