Star Trek new photo old pose

[spotter]

Yes it will be a fine redbox dvd 1.00 rental later

I am waiting for AMC to show it

[Nostalgiabuff]

it all comes down to right time, right place. The producers no they overstepped with all of the spin off shows. People, were tired of new crews and characters and also of the artistic liberties taken with each new show on established history. People don't want a new crew, they want Kirk and Spock. Shat is too old and fat to play Kirk anymore and Nimoy, being the same age, it too old. that only leaves the posibility of recasting. I for one am looking forward to this movie. I am open minded about it and will accept it for what it is, a new adventure. If the movie sucks then it is just one more bad movie in a long string of them. There has not been a good movie since First Contact and the last few before that were not all that great either. (possible exception VI, but they looked too old to still be doing it) New casting will never replace the love we have for the originals but at least we can enjoy something new with the characters.

[jds1911a1]

OK on the photo, if your going to recreat it put the camera at the same hight.

On a new movie - why don't they go forward with the time line. Don't use the Next gen other than a cameo mabey. New script new cast go foward. If they want to use a new enterprise thats fine.

in their minds they already tried that with Ds9 and Voyager

[jds1911a1]

Close But No Cigar. I Still want to see It Though
Sammy

Yes it will be a fine redbox dvd 1.00 rental later

[JPkempo]

OK on the photo, if your going to recreat it put the camera at the same hight.

On a new movie - why don't they go forward with the time line. Don't use the Next gen other than a cameo mabey. New script new cast go foward. If they want to use a new enterprise thats fine.

[Captain]

I agree Roddenberry wasnt the be all and end all of Trek. I think Coon and Justman, the actors, and a slew of writers and behind the scenes folks added way more than the framework Gene provided. Yes, he created it. He set the mood and the theme of the show, theres no doubt to that. The guy was talented, no arguments there....but Trek was a sum of its whole, not just Gene.

Next point. the Star trek Academy film was not kiboshed by Gene. At the time, he and Paramount werent even talking to each other. In fact, except for allowing him to see the new films prior to their release, Gene was out of the picture. Out of professional curtesy, Harve Bennett would run new films ideas past him for his thoughts, but in the end (for example Trek 5) his word wasnt final on anything. In fact, Gene really only came back into a position of control on Star Trek after Nimoy refused to work with Paramount on creating a new tv series. They relented, asked Gene, and TNG came about.(This is all covered in the numerous Biographies about Gene).

The Star Trek Academy movie (called-the First Adventure: Star Trek: The First Adventure - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki) was killed by Paramount.Oddly enough, a lot of preproduction work was already underway when it was decided to do Undiscovered Country instead. Ethan Hawke was actually hired to play Kirk, and somebody else had been hired to do Spock. Even the web-site I've linked above mentions this died a quick death, yet so much stuff was done? I personally feel Paramount was strongly considering this project, and somebody somewhere (I would think the main cast members?) started a campaign against the idea. Possible fan backlash was probably a big weapon here too. Of course, Paramount rebounds and says they were never really interested to save face, but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

Lucky for us all, The original crew won out, and came back for one more film. Personally, I wish they had got to do more films....Shatners "Ashes of Eden" would have made a great Trek 7 film in my opinion. DeForest Kelley even submitted a Star Trek 7 that was reportedly based on "The Guns of Navarone"....sounds good to me, but Berman was pushing hard for TNG movies, and since TNG was still riding high in popularity...we got Generations instead.

A couple points regarding casting--
One, I'm hoping they hired these actors because they can act, not because they look like Kirk, or whomever. Casting because of looks over substance would indicate to me, more than anything, that the filmmakers were just trying to cash in on the Trek name, and whatevers left of its fanbase. Instead they moved ahead....they have changed things because they felt it would make for a better movie. I'm glad...as much as I hate to see things change, I'm all for it if its for the right reasons, and trying to make a fantastic movie rather than just another Trek flic, is one hell of a good reason to me.

Dont forget,back in 74', Roddenberry himself considered recasting some of the crew for the proposed "The God Thing" film. Partly due to difficulties dealing with some of the cast, and partly because Paramount (who still didnt quite understand what this Trek thing was all about) suggested it. Robert Redford was bandied about for Kirk. I recall Michael York was suggested as a "new Vulcan"? (even this early on, Spock was considered out of the picture---Nimoy and Roddenberry hated each other you may recall). Kind of funny, as Michael york was also considered for Xon in Phase:II---somewhere theres probably a screen test floating around? Luckily Gene came to his senses and the idea was dropped. Still, as Jon mentioned, Shatner was only written into the first thirteen episodes of Phase:II, and was due to be "promoted off the ship" after that because of his high salary demands. Nimoy was never even considered for the new show. His agent was approached about Nimoy's being in the pilot, and then a couple of cameos, but I doubt that would ever really happen!? Had Phase:II come to fruition, I really believe we would have had a predominantly new Enterprise crew by season 2.

I hope the new film works. It will NEVER replace in any way the original (and yes TIK, ONLY) Star Trek.....but I do hope its a worthy imitator that keeps the story boldly going.

