Paramount is a studio that seems to be scrambling to figure out just what its identity is. For the last five years, it seems like they�ve been the home of stalled, desperately un-hip franchises, Ashley-Judd-in-peril movies, and weak Billy Friedkin pity gigs. They seem to be working to change that, though, with films like SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW and A PRINCESS OF MARS in the pipeline. I want to believe that Paramount can turn it around.
But when I hear about their plans for STAR TREK, I have to wonder. Are they unable to tell a good idea from a bad one where this particular franchise is concerned? I�m not the world�s biggest fan of TREK in any flavor, but I sympathize with TREK fans. You guys have it rough. And it�s about to get rougher.
First, the good news. No Berman. No Braga. Instead, Jordan Kerner (SNOW DOGS, INSPECTOR GADGET, THE MIGHTY DUCKS and D2 and D3) is being brought in to produce. Right now, he�s in the early stages of developing a prequel trilogy. First question, obviously, is �a prequel to what?� After all, the various TV shows have played all sorts of tricks with the timeline. When I hear �prequel trilogy,� it sounds to me like we�re going to see young Kirk and young Spock and young McCoy. It sounds to me like we�re talking about Starfleet Academy.
Instead, we�re looking at films that sound like they�re all about big intergalactic events, but which don�t appear to be about any characters, which is what Gene Roddenberry�s original vision was ALWAYS about. Characters. Don�t just try to tell some big budget spectacle story. I hear the first film�s about a civil war, the second film�s devoted largely to the galactic switch-over from a fission standard to fusion, and then there�s a third film where we�ll finally see an Ensign Kirk show up for all of about the last 20 minutes. Just Kirk. Nobody else. And no ENTERPRISE.
And that notion they�re discussing in hushed and excited tones about putting William Shatner�s head on a younger actor�s body? Easily the goofiest bad idea I�ve heard since Lex Luthor, flying Kryptonian. It almost makes me want to see them do it, just for the laugh value.
You�re still really early in this process, Paramount, so please... allow me to offer a little bit of constructive criticism. You need to listen to your fans. And I�m not saying listen to me. Read the message boards that are out there. Cast as wide a net as you can across fandom and let the fans remind you just what it is that made TREK so important to them in the first place. Reach out and take the time to get it right. Don�t just chase STAR WARS and LORD OF THE RINGS, and don�t throw money at it just to make STAR TREK into something it never was.
I�m going to try to bring you more details about this proposed trilogy as they continue working on it, and in the meantime, I�ll hand it over to the real TREK fans, you guys. What do you think of Paramount�s plans?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well...at last they've been wrong before, and Paramount has nixed stupid ideas in the concept stage many times.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
quote: the second film�s devoted largely to the galactic switch-over from a fission standard to fusion
Sounds like good watchin!
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Okay, I'm kinda cool with the idea of doing event-driven Trek, but WTF are these events???
Why do people feel the need to pull shit out of their ass, when there's so much extraordinary history to draw from already? A civil war? The hell? Give me the Romulan War sans screwy timeline BS and Braga-wanking, and make sure it doesn't suck my balls.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I really hate to lend this any credence even by discussing it, but...
Star Trek has always used the premise that the galaxy is filled with different species evolving separately and at different rates. It makes no sense, in that context, to talk about a "galactic switch-over from a fission standard to fusion". That sort of thing only works in a situation where one species (humans, typically) dominates (or is alone in) the galaxy.
Not to mention that Trek has never had galaxy-wide events. It uses to low of a standard travel velocity.
Anyway, since this guy doesn't even hint at where he heard any of this, I suspect that either he's making it up, or someone else made it all up and he just believes anything anyone tells him.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You know, its kinda funny. I was thinking the other day, that the rise and fall of Star Trek is somewhat amusing when compared to the same trend of Star Wars. I mean, obviously Star Trek predates Star Wars, but it can be argued that there would never have been Star Trek movies without Star Wars movies. Star Trek owes its second coming to Star Wars. Which in the end is kind of amusing because as Star Wars is nearing its death throes, Star Trek seems to be headed for the same in sympathy. Kind of like sympathy pains in a pregnancy.
