Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Media Movies

Star Trek To Return Christmas 2008 358

Posted by kdawson from the beaming dept.
Tycoon Guy writes "Paramount today announced the new Star Trek film is scheduled for release on Christmas Day 2008. The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.' Also today, rumors are out claiming Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise will play Kirk, Spock, and Scotty, respectively."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Trek To Return Christmas 2008 More

Star Trek To Return Christmas 2008

Comments Filter:

  • I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by micpp ( 818596 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:12AM (#18178284) Homepage
    Somehow those rumours frighten and shock me. A Kirk that isn't Shatner and a Spock that isn't Nimoy?
    What about a DS9 movie?

    • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:5, Funny)

      by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:18AM (#18178328)
      I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.

      • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:5, Funny)

        by earnest murderer ( 888716 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:43AM (#18178454)
        I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.

        I hear Shatner is in negotiations.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:33AM (#18178722)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:4, Funny)

        by RatRagout ( 756522 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:12AM (#18179172)
        Does that mean this will be a Star Trek "holiday special" ? (http://www.starwarsholidayspecial.com/)

      • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:38AM (#18179564)
        I am afraid that a DS9 movie WOULD suck. The reason that DS9 was so good, was that the characters had real developments and had to deal with problems that were not easily solved with technobabble. With 40-minute episodes, you can afford a "bad" ending, in which a major character suffers a great loss, or fucks up big time, or discovers that he or she did exactly what the enemy wanted. This happened frequently in DS9. With a movie, it has to end well in order not to alienate the general public (or so Hollywood thinks).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anagama ( 611277 )
      Not just a DS9 movie, but one set in the alternative universe.

    • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:5, Informative)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:33AM (#18178402)

      What about a DS9 movie?

      (Warning: spoilers)

      At the end of the series, they dismantled basically the entire crew (Sisko ended up in the celestial temple/wormhole, Odo went to join the great link, Garek stayed on Cardassia, Dukat died, etc. They'd need to either use a different cast (which would suck) or come up with an excuse to reunite everyone (which would most likely seem ridiculously contrived), which makes a DS9 movie relatively unlikely.

      • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:5, Informative)

        by Babbster ( 107076 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {bbabnoraa}> on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:13AM (#18178586) Homepage
        Actually, there are books that continue the story (an "8th season" of sorts) of Bajor, DS9, the Gamma Quadrant, etc. in some pretty cool ways. At the end of the first "arc" (that's as far as I've read) they even managed to get everyone back on Bajor in a way that made sense (at least in the context of DS9). I won't spoil any of it for those who might be interested in reading the books and I'll give a reading list/order below for anyone who cares:

        1. Avatar 1-2
        2. Section 31: Abyss (haven't read)
        3. Gateways: Demons of Air and Darkness (haven't read)
        4. "Horn and Ivory" from Gateways: What Lay Beyond (haven't read)
        5. Mission Gamma 1-4
        6. Rising Son (haven't read)
        7. Unity
        8. Worlds of Deep Space Nine (three books - haven't read)

        Again, from the list above (cribbed from a post on trekunited.com by "wildcard1377") I've read seven of the books and only missed a few references while still enjoying the primary arc of the story. I'll get to the rest at some point when I have time to get down to the "big bookstore" and grab them up, but I definitely recommend the ones I have read to DS9 fans.
      • If you didn't want to do anything too heavy on long-term plot, I'm sure you could find enough space between the end of Season 1 and the beginning of Season 2 to fit a movie's worth of plot. None of the episodes at the end of S1 really established anything important, and there was no real plot carry-over and no established timeframe btween "In the Hands of the Prophets" and the arc started by "The Homecoming". I'm not sure that I'd want to see such a thing done -- in fact, probably not. But I'm just saying,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by iamacat ( 583406 )
        It's just a movie, they could just discard a few episodes at the end and restart with an alternative story. Would even feet the alternative universe thing nicely. Sisko threw a coin, it landed face up instead of down and he decided not to involve Romulans in Cardassian war or something.

