Star Trek XI!

[CaptPike]

Fresh blood at least. Too early maybe? Pfft, who knows. I'm game, though.

Paramount Pictures is breathing life into its "Star Trek" franchise by setting Mission: Impossible III helmer J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th "Trek" feature, aiming for a 2008 release.

Variety says that Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, Abrams' producing team from Lost, also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature.

The project, to be written by Abrams and "M:i:III" screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, will center on the early days of seminal "Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.

Created by Gene Roddenberry, "Star Trek" has been Hollywood's most durable performer other than James Bond, spawning 10 features that have grossed more than $1 billion and 726 TV episodes from six series.

Abrams also created Alias, which ABC is wrapping up in May.

[Bark]

What's this source?

[omicron]

I saw this on TVGuide.com (http://community.tvguide.com/forum.jspa?forumID=700000044)

[KingVoyeur]

It's on the Cinescape site too.

Ok, I'm all for new Trek, but I've got a few problems with this:

1) It's still a little too early. Doing another Trek film this quickly kind of feels like they're making a last ditch effort to save the series, when all they need is to let it rest a while and bring it back stronger than it was before.

2) Why go back to the old crew again? Granted, I enjoy Kirk and Spock as much as the next guy, but come on!! By the time this film gets made, the generation that sees it is not going to have that connection to Kirk and Spock the other films had. The story needs new blood instead of trotting out old characters for another go-around. Give the characters some diginity and let them rest! I don't have a problem with the whole "Star Trek Academy" idea, it's an idea I'd really like to see fleshed out more (probably only in a TV series) but set it post-Voyager, so we can get some new characters and events.

3) What's the thing in Hollywood right now with prequels and "going back to find the roots"? Rehashing the same characters over and over and pulling out every little detail of their lives is overdoing it and saying to audiences "hey, we can't think of anything new, so here's a remake of stuff you pretty much already knew." Characters need to have a little bit of mystery in their lives, it makes them more interesting.

Anyways, I guess you could call that a rant, even though I'm not entirely against another film. With Abrams on board and no sign of Berman, maybe they'll be able to pull it off.

[Cncrman]

Some info to backup from your friendly neighborhood linker:

Variety Article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117941815?categoryid=10&cs=1&s=h&p=0)

Trek Today Article (http://www.trektoday.com/news/210406_01.shtml)

[TrekSucksHard]

My only question- is Beavis and Butthead involved? http://messageboard.cinescape.com/cinescape/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif

[CaptPike]

Ok, I want a Shatner and Nimoy cameo. It would help give the movie street cred....

Can't believe I just typed that....

Ok....Kirk and Spock are standing at the Guardian of Forever. They've gone back there to toast McCoy. Perhaps tempted to go back again...somewhere...

Of course, they think better of it. They banter a bit with the Guardian and one of them mentions something about...."the first time we met"....

Ok, cheesy but I don't give a damn! Put Shatner and Nimoy in it! Someone else come up with something better, but it has to have Shatner/Nimoy and the Guardian of Forever in it. :D

[Kaeos]

Someone else come up with something better,

Very simple.

Base the story on the more recent novels involving the mirror universe and Tiberious.

You've got Kirk, Spock, Picard, all of 'em. Hell of a story that was. Kirk married to a klingon, the enterprise stolen and duplicated by the mirror universe baddies.

Gold baby.

Gold

[sickness]

You know, I don't know that I have ever been able to say this before (although I was damn close with ENT), but I am actually not happy about the idea of new Trek. I'm not just not excited -- although I am a bit apathetic about Trek in general at the current time -- I'm against new Trek at the current time. If I've managed to go from Trek geek to apathetic outsider thinking Trek is worn out for now, it's probably a good idea to give it a rest. I didn't much care for VOY after season two but I did catch up with it occasionally and I did make sure to watch the finale. I had major trepidations going into ENT which proved right but I did give it a chance. ENT earned its fate for sure. But with all that's gone wrong in Trek in the last 10 years, I think it's time to shelve it and give it a rest. I used to be there opening night for every Trek movie starting with V and see it 2 or 3 times during its run but I just don't know if I could be bothered to drag my ass out to a theater to see a Trek movie at this point.

[Kaeos]

I'm against new Trek at the current time.

I hear a lot of that here, but your all missing a very basic point here.

They are talking about the project, apparently they know who they want to helm it (no pun intended)

Okay so now like 2 years to get a script together, another year to go through budgets. Casting, another 6 months.

