Star Trek XI - spoilers!

[Trekkygeek]

Well that's because the previous films have been about the crew of the Enterprise and it would be natural to feature the great bird. But this new film is about Kirks Starfleet days, the Enterprise doesn't necessarily have to feature. :blink

[Locutus]

Keep in mind that, while Paramount is the studio behind this, the production teams, writers, and directors are all new to this franchise, more or less.

Paramount can have a heavy hand about their property, but I think they have noticed how the fan community works, and they are going to try not to antagonize us.

They did, after all, keep stringing Berman along until his contract ran out, then handed the reins to JJ Abrams without even a "Sorry about that, chief".

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

They didn't hand the reins over to J.J. Abrams, he asked for them.  Also, there's no evidence that he will be the new franchise executive.  All we know for sure is that he will be producing the 11th movie.  He may simply be the next Harve Bennet, a guy who'll produce a few Star Trek movies, and then move onto something else.

[Poodyglitz]

They didn't hand the reins over to J.J. Abrams, he asked for them.  Also, there's no evidence that he will be the new franchise executive.  All we know for sure is that he will be producing the 11th movie.  He may simply be the next Harve Bennet, a guy who'll produce a few Star Trek movies, and then move onto something else.

I'm hoping that he'll have more of a positive effect on the franchise than Harve Bennett. He has the track record as well as the love. Bennett wasn't a fan the way Abrams is. While I'm not in love with a sort of prequel movie, I'm ready to hope for the best.

If it ends up being a reimagining like BSG, then it will most likely be a cool one. All I gotta say is that Uhura had better be at least as fine as Nichelle Nichols. :-).

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

I don't care if Abrams or Bennett are fans.  You're missing my point.  What I am saying is, I don't think that Abrams will necessarily be taking over the Star Trek franchise.  When Bennett took over the film series from Roddenberry with ST2, he simply produced 4 movies, then went on to something new.  It was Rick Berman who had succeeded Gene Roddenberry.

The movie will be a prequel.  There have been some reimagining comments, but I believe that has more to do with appearance than continuity.  Most news articles point to the movie being a prequel.

[Locutus]

No, you are missing the point. The reason Trek was not up to the fan's expectations was because Berman was not a fan of Roddenberry's vision.

They allowed his contract to run out, so they could give the franchise to someone else to reboot, or prequel, or any other term you'd like to use.

JJ Abrams IS a fan of the original vision, so it matters to him whether or not it meets the fans expectations.
He may not be taking over the franchise, but he is taking over this movie. Paramount is the owner of th franchise, so they will do with it what they will. Letting Abrams have a go should be interesting.

I don't believe anyone said he was going to be running Trek, just making this movie.

[Poodyglitz]

I don't care if Abrams or Bennett are fans.  You're missing my point.  What I am saying is, I don't think that Abrams will necessarily be taking over the Star Trek franchise.  When Bennett took over the film series from Roddenberry with ST2, he simply produced 4 movies, then went on to something new.  It was Rick Berman who had succeeded Gene Roddenberry.

The movie will be a prequel.  There have been some reimagining comments, but I believe that has more to do with appearance than continuity.  Most news articles point to the movie being a prequel.

I understand your point. From my perspective, it is not clear whether or not Abrams will make a movie that will warrant a sequel, or that ST XI will even be a good movie. I'm just saying that I'm more hopeful about this one than most previous "Trek" movies. No one may be taking over the franchise. However, I do hope that Abrams can breathe new life into "Trek" the way Christopher Nolan did with "Batman" and Sam Raimi did with "Spiderman".

With that, I'm backing out slowly...

[Jen]

I think that's an unfair assessment Jen. They have given equal time to eye candy for the women as well as far as I can see. Sexuality will always be a part of TV because it's part of our humanity. Now, I would have preferred no catsuits but I wouldn't stop watching because a female character wears one any more than I would stop watching because they found a way to get Archer or Kirk's shirt off for the women to enjoy.

Kevin

Hi Kevin,
I see where you're coming from and I agree for the most part. I do like to complain about space vixens...Its my lot in life. Actually, I was referring to the more recent shows (can't count Kirk among them). When Voyager's ratings dipped they added 7 of 9. They tried to continue that precedence by adding a character of equal "stature" to Enterprise (T'Pol).  They added lots of steamy scenes in Enterprise (ex the degerming scenarios) to keep the target audience interested. Guys like that sort of thing... Women like romance and that's why I liked the idea of Tripp and T'Pol. 

Though I personally like Archer's character and I  am sure there are women who are attracted to him...I don't think of him as "eye candy".  When Mr. Jonathan Frakes was on TNG, back in his early days, he was eye candy.  :o

Not to change the subject, but I felt I should include this:
Because we are reading posts instead of listening to people verbally express their ideas,  it's hard to know when people are being critical or just sarcastic. I'm not sure, because I can't hear your individual voice inflections, but I think some of the tones within this thread sound a little more "heated" than than they should. If I'm correct, then I would recommend that we take a clue from Trek and try to be more diplomatic. I think its fine to disagree, and as you can see in my signature, I do welcome debate, in fact I enjoy debating... but edict should be used when debating and I think the approach should be respectful and courteous when possible.  :)

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I keep visiting Rico's forums is because the people here are friendly. Lets try to keep these boards a place people enjoy visiting.

[Poodyglitz]

I see where you're coming and I agree for the most part. I do like to complain about space vixens...Its my lot in life. Actually, I was referring to the more recent shows (can't count Kirk among them). When Voyager's ratings dipped they added 7 of 9. They tried to continue that precedence by adding a character of equal "stature" to Enterprise (T'Pol).  They added lots of steamy scenes in Enterprise (ex the degerming scenarios) to keep the target audience interested. Guys like that sort of thing... Women like romance and that's why I liked the idea of Tripp and T'Pol. 