      • Dominion Federation War Movie (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        What they should do, is a movie that takes place during the dominion war. It doesn't even have to include much of DS9. They could do it from the perspective of a few different ships and crews, perhaps with some minor involvment from both Enterprise E and the Next Gen crew, and the Defiant and the DS9 crew. There's lots of potential there for some really good space battles with all new footage, as well as things like the Breen attack on earth, the loose of Bajor to the Dominion, etc. It could make an IN

    • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TXGB324 ( 685941 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:23AM (#18179478)
      What about a DS9 movie?

      Well, since Babylon 5 is over, what storyline would they have to steal? I suppose the writers at Paramount could just ask JMS to please write a few more episodes, so they'd have something to copy from, but I hear he's pretty busy these days with other projects... ;)

    • Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (Score:5, Funny)

      by sorak ( 246725 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:38AM (#18179560)

      Somehow those rumours frighten and shock me. A Kirk that isn't Shatner and a Spock that isn't Nimoy?

      What about a DS9 movie?

      Starring Will Smith [imdb.com] as Cisco, Macaulay Culkin [imdb.com] as quark, and Wilmer Valderrama [imdb.com] as Dr. Bashir

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by webbod ( 1032868 )
      J.J. Abrams is one of the guys who brought us "Lost" - coming December 2008 "Star Trek XI - Lost in Space" - Brent Spiner to play Robbie the Robot with a cameo from Matt le Blanc playing crewman #7.

  • Gah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jethro ( 14165 )
    This is going to suuuuuuuuuuuck!

  • oh good (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:16AM (#18178306) Homepage
    The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'

    It's great that the guy charting that course is best known for a show called LOST.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by CaptainNerdCave ( 982411 )
      i honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious

      • Re:oh good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Farmer Tim ( 530755 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:56AM (#18178518) Journal
        Considering Lost has a suspiciously large number of similarities to an old show called "The New People", perhaps Abrams is the right person to resurrect the spirit of another show from the sixties.

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063935/plotsummary [imdb.com]

        So...serious?

        • Re:oh good (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Skreems ( 598317 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:04AM (#18178868) Homepage
          Not that similar. If you want to get technical, both are ripping off Lord Of The Flies, but the details are so different that it's basically a non-issue. There's only so many basic settings like "people crash on a mysterious island"; you're going to have some repetition of the basic plot. If anything, Lost is ripping off The Prisoner more than The New People.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by jfb3 ( 25523 )
            I thought Lost was just a re-hash of Gilligan's Island with just enough 90210 brooding and staring thrown in to make you think something is actually going to, eventually, advance the plot (assuming there is one, which I doubt).

    • LOST in space (Score:5, Funny)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:24AM (#18178666)
      I heard the working title of it was going to be "LOST in Space"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by l3v1 ( 787564 )
      It's great that the guy charting that course is best known for a show called LOST.

      Well, at least we can be sure that there will be a sequel, since most probably at the end of the movie people will just look to their neighbors and see that I-don't-have-a-clue-what-just-happened look on their faces.
       

  • Scotty != Bones (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:18AM (#18178322)
    I don't know if the editors decided not to RTFA, but TFA doesn't talk about Scotty at all, rather is saying that the role is for Bones.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:18AM (#18178324)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) *

      Which Dax: Curzon, Jadzia, Ezri, or whatever host lived at the time of Kirk?

      (If you just want to see Terry Farrell (the actress who played Jadzia), you ought to just hope she's in it as a different character.)

  • Fascinating... (Score:3, Funny)

    by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:20AM (#18178338)
    ...they are attempting to build a vehicle to harness the power of the stars. I wonder if they will achieve worf capability?

  • Gary Sinise?!?!?! Gary Sinise?!?!?! Gary Sinise?!? (Score:5, Informative)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:22AM (#18178352) Homepage Journal
    NOoooooooo! Why not Brendan Gleeson? Both Him and Gary where born in 1955, so they're the same age. And Brendan looks and TALKS much more like what I would settle for a Scotty. I could see Sinise as McCoy, hell he even looks a bit like him. Ohhh wait.. submitter got it wrong. [trektoday.com] Sinise will be McCoy and James McAvoy is going to be Scotty. James McAvoy?!?!?!? He's a slight and frail little man! He's not close to passable as the boisterous and strapping chief engineer before his more plump years. He better start gorging on meat pies.

