16 replies to this topic

[ECH]

There's an article on trekweb reporting that Nimoy has said in an interview with the Toronto Sun that they have been approched about the possibility of appearing in the film. Perhaps reprising their famous roles.

Check it out here

Even if they don't it looks like they will be involved at some level, behnid the scenes as consultants or something. Apparently they also have a say in who gets recast as there characters too.

I don't know how you people feel about this prequel thing for the next film, but I'm neither for or against it at this point. In my opinion Trek has to go in a new direction and with Abrams help this may be it. But then again it might not. It's going to take some playing around, some prodding to see what works for todays auidence while keeping true to Star Trek's ideals.

Now the mere thought of Shatner and Nimoy reappearing as their old characters might sound horrible to some (there has been some concern amongst a few members over at the AA boards to this news) but I say give Abrams and his team the benifit of the doubt.

If these reports do come to fruition it would be an intriguing development, to say the least. When this whole prequel thing was first mentioned I thought its just rumor and that they would eventually return to the 'present' or move forward into the future again. But with the poster and reports like this the prequel concept seems to be going forward.

This possibility, becasue thats all it is at present, of Shatner and Nimoy reprising their famous characters (mostly likely in the 'present-day' of Star Trek) could leave the door open for an apperance for other 'present-day' characters as well as some of the original suviving cast.

Might we get a mixture of the 24th and 23rd Centuries for Star Trek XI?

Thoughts? Comments?

[VulcanFanatic]

I think a sort of scene where Spock and Kirk (Nimoy and Shatner) are talking or reminicing about their younger days and setting up the story for the new movie would be great.

[FHC]

I am sure that this is the way the new movie will start. You remember when we met Spock?

[JMW326]

I am all for it.

[Gothneo]

4th'd! Motion Carried?!

Tell parmount to make it so #1!

[Cpt. Phil T. Berns]

If these reports do come to fruition it would be an intriguing development, to say the least. When this whole prequel thing was first mentioned I thought its just rumor and that they would eventually return to the 'present' or move forward into the future again.

What is present day in Star Trek? Some might think that's a few years after the events of Nemesis, others might say that that would be five years after the launch of the NX-01 and yet others would say that that would be about 15 years after the events of TUC. So I don't like to hear that 'present day in Star Trek' stuff.

Anyhow, to have a scene in the movie set between TUC and Generations, where Kirk and Spock talk about their past would be hard to do with Shatner and Nimoy since they've both aged considerably in the last 15 years. And to have such a scene set 15 years after TUC would violate canon as Kirk was presumed dead after the launch of the NCC-1701-B.

But why does everyone still thinks this new movie will be part of the established continuity? I think (and hope) that they will reboot Star Trek just like the folks of Battlestar Galactica have done. And it would make sense for Shatner and Nimoy to apear in cameos. Kind of the way Roger Moore was the voice on the radio in Val Kilmer's The Saint and like Patrick McNee played the invisible man in the movie version of The Avengers. Like Chris Reeves and Margot Kidder were in Smallville. Like Richard Hatch was in the new Galactica. Like Lou Ferrigno was in the Hulk movie, etc. That's the way I think they would want Shatner and Nimoy in the new Trek movie.

[JMW326]

I actually kind of agree with Berns. I would like to see a complete relaunch but if they did just do the flashback thing set in the current Trek Universe I really don't care about "Trek Cannon" as long as it is done well. I like the idea either way. Just as long as Shatner and Nimoy have a small part and they focus thier attention on the new people (whomever thy choose).

[ECH]

What is present day in Star Trek? ... I don't like to hear that 'present day in Star Trek' stuff.

By present day I mean 24th Century, around 2379 which is the year Nemesis took place. I used the term because the useage of the word 'present' in Star Trek's context means the furthest we've reached into the future with a film or series. And I don't see why that can't be referred to the present day.

...to have such a scene set 15 years after TUC would violate canon as Kirk was presumed dead after the launch of the NCC-1701-B.

True, but they could find a way around that - what about those novels that Shatner puts out?

But why does everyone still thinks this new movie will be part of the established continuity? I think (and hope) that they will reboot Star Trek just like the folks of Battlestar Galactica have done.

I've read somewhere that Abrams has said that he's not interested in a 'reboot'. He has said he wants to utlise the established history and continuity that Star Trek has built in the last 4o years.

[slayerone76]

^^ Oh please let that be true! Star Trek has an enduring quality about it. 40 years of the same history and progression. Throwing that out the window will be a mistake I think. I know some fans are all excited about a completly new Trek, but where will that leave the millions who aren't? Not following the franchise, thats where.

[Cpt. Phil T. Berns]

By present day I mean 24th Century, around 2379 which is the year Nemesis took place. I used the term because the useage of the word 'present' in Star Trek's context means the furthest we've reached into the future with a film or series. And I don't see why that can't be referred to the present day.

To me, that is the future. Because just like in TNG when they needlessly set the clock 100 years into the future that era became the present (sad because I felt like a fish out of the water in that era and I kept hoping for a continuation of the original timeline in a new series, perhaps about the Excelsior, that would make the present in Trek today some 15 years after the events of TUC), in 2001 they finally decided to set the clock 200 years back. From then on to me Star Trek's present is in the ENT era. They made another needless jump at the ent of the 4th season, so now the present day in Trek (for me) is one year after the events of "These are the Voyages"

And with all of my heart I hope there will never be another movie or episode set in the TNG or post-TNG era.

I've read somewhere that Abrams has said that he's not interested in a 'reboot'. He has said he wants to utlise the established history and continuity that Star Trek has built in the last 4o years.

