Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Movies

Shatner Leaks Trek XI Details 229

Posted by Zonk
from the shat-man-is-back dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The rumors that the next Star Trek movie would revolve around the earliest missions of Kirk and Spock have been confirmed by William Shatner in a Sci Fi Wire interview. J.J. Abrahms (creator of 'Lost') will direct, and has confirmed that a draft script is completed. So, the question is, will Shatner appear as a reminiscing older Kirk in the beginning, setting up the rest of the movie as a flash-back, or will geriatric-Kirk and young-Kirk meet?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shatner Leaks Trek XI Details

Comments Filter:
  • by FreeKill (1020271) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @02:42AM (#17587634) Homepage
    I read here that Matt Damon [slashdot.org] was supposedly cast as the younger Kirk...
  • by WarlockD (623872) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @02:59AM (#17587770)
    Don't get me wrong, I MAY see it, but I have yet to even see the Nemesis and they want me to take a chance on 11? REALLY?

    Don't get me wrong, I might see it. Like the crap that is Pirates of the Caribbean 2, I have to see the next one. One of these days I will see Nemesis. I am a fan of Trek so I am stuck with that.

    The one slim hope is the guy (forgot his name) that has been running the series for the last 10 years is not going to be writing it.
    • by Eideewt (603267)
      Yeah, that's an awful big chance you're taking. Think what you could do if you just had those two hours and few dollars to spend on something else.
    • by BobSutan (467781) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @04:54AM (#17588430)
      The producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were tossed off of Trek pretty much indefinitely for how they mishandled Enterprise and the last film. That said, I still don't think this movie is a good move. I think they should let the material rest for a while until the fans actually want more Start Trek. At this point people would rather go without it than see it butchered like it has been over the course of the last decade.
      • Eh, they may (probably won't) Casino Royal it. No one asks for more Bond films, but hey, a good one is something the public apparently doesn't mind.
      • by vishbar (862440)
        Start Trek?

        At this point, it's more like Stop Trek.
  • Shatner as Boothby (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scdeimos (632778) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:03AM (#17587804)
    I reckon he'll cameo as the aging groundskeeper at the academy, Boothby. Everyone knows Boothby's been there for centuries, and he'll probably catch the younger Kirk trying to carve his initials into his prized Elm tree.
    • Unfortunately, Picard did meet Boothby in one episode. I can't remember which one, but I do remember that the actor looks nothing like Shatner.

      Still, that probably wouldn't stop them. After all, they already recast Zepharim Cochrin, and probably more that I don't know off the top of my head.
      • by XanC (644172)

        That was in "The First Duty", in which Wesley and his flight got in trouble for performing a risky maneuver and covering it up.

        And I'm pretty sure the guy who played Boothby was one of the guys in The Sting. Didn't look a thing like Shatner.

        • by Bemopolis (698691)
          It was Ray Walston, aka My Favorite Martian (and a million other things).

          No, I didn't have to IMDb it. Yes, I am ashamed.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Short Circuit (52384) *
        In TNG, he shows up in the episode The First Duty [memory-alpha.org]. In Voyager, he showed up in the episodes In the Flesh [memory-alpha.org] and The Fight [memory-alpha.org].

        The First Duty and In the Flesh were both very good episodes.

        Oh, and here's a pic of him. [memory-alpha.org]
    • by istewart (463887)
      In all seriousness, though, if this has Kirk and Spock at the Academy, it is 100% guaranteed to feature a scene in which Kirk rigs the Kobayashi Maru simulator.
      • by Dorceon (928997)
        I predict that he survives the simulation by sleeping with the simulated female enemy captain. The instructors at the academy close that loophole, and out of shame ask Kirk to kindly tell people he just cheated.
  • by GrumpySimon (707671) <email@nOSPAm.simon.net.nz> on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:04AM (#17587808) Homepage
    will Shatner appear as a reminiscing older Kirk in the beginning, setting up the rest of the movie as a flash-back, or will geriatric-Kirk and young-Kirk meet?

