That seems to be the motto, at least when it comes to the title, for the next Star Trek movie.Until an official title was announced, people have been referring to the upcoming movie as "Star Trek XI." But now writers Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci have said in an interview with MTV.com that the title will simply be "Star Trek."
"That's the intended title," [Orci] said. "I don't think we want to put any colons or anything on it."
For some time now the speculation has been that the new movie would be about Kirk and Spock meeting at Starfleet Academy. But I read recently that although the story would likely focus on Kirk and Spock's first adventure together, it would not be set in their academy days. All the writers will confirm at this point is that it does take place on a starship.
Now for the big question: is this a "reboot" of the franchise, like "Battlestar Galactica," or does it fit into the existing Trek canon? I think people were assuming it was going to be the latter. But then an article on SCI FI Wire states the following. Make of it what you will...
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.
Last week the news came out that J.J. Abrams, who had been attached as a producer, is now officially signed to direct as well. They're eyeing a December 2008 release.
There is no word on casting but the names being tossed about include Matt Damon as Kirk, Adrian Brody as Spock and Gary Sinise as Dr. McCoy.
Is the new Star Trek when Kirk and Spock go find Yoda? Or it when Han Solo and Barf take Data to the "Red District" in 1984 Amsterdam where he meets Sigorny Weaver and explores his true feelings?
ReplyDeleteYou'd think the internet would clear all of this up.
"The movie will be titled, simply, Star Trek"
ReplyDeleteRED 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.