Pre-production and sets 6 months

Script re-writes and principal photography 1 year.

On set filming 6 months.

Post production 6 months.

Get set boys and girls for the motion picture event of the new decade.

Coming....Summer 2012, Star Trek .....whatever the hell # we're now!

[sickness]

It would be nice if that's the schedule they were thinking of but they've got to strike while the iron's hot for Abrams and the "Lost" guys. I've heard they plan to have it in theaters some time in 2008.

[TrekSucksHard]

Looks like they are planning a 2008 release- here's a more detailed update:
----------------------------------------
"Trek" Rediscovered by "Lost" Creator

By Joal Ryan 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

Young Kirk. Young Spock. Mr. Lost.

Those are the components Paramount Pictures has assembled to revive its sputtering Star Trek franchise.

A new big-screen movie, apparently featuring the early adventures of Trek forefathers James T. Kirk and Spock, and boasting the handiwork of Lost creator J.J. Abrams, is being primed for a 2008 release.

The studio wouldn't confirm the plot points, but did say Friday that the 39-year-old Abrams will produce, direct and cowrite the untitled project. His collaborators will be familiar names, to Abrams: Producers Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, both from Lost; and writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, both from Mission: Impossible III, the upcoming Tom Cruise sequel that Abrams helmed.

There was no word on a cast.

William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, both 75, played Kirk and Spock, respectively, on the original 1966-69 Trek TV series and in several Trek movies.

The Abrams hire marks not only a rebirth, but a departure for Trek, maligned in a 2003 lawsuit as a franchise in "decay."

The new movie, the 11th in the series, apparently will be the first in some 15 years not to involve producer Rick Berman, who also oversaw every Trek series from Next Generation on. (Trek creator Gene Roddenberry died in 1991.) It'll also apparently be the first in more than 10 years not to star the Next Generation cast.

The most recent Trek movie was the 2002 box-office dud Star Trek: Nemesis. The most recent Trek series was the low-rated 2001-05 Enterprise, the first attempt to go back to the future with characters who predated Kirk and Spock.

From startrek.com to aintitcool.com, message-board reaction to word of the new movie was positive, if the poster was a fan of Abrams, and negative, if the poster wasn't a fan of prequels.

In its article Friday that broke the story, Variety didn't use the "P" word, but the trade paper made the Abrams movie sound very much like one, noting it'll show Kirk and Spock's "first meeting at Starfleet Academy and [their] first outer space mission."

"Did they learn nothing from Enterprise?," one distressed ainticool.com poster wrote Friday. "They had to redo the technology and changed established TREK lore to make it even marginally interesting, and ended up infuriating fans everywhere. Now they're going to screw around with the histories of Trek's two most important icons? STOP IT!"

Maintaining calm is author Win Scott Eckert, who has been collecting, compiling and otherwise straightening out Starfleet chronology since he was a boy back in the 1970s, and has the 184-page Star Trek Annotated Timeline to show for the effort. He, for one, is looking forward to the new movie, and isn't worried it'll wreak havoc with Kirk and Spock as fans know them.

"There is really very little that is Trek "canon" [meaning, info gleaned from the TV shows and movies] about these characters' early careers," Eckert said in an email interview Friday. "So, I can't see any reason why this prequel would not fit into canonical Trek continuity."

Besides, Eckert said, minor timeline conflicts he can handle--"my task will be to come up with reconciling explanations. All in fun, of course."

For those keeping score at home, or scrolling through Eckert's chronology, the new movie should take place sometime between the early 2230s, when Spock and Kirk are born, and 2262, when the two become bridge mates aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise (and when the stories of the original Trek series begin).

Prequels have been the rage in recent years for iconic pop-culture properties. Superman, Batman and Darth Vader are among those to have been youth-in-ized, in the upcoming Superman Returns, Batman Begins, and Star Wars: Episodes I-III, respectively.

A Star Trek prequel involving Kirk and Spock is not a new idea, and almost came close to getting made about two years ago, veteran Star Trek movie producer Harve Bennett told TrekNation.com in February.

"Some of the steam went out of it when my dear DeForest Kelley died," Bennett said of the actor who played Dr. McCoy. "He was going to be in it with Bill [Shatner] and Leonard, those were the only two regulars, and they were involved in a flashback. That's how we incorporated the three main characters into the prequel: it was a memory."