  • Not too bad. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 )
    I'm a pretty big trek fan (currently watching all of it in chronological order), and these casting choices dont seem terrible. I hope the movie is better than the last two, although nemesis was kind of ok, but i think trek could use a rest. Watching/rewatching all of it has given me some perspective on all the series compared to watching them randomly in syndication on spike. So far IMHO, DS9 S4-7 > TNG S4-7 > DS9 S1-3 > TOS > TNG S1-3 > ENT S3-4 > VOY > ENT S1-2 > TAS. That may chan

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) *

      After having gone back and watched all of ENT (in order), I've actually come to the conclusion that it didn't suck after all. Perhaps it's still not quite up to DS9 or later-TNG standards, but I think it gives TOS a run for its money (that could also be due to the fact that I'm young, so I'm not viewing TOS through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Skreems ( 598317 )
        That's not saying much, though... I mean, TOS really kinda sucked. DS9 4-7 and TNG 4-7 were some decent sci-fi, but the writing and acting pretty much everywhere else in the franchise blows quite hard.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Edward Teach ( 11577 )
      The old adage still seems to hold: Even numbered Star Trek movies don't totally suck.

  • The Navigator (Score:5, Funny)

    by deathcow ( 455995 ) * on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:33AM (#18178408)

    Funny One:
    http://www.videosift.com/video/George-Takei-respon ds-to-Tim-Hardaways-homophobic-comments [videosift.com]

    I wonder who will replace our flamboyant navigator.
  • The Raliens have managed to clone all the original stars. In 18 years they'll be able to do Star Fleet academy with all the original actors! Next thing to tackle is a time machine so the fans don't have to wait nearly two decades for the new series. Paramount is so confident that time travel will be perfected that they have scehduled the premiere of the new series for this Fall.

  • Hey. Stop it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cbrichar ( 819941 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:36AM (#18178422)
    Seriously.
    Quit it.

    Star Trek was a fantastic series - heck, I enjoyed all of the runs, which is more than a lot of fans would claim - but if you want to bring back the brilliance and optimism of Roddenberry's world (FTA), you don't do it with a "when-they-were-young" storyline which would most assuredly contain:
    1 - A necessarily predictable storyline, to the extent that we know who manages to pull through into their later years.
    2 - Shameless references to the more familiar versions of the characters (e.g. A young Scotty trying unsuccessfully to fix a coffee machine and making references to a lack of available power OMGHILARIOUS.)

    So yes.
    Stop it.
    Okay?
    ...okay.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SamSim ( 630795 )
      One of these days I want to do an "Ask Slashdot: What would you do with the Star Trek franchise?"

      • kill it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rucs_hack ( 784150 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:40AM (#18179032)
        No really.

        It was good, well in places it was great, but not everywhere, but all they are doing is trying to get more money from a story that has been told and retold until they are inescapably trapped in a quagmire of ever repeating storylines.

        Enterprise was a good example. They assembled a team of great actors, then forced them to regurgitate shit storylines until even the diehard fans started to cry out in pain. Its the only star trek where if I see its on I won't flick over to watch it.

        If they left it for a decade or three that might be good. Let the dust settle, let some fresh talent tackle the story in a new way.

        • Re:kill it (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ghjm ( 8918 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @08:45AM (#18180352) Homepage
          You must have missed the last season of Enterprise. It sucked for a long time, but it got good again - right before they cancelled it.

          -Graham

        • Re:kill it (Score:5, Interesting)

          by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @10:03AM (#18181168) Journal
          Yes, that's a common complaint. However, most of the episodes were actually pretty good. Even the shameless super-anachronistic vague Borg reference episode.

          You clearly suffer from what I like to call "Bad Theme Song Syndrome." The theme song was so unbelievably not-trek that you couldn't get over that (and your misplaced nostalgia: no trek has ever been the height of literary greatness) and enjoy some good television.

          Further, there was only one character who was static and uninteresting, but still miles ahead of the previous character played by Scott Bakula.

