Star Trek XI - spoilers!

[Trekkygeek]

I have read all these posts now and I still have many concerns for the film and really hope it won't concentrate on any characters we have seen in previous Trek lore. But I feel it is almost certain that it will be a prequel. In my view, it could be the ruin of Star Trek in the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise. I hope I'm wrong, but I am not really excited about this film. Have I mentioned these thoughts before?? :laugh:

[Locutus]

Heh. Even if you have, if they are strong enough, they bear repeating.

Although I dispute the use of the word "prequel", if only because it makes it sound like any story in an established universe after the initial one would be a sequel or prequel. It feels like saying Casino Royale was a prequel. It wasn't, not really. It was a new movie in that universe.

The Indiana Jones are not "sequels" in the strictest sense, either, because they are just different stories in the same universe. However, I would say that the new Indy would be a sequel to Raiders, because it deals with issues from that film, supposedly.

However, I do understand that the word "prequel" is applicable, I just wish there was a more accurate word.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

I have read all these posts now and I still have many concerns for the film and really hope it won't concentrate on any characters we have seen in previous Trek lore. But I feel it is almost certain that it will be a prequel. In my view, it could be the ruin of Star Trek in the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise. I hope I'm wrong, but I am not really excited about this film. Have I mentioned these thoughts before?? :laugh:

Considering that all ten movies thus far have featured characters from the TV shows, why would you expect them to not use the TV characters in the 11th movie?  It's like expecting a Batman movie without Bruce Wayne.  Seriously, though, I'd like to understand your perspective on this.

I agree that it will most likely be a prequel.  It'll either be that or a reimagining of the original TV show.  All the news pretty much confirms it'll be one or the other.  What do you mean by the ruin of Star Trek n the same way Christopher destroyed the Batman franchise?  Are you refering to Joel Schuemaker's Batman & Robin?  That's already happened to Star Trek's film series: NEMESIS.  The movie did so poorly, it effectively killed the film series until J.J. Abrams came along.

Although I dispute the use of the word "prequel", if only because it makes it sound like any story in an established universe after the initial one would be a sequel or prequel. It feels like saying Casino Royale was a prequel. It wasn't, not really. It was a new movie in that universe.

The Indiana Jones are not "sequels" in the strictest sense, either, because they are just different stories in the same universe. However, I would say that the new Indy would be a sequel to Raiders, because it deals with issues from that film, supposedly.

However, I do understand that the word "prequel" is applicable, I just wish there was a more accurate word.

A prequel is simply a story taking place before an existing story, Star Wars is the perfect example of this.  We have the original movie, two sequels, and three prequels.

James Bond continuity is fair at best.  The film series has been going since the 60's, yet James Bond is still in his 30's more or less.  I would like to imagine that the James Bond film series effectively starts over when a new actor takes over the role.  Granted, there are still references to the previous movies.  In Casino Royale's case, we have forshadowing.  I would devide James Bond up like this...

James Bond (Sean Connery): Movies 1-5, 7
James Bond (George Lazenby): Movie #6
James Bond (Roger Moore): Movies 8-14
James Bond (Timothy Dalton): Movies 15-16
James Bond (Pierce Brosnan): Movies 17-20
James Bond (Daniel Craig): Movies 21-22

The Indiana Jones film series began with Raiders of the Lost Ark, continued with the prequel The Temple of Doom, and ended with the sequel The Last Crusade.  The series is being revived with a fourth feature.  The Temple of Doom is a prequel, because it's set a few years before the original movie.  However, it was always intended to be viewed as the second movie.

In any event, if the new Star Trek movie features is set before the TV show and is structured to work as a lead-in to Star Trek, it will be a prequel.

[Poodyglitz]

trekkygeek,

I hope that you're referring to Joel Schumacher as the one who killed off the Batman franchise. Christopher Nolan not only revived it, he legitimized it. The Tim Burton versions were certainly quaint (and we got a nice Six Flags roller coaster from it) and assuaged our Bat-appetites for a while. "Batman Begins", however, is the only real Batman movie as far as I'm concerned. It is one of the few superhero movies that I own, along with "X-Men" and "Spiderman" -- three landmark genre movies.

Before I go too off-topic, I hope that the Enterprise looks a few shades better than it did in the series. That is, unless the characters are going to be marionettes.  :) :laugh:

[Locutus]

CJLP - I am aware of word etymology. I understand what the words mean. I am not saying the words are not correct. I am saying they are not as accurate as I would like.

