160 years before Kirk was born, eh? That'd put it somewhere a few years after First Contact with the Vulcans. The screenwriter promises no existing characters (save probably Zefram Cochrane, who could be reprised by the same actor in an age-appropriate role), and a gritty "Band of Brothers" feel that he's known for, having written that miniseries.
posted
While I thought people complaining about Enterprise not being "Star Trek" because it was looking backward and not forward - was stupid - this prequal to Enterprise IS pushing the limit.
Bermaga should be out of there.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
AndrewR, really, you need a new catch phrase. And the important reason is that, you know, Brannon Braga has his own show now.
CaptainBoh, you're right. Someone's math is way off on that. If it's 160 years before Kirk's birth, then that would put the movie in the area of 2070. If they meant 160 years before Kirk commanded the Enterprise, that'd be about forty years before the start of Star Trek: Enterprise. We'd be talking major continuity problems in either case.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
in case the timeline really has been worked out to match the Romulan War, an original phrasing of "a hundred... (damn, I screwed up, I meant to be more accurate and say, now what was that figure we agreed on?) ...SIXTY years before Kirk's birth" seems rather likely here.
Placing the war in the 2170s works just fine in terms of general chronology, and also steers clear of ENT characters and events. Even if Archer or Reed is still alive at the time, they won't be in this Band of Brothers, but rather sitting behind a desk and at most sending cameo-type orders and despatches to the main heroes.
Not that I'd think the franchise would be strong enough to support such a specific, niche show at the time - but as a movie, the war story might be fun to watch. But only assuming that Paramount risks big money on it, which isn't likely to happen. I mean, scifi war on a shoestring budget? Perhaps, if it's all surgically clean ship-to-ship (B5 style). But with an emphasis on "grunt" characters, we need "infantry" action outside the ship sets. And whether with live extras or digital characters, that's gonna cost.
posted
Gonna be tough to have "infantry" style action against an enemy they never see face to face.
Even if the Romulans were to wear helmets that cover teir entire heads, some bodies would be left behind on the battlefield...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: AndrewR, really, you need a new catch phrase. And the important reason is that, you know, Brannon Braga has his own show now.
Fair Enough. But they still will be teaming up for Trek XI.
Interesting Braga series - would these scientists... and milit-- oh my god sounds like a Stargate rip-off. I wonder if it will be called "Wormhole X-treme"?
So it's just a hiccup about the 160 year thingy - so it will be about the Romulan War - now this could be interesting. I reckon an Enterprise movie would work.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Fair Enough. But they still will be teaming up for Trek XI.
No. Every release that's come out about about Trek XI shows that Braga is not involved in the new movie. Now, could things change? Yeah, especially if Threshold tanks and Braga suddenly find himself needing work. But for now, it's a new group of producers and writers teaming up with Berman for the new movie.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
It is starting to sound like a kit-bash of Starship Troopers meets Space:Above & Beyond meets Star Trek. How do they expect an audience to walk into a theater and instantly identify with an unknown "crew"? The first third of the movie would have to be introduction and relationship then straight to the shoot-m-up. Not a good formula
I think Trek needs to recuperate for a few years before it gets its own residual "Genesis Effect".
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: How do they expect an audience to walk into a theater and instantly identify with an unknown "crew"?
This is exactly why I don't also don't favor the idea of doing a series of TV movies where each one focuses on a different crew and ship. Part of what's fun about watching Star Trek on the big screen is that it features characters you've seen who've gone through a lot and grown. Would Spock's death in The Wrath of Khan have been as powerful if we hadn't already spent years with him? Would Picard's behavior in First Contact have been as jarring if we hadn't seen his normal attitude and seen what the Borg did to him? I think you can do a Star Trek with an unknown and undeveloped cast of characters, but I don't think you're going to have the level of connection between the audience and the characters that has been evident with using established characters.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think it could definitely work if you got the right director and writer. You don't have to have seven years of knowing the characters to feel connected to them. As long as there aren't too many main characters, I think you could tell a good story in a short time.
-------------------- "Brave men are vertebrates: they have their softness on the outside, and their toughness in the middle" -Lewis Carrol
Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:How do they expect an audience to walk into a theater and instantly identify with an unknown "crew"?
And
quote:This is exactly why I don't also don't favor the idea of doing a series of TV movies where each one focuses on a different crew and ship. Part of what's fun about watching Star Trek on the big screen is that it features characters you've seen who've gone through a lot and grown.
While I understand where you're coming from, I disagree with this mindset. Yes, we've come to accept various characters and even feel fondly for them. Yes, the episodic format of a weekly series hinges on the continued development and growth of these characters.
But, is that enough of a reason to shun/naysay/reject an idea based on new characters? Does the fact that we'd have characters nobody had ever heard of spoil the concept? If the characters are new, does that automatically mean the movie or TV mini-series would flop?
Why?
Using the above reasoning, TNG, DS-9, VOY and ENT should have never been made or should have failed. After all, they all at one time were brand new with characters nobody had ever heard of. Yet, did you think their premier episodes sucked?
Why should anyone make any movie or TV mini-series for that matter? After all, they are full of characters nobody had ever heard of or developed any kind of relationship with.
Is there so little room in the minds/hearts/imaginations of Trek fans that they can't stomache the idea of a movie or TV mini-series without established characters?
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: [QUOTE]
Is there so little room in the minds/hearts/imaginations of Trek fans that they can't stomache the idea of a movie or TV mini-series without established characters?
The problem is that we have too much negative AND high expectations.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