    I really don't care, as long as it doesn't involve him doing any type of singing [youtube.com].
  • Luke.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by MrPsycho (939714)
    I am your father? Maybe? Young Kirk goes and talks to Shatner who plays his father, with green orion slave girl as mother of course?
  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx.b c . ca> on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:09AM (#17587840) Journal
    So how can Kirk be any older than he was in that movie?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Joebert (946227)
      We're talking about a world where there's warp ships, teleporters, & alien races, & you want to limit our imaginations to somthing as trivial as death ?
  • by melchoir55 (218842) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:10AM (#17587848)
    To me, half of the fun with Star Trek was watching technology develop. From Enterprise NCC-1701 to Enterprise D, to the Defiant and on to Enterprise E and Voyager. The fun for me was watching what the writers did with new starships and how new technology was being implemented. It is the progression of the Star Trek universe that I took pleasure in, at least as much as I took pleasure in the interactions between characters. This is why enterprise was uninteresting to me. I knew where the federation was going to be in a few hundred years, so watching Scott Backula fly around in a starship that a 24th century shuttlecraft could tear apart in combat seemed like a waste of time.

    If they had any balls at all they would have gone with the idea of having Captain Riker commanding the Titan in a time when the federation is being systematically destroyed in a major war (ie, the feds are losing). To see the federation being destroyed and fighting for it's life by spiting out warships would have been interesting to me. Watching a film about how kirk and spock originally fell in love is not. I'll probably see 11, but only at a friends house where it's on and I don't have a choice.
    • If they had any balls at all they would have gone with the idea of having Captain Riker commanding the Titan in a time when the federation is being systematically destroyed in a major war (ie, the feds are losing). To see the federation being destroyed and fighting for it's life by spiting out warships would have been interesting to me.

      It would have also permanently killed the series. The good Star Trek has always been a platform for commentary about everything from the human condition to modern politics. Since I sincerely doubt that anyone today can identify with a "major war" (which would be something along the lines of a WWII scenario IN SPACE!), the commentary aspect of Star Trek would be completely lost. In addition, it would further destroy Roddenberry's vision of a better tomorrow.

      The end result is that you'd get Yet Another Action Show(TM) that's all fluff and no substance.

      If you really want a good TV show about "major war", get the networks to reboot Space: Above and Beyond.
      • by Coryoth (254751)

        If you really want a good TV show about "major war", get the networks to reboot Space: Above and Beyond.

        Good to see someone else remembers that show. It started so poorly (the pilot was cheese plus), but it ended so well. I'd be very happy to see a decently done reboot of Space Above and Beyond, especially now that the BSG reboot (which drew heavily on SAaB) has given extra credibility to more dark gritty SF. The only other SF TV series I'd ever want to see rebooted is Blake's 7. I guess, in some ways, you

        • I guess, in some ways, you could almost claim that Firefly was almost that...
          Almost. And Firefly was certainly influenced by B7 (Joss Whedon has said as much). But I agree it'd be nice to see B7 get reworked. I think that things like Avon's somewhat ambiguous morality would ultimately make for a very different series than Firefly. Who knows, perhaps in the reboot they'll perpetrate a BSG-like gender-change, and make Servalan a man... ;-)
      • by istewart (463887) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @05:31AM (#17588624)
        Deep Space Nine is widely considered the best Trek series, and its last four seasons centered around an ongoing story about a major war that the Federation stood a major chance of losing. One could perhaps argue that it wasn't as big a success as TNG or TOS, but all the data I've ever seen indicated that it did as well as TNG in first-run syndication. (Then Spike ran it into the ground after it was removed from syndicated reruns, but such is the nature of the modern TV market.)