I also understand that something is what it is - i.e. Temple of Doom is a prequel, etc. Considering the James Bond franchise rebooting with each different actor, that sort-of flies in the face of the other point you were making and somewhat supports mine, as in they are not exactly sequels, but other films set in the universe of.

What I'm actually talking about here is refining terminology. Yes, Star Trek 11, if it comes before TOS, will be considered a prequel, in the common accepted usage for such.  However, a film/book/game/painting, etc that continues the adventures of, independently of the previous outings insofar as it only contains characters and characterizations but not plot threads, should, IMHO, be called something other than "Sequel" or "Prequel", as they connote poor quality or an afterthought on the aforementioned entertainments. There are many stories that can be told in many universes. Is each volume of a trilogy a sequel? No, they are chapters. Is each episode of a TV show a sequel? No, it is an episode. My contention, again, and apparently mine alone, is that the words "prequel" and "sequel" now have so much bad inferred when they are used, that a new term that would be more accurate could be a better choice. For instance, the word "episode". It works for TV, why not for further movies in a property, especially if they do not follow major plot threads of the previous film(s)?

Dialog is more than simple refutation, CJLP. You must also take into account what is meant by the previous statements. Lest this move too off-topic, I am looking forward to Star Trek 11, I just feel that usage of certain words (sequel and prequel, for those following along at home) can dampen the excitement for a property. I hope this film can be taken on it's own merits, and not be "compared" to the others. It is and should be a different film, good or bad, and should be treated as such. Maybe if we called it an "episode" or something along those lines, trekkygeek and others would be able to drum up a little more excitement, and not feel as let down as they did by Nemesis, for example.

Personally, taken on their own, I felt Nemesis and Insurrection were not bad movies in the Star Trek universe. I thought compared to First Contact and Wrath of Khan they were ... not great. And ultimately, that is my long-winded and singular opinion.

[Poodyglitz]

:laugh: Hippity hop down the bunny trail. :laugh:

I'm viewing ST XI as a different animal, somewhat along the lines of the James Bond movies. They, for the most part, had the continuity of producer(s). With each new lead, I feel that the series got a reboot. The stories were told quite differently from one another. I'm expecting ST XI to be like this, while hoping that it remains true to Trek sensibility and philosophy (while trying to fill seats with lots of action for Joe & Jane Everyperson). TOS movies were their own set. TNG movies where their own set again (I see "Generations" as the first of this set). ST XI and any films that come after will be a unique volume. This is someone else telling the story from their perspective. Even if Shatner, Nimoy or anyone else from TOS is in ST XI, I still view it as a J.J. Abrams story. This will be a different author, just like with the Star Trek books or fan fiction.

What I really appreciate about what is to come is a  return to the original era of Star Trek. The "cowboy diplomacy" sensibility. The attitude of exploration and the unknown. This era, for me, most embodies the phrase, "To boldly go...". There was no help from the Vulcans (Enterprise) and no corporate refinement (TNG, DS9, Voyager). I'll admit that this was my era (I was a kid in the '60s), but it has the advantage of being The Original. Yes, more stories were told better in later series, but the rougher edge of TOS lends itself to grittier storytelling. A more "think on your feet", "by the skin of our teeth" sensibility can be manifest. There's more freedom of action for the characters. Anyone want to add to that?

I hope that this movie will land in the Sean Connery/Pierce Brosnan/Daniel Craig realm. In other words, I hope that this will be a film that Gene ("Poopoo") Roddenberry could be proud of.  :)

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Your post is huge, so I'm breaking out the quote code. :biggrin

CJLP - I am aware of word etymology. I understand what the words mean. I am not saying the words are not correct. I am saying they are not as accurate as I would like.

Ah, sorry for the missunderstanding. :ninja

I also understand that something is what it is - i.e. Temple of Doom is a prequel, etc. Considering the James Bond franchise rebooting with each different actor, that sort-of flies in the face of the other point you were making and somewhat supports mine, as in they are not exactly sequels, but other films set in the universe of.

I see where you're going with this... you're saying that Star Trek 11 will be a prequel in the style of Cosino Royale rather than the Star Wars prequels?

What I'm actually talking about here is refining terminology. Yes, Star Trek 11, if it comes before TOS, will be considered a prequel, in the common accepted usage for such.  However, a film/book/game/painting, etc that continues the adventures of, independently of the previous outings insofar as it only contains characters and characterizations but not plot threads, should, IMHO, be called something other than "Sequel" or "Prequel", as they connote poor quality or an afterthought on the aforementioned entertainments. There are many stories that can be told in many universes. Is each volume of a trilogy a sequel? No, they are chapters. Is each episode of a TV show a sequel? No, it is an episode. My contention, again, and apparently mine alone, is that the words "prequel" and "sequel" now have so much bad inferred when they are used, that a new term that would be more accurate could be a better choice. For instance, the word "episode". It works for TV, why not for further movies in a property, especially if they do not follow major plot threads of the previous film(s)?

