Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

5-Year Mission Continues After 45-Year Hiatus

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the fascinating dept.

Sci-Fi 283

Okian Warrior writes "Hackaday brings us news about a continuation of the original Star Trek series. The Kickstarter-funded project is attempting to complete the original 5-year mission, which ended after only three seasons on the air. The fan-based and fan-supported reincarnation is cleverly titled Star Trek Continues and has CBS's consent. Check out the first episode, Pilgrim of Eternity. For being fan-made, it's actually pretty good." The attention to detail in the sets, costumes, and even lighting is incredible. It's far and away the most faithful re-creation of the original series I've ever seen.

cancel ×

283 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

45 years ago... (2)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45216767)

I can think of a few other things from 1968 that we'd like to get back...

Re:45 years ago... (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#45216827)

I miss Richard Nixon, too.

Re:45 years ago... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217179)

Johnson was president in 1968, not Nixon.

Re:45 years ago... (5, Funny)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#45217591)

We already got him back... he's a black Democrat.

*ducks downmods*

Re:45 years ago... (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | about 10 months ago | (#45217657)

Give it a proper Kickstarter pitch and a little song and dance number... who knows, anything's possible!

Re:45 years ago... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217089)

Like pubic hair? Yea, I'm pretty sick of all this "look like a little girl when I'm really 30" crap, too.

Re:45 years ago... (3, Insightful)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 10 months ago | (#45217261)

Let's not get too hasty! Wandering in the wilderness is not to everyone's taste

Re:45 years ago... (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 10 months ago | (#45217607)

Like pubic hair? Yea, I'm pretty sick of all this "look like a little girl when I'm really 30" crap, too.

Ugh...no!!!

Look at some good old, 70's pr0n....Debbie Does Dallas or the like, man...if you wanted to go down on one of those ladies, you'd better take a machete and a sherpa with you if you wanted any hope of ever returning alive!!

Seriously, I don't like mandatory flossing after eating....

Re:45 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217775)

Wow, the first thing you equate it to is a little girl? A little girl who looks like a 30 year old and has a 30 year old's tits? Is it possible you might have predilections that make you uncomfortable when you see a woman with a Brazilian wax job.

Re:45 years ago... (3, Interesting)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 10 months ago | (#45217153)

I guess I'm a younger trek fan myself (started with TNG,) as I was never into the original series. I kind of forced myself to watch it while I was sick once (every episode) and didn't really think it was anything special.

Modern references to star trek make kirk out to be this player who always gets laid, getting into fights, and talking like he was in the middle of a stroke. I never saw the getting laid, and the fights weren't anything spectacular like the JJ Abrams movies, and while he did talk like he had a stroke on occasion it isn't as bad as they parody it. Could be one of those things where you just had to be alive during that era to appreciate it (I was born in the 80's,) as I guess the getting laid part would have to be implied in more subtle ways than they were able to do with e.g. Data and Tasha Yarr in TNG as it was probably illegal back then.

I did watch the first few minutes of this fan fic, and it does seem pretty true to the original. That said, I think if you're a fan of the original this is probably for you, but I couldn't remain interested for very long.

Re:45 years ago... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217397)

The plots on the original series were more about cultural & human phenomenons that Roddenberry wanted to point out as things we need to overcome as a species. Later inclusions became more about the "gee whiz, rocket ships and 'splosions!" Perhaps you were expecting more the latter with none of the former?

Re:45 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217409)

Your second paragraph is ST:TOS in a nutshell. I was a kid back then and you are right, things were more implied than spelled out.

That said, it is not real Star Trek fanfic without a Kirk/Spock/Bones bone triangle.

Re:45 years ago... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217445)

Could be one of those things where you just had to be alive during that era to appreciate it (I was born in the 80's,) as I guess the getting laid part would have to be implied in more subtle ways
 
Or it could be that you are really obtuse. If you can't honestly see that Kirk got his hands on more women than Pickard I'd have to say the failure is in your lack of education more than anything else.
 
  the fights weren't anything spectacular like the JJ Abrams movies
 
Again, you're obtuse. No one has probably ever said that the fights in TOS were spectacular, just that Kirk was quick to throw a fist in comparison to any other Enterprise captain.
 
  while he did talk like he had a stroke on occasion it isn't as bad as they parody it.
 