        And it set the stage for even more interesting story possibilities, although they haven't been explored. As far as we've seen, Starfleet has always been balanced between its military aspect and peaceful exploration. Right up till STVI, the balance was almost dead even: there was a state of cold war with the Klingons, but you also had Kirk and his contemporaries doing their 5-year missions of exploration. During TNG, one can argue that the balance had swung heavily towards the explorers (although there is that Cardassian war immediately pre-TNG that we didn't get to see). DS9 chronicled a sudden and severe shift toward militarism. The warships that the grandparent poster wanted to see being spit out have already been spat out. The Defiant was mass-produced, even though its sole purpose is as an overpowered gunship. TNG told us that the initial run of Galaxy-class ships was limited to 9, and DS9 shows us a whole lot more than that, all of them heavily armed and doubtless assembled on an accelerated total-war production regimen.

        So even though the Federation won, how does it go back to the fleet full of peaceful explorers we saw during TNG? There's the essential conflict that sets up the premise of such a story. Add to that the fact that there's a gigantic power vacuum in Romulan space since Picard's vinyl-fetishist clone murdered the Senate, and throw in a few TOS-style devious-bastard Klingons who don't like Martok because he's too buddy-buddy with the Federation, oh, and those Section 31 guys too, and we have a recipe for a very interesting story that is equal parts action and commentary on human nature.

        So an entertaining and thoughtful follow-on to TNG-era Trek is certainly possible (although maybe not in the exact fashion the GPP was thinking about), and it could be a solid draw for both nerds and casual fans alike with happy memories of TNG and DS9. But such ideas aren't under consideration because executives would rather find a gimmick that they think would bring in a lot of people all at once. Case in point, a prequel movie which recasts the two most recognized Trek characters out there (and make no mistake, there will be an infinite amount of nerd rage on this point), or the proposed Web-based miniseries which completely overthrows the Trek universe to give us "Star Trek as YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE!"
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bigbigbison (104532)
          I've said it before, but the fact that they have 3 series set in the same time period (TNG, DS9, and Voyager) means that they have a lot of characters and storylines they could pick up on. I think there could be a lot of mileage out of mashing together the characters from those series. They are established characters but with only a couple minor crossovers we haven't seen them interact.

          Rather than make up some stupid new enemy like in Generations or Insurrection or reveal that there's a whole other specie
      • by Duds (100634) *
        Or indeed Babylon 5 which had a couple of long ter major wars.

        The lack of success of its spin offs though maybe indeed support the major point of your post.
      • by smoker2 (750216)
        The good Star Trek has always been a platform for commentary about everything from the human condition to modern politics. Since I sincerely doubt that anyone today can identify with a "major war" (which would be something along the lines of a WWII scenario IN SPACE!), the commentary aspect of Star Trek would be completely lost.
        Of course the new BSG has no social commentary, politics, or war, that's why it's such a hit !
    • by scdeimos (632778)

      The Tech might be your idea of the Spirit of Trek but I doubt everyone would share that version. I certainly don't.

      Although set in the future, for me Trek stories aren't supposed to be about the Tech. They're supposed to be about people, how they deal with each other, and how they deal with new types of situations presented to them when meeting other races our there in the galaxy(ies). And to provide some hope for us that we'll survive as a species and get out into space instead of blowing ourselves to Ki

      • I preferred episodes like Shuttlepod One (which was admittedly a bit rough) that concetrated on two or three characters in adverse situations, where the characters were allowed to introduce some of their histories and flesh themselves out as people instead of something on a flat screen.

        *cringe*

        Geez. Couldn't you pick a better example? Like Darmok or Inner Light? Hell, even Brothers or Attached are better than that tripe. You didn't hear Picard say that Beverly "has a nice bum", did you?