Episode is more of a TV term than a movie term, because episode and movie effectively have the same meaning.  The second episode of X film series.  OR  The second movie of X film series.  I just don't see how using the term episode changes anything.

Some film terms that I have seen thrown around are: sequel, thematic sequel, prequel, remake, reboot, and reimagining.  If a prequel does not follow the continuity of the previous movies, I would call that a reboot.  For example, Batman Begins tells the story of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman.  The first thought is that is a prequel.  However, it does not follow the continuity of the previous films.  It is officially considered a reboot, a fresh start.  However, it is respectful to the creative world, so it's not necessarily a reimagining.  Granted, the style got reimagined, but that's to be expected.

Dialog is more than simple refutation, CJLP. You must also take into account what is meant by the previous statements. Lest this move too off-topic, I am looking forward to Star Trek 11, I just feel that usage of certain words (sequel and prequel, for those following along at home) can dampen the excitement for a property. I hope this film can be taken on it's own merits, and not be "compared" to the others. It is and should be a different film, good or bad, and should be treated as such. Maybe if we called it an "episode" or something along those lines, trekkygeek and others would be able to drum up a little more excitement, and not feel as let down as they did by Nemesis, for example.

I am also looking forward to Star Trek 11.  After NEM, it doesn't matter how it's described... people don't care about Star Trek movies anymore.  This means that Paramount is going to have to spend a lot of money promoting this movie to show the audience that this is not like the previous movies... it's a Star Trek movie, but it's also something new.  The production team appears to be aiming towards two groups: fans of the original TV show and casual movie goers who simply want to see a good science-fiction movie.  There is one fatal flaw, though.  The TOS generation seems to think that my generation (teens and 20-somethings) are aware of TOS and don't care about the spin-offs.  That couldn't be farther from the truth.  Most people I know my age will not watch one episode of Star Trek with me, because it's too hokey.  If I offered to show them a remastered episode... they'd just roll thier eyes, because their lack of interest has squat to do with special effects.  It's the overall 1960's campy retro feel they dislike.  Now, perhaps my local area is bizzare in not likeing TOS, but this is what I have observed.  I think Star Trek 11 will be comparable to Superman Returns.  In the case of Superman, the new movie came out 19 years after the last one.  Naturally, it couldn't be a straight sequel.  They had to make some creative changes in addition to generational changes.  This movie was aimed at the grown up kids of those who watched the previous four movies.  In Star Trek's case, when the new movie comes out, it will have been 17 years since the last TOS-centric movie (1991's The Undiscovered Country).  It's also going to be a prequel set before the TV show that aired in the 1960's.  It's going to be extremely different from those first six movies featuring Captain Kirk's crew, but it can still be a prequel.  Perhaps the terminology we're looking for is loose prequel? :)

Personally, taken on their own, I felt Nemesis and Insurrection were not bad movies in the Star Trek universe. I thought compared to First Contact and Wrath of Khan they were ... not great. And ultimately, that is my long-winded and singular opinion.

I try to judge the movies on their own merits unless it's a direct continuation of a previous movie (2-4 for example).  Insurrection is a very good movie.  I liked it so much, I bought the DVD and the soundtrack.  I liked Nemesis enough to buy the DVD and soundtrack, but objectively speaking... it isn't just a bad Star Trek movie... it's a bad science-fiction movie.  The studio clames it did poorly, because people have lost interest in TNG.  It did poorly, because it is a bad movie.  However, that's not to say you, I, and anyone else shouldn't enjoy it.

[Poodyglitz]

CJLP, you've hit the nail on the head. Another reason to expect good things from ST XI is that it will use more modern means of storytelling. Not a dated -- or outdated (read "hokey") -- sensibility. I can still watch many (not all) episodes of TOS and understand why people would shun the series altogether. But, for its place in history and what it stands for, I profoundly hope that this will be an uncompromising new beginning for Star Trek.

[Locutus]

I dunno, Darmok, I think many modern shows would do well to blend decent scifi storytelling with issue-laden episodes like Let This be You Last Battlefield, and Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or even The Doomsday Machine.