Total facepalm on this one. You obviously don't deal much with the realm of parody.
 
  I couldn't remain interested for very long.
 
Probably not enough CGI and T&A to keep you strung along, eh? You seem like a very jaded little gem from the current generation of unimaginative gimps that were raised on endless doses movies that have paper thin plots and an average shot time of about 3.2 seconds. I just love talking to your ilk about anything. So dimwitted that you can't appreciate something that isn't smacking you in the face for your total attention at every opportunity.
 
A generation of overstiumlated bores.

Re:45 years ago... (3, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 10 months ago | (#45217599)

Don't sugar coat it; tell him how you really feel.

Re:45 years ago... (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | about 10 months ago | (#45217647)

Yes, I enjoyed that one...and agreed.

Re:45 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217895)

Oh, AC! We are obtuse little black kettles, aren't we!

Not enough CGI? Real science fiction is in books where there is no C or G or I !

As you almost certainly are aware, but purposefully fail to note in order to provide good trolling, is that GP is being honest and echoes many people's feelings. Entertainment is a balance between quality and quantity - both values which change with time and the availability of the entities, things and objects providing said quality and quantity.

So what is so wrong with feeding the trolls? It's a relaxing past time.

Re:45 years ago... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217517)

Could be one of those things where you just had to be alive during that era to appreciate it (I was born in the 80's,) as I guess the getting laid part would have to be implied in more subtle ways than they were able to do with e.g. Data and Tasha Yarr in TNG as it was probably illegal back then.

Oh it would have been legal; they just didn't have the battery technology for Data to make that scene.

Re:45 years ago... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217545)

I don't know what you mean? I was born and raised in the 80s with TNG, and Kirk always came across as he did in the canon proper.. as a man who's legend preceded him due to circumstance and valor, like any legend. Even the womanizing thing is more of a bit of pop culture parody than canon.

I don't know about my generation's fixation with fight scenes, but Abram's doesn't do it for me. I'll take a badly-staged Kirk vs Kahn fight scene over what I saw in the new films any day, because I managed to invest in the characters. That, and the unique blend of camp and seriousness just doesn't exist in Abram's remakes.

Moreover, while most of the TOS episodes don't hold up too well today, some of them still do if you're willing to give them a few conceits relevant to their era. It's not like there's a higher ratio of "gold" to "crap" in modern Trek series; as much as I wish there was, if I'm being fair to TOS, even my beloved TNG didn't really fare any better once I factor out nostalgia.

I'm more interested in seeing this because it means other projects might come about from it, including TNG, Babylon 5, and other shows I wish got more such love from their fandoms. Seeing original actors involved in a passion project is icing on the cake.

Re:45 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217255)

Gravity been acting for too long?

Re:45 years ago... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 10 months ago | (#45217349)

I can think of a few other things from 1968 that we'd like to get back...

But not the tank invasion, please...

Re:45 years ago... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 10 months ago | (#45217487)

This "un-boot" has everything of the original - except for the charm of the premise, the ethic of storytelling, and the charisma of the players.

Re:45 years ago... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 10 months ago | (#45217767)

Does it have shite acting?

Re:45 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217755)

The hippie sluts.

TAS (3, Informative)

Bradmont (513167) | about 10 months ago | (#45216801)

Didn't The Animated Series finish off the last two years of the five year mission? With the original cast and everything.

Re:TAS (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 10 months ago | (#45216893)

ib4 someone uses the word "canon."

Re:TAS (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#45217689)

TAS was until Roddenberry screwed around with licensing in the late 80's. There's really no reason it shouldn't still be when you consider the people involved in making it were all the same people who made the other Treks.