        Let's all just preten

        • by scdeimos (632778)
          Heh, yes it was a poor example (and I said that). I think one of my favourite TNG lines was Beverley with "right, out with it Jean-Luc." :)
    • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Saturday January 13, 2007 @04:21AM (#17588280)

      Poor guy... you missed the point entirely! What made Star Trek interesting was the exploration of ethical and philosophical issues, and figuring out interesting and novel solutions to the problems the crew encountered. Star Trek has had episodes and movies about the following topics: religion, race relations, euthanasia, conservation, cybernetics, the definition of "life," the definition of "sentient life," love, hate, war, peace, etc. -- way too much stuff to list here. That's what made it great, not the technology. If all you care about are gadgets, you're better off watching a Bond flick instead.

    • by value_added (719364) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @05:09AM (#17588510)
      If they had any balls at all they would have gone with the idea of having Captain Riker ...

      Jonathan Frakes is competent enough as an actor, and his roles are always well-written, but let's face it, the guy isn't that interesting to watch.

      On the other hand, this guy [imdb.com] looks strangely like Riker and performs a similar role (albeit without a uniform or official title), but is interesting to watch. Hell, I thought it was Jonathan Frakes with a few years of acting classes under his belt doing something new.
    • This is why enterprise was uninteresting to me

      See, initially, this was the only thing that made Enterprise interesting to me at all. The original Star Trek brought us centuries forward in time, with all this amazing technology (admittedly, some of it is pretty dated now, but anway...), and it left this big chasm. How did we go from point A (present day) to point B (warp drive and interplanetary travel). If the interesting thing is to watch the technology develop, there was this big vacuum in the middle,

  • by Ingolfke (515826) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:12AM (#17587862) Journal
    The Enterprise will crash land on an island on a strange planet and only a few of the crew members will survive. The island will have polar bears, and some crazy black smoke and this series of underground hatches with some ancient writing from a long past culture called The Dharma Initiative...
    • by XMyth (266414)
      Hmm...if it's on between Lost episodes then I'll watch it!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by terrymr (316118)
      And random 20 minutes chunks of the movie will be repeated before major scenes so the movie will be nearly 4 hours long with only 80 minutes of storyline.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by edwardpickman (965122)
      The Enterprise will crash land on an island on a strange planet and only a few of the crew members will survive. The island will have polar bears, and some crazy black smoke and this series of underground hatches with some ancient writing from a long past culture called The Dharma Initiative...

      And following a fine legitus tradition in the US the producer will sue himself for stealing his own idea. The studio will settle out of court for an undisclosed amount which the insurance company will have to pay.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by louisadkins (963165)
      Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip. That started from this starship port, aboard this new flagship. ...
  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:25AM (#17587970)
    I'm afraid the scene where young Kirk and old Kirk meet and shake hands will have to be cut, because it causes an infinite recursive loop:

    Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!

    Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!

    (snip)

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:34AM (#17588024) Homepage Journal
    it involves Kirk and Spock naming their own price on a deep space voyage for two and saving with priceline!
  • by gd23ka (324741) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @03:36AM (#17588044) Homepage
    Terrorism. There will be terrorists in the plot and I remember something about the series
    about clone and eugenics wars that early in "starfleet history". Of course it is pretty
    much left up to them what terrorist foe they will present on the screen, but it will
    certainly be in tune of current events.

    Those working towards a predictable population are just as predictable themselves.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Short Circuit (52384) *
      The eugenics wars took place in the 1990s, years before the Vulcans encountered humans, and around 100 years before the founding of the Federation.

      Unless you were thinking of a 24-style series in reverse, where each episode represents a year instead of an hour, it would be hard to cover the whole span.
    • by scdeimos (632778)

      The Eugenics Wars predate Academy by about 200 years - they were supposed to have occured in the 1990's as I recall. They were touched-on again during a few episodes of Enterprise when Brent Spiner reprised his role as a Soong (Arik, presumably the father/grandfather of Noonien), but finished-up with him deciding to drop genetics in favour of robotics and androids.

      I think one story we're likely to be (depressingly) greeted with is of how Kirk defeated the Kobayashi Maru simulation as was introduced in the

  • wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It went something like this:
     
    ...people saw Rocky? What? He's how old?