I only bring it up because like Star Wars, thats the one big thing that separates Star Trek from the newer science fiction shows with new ideas, an established fanbase with a large investment.
If you think about it, its kind of daunting. Four series of tv shows, 10 or so movies, books, potentially computer games. Heck, some of us maintain websites and make models. Thats a heck of a lot of investment for any new show to come up against.
The real litmus test: pretend that you've never heard of Star Trek, a scary thought for some of us. Now, compare Nemesis with just movies that you've seen recently or compare Enterprise with other tv shows. Ask yourself if you'd really give it so much time, if you didn't have a prior time investment.
So back on topic. This rumour sounds completely silly, but it highlights an interesting point. Getting rid of the current ST administration, probably a good idea. But replace it with who exactly?
Some random new guy with no connection to science fiction? Goodbye time investment and that was the general idea behind the script for Nemesis.
Some new guy with a connection to the franchise? Fans don't seem particularly enamoured of any current figure, Ron Moore is probably busy with BSG, RHW didn't have that great a showing with Andromeda....
Some established science fiction talent with no connection to the franchise? Well, they probably have their own creations to manage and don't want to play clean-up.
So put yourself in the big Paramount/Viacom/UPN/whatever chair. Try to think of yourself as a business man who actually has to please shareholders, make money, and somehow produce entertainment. What do you do?
Its a tough call.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"...RHW didn't have that great a showing with Andromeda...."
I don't know about that. The show wouldn't have been so bad if Sorbo hadn't crushed the life out of it.
"I mean, obviously Star Trek predates Star Wars, but it can be argued that there would never have been Star Trek movies without Star Wars movies. Star Trek owes its second coming to Star Wars."
I could be wrong about this, but wasn't "Phase II" already in the works when Star Wars happened? Didn't SW simply cause them to make it into a movie, rather than a TV show?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I could be wrong about this, but wasn't "Phase II" already in the works when Star Wars happened? Didn't SW simply cause them to make it into a movie, rather than a TV show?
Phase II appears to have died because Paramount couldn't sign up enough stations to make it's 4th network work. Star Wars just proved that science fiction movies could make a boatload of money. That being the case, given the money spent on Star Trek up to that point, it's no surprise Eisner decided to take "In Thy Image" and make it into ST:TMP. It was really the only possible chance they had to recoup their investment. (And despite its budget overruns and Paramount counting all the previous failed attempts to bring Trek back as part of the budget, TMP still made money...making over 2.5 times is official budget.)
I don't buy this "prequels" nonsense. It would be a really stupid move to make films about big events that would lead up to Star Trek, as only hardcore Trekkies would give rats ass. Yeah, maybe if they were great movies on their own, but in that case it seems the Star Trek name seems more like baggage than an asset.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Prequels! Has nobody learned that prequals often turn out so bad that in the minds of the fans they become a separtate entity entirely and will never become part of the story/series etc...
notable crappy prequels being the new star wars movies and the numerous Dune prequals......
-------------------- "Smooth as an Android's bottom...?"
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The real litmus test: pretend that you've never heard of Star Trek, a scary thought for some of us. Now, compare Nemesis with just movies that you've seen recently or compare Enterprise with other tv shows. Ask yourself if you'd really give it so much time, if you didn't have a prior time investment.
I'd still favor Nemesis to crap movies with great production values like The Fifth Element. Even without the Trek investment, I'd love Enterprise: it far outshines any other sci-fi out there (now that Firefly and farscape are history).
God knows Andromeda is nigh-unwatchable.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Prequels! Has nobody learned that prequals often turn out so bad that in the minds of the fans they become a separtate entity entirely and will never become part of the story/series etc...![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Andromeda, I just plain dont get it, bring back Buck Rogers I say ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