Re:TAS (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 10 months ago | (#45216973)

Didn't The Animated Series finish off the last two years of the five year mission? With the original cast and everything.

I always figured the Animated Series most likely covered the 4th year, still leaving the adventures of the 5th untold.

Re:TAS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217163)

TAS ran for 2 seasons. It is complete. This continuation plan conveniently ignores its existence.

Re:TAS (3, Insightful)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 10 months ago | (#45217663)

Oh. All this time, I figured that with only 22 episodes, that would have only been a single season.

Still, despite the typical craptacular Filmation art and animation, it did have some decent writing to carry it where the visuals failed.

And a big thumbs up to Roddenberry for refusing to let Filmation assign a kiddy cadet to each senior crew member.

Re:TAS (5, Funny)

Belial6 (794905) | about 10 months ago | (#45217433)

There was no Animated Series. It is a myth like claims of sequels to Highlander and prequels to Star Wars.

Re:TAS (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 10 months ago | (#45217613)

The Kzinti were cool.

Re:TAS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217887)

That episode was set in Larry Niven's Known Space.

Please let the "Star Wreck" guys get in on this (3, Interesting)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 10 months ago | (#45216815)

Most amazing amateur film I've ever seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wreck:_In_the_Pirkinning [wikipedia.org] And free (Creative Commons) licensed too.

Re:Please let the "Star Wreck" guys get in on this (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 10 months ago | (#45217469)

This is probably why there had to be such attention to detail. Star Wreck had so much in it that any fan produced film even vaguely to do with sci-fi series is going to be compared to it.

Re:Please let the "Star Wreck" guys get in on this (2)

mrbester (200927) | about 10 months ago | (#45217609)

Additional: random coincidence. The new film was funded with help from Kickstarter, Pirk's ship in Star Wreck was called Kickstart.

Faithful (3, Funny)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 10 months ago | (#45216865)

If it's faithful to the original then it's going to suck. A lot.

Re:Faithful (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45216947)

So does your mom but we don't complain. Some of us even enjoy it.

Re:Faithful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217021)

Spock's Brain II

Re:Faithful (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 10 months ago | (#45217149)

If it's faithful to the original then it's going to suck. A lot.

You know, considering what a hatchet job Abrams has done to Star Trek, I'm surprised it took this long for the fans to come together and do something like this. I mean, there's Original Series, and then there's Abrahams Extra Crispy recipe... just scorched earth policy on everything you ever loved. Original is an acquired taste; It's atonement for a non-specific kind of sin. You know, you feel bad but you can't put your finger on it. Abrahams Recipe is when you have a specific sin in mind and wish to atone for it.

Re:Faithful (3, Informative)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 10 months ago | (#45217323)

I'm surprised it took this long for the fans to come together and do something like this.

Then be surprised no more, it's been done [wikipedia.org] before. I think I watched part of an episode when it first came out, but I don't remember my impression of it. Obviously, I wasn't impressed enough at the time to continue.

Re:Faithful (5, Informative)

jIyajbe (662197) | about 10 months ago | (#45217293)

Baseline: I am a trekker; I really, really like all of Star Trek, old and new.

For all that it was the genesis of all things Trek, TOS is terribly painful to watch these days. Not an auspicious starting point for a fan-made series.

What's funny is that they managed to write a story that was the same quality as most of TOS stories--mostly low; the actors reproduced the acting "skills" of the originals (especially Kirk! Wow!); and it was just as cheesy as the original show. I fully expected it to be hard to watch.

But it wasn't! It was a labor of love, but they managed to go above that, and actually make an enjoyable episode, one that can hold its head up with the all but the best TOS episodes.

Hats off to them all, and I think I'll open my wallet.

Re:Faithful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217745)

I really didn't expect to last through three minutes of this when I clicked the link. But I ended up watching the whole damn show. I agree with jlyajbe-- hats off to them all! Nicely done!

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217785)

I just finished it. Excellent job! Oh, look at the credits! Pay particular attention to the computer voice.