    Let's make another Star Trek!
  • Odd/Even (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tao (10867)

    To me it sounds like they are trying to keep up the tradition of odd numbered ST-movie = bad, even numbered ST-movie = good...

  • In the Star Trek universe, everything seems happy and friendly, but there are some sinister things that bother me:

    1. The Federation is supposedly an alliance of planets where aliens of many different races live in peace and harmony. Then why the hell are virtually everyone on Federation starships human? And the few token non-humans are clearly the more human looking. There are no six tentacled creatures serving on Federation starships... there are no non-physical energy beings. And everyone knows that Spock
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Incidence (923443)

      "3. They have "abandoned money"? Wait a minute... money is nessicary when there is scarcity and a market economy... and they definitly didn't eliminate scarcity (after all, dilithium crystals are still rare and valuable... there is only one holideck on the Enterprise, not one for every crew memeber, definitly meaning it would require some sort of rationing... the Enterprise is always carrying medicine or supplies, implying that the replicators can only produce certain types of objects)."

      In Deep Space 9 its pretty clear that money still exists and that Starfleet pays its people some how because there are shops and you see Starfleet crew shopping in them. Also in Voyager there is a show were two of the main characters are talking about a historical renactment bar were people go around and pretend to steal people's wallets to increase accuracy. Personally I think the "no money" thing was quietly dropped after the creaters realised it caused problems like you mentioned.

      4. We are left to assume that the Federation is some sort of Democracy... then why don't starfleet officers ever talk politics? Why isn't Data a member of one political party, while Wharf is a memeber of another political party, and they have heated (though respectful) political discussions? Why isn't Pickard contiplating his civilian political career after his starfleet career? Why is there never any controversy about Federation policy?

      The Federation is a De

      • by mr_matticus (928346) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @09:34AM (#17589992)
        I don't think the "there is no money in the 23rd Century" is necessarily contradictory with the shops, etc.

        There is still an economy, and therefore there still has to be some method of accounting and exchange. What's more likely is that there is no money in the traditional sense--no cash, no pay checks, no banks for individual persons. Instead, typical Star Trek style soft socialism takes hold. The closest contemporary analogy is the expense account. Rather than paying out of pocket or being limited to a fixed wage, a person could simply use his account to make purchases. If someone got out of hand with their spending, it would pop up a red flag for review. Any people abusing this would be restricted from purchasing "luxury" items of any sort--only housing, utilities, food, etc. would be covered and all other charges would be rejected (like maxing out a credit card). As an added advantage for our future friends, the emergency car repair or unexpected medical expense would be covered. Rather than having to worry about insurance, people could simply enjoy "free" medical care, using just checkups for the healthy and more extensive treatment for the ill. Individuals wouldn't subsidize each other, nor would they suffer the libertarian folly of "paying taxes." Companies would still be taxed to fund the government, and companies would foot the bill directly rather than the three-step cut check/deposit/withdraw process we have today.

        In other words, "no money" doesn't actually mean no money, but rather that the individual no longer deals with finances directly and instead can focus on enjoying life. The higher up your position, the looser the limits on your 'expense account'--not everyone would eat caviar and live on 5000 acre estates.
        • The higher up your position, the looser the limits on your 'expense account'--not everyone would eat caviar and live on 5000 acre estates.

          Yes, those in charge always get the best. Even if it is just square footage for your personal, private usage.

          Rather than paying out of pocket or being limited to a fixed wage, a person could simply use his account to make purchases. If someone got out of hand with their spending, it would pop up a red flag for review.

          How would someone "get out of hand with their spending"

          • by alexgieg (948359)

            With the replicators, there's no real scarcity. Except personal, private space. If I want something that can be replicated, why would there be a problem if I wanted 10 of them? 100 of them? 1,000 of them?