Though I personally like Archer's character and I  am sure there are women who are attracted to him...I don't think of him as "eye candy".  When Mr. Jonathan Frakes was on TNG, back in his early days, he was eye candy.  :o

I agree that Voyager and Enterprise went a little too far with those characters. They did come off a little like "space vixens" and a little too surgically inserted. It was okay when June Lockhart dressed like that, she had a different vibe. My other problem with T'Pol is that they tried to make her more like a human femaie, with her emotion too close to the surface. She still could have been interesting without going down the road of her having a disease which compromised her logical nature. Nothing wrong with a strong female. With that in mind, what would Voyager have been like with either Linda Hamilton or Angela Bassett as Janeway?

I always thought that Trek could have benefitted from more classically heroic looking men. Imagine Carl Weathers as Ben Sisko or Tahmoh Penikett as Jonathan Archer. There's a part of me that even thinks that Christopher McDonald (Castillo) would have made a better Riker (please don't think me too blasphemous  :) ;) ).

Not to change the subject, but I felt I should include this:
Because we are reading posts instead of listening to people verbally express their ideas,  it's hard to know when people are being critical or just sarcastic. I'm not sure, because I can't hear your individual voice inflections, but I think some of the tones within this thread sound a little more "heated" than than they should. If I'm correct, then I would recommend that we take a clue from Trek and try to be more diplomatic. I think its fine to disagree, and as you can see in my signature, I do welcome debate, in fact I enjoy debating... but edict should be used when debating and I think the approach should be respectful and courteous when possible.  :)

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I keep visiting Rico's forums is because the people here are friendly. Lets try to keep these boards a place people enjoy visiting.

I too am detecting a bit of negative energy, but I've experienced the same uncharacteristic situation at the Star Trek website. It's been a long, long time since I've been on that forum. I know that I can be critical and sarcastic, but am not one to involve myself with personal dynamics. It's not about being right, it's about the exchange of ideas and perhaps expanding one's world (or Trek) view. There have been times that I've been off-base and I hope that should I come across someone doing same, that they are treated with grace and respect.

Jen, thanks for bringing up this subject. I still feel a  new here and hope that I can settle into what seems for the most part to be a positive community.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

No, you are missing the point. The reason Trek was not up to the fan's expectations was because Berman was not a fan of Roddenberry's vision.

Really... is that why TNG and the movies (minus Nemesis) were such a huge success?  Is that why DS9 had a great premise (other produces fleshed it out, but Rick Berman c-created it), is that why VOY had a seven-year run?  Berman didn't loose sight of the vision until ENT rolled around.  The man cared about TNG and VOY, and DS9 to a lesser extent.  By the time ENT rolled around, I think he was tired of Star Trek and just there for the paycheck.  He tried, but he was clearly creatively burnt out.  They should have kept him on as the Executive Producer, but otherwise introduced a new production team.

They allowed his contract to run out, so they could give the franchise to someone else to reboot, or prequel, or any other term you'd like to use.

I doubt his contract said he was locked on to all future Star Trek movies.  They were unhappy with NEMESIS, so he was simply not asked to work on the 11th feature.

JJ Abrams IS a fan of the original vision, so it matters to him whether or not it meets the fans expectations.

He should ignore the fans and just make a good movie.  Trying to please the fans gets us NEMESIS. :blink

[Poodyglitz]

No, you are missing the point. The reason Trek was not up to the fan's expectations was because Berman was not a fan of Roddenberry's vision.

Really... is that why TNG and the movies (minus Nemesis) were such a huge success?  Is that why DS9 had a great premise (other produces fleshed it out, but Rick Berman c-created it), is that why VOY had a seven-year run?

How huge a success was "Insurrection"? DS9 also had Michael Piller and Ron Moore. Perhaps another reason "Enterprise" didn't do so well is because  the good help left the house.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

I ment the TNG movies in general, I was not refering to a specific movie.  While INS isn't a huge success, it is generally thought of as a good TNG movie.

TNG, DS9, & VOY all had great writers.  It seems the ENT writing staff was too small, forcing B&B to write half the episodes during the first two seasons.

[Ktrek]

TNG, DS9, & VOY all had great writers.  It seems the ENT writing staff was too small, forcing B&B to write half the episodes during the first two seasons.

I'm not sure I agree with this. B&B writing half the episodes was a matter of control over their baby. Nothing more.

Kevin

[Poodyglitz]

TNG, DS9, & VOY all had great writers.  It seems the ENT writing staff was too small, forcing B&B to write half the episodes during the first two seasons.

I'm not sure I agree with this. B&B writing half the episodes was a matter of control over their baby. Nothing more.

Kevin

That's my take on it as well. B5 had the same problem, but the writing was a notch better. The addition of Manny Coto on Enterprise helped, but wasn't enough. The show just needed more and better writers. Would have been nice if they'd accepted outside scripts the way the previous series did.

I'm not claiming to be prescient or anything, but there's a part of me that's betting many of the next great Sci-Fi stories are going to be seen online. Maybe from New Voyages, possibly not. But somewhere in the ether.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Manny Coto was too late.  They needed to build a strong audience in the first season.  They should have known that UPN is cancel-happy and thus work as hard as they can to tell good stories.  Instead, they went into coast mode and assumed people would watch for seven years regardless of quallity.  That got the show cancelled.  Well, that and oversaturation.

I'm not claiming to be prescient or anything, but there's a part of me that's betting many of the next great Sci-Fi stories are going to be seen online. Maybe from New Voyages, possibly not. But somewhere in the ether.

Do you mean fan films?