Re:Faithful (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 10 months ago | (#45217677)

I think they should bring back Abraham Lincoln as a permanent character.

"Cleverly Titled" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45216917)

"cleverly titled"? Really?

Good effort (1)

GreatDrok (684119) | about 10 months ago | (#45216925)

I've followed this and other projects for a while and the quality of the sets, costumes and SFX are right up there. Sadly, the acting is poor at best. I hate to single anyone in particular out but the main three characters really don't work. It isn't just that they are different people, it is just bad acting. I actually haven't had such a problem with the Abrahms reboots despite there being new actors because the standard has been decent so it isn't that. Of course, when you get the odd trek alumni in these then they stand out as being more comfortable in the roles. Now, if we can get CGI up to a standard where we can produce lifelike replications of the original actors then we're really talking about being able to continue the series.

Re:Good effort (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#45217051)

But bad acting was part of the charm of the original series.

And no one in their right mind with a shred of honesty would ever claim that the acting was good on the original series.

Re:Good effort (4, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 10 months ago | (#45217059)

Sadly, the acting is poor at best.

So ... you're saying ... it ... is ... very much .... like ... TOS? Damn it, GreatDrok, I'm a doctor not an acting coach. I canna give you more than 100% out of the dilithium, GreatDrok, she'll not take it. Fascinating.

Re:Good effort (2)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 10 months ago | (#45217101)

No mod points but I have to agree. For all that people (rightly) make fun of the "bad" acting in the original, the actors were by absolute standards not that bad. The fan remakes I've seen have acting that seems really amateur. Are they hiring professional actors for these?

Like lots of skilled jobs, professional acting is a lot harder than it looks.

Re:Good effort (2)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#45217203)

Are they hiring professional actors for these?

This information is right on the Kickstarter, you can see everyone's bio. With the exception of Grant Imahara (from Mythbusters) and the fairly minor Security Chief they are experienced, professional actors (some are degreed) with plenty of stage and/or screen credits.

Re:Good effort (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 10 months ago | (#45217111)

I'm not sure if the originals had such good actors either. But anyway, I find that bad acting usually bothers me too. I see it all the time on Indie projects. I'm not sure if it's actually bad acting, or just that they are pressed for time and/or money, and not willing to redo the shot 15 times to get it right. We used to make movies all the time in highschool, and I found this was one of the biggest problems. People would completely botch their lines, but we'd use the scene anyway, because we were all just trying to have fun, and nobody wanted to spend 2 hours doing a 10 minute scene.

Re:Good effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217383)

Sadly, the acting is poor at best.

Especially McCoy. I wonder if the actor even watched the original series.

Re:Good effort (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#45217699)

Seems safe to say he's seen an episode or two:

Larry Nemecek as Dr. McCoy A native of Norman, OK, Larry is author of the best-selling “ST: The Next Generation Companion” and “Star Trek: Stellar Cartography,” with editor/producer credits on Communicator magazine, Star Trek Fact Files, startrek.com and now his column in Star Trek magazine and his own TREKLAND vidchat/blog site. His BA and MA in theatre sparked a host of stage credits, and recently he guest-starred in the "Divine White" webseries nominated for a 2011 LA Comedy Award. Along with story credit for the “Prophecy” episode of Star Trek: Voyager, Larry also shares two Associated Press state news awards, leads the “Hollywood 2 Vegas” Star Trek Tour for Geek Nation Tours, and appears in numerous Trek documentaries while shooting his own, "The Con of Wrath."

Re:Good effort (1)

LordNimon (85072) | about 10 months ago | (#45217389)

I think the biggest problem is the enunciation. Few of those actors can do it right.

Very good. (4, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 10 months ago | (#45216977)

Aside from the fact that the actors in Star Trek Continues have acting flaws that are not identical to those of the original cast (i.e. they are just as talented/untalented as the originals, but don't have the exact same instinctive mannerisms), this is an incredible recreation.

