Shatner Leaks Trek XI Details 229
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?"
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Against the spirit of Trek (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Plot element you can count on. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
My concept for a new Trek series or film. (Score:2, Interesting)
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 is far more intelligent, more physically capable, ages slower, and in general vastly superior to Kirk in all ways. It is only bigotry that an officer as talented as Spock has to play second fiddle to Kirk. Clearly there is some sort of racist conspiracy in the Federation!
2. Earth has become an enlightened place, where all races and cultures live in peace and harmony... yet I am supposed to believe that out of the billions of non-european people on the planet earth (who vastly outnumber europeans), that only one black person, and one asian person, qualified to be on the bridge crew, or an engineer, or something important that would make them a main character? In fact, if all races lived in peace and harmony and equality, and transporters allow instantanious teleportation around a planet, shouldn't all people have inter-married to the point where all humans would be a nice light brown color - a combination of all races and cultures?! Clearly, despite Earth and Federation propoganda and lies, White European Males still dominate not only Earth, but the Federation!
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). Obviously, the Federation has adopted some sort of anti-free-market command economy - perhaps Soviet style Communism, or Nazi style National Socialism. Either way, despite the pleasant lies of abundance that is spread in Trek propoganda, the Federation is most likely stifling, beurocratic, totalitarian-economic nightmare, with shortages and people lining up Soviet style in order to buy the most basic of goods.
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?
It is because the Federation is a military dictatorship, controlled by Starfleet! The military elite of Starfleet control both the military and civilian governments (and clearly, from the series, there is no seperation of the two).
5. The Enterprise is supposedly on a "peaceful mission of exploration"... yet the Enterprise is the military flagship of Starfleet! How often do countries nowadays send a battleship, or aircraft carriers, or other military war machines on "exploration and science missions"? Scientific vessels are usually unarmed, or carrying a few small firearms... they aren't loaded with ICBMs and torpedos! The Enterprise is clearly on a scout mission for imperialist military expansion!
So here is my concept:
In my series or movie, the Federation is really a vast imperialist military dictatorship... and Empire that has been slowly and surely conquering the galaxy. The other Star Trek films and series are propoganda films put out by the Federation... (that explains why the Klingons look different in different series... because as the Federation continued is agressive war ag
Re:Against the spirit of Trek (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Plot element you can count on. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:My concept for a new Trek series or film. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:My concept for a new Trek series or film. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Star Trek is about Classical Theater, not sci-fi (Score:2, Interesting)
People did not watch "Best of Both Worlds" to find insight on the "human condition". They did so because it was fantastic TV; it was awesome theater. While Star Trek I could be considered 'very sci-fi', Star Trek II and III were tragic operas (I am using 'Tragedy' in its classical sense. It is over-used today to refer 'something bad' which is not what tragedy means). ST IV was more comedic. (Let's pretend ST V didn't exist.)
Star Trek began to fail when it lost track of that sense of classic theater. No one would call Voyager or Enterprise great operas. The comedy parts of DS9 fell flat (ugh at the Ferengi episodes). What I'm saying is this:
The Original Series did not become great television because of 'philosophy', 'definition of life', or all that. It became great because of "City on the Edge of Forever" and "The Trouble with Tribbles". While the first movie was all sci-fi, full of philosophy and the 'definition of life', this was quickly dropped for what really made ST great: classical theater that we saw in Wrath of Khan (and following movies).
The Next Generation did not become great because of sermons on euthanasia or trouble between races. TNG became great because it became great theater with "Best of Both Worlds" and episodes like "Redemption".
While DS9 initially tried the TNG route at first, it abandoned it and found its best episodes in things that were totally possible outide regular sci-fi. "Duet", "The Visitor", "In the Pale Moonlight" etc.
The poster is correct when he says that 'new technology' was fun to watch in Star Trek. He is right because entertainment is dependent on surprise. If TNG or DS9 were 'retro' episodes (referring to the past like Enterprise), there would be no edge of our seat that "Best of Both Worlds" or the Dominion War had. We'd know the ending so the surprise would be ruined. Voyager at least could be surprising (Voyager had no ramifications, damn that reset button), but we knew how Enterprise would end. We want to see new technology because we want to be SURPRISED at new events, not re-living old events. We know how the Kirk and Spock saga ends, there is no surprise. Hence, any movie about it will not be entertaining.
My fear is that some ex-agent or swaggering ive league will get in control at Paramount and totally miss how Star Trek had classical theater at its core. Instead, they will think, "Ahh! Let's reduce Star Trek to only its icons: Kirk and Spock. Let's just talk about their 'relationships' as well as the early crew of the Enterprise. To spice this up, let us borrow from horror movies, action movies, and all since that is what the public likes to see. And, yes, TONS of special effects!"