Paramount executives have decided to keep it simple and call JJ Abrams’ Trek film, “Star Trek“. It might just work.
“That’s the intended title. I don’t think we want to put any colons or anything on it,” Star Trek XI screenwriter Robert Orci told MTV. “It’ll be the biggest one. The economic models of the other [films] were very much based on the fans out there and their purchasing power. With this one we’re going for the broad audience to bring people into ‘Trek’ for the first time.”
Orci and Kurtzman also confirmed that the film would be a re-imagining of the franchise:
“We’re not going to start totally from scratch. We want it to feel like it’s updated and of the now. That’s actually the discussions we’re having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing’s new. It’s tricky,” Orci said. “When we finally turned in the script I started lining up other directors, and that really got [Abrams] going.”
March 9th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
“The movie will be titled, simply, Star Trek”
RED ALERT, notify all the Star Trek fan associations immediately! No semi-colons or subtitles this time! But on a more serious note, thats an interesting 180 from the stance they took with “Enterprise,” where they tried to remove any reference to the shows Trek heritage in the title. Maybe it represents a turning around on the part of the Paramount Hollywood elites, and a recognition that the Star Trek franchise is actually a powerful and valuable brand?
Not likely.
“it will take place aboard a starship”
This one is just too easy, so I’m going to leave it alone.
“and they’re OK with Matt Damon playing Capt. James T. Kirk…Not that the writers confirmed that Damon had been cast, as rumored.”
Is this what we’re reduced to in Star Trek fandom these days? Wondering if MATT DAMON will now be the face of the new Battlestar Galactic–err–Star Trek? What about focusing on engaging stories with space-bound metaphors that challenge us to think about our own lives? What about characters that we care about? What about real risk and a sense of adventure, the kind of thing that set our hearts on fire as children and adolescents?
Alas, no. We get this:
“The writers wouldn’t discuss details of the story, other than to say it is a reimagining of the franchise that will remain true to its history, but aim for the broadest audience possible. Kurtzman promised: ‘There will be more action in this movie than any Trek that’s preceded it.’”
Because, you know, that’s really what Star Trek needs. Maybe if we just water it down to better appeal to the Dawson’s Creek audience and fill it with more fighting and explosions, that will solve the franchise’s problems. I mean, heck, it worked for Enterprise, didn’t it? It worked for Star Trek: Nemesis, didn’t it?
Both Enterprise and Star Trek Nemesis were (to one extent or another) predicated on the false assumption that what’s “wrong with Star Trek” can ultimately be fixed by straying farther and farther from Gene Rodenberry’s vision. If we fill it with tighter skirts, more action, and less character development, then every 13-35 year old in America will flock to it, right? Wrong.
This movie is going to fail. Just like Nemesis failed. Just like Enterprise failed. Why? Because it’s just another attempt to re-write Star Trek from the ground up. It doesn’t need to be re-written, it doesn’t need to be remixed. It’s an established brand that millions of people appreciate and are comfortable with. People seem to forget that Star Trek TNG was hugely rated, and it didn’t have to resort to the kind of nonsense that we’ve seen recently in the franchise.
You don’t bring Star Trek into the 21st century (in the entertainment sense) by re-writing it from the ground up. No, you ADD something to the already familiar mix. Starting over from the ground up is what caused so much trouble for Voyager, and what doomed Enterprise to failure before it began. TNG didn’t go off the air because of good ratings, that show went out with a bang. Start back there, and build off of it. What about having a story where the crew is joined by the first Romulan Starfleet officer? Or Cardassian, for that matter. What if the Breen want to join the Federation and there’s a plot to stop it from happening? These people have gone through several bloody wars, and the mixing of cultures is going to cause tension on personal, community, and galactic levels. There’s a lot of opportunity for drama in that situation alone . . . but somehow it’s better to hire people to work on Star Trek who can’t tell if Geordi LaForge is an alien or not, and have no concept of what “continuity” means.
Yeah, good job, Paramount.