[vulcan2074]

Close But No Cigar. I Still want to see It Though
Sammy

[bobws]

It just looks like the kids are taking over and no one is watching over it to make sure it's worthy of being Trek.

[jds1911a1]

>Honestly...can anyone look at this photo and see Kirk and Spock?

I CAN.... but for some reason it looks like an ad for Star Trek costumes from a newspaper flyer.

Don C.

HA HA HA

[johnmiic]

Let me jump in and say every time they have tried to re-start Star Trek-they screw it up and are really working against themselves to try and suceed. In many cases you can blame Rodenberry but even his desciples followed his W-T-F? approach to the show. With this new film I think maybe they have a bad story, some bad casting for some characters, and I think the "look" will not please fans. JJ Abrhams said in last weeks EW he is not making this film for ST fans. He is just trying to make a film for general audiences.

Before Star Trek - The Motion Picture, most scripts wrote Shatner out of Star Trek as Admiral Kirk, ( before Nimoy refused to come back). Either he died or made a cameo and they went on without him. This is mentioned in many interviews in the 70's. Why? I have no idea.

Upon the release of ST-TMP Paramount declares old Trek off limits and only New Trek can be merchandised or used in films and comic books, ( verified by numerous writers on the MARVEL ST comic).

Next Generation was forbidden from using characters and aliens or referring to classic Trek for some time even in situations where it should be referred to, ( exceptions were of course the story The Naked Now, Klingons and Romulans, and the episode Sarek). Worf's role was an afterthought and not suppossed to be so large. It took until the 1st season finale to get the Romulans back in the show. The reason for this may have been money. If you use an old character you have to pay that writer a royalty. In the case of The Naked Now no royalty was paid because the story concept was not a "character" being re-used. The scriptwriter cmplained about it in interviews.

[ctc]

>What's the alternative Mike? Let Trek go "gently into that good night"?

Not Trek; but Kirk and Spock. Seriously; there's NOTHING you can't do with new characters. Even this movie, I'd bet it'd work fine if you used new characters with the same plot. Wouldn't have the nostalgia... or name recognition, though. And it seems like THAT'S what they're relying on. Everything else is just gravy.

New ships, new crew.... they've got a few different eras they could work with.

>I don't put a lot of stock in Rodenberry as the Great Bird of the Galaxy.

Well.... I think he was the hub for the longest time. The last couple of folks in charge really did a number on things, mostly 'cos they put so much effort into fighting the back story. Rodenberry got kinda weird around the Next Gen time. He REALLY wanted to get away from the military style stories, and I think that was a ixed bag of results. (The Gorn and Orion manuals for the RPG were cancelled 'cos of this attitude change. Which always bothered me. SOMEWHERE is a finished copy of the Gorn book....)

Don C.

[toys2cool]

The Spock looks awesome

[Mikey]

If they really wanted to do something as a nice final blowout for the franchise, here's what I would suggest .......

It's 2008, so any idea is possible today....

Go with Gene's first Motion Picture idea.
The Jesus as a crazy robot one.
Get the Next Gen cast to star in it, and include some DS-9's and Voyager cameos.
Forget about the classic series and Enterprise.
Or, get some of them to play as other characters in the Next Gen universe.

Run with that and make a movie that Gene WANTED to do.

Either go out punching with what they have, or crawl away.

Leave the classic series alone.

That's my theory.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I remember two ideas being bandied about for future Trek films in the late 80s/early 90s. One was the "young Kirk and Spock meet" idea Mike mentions. It would have had Shatner and Nimoy and flashbacks with younger actors. I believe that was Harve Bennet's idea. The other was Rodenberry's persistent "Enterprise goes back to 1963 and stops Kennedy assasination" idea. He apparently brought it up every time a new movie was on the tabel. Rodenberry shot down Bennet's idea, and Bennet shot down Roddenberry's. Honestly, between the two, Bennet's was better. Kirk already proved he wouldn't muck with time for personal gain, by letting Edith Keeler die. Why would he save Kennedy and alter history?

This may seem blasphemous to some, but I don't put a lot of stock in Rodenberry as the Great Bird of the Galaxy. I'll give him credit for the initial idea, and pushing it on through the pilots and the first season, but much of what became classic Star Trek came from many hands, including guys like Gene Coon and some of the best SF writers in the world.

Roddenberry on his own gave us the bland first few seasons of ST:TNG. Roddenberry kind of reminds me of Bob Kane, "creator" of Batman. He was always there with his name out front and mugging for the camera, but many other hands did most of the heavy lifting.

Chris

[Mikey]

What's the alternative Mike?

There is none, just watch the old series and enjoy it like everyone else has done for the past 40-ish years.
You'll find, seeing an old rerun 2000 times is still better then anything new they can make.

Let Trek go "gently into that good night"?

Yes, just let it die.
With no Gene and no cast members (they're all too old or dead) ... there is nothing that can be done.

People LOVE Shakespeare.
They love reading the same stories over and over and over again.
They don't need A Tale of Two Cities : The Next Generation and so forth.