            Easy enough! Because the MAFIAA won in the 21st century, turning copyrights and patents into rights valid for all of eternity, while at the same time eliminating the very notion of "prior art" as something apt to eliminate a granted patent. As a result, everything from the 23rd century onwards, from clothes

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DoktorTomoe (643004)

      the Enterprise is always carrying medicine or supplies, implying that the replicators can only produce certain types of objects
      ... or they plan for a worst-case scenario: Need for medication when the replicator has ceased working (as in: massive energy loss, massive damage, stranded in a defective shuttlecraft on some remote moon...)

      Makes sense to me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Then why the hell are virtually everyone on Federation starships human? And the few token non-humans are clearly the more human looking. There are no six tentacled creatures serving on Federation starships... there are no non-physical energy beings.
      It would make sense to have similar creatures together, as you'd need a compatible atmosphere that they could all breathe. Then there's the toilets, oh so many different kinds of toilet.
    • by Ka D'Argo (857749)
      "money is nessicary when there is scarcity and a market economy... and they definitly didn't eliminate scarcity (after all, dilithium crystals are still rare and valuable... there is only one holodeck on the Enterprise, not one for every crew memeber, definitly meaning it would require some sort of rationing...

      Actually, the Enterprise-D had several Holodecks. If memory serves me, it was the first starship in the Fleet' that the audience saw with holodecks. It had several, with at least two main ones loc
    • by vmxeo (173325)
      In my series, a group of space-pirates slash political revolutionaries pilot a starship, carrying out geurilla attacks against the Federation, funded by smuggling contraband and looting Federation military ships. (OK, it is a little like Firefly, but that is just coincidence). They team up with the peaceful Klingons and Romulans, who have been victims of Federation sponsered genocide. Their five year mission, to build an rebel army capable of overthrowing the Federation, destroying Starfleet, and liberation
    • 1. The Federation is supposedly an alliance of planets where aliens of many different races live in peace and harmony. Then why the hell are virtually everyone on Federation starships human? And the few token non-humans are clearly the more human looking. There are no six tentacled creatures serving on Federation starships... there are no non-physical energy beings.

      Right, no energy beings! Who do you think makes the food that comes out of replicators? Certainly can't fit a full sized chef in there.

      3.

      • by alexgieg (948359)

        So, make Mirror, Mirror into a series?

        That would be a very interesting series indeed. And even more so if they took some interesting bad guy from one of the regular series, turning him (his mirror version) into the hero or anti-hero of the series.

        Imagine something like this: In the mirror universe, mirror-Khan wasn't awakened by mirror-Kirk. He awakes instead in, say, the 26th century, a time when technology for secure inter-universal travel was starting to be used. Since the regular and the mirror universe

    • by crimson30 (172250)
      Here's MY half-baked trek movie idea:

      The federation takes a heavy hit from the borg ala 911 (maybe DS9, for a tie in?). Anyway, a mission is hatched for sending a ship to the machine planet (on intelligence that, yes, it is the source of the borg) with the help of Wesley Crusher. Picard is picked for the mission, given his background, and Seven of Nine's help is enlisted. They travel to some other quadrant and find the machine planet. Insert plot fillers. Have it turn out to be a trap of sorts (self-ful
    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @01:33PM (#17592544) Homepage
      The appeal of Trek (well, TOS and TNG) was G.R.s vision of humanity's future, in which everyone is a cosmopolitan secular humanist, and all of today's economic problems are solved by technology. It gave hope to the generations menaced by the cold war, and now it gives hope for the future in contrast to today's religion and oil fueled conflicts.

      Your idea may be a good one, but it isn't Trek, to me.