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the latest Star Trek prequel project is that it flew under the fan radar. About the only news tangentially linking Abrams to Trek was a December Los Angeles Times report that said Paramount Pictures chairman Brad Grey desperately wanted the producer/writer on the studio lot.

Mission: Impossible III, opening May 5, is Abrams' first feature film as director. As a TV titan, he's created Felicity and Alias, in addition to Lost.

Abrams' screenplay credits include Armaggedon, raising the possibility of animal crackers joining the Trek canon.

Two positive things here:

1) NO BERMAN AND BRAGA- Woohoo!

2) The return of Kirk- Yes, the one and only! Kirk IS Star Trek (the other captains were just pretenders to the throne) and always will be and I am glad that they are bringing back the most iconic character of the Trek universe back to the glory that he deserves. It seems that they are looking to restart the franchise (a la Batman Begins) and I for one am optimistic about it (the people doing it are A-list compared to the Z-grade Killer B's.).

and 3) If this movie is good I may have to change my username on this board.http://messageboard.cinescape.com/cinescape/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

[sickness]

3) If this movie is good I may have to change my username on this board.

Dude, if that happens I just might poop myself. :lol:

[Space Tycoon]

May I suggest TrekRocksHard?



:D
.

[Mobile Vulgus]

It is AWFULLY early to assume that anything is set in stone!

Hollyweird is known for announcements that lead to NOWHERE! How ling did it take to make Lord of the Rings??

[CaptPike]

"Some of the steam went out of it when my dear DeForest Kelley died," Bennett said of the actor who played Dr. McCoy. "He was going to be in it with Bill [Shatner] and Leonard, those were the only two regulars, and they were involved in a flashback. That's how we incorporated the three main characters into the prequel: it was a memory."

Hey! Just what I was talking about!

Here's another thing. Paramount obviously wants Trek to last forever. Well, there are millions of fans out there who don't know much about TOS. For the last 5 or 6 years, it could only be seen if you had Sci-Fi channel or wanted to buy 100 dollar DVD sets. Now, it can only be seen on G4. I grew up watching TOS re-runs, but millions of fans have grown up only seeing TNG re-runs or later.

My point is, Kirk and Spock are mentioned in EVERY series, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps Paramount is thinking 'James Bond' here. Kirk and Spock can live on through other actors, over the course of time. Shatner and Nimoy are like Sean Connery. A whole new generation is about to get used to a new Bond, why not a new Kirk and Spock?

[sickness]

It is AWFULLY early to assume that anything is set in stone!

Hollyweird is known for announcements that lead to NOWHERE! How ling did it take to make Lord of the Rings??

Hell, I remember James Cameron saying during T2 promo events that his next project was going to be Spider-Man and it would be out summer of 1993.

[Monic]

Ohhh... brother! :rolleyes:

[Space Tycoon]

Hell, I remember James Cameron saying during T2 promo events that his next project was going to be Spider-Man and it would be out summer of 1993.

The longer the better. I'm in no hurry. Give it the time it is due.




.

[jayce78]

I always wanted to see a young , brass , Bones in an early 23rd century E.R.


''Dr. Were losing her!''

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6351/rst8nl.png (http://imageshack.us)



''Ahh Nurse . . . could you grab me some Romulian Ale and help me with this damm collar.''

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5772/fef4oh.png (http://imageshack.us)




Seriously though , I am a Trek man and I hope this works out for the franschise.

Now excuse me I have to go put on my Spock ear's and pray to my autographed William Shatner poster . . .

[Lavoruis]

Please let the franchise die mercefully.
no more prequels no more back traking or anything .
if Paramount cannot come out with something fresh ,and new .
Then let it go.:romy:

[jayce78]

I just about second that motion!!! :wink:

[Sgt. Awesome]

We've had a negitive prequil experiance with Enterprise, but we could have a good one. Like Batman Begins (because that movie was awesome).

[TrekSucksHard]

We've had a negitive prequil experiance with Enterprise, but we could have a good one. Like Batman Begins (because that movie was awesome).
Totally agree- with all the Berman & Braga crap (temporal cold war, Voyager, Ent) thats been piled on we need a reboot of Trek (new looking ships, new tech but with the same familiar organizations like the Federation and the same familiar names like Kirk and Spock) and if this movie turns out like the "Batman Begins" of the Trek franchise then I will be pretty happy.

I think the movie will be made sooner rather than later based on all the press its been getting plus all the big guns being bandied about.

[Bark]

As long as B&B are gone, hope springs eternal. I, for one, would be optimistic. :)