      • One of these days I want to do an "Ask Slashdot: What would you do with the Star Trek franchise?"
        Write a story announcing that the entire Star Trek universe was a fiction created by The Master within the Doctor Who TV series, created to distract nerds everywhere from his plans to take over the universe and turn Tom Baker into Peter Davison :-P

      • Re:Hey. Stop it. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @07:06AM (#18179706)

        How about: "Star Trek: The Crusher Adventures", in which Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton, of course, who is about the right age now) uses his Traveller powers to explore far reaches of the Universe. During the first six or seven episode, Wesley roams the known part of the Galaxy to round up a crew of ultra-geniuses whom he can also teach the Traveller gifts. No Vulcans, since they are too "logical" for such advanced knowledge, and no Klingons because they are too stupid. Several humans, of course, such as Mature-Guy, Black-Guy, and Hot-Babe, and several aliens, such a Plaster-Face, Funny-Hair, and a CGI-generated energy-based lifeform. Perhaps even Orion-Slave-Girl. While originally being able to travel without any visible means of transportation, Captain Wesley decides in season 2 that it would be a good idea to have a cool ship, as a place to call home and to transport aliens and goods. As an hommage to his mentor, he calls it the USS Traveller.

        I am joking, of course, but I would not be surprised to find that this has already been the subject of several novels and a whole lot of fanfic.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shadowcabbit ( 466253 ) *

          How about: "Star Trek: The Crusher Adventures", in which Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton, of course, who is about the right age now) uses his Traveller powers to explore far reaches of the Universe.


          Been there, done that. [wikipedia.org] Actually, come to think of it, there's no storyline that the Trek folks could come up with that someone won't say is ripped off.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 )
        Star Trek: Klingon Glory

        They aren't the most cunning warriors in the empire. They get in alot of trouble, sent on a mission to protect the backwater sectors. But it all works out in the end.

        (Cameos by Dorn and Frakes)
        Captain Riker: "These have to be the stupidest klingons I've ever met!"
        First Officer Worf, holding forehead in his hand, just sighs...

        Mostly as a Lone Gunmen-esque action comedy, complete spoken in thlinganHol with subtitles. It could work!
    • The new Trek does not have to be like the old one. As our world progresses into the future, there are new things to tell, and Star Trek is a perfect environment for it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mjlner ( 609829 )

      1 - A necessarily predictable storyline, to the extent that we know who manages to pull through into their later years.
      Well, at least the guy in the red shirt lives, right?

    • Re:Hey. Stop it. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Jesus_666 ( 702802 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @09:41AM (#18180896)
      Actually, they have an all-new concept:

      - Scotty has wry humor and uses the sentence "I'm an engineer, Jim, not a *" all the time.
      - McCoy maintains that logic is the answer to everything.
      - Spock has slept with every female on the planet.
      - Uhura can fix any machine in half the time she should be able to.
      - Kirk is rarely seen without a metal dongle in his ear. And a mini skirt. Starfleet Academy wasn't his most glorious time, you see.

      Also, every character who wears any kind of red uniform cannot be killed by any means whatsoever. Indeed, Starfleet is experimenting with ship plating made of redshirts.

  • I can't say those actors are a bad choice. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @02:52AM (#18178500) Journal
    I mean, I'm not a gargantuan star trek fan - I enjoyed 4 (who didn't?) I loved 2 and well the original series is camp fun at best.
    Also TNG is good but yeah I'm not a circle jerk star trek loon (sorry guys, I know I should leave now)

    honestly I don't see a need for anything to be re-made BUT - well gee wizz those 3 actors are pretty darn good for their roles.
    could be interesting.

  • Boldly going where we went in the Sixties... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cordath ( 581672 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:14AM (#18178596)
    I'm not going to claim that Star Trek was the most original piece of entertainment ever conceived. (They could have called it The Forbidden Planet: Weekly) However, it was at least somewhat fresh since nobody had made a TV show quite like it before. (just movies) Some of the subsequent spinoffs managed to carve out their own niches, but the last couple (i.e. Voyager and Enterprise) were unabashedly formulaic retreads. Boldly going where no man had gone before somehow became little more than cashing in on an old idea. Safe Trek. Safe Trek became marginally profitable Trek and eventually TV ratings rat poison.