      Also, the idea of a universe being ruled by a european male conspiracy might not sit well with Trek's primarily european male fanbase.
    • In my series, a group of space-pirates slash political revolutionaries pilot a starship, carrying out geurilla attacks against the Federation, funded by smuggling contraband and looting Federation military ships. (OK, it is a little like Firefly, but that is just coincidence). They team up with the peaceful Klingons and Romulans, who have been victims of Federation sponsered genocide. Their five year mission, to build an rebel army capable of overthrowing the Federation, destroying Starfleet, and liberation
  • But not as we know it....
  • Shatner ...captain of the enterprise ... again? ... ..Bones ... there must be ... some other way!!...
  • http://www.khaaan.com/ [khaaan.com]

    I found that site years ago (late 90's i think). It cracks me up that it still there.
  • Captain Cook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mutatis Mutandis (921530) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @08:16AM (#17589512)

    The original Star Trek centered on a ship and a crew on a mission of exploration in uncharted space. James Kirk was an extrapolation of James Cook, on a five-your voyage through space instead of a three-year voyage over the seas. Cook once wrote that he wanted to go "farther than any man has been before me, but as far as I think it is possible for a man to go" and Star Trek's mission statement echoed this.

    Like Cook's, Kirk's was a combined military and scientific expedition. Of course what was "out there" turned out to be very much our own problems in another disguise, but that was the core of the genre. The concept, of course, was also an echo of the era in which the series was made, when science and exploration were sources of optimism and space seemed to be a final frontier that was going to be taken on the hop.

    Later series diverted from the concept, reflecting changing priorities of societies and growing pessimism about the future. The Next Generation was on a mission to spread political correctness through space, to baldly go where no bald one has gone before, at least not without a toupee. Attempts to satisfy everyone on everything, another unfortunate characteristic of the 90s, included such silliness as a battleship on a mission of peace, a flagship without an admiral, an expedition vessel with children on board, and a shrink on the bridge to make statements of the obvious.

    The best hope is for Star Trek to go back to its roots. To send young captain (lieutenant commander?) Kirk on a mission of exploration on a small vessel with a dedicated crew, perhaps on a surveying mission to map space. (Cook's career also started as a surveyor of the coast of Newfoundland.) And then let him deal with some problem of reasonable dimensions -- there is no reason to save the planet again. If he can save his ship and crew that is enough.

  • They'll have a different older Kirk. Wow, that's a train wreck.
  • my 5 centses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slfnflctd (1050758) on Saturday January 13, 2007 @01:27PM (#17592466)
    1) Gene deserves more respect than he's gotten lately from the people who carry on his work.

    2) TNG, DS9 & Voyager may've had their flaws, but they all had long runs and significant numbers of loyal fans, and should not be ignored.

    3) Battlestar Galactica & Firefly should indeed be required watching for anyone involved in the production of any serious sci-fi from here on out.

    4) The canon should be shored up (and better treated)-- as one example, I think it's imperative to be in harmony with the design style of TOS when capturing any 'new footage' of that era (or before). It should be possible to do this while still having freedom to add new embellishments, and a few subtle alterations could soften the cheesiness considerably while maintaining the core elements which visually define that time period.

    5) Finally, any reasonably intelligent writing/designing/directing team with half a heart between them ought to be able to produce something decent with just a quick-yet-comprehensive review of the past work, providing they simply listen to fan feedback along the way. Based on that belief, I won't judge any film that hasn't even been filmed yet - including the above one - based on a blurb.

    So, here's to hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, as usual...
  • by master_p (608214) on Sunday January 14, 2007 @08:02AM (#17601566)
    Everyone says his/her own thing about Star Trek, but you all seem to forget that Star Trek is about exploration of space. Wars, politics, spying, genetic and biomechanical disasters can easily bring drama to the screen, but it has been done to death. On the other hand, charting the uncharted parts of the galaxy leaves plenty of room for new ideas...the most interesting mind-bending stuff on Star Trek happens when there is a mystery to solve.

    What I would like to see for Star Trek is a new series that combines exploration with story arcs, something that it has not been done previously. We had episodic series like TOS, TNG and VOY which centered on exploration, story arcs in DS9 and ENT which centered on conflict, but we never had a series with story arcs based on exploration.

Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -- for support rather than illumination.

Working...