J. Marcus Xavier | Executive Producer: The Silent Universe Podcast: Sci Fi Drama, direct to your ears! | Blog: Very Small Doses: Thoughts on Sci Fi, Entertainment, and whatever else catches my attention.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:36 am
If you “reimagined” a movie about Designing Women, no matter how you wrote it, cast it, packaged it or presented it - if I am not into Designing Women, I am not going to care to see it.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:56 am
As bad as Nemesis was, I’d still pay real money to see anything Trek related. That said, I’m not all that excited about a glimpse back into the history of Kirk and Spock, but perhaps ‘Star Trek’ will draw a wider audience and greater interest in the same manner that ‘Casino Royale’ helped boost the Bond product line.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I agree with most of what J. Marcus Xavier said. I have been a fan of Trek since the start. I do think however scraping over the already known past of Kirk will be a terrible mistake that will finally put the last nail in the coffin. Why dont Paramount listen to the fans of the series for a change? Of all the films that have been made, I think there has only been three I have really enjoyed and not minded paying the fee to see them. Of those three you may be suprised that one of them was The Motion Picture. That film embodied what Star Trek was and should be. I also think DS9 was fantastic in its own right, if Paramount is going to do another film, why not do a DS9 one. All the actors as far as im aware are all in favour of doing a feature and as there were alot of loose ends at the end of the series there would be no problem creating something special for fans and new people to Trek alike. As far as bringing Kirk back to the big screen, that will be a dreadful mistake. People will not accept anyone else bar William Shatner as Kirk, and as he is obviously too old now thats out. Another TNG film? That would be another mistake. I think they have taken TNG as far as they could, and I didnt rate their films anyway. What about Voyager? Whats the point, that series finished well. That leaves Enterprise. Well that series was laughable and not even worth a mention really. No DS9 is the only recent series that deserves a feature. One at least, to tie up the loose ends and give us fans something that we want for a change.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Horrible as it is to say, i think most of the movie going fans are at the age where they prefer the TNG era characters to TOS. Im a big fan, always have been, of the tng era characters. I have no intrest in seeing spock doing kirks homework which was the predictable formulae of most episodes.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
There is a reason that Paramount is ignoring the fans. It’s because Paramount doesn’t get paid to pander to Star Trek fans. Paramount gets paid by revenue from successful films. Unfortunately, if millions of Star Trek fans went to see this movie, Paramount would make only a fraction of what they would make if tens of millions of casual movie-goers went to see it. So why should they care whether the fans approve?
For what it’s worth, I would like to see a DS9 movie, but I sincerely doubt we’ll ever see that. It would be nice if someone with bulletproof screenwriting skills could create new characters and a new storyline, something not already hashed and rehashed such as the Romulans, Cardassians, Vulcans, time travel… I want to see something new again. Not that I have any good ideas myself, but that’s why I’m not in the industry. ;]
November 18th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Has it occurred to them that in order to “reimagine” ST, they’ll have to pull all the various ST incarnations in syndication? This “reimagining” will have to compete with them all and outdo them all to have any hope of success.
By now, everyone’s an ST fan. It’s entered the popular culture as deeply, maybe even more deeply, than Star Wars. It’s even mentioned by characters in shows like NYPD Blue and Law and Order. I defy anyone, anywhere, to find someone who hasn’t seen at least one ST episode. There is no “casual moviegoer” when it comes to this franchise. Where does this crazy idea come from? Battlestar Galactica could get away with it because, frankly, there never were many BG fans.
This is, I believe, an outgrowth of a general tendency in American corporations to abuse their customer base. We see this disregard for the customer base in the music industry, the software industry, entertainment companies, and even among auto manufacturers. Why shouldn’t it appear here?
Hell, I won’t go. I watch various ST shows in rerun three or four times a week, but I have zero interest in this movie. I haven’t gone to the last three ST movies. Why bother, when it’ll be in the bargain DVD bin a year after it’s out?
November 18th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
rpbird:
That’s a fairly arrogant attitude. Having heard of Star Trek or seen a couple of episodes on TV doesn’t make someone a fan. I imagine you’ll be hard pressed to find someone out there who hasn’t heard of the Nazis; they’re referenced in pop culture constantly - if subtly. Are you trying to tell me that everyone is a Hitler fan?
I’m sorry to shatter your bubble, but there are hundreds of millions of casual moviegoers in the global market who won’t be chomping at the bit to hear about a new Star Trek movie, and it’s not because it’ll be starring Matt Damon; it’s because they don’t give a damn about Star Trek.
Just trying to keep things in perspective.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
How about writing proper HTML [ or DHTML or XML or JSP or ASP or whichever you're using ] so the comments wrap properly in the column width you assign so we can read them.
For examples of what’s wrong, see the above comments. Doesn’t matter what size the window is, it doesn’t show it all. Practically every line runs out of column on the right side
Looks more 19th century than 24th century.
Sheesh. :P
January 11th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
once again it comes down to money.. paramount could poll the huge star trek fan base on the web and get an idea of what they’d like to see and pay money to see.. but that’s not going to happen, beacuse ultimately it’s the masses that will give them the revenue they want.. so we end up with a pony remake that most true trek fans will be less than enthusiastic about *roll eyes*