    So what does the franchise need? A couple years of laying fallow after the abysmmal Nemesis? (I am one of the few nuts who dutifully went to see that flick in theaters. I wanted to like it very badly. It was an even numbered Trek episode after all! But what did they give us? Picard expounding upon the appreciation of finer things in life, such as joy-ridding through pre-contact societies in a monster truck.) Well, Nemesis did suck, but its Enterprise that really killed Trek off. Sure, maybe it got better in its third season, but who was watching after the first two seasons?

    Now, I'm sure we could debate the finer points of why Enterprise lost its audience for days. However, I would contend that there was one insurmmountable problem with the show that made it a sure fire failure.

    TV Series #3 aboard the freakin' Star Ship Enterprise.

    The Star Trek universe is vast and filled with limitless possibilities. Why keep going back to the same bloody ship? Give us a border-patrol ship with the rejects and misfits of the acadamy instead of a bunch of the same boringly perfect people. Heck, dive into the seedier side of the Trek universe. Give us a show about the orion syndicate or privateers. Heck, even Maquis terrorists would be a change. (Voyagers crew didn't really count since they were perfectly assimilated into perfect star trek life from day #1.)

    Is this against Gene Roddenberry's vision? It's against his vision for the *first* Star Trek show. However, if the fellow were alive today I'm sure he'd realize it's time to move on and open up other aspects of the Trek universe instead of retreading the Enterprise yet again. Just because the setting is less than ideal doesn't mean your characters can't tell inspirational tales. (Likewise, despite its "perfect" setting one could easily critisize Enterprise for turning the Vulcans into hypocritical pricks and relentlessly extolling superiority of mankind like aryan suprecists.)

    That being said, not only are we going back to the Enterprise (If not in this movie, certainly in the sequels, profits allowing), we're retreading the same characters! It's possible J.J. could make a good movie, but frankly, be choosing to do yet another retread of the same tired old Trek he's really making things more difficult for himself.

    • Re:Boldly going where we went in the Sixties... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cordath ( 581672 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:18AM (#18178626)
      P.S. I'm posting about Star Trek while sloshed. Life can sink no lower.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
      Heck, dive into the seedier side of the Trek universe. Give us a show about the orion syndicate or privateers.

      Just watch Firefly and imagine Star Fleet logos on the Alliance uniforms.

  • Resuming (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:19AM (#18178636) Journal
    who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'

    Resuming, it'll 'embrace and extend'. I just hope the warp drive keeps compatibility with earlier versions.

  • Film by committee (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:20AM (#18178640)
    The series were successful in other time, where what they offered was novel, and wearing spandex as a uniform wasn't ridiculous.

    I can't be too wrong that they will come out with a mix of references/cliches from the original series, in attempt to please the fans, and also try to modernize everything, to make it look plausible for a new audience.

    The result would likely be something like the upcoming Transformers movie. Pissing off both the fans and the new audience looking for a serious movie in attempt to please both.

    It doesn't matter however, since a new Star Trek movie isn't about movie making. It's about reusing a very very popular brand to sell many tickets. Even if it sucks, many people will go to see it.

  • This is an old rumor from StarTrek.com. I've known about for few months now. This article just confirms CBS' support for the fan movie.

    I think any true Star Trek will be glad to see Rick Berman and Brannon Braga won't be involved in the movie. I hope JJ Abram calls in support from Majel Roddenberry if she can help out. No one knows Gene's dream better then her.

    Also, check out StarTrek.com's article [startrek.com].

    Maybe next year, CW will have some Trek marathons to advertise the new movie.

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:29AM (#18178698) Homepage
    Mmmaaaatt Daaaamon

  • Probably another time travel episode (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:43AM (#18178760)
    Adrian Brody as Spock, huh?

    The plot: Kirk, Spock, and crew travel back in time to early 21st century Earth using the tried-and-true slingshot effect. They are arrested by police for their suspicious activities as they recon various historic landmarks in the United States. When a policeman removes the dew rag that Spock is wearing around his face, Kirk must convince him that Spock's appearance is due to a childhood accident in which his nose was caught in a mechanical rice picker.

  • Who are these uninitiated? (Score:3, Funny)

    by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:43AM (#18178766) Journal
    They're going to worry about it being viewable by the UNINITIATED? Like, the 3 of them who will see this movie?