The acting may have been over the top and sets cheesy, but the heart was there; something missing from many modern shows. If the new film can recapture that, and not just treat ST11 as product, I think we'll be in for a great ride.

CJLP: while you make many salient points, I would like to point out that the term "loose prequel" still has the word "prequel" in it, and that's the one I was talking about being imprecise. However, I would be perfectly fine with "The second episode of X film series.  OR  The second movie of X film series." While in some people's minds it may MEAN sequel or prequel, it won't SAY sequel or prequel, and whether or not that makes a difference to you personally, it makes a huge difference in the perception of the films to the general public, believe it or not.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

I think the characters, ship, aliens, concepts, and so forth are still appealing.  If not, how on Earth did they manage to make six movies based on the TV series?  It's just a matter of reworking the story so it is relavent to today's teenagers and young adults.

Locutus, the only way this movie will not be a prequel is if it is a reboot and simply does not follow the continuity of the TV show and subsequent movies.  I think this is extremely unlikely.  If you think the term prequel will drive people away, well... the Star Wars prequels didn't drive people away.  Ultimately, that's what this movie is going to be compared to regardless of wether it's called a prequel or simply the 11th movie.

I'm curious... what would you call it, if not a prequel?  I don't mean the new movie/episode, but what specific term would you use?

[Rico]

Actually, the movie won't be a prequel to the ENTERPRISE series.  But it really doesn't matter how it's labeled.  All that matters is if we enjoy it and it's good.  The movie is simply going to be called:  STAR TREK.

[Geekyfanboy]

Thank you Rico... I was going to say the same thing... I don't care what they call it... as long as it's good.

[Jen]

If Paramount's ability to follow continuity is the subject of this thread, then Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman, Sulu will be a crazy fencing instructor and Chekov will be a cabin boy swabbing the lower decks.  :D

Scotty's Scottish. :P

Hi guys. I know I'm a little late in responding here but I have to defend my "geek cred"  :D. 
The above statement: "Scotty will be portrayed as an Irishman" was meant purely as a joke CJLP. I was trying to lighten the mood at the time, by poking a little fun at the "continuity" discussion. I'm well aware that he's Scottish...hence the name "Scotty".  ;)   :)

Sorry to interrupt...please carry on with the discussion..  :)

[Poodyglitz]

I dunno, Darmok, I think many modern shows would do well to blend decent scifi storytelling with issue-laden episodes like Let This be You Last Battlefield, and Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or even The Doomsday Machine.

The acting may have been over the top and sets cheesy, but the heart was there; something missing from many modern shows. If the new film can recapture that, and not just treat ST11 as product, I think we'll be in for a great ride.

I'm totally with you. I just got off the phone with a friend who agreed that TOS was the storytelling gold standard for television (along with "The Prisoner") of that time. The key to a good Star Trek story is the heart, the discussion of issues regarding the human condition. If ST XI is simply an action-adventure story, then it will be Star Trek in name only.

Star Trek is many things, including:

Science Fiction
Science speculation
Action-adventure
Morality play
Character study
Fashion (cheesecake) showcase

At the core of it is a storytelling vehicle seeking to reflect and improve the human condition. It tells the story of an optimistic future where there is still conflict, but resolution as well. It is Shakespeare, Vonnegut, O'Neil and Chayefsky.

It's just that cinematic storytelling has evolved a great deal. Films like "Alien", "Aliens", "The Abyss", "The Incredibles" and "12 Monkeys" represent a whole new language of storytelling. There are also TV shows like "Battlestar Galactica" (a little too Post-Modern with the good-evil thing, but what the heck), "House", "Alias" and "Law & Order" that have altered the landscape as well. Style plays a significant role in unfolding a story. Synthesizing modern storytelling methods with the core of the Trek world could be like the mixing of matter and antimatter.

I'm also a Walt Disney fan (not so much of the films, but of the man). In recently reviewing Disney's original plan for EPCOT, I'm reminded that it was to be a laboratory for urban planning. EPCOT was envisioned to suggest a solution to urban blight as well as help to elevate the human condition. Star Trek has had the same type of goals, though I feel that they have been diluted as the years have advanced.

So, let's hope that Mr. Abrams finds this thread in a Google search and takes it to heart (if he hasn't already).

If there's anyone in the New York/New Jersey area that wants to go see ST XI, I'd love the company. It would be cool to discuss it immediately afterwards -- or be cajoled into watching it again (not sure where that all came from, but what the heck).

[Poodyglitz]

Thank you Rico... I was going to say the same thing... I don't care what they call it... as long as it's good.

There you go. As long as it's good, as long as it's Star Trek.