It looks far better than the passable recreation "Star Trek Of Gods and Men" (with Koenig, Nichols and Russ in it). http://startrekofgodsandmen.com/main/ [startrekofgodsandmen.com]

But I have much better hopes for the upcoming Star Trek Renegades (Koenig, et. al. second, better funded attempt) http://startrekrenegades.com/home/trailers-and-videos/ [startrekrenegades.com]

So, did Star Trek have a planned story arc? (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 10 months ago | (#45217017)

Just curious if there was ever any info released about where the show planned to go in the short or long term.

Re:So, did Star Trek have a planned story arc? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 10 months ago | (#45217107)

Just curious if there was ever any info released about where the show planned to go in the short or long term.

Short term, they'll probably all meet at the Pizza Hut tonight and then go to a local brew place for a couple of beers.

Long term, I think most of them will eventually move out of their parent's basement and go to college, and then probably move back. I think some of them are saving up for a PlayStation 5.

Re:So, did Star Trek have a planned story arc? (1)

sunami (751539) | about 10 months ago | (#45217285)

Wrong stereotype, actors work as waiters.

Re: So, did Star Trek have a planned story arc? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217239)

Prime time TV series of that time didn't do "story arcs".

IIRC, "Hill Street Blues", almost a decade later, was the first prime time show to do multi-episode story arcs.

One reason I read was that the networks at that time tended to show the episodes out of

Re: So, did Star Trek have a planned story arc? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217621)

That's because by the mid-60s people were tired of serials like Rocky Jones, Space Ranger

I can't say I'm surprised that serials got popular again, but they are limiting to the writers over time.

Re: So, did Star Trek have a planned story arc? (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#45217629)

There were a few. Peyton Place, a contemporary of Star Trek might have been the first in prime time, though it was still technically a soap opera.

CBS's consent (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45217019)

The fan-based and fan-supported reincarnation [...] has CBS's consent.

How did they manage to negotiate this?

Re:CBS's consent (4, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about 10 months ago | (#45217253)

I'm guessing Grant built a killbot and threatened to activate it in their lobby.

Re:CBS's consent (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45217259)

If I remember correctly, by being strictly non-commercial.

Re:CBS's consent (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 10 months ago | (#45217461)

Exactly. Same goes for Phase II (some eps are pretty good actually)

Very first scene using tech from Next Generation (1)

rminsk (831757) | about 10 months ago | (#45217037)

So the first first scene of a continuation of the Original Series introduces technology from the Next Generation. The very technology that was used as a huge crutch for writers for the Next Generation. I think I'll pass.

Re:Very first scene using tech from Next Generatio (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | about 10 months ago | (#45217241)

It looks like they were trying to show that Scotty invented or at least had a hand in creating holodeck technology. I don't remember TNG ever discussing the origins of the holodeck. Besides, TOS used left over costumes from bad westerns and gladiator movies to move their plots along. Not much different from what the holodeck was used for.

Re:Very first scene using tech from Next Generatio (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45217725)

From: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Holodeck [memory-alpha.org]

By 2364, the Federation Starfleet had begun installing holodecks aboard their vessels. (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint")

During the 2360s and 2370s, a starship could have one or more holodecks depending on the vessel's size or purpose. For example, Defiant-class starships did not have a holodeck, while Galaxy-class vessels had several. (TNG: "11001001", "Homeward")

The two holodecks of Intrepid-class starships were the only places other than sickbay where the EMH was able to exist (without a mobile emitter) after the crew modified his program so it wasn't as tightly integrated into the sickbay's systems. In Prometheus-class starships, the EMH could move more around the ship freely because all decks were equipped with holoemitters. (VOY: "Message in a Bottle")

Re:Very first scene using tech from Next Generatio (0)

khasim (1285) | about 10 months ago | (#45217351)

Seconded. And the Holodeck is being invented by Scotty. In between his regular job of maintaining the ship that keeps getting abused.

Write
Better
Stories

Bad acting is forgivable if the story is interesting.

You'd think that a fan developed work would at least be able to keep canon consistent.

Re:Very first scene using tech from Next Generatio (2)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#45