    Guys, you've already lobbed ten of these over the fence and saturated 2nd tier television stations with reruns of the myriad TV versions. ANYBODY (okay, anybody who was older than 6 when the last one came out) who is likely to see this stinker is pretty going to have to know at least the basics about Star Trek - except perhaps for that Bedouin family that's been lost in the deserts of Cleveland since the Korean war ended 24 years ago.

    Of course, they'll probably have to find a mysterious advanced technology device from the past, with a drawing of Kirk embedded in its design along side a warning. No worries, that's actually Kirk's sister. Spock's father will play a role in having deceived the Andorians into helping form the Federation, and his mother will have hidden his lost sister away behind a mysterious hatch on a jungle moon. Everything will go topsy-turvy when the Klingons take off their masks and turn out to have been from Secion 31 the whole time, and everything will end with no satisfying explanation having been given for any of this. But by that time, everybody will have forgotten why they entered the theater in the first place.
  • khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

    * Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    * Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  • I just hope (Score:3, Funny)

    by clickclickdrone ( 964164 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:16AM (#18178908)
    That they are found by the Galactica and Adama promptly puts them all out their misery.

    • Battlestar Dramatica? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IdahoEv ( 195056 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:29AM (#18179270) Homepage

      I just hope that they are found by the Galactica and Adama promptly puts them all out their misery.
      Not bloody likely, now that we're in season three of Anguishstar Dramatica. When was the last time anyone fired a weapon or flew a ship in combat on that show? I think Adama's crew is getting soft on military tactics.

      OTOH, if the Enterprise crew needs a showdown debating the finer points of depression, suffering, love triangles, class struggle, and generalized angst, Adama's crew will lick 'em good.

  • Just like bringing "I love Lucy" back (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:19AM (#18178924)
    We need a different film for a different society. People no longer expect computers to be operated with fixed touch panels or consoles to explode from feedback as if 802.11n remote controls were never invented. More fundamentally, US audience would no longer accept "USS" Enterprise as total do-goders. More likely, we'll support Cardassians in their fight against ruthless and religious Bajorian terrorists.
    • Wish I still had some mod-points - insightful+1

    • Re:Just like bringing "I love Lucy" back (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:37AM (#18179020) Journal
      Wireless controls on a warship (or a vessel likely to be in engaged in combat) seems like a really bad idea. One good jamming at the right frequency (or, say, an EMP), and the ship is dead in the water. Worse, they get your encryption key and now you're fighting on the enemy's side (and no, that's different from what Kirk did to the Reliant in STII:WoK).

      Warships need to be hardened. The Galactica is the right idea - heavily shielded cables.
    • The first series was shockingly different not because of the 'advanced' technology, but because of its portrayal of a society where we've put aside our petty tribal differences. I mean, they had a *black* *actress* as a major character.

      To do the same kind of shock today would need a female Muslim character in charge of the photon torpedoes, a gay security chief, and a Frenchman for captain.
  • Britney Spears as Uhura - it is a reboot after all, ment to appeal to the masses (the new masses - the old ones went into coma after Berman mistreated Star trek over the years)
  • I didn't even know that Star Trek had taken Christmas 2008. Surely that was the grinch?
  • Matt Damon as Kirk might be interesting. I could see Sinise as McCoy (not Scotty!). But there is no way on earth Brody is going to play Spock. It ain't gonna happen.

  • A better casting for Spock (Score:4, Funny)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @11:03AM (#18181928)
    Put Keanu Reeves in the role of Spock. Not only would he look the part...

    Kirk: Spock, what is your analysis of that space anomaly that is about to assimilate this ship?
    Spock: Whoa!

  • They're too old (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @12:55PM (#18183448)
    If this is indeed an 'academy' film I think there will be some issues with the actor's ages here. In 2008, Sinise will be 53, Damon will be 38 and Brady 35. By contrast, in 1966, when TOS went to air, Nimoy and Shatner were each 35 and Kelly was 46.

    ...and TOS was supposed to be *after* Spock had already served for some years on the Enterprise under Pike and Kirk had served on both the Republic and the Farragut.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all...." -- Thomas J. Kopp

Close