If that is the case, I fear his prequel will follow the same fate as ENT. What Trek needs is a reboot. Because only if this generation of fans will shout out loud that this is not their Trek, a newer generation might be tempted to give it a try.

[Cpt. Phil T. Berns]

40 years of the same history and progression. Throwing that out the window will be a mistake I think. I know some fans are all excited about a completly new Trek, but where will that leave the millions who aren't? Not following the franchise, thats where.

Which is as it should be. Just as TNG alienated the old fans and because of that new fans were tempted to give it a try, today as long as the existing fans love it there will not be any new fans. Young people find Star Trek a thing for nerds. So only if the so called nerds complain enough about a new Trek will young people be tempted to tune in.

On top of that, all the continuity of the last 40 years is like a knife at the writers' throats. It only limits their creative process.

[slayerone76]

Awwww, Bernsie .... just cause you were hurt over TNG doesn't mean all of the rest have to suffer too.

There is a slight flaw in your arguement though. TNG was a new show and it played into the 25 or so years (I can't remember precise numbers) of history Trek had to give. I think that the number of fans so ticked that they would no longer watch Trek weren't big ... ratings and the fact it was a success are good indicators of that. TNG did bring over old fans, but the fact that is was 20 something years later, it was a new Trek for new generation. Some of us were slight fans of TOS and then grew up with TNG ... I did.

The young, cool people will never tune into Trek and admit it. Its us nerdy people who keep it alive. TNG worked and it didn't attract tons of non-nerd fans. Trek is invaribly sc-fi and attracts those that it will. Of course, I do know a lot of decent non-nerd people who watch the shows now.

If you are going for the arguement that we should 'Smallville' Trek, then I can kinda get what you are talking about. I just don't feel Trek is right for that genre. I don't think it will work in the long run, but who knows, it could be just what the franchise needs.

[VulcanFanatic]

I think Enterprise was the Trek show that alienated the most fans of the other shows. When TNG came out, i was there watching when the debut of "Encounter at Farpoint" went on the air. I read many Sci fi magazines and the TV guide back then as well as other magazines and never once do i remember there being a big complaint about TNG alienating any TOS fans. All i remember is how excited they were to be getting another Trek tv series and were glued to the tube every week to see it. Now i remember plenty of complaints about DS9 and Voyager. Enterprise was the worst of the series IMO, but Berns has the right to disagree with me.

[Cpt. Phil T. Berns]

Well, it remains a mystery to me why the imho best Star Trek (TOS & ENT) were prematurely canceled, the imho worst Star Trek (TNG) got a full 7 years and then went on onto the big screen and some imho very acceptable Star Trek (DS9 & VOY) although getting the full 7 years received the most complaints from the fans.

Sometimes I think the fans don't want good Star Trek.

[ECH]

^Of course they want good Star Trek, Berns. But what people consider good Star Trek differs.

Although TNG isn't to your liking there is something we can agree on: I don't understand why DS9 and Voyager arn't as sucessful TNG either. DS9 was one of the best Trek series (along with TNG ). Voyager had its moments and some great characters, just look at my avatar!

[pickard]

I think Enterprise was the Trek show that alienated the most fans of the other shows. When TNG came out, i was there watching when the debut of "Encounter at Farpoint" went on the air. I read many Sci fi magazines and the TV guide back then as well as other magazines and never once do i remember there being a big complaint about TNG alienating any TOS fans.

I remember a sizeable segment of TOS fans not welcoming TNG. Obviously some never came around, despite its obvious quality.

[Cpt. Phil T. Berns]

I remember a sizeable segment of TOS fans not welcoming TNG. Obviously some never came around, despite its obvious quality.

I remembered being puzzled that Roddenberry was put back in charge. I've learned since that Paramount didn't have another choice as Gene put a knife to their throats.

The original Trek was good because it was a blend of what Roddenberry wanted to make and what NBC wanted to buy. Neither Roddenberry nor NBC were happy with the blend. When NBC was taken out of the equasion Roddenberry made TMP. It almost killed Star Trek. Roddenberry's take on Trek was simply bad!Then Harve Bennett came along, a complete dtranger to Trek. By watching TOS and not knowing what elements were Roddenberry's and what were NBC's he was able to get the essence of Trek. He understood Trek better than it's creator did! And although TWOK was meant to be the last Trek, it became the beginning of a new Trek. That new Trek, three movies later, reached the top of Trek's popularity. TVH was so popular that Paramount wanted a new Trek TV show. According to Richard Arnold, not Roddenberry but "somebody else" was asked to create a new Trek TV show. My guess is that that "sombody else" was either Bennett, Nimoy or Meyer or a combination of any two of them or all three of them. But Roddenberry threatened to take Paramount to court (source again Richard Arnold) if he wasn't allowed to create this new show. And so it was that Roddenberry created TNG in TMP's image, making it the worst of all Trek untill it got better by it's third season (sadly only because of Roddenberry's deteriorating health)

I am certain that he set TNG further into the future to make Bennett's next movies seem outdated befoire they were even released. That and also because he probably would never make a series in which they wear uniforms designed for Meyer and Bennett.

It's very sad that the man who promoted an ideal world was he himself filled with so much bad feelings.

It's also sad that the original Trek timeline was descontinued after TUC (and the first few minutes of Generations)

It is my opinion that the original Trek cast should have gone back to the TV screens with a new series set aboard the NCC-1701-A right after they got that ship at the end of TVH. 1987 wasn't too late for that cast to have a 7 year TV series instead of giving us TNG. By 1991 Sulu should have been promoted and Star Trek Excelsior should have aired instead of DS9. They should never have moved to the TNG era and by 1994 the USS Voyagershould have moved to the delta quadrant in the late 23rd century. Only then should they have made a jump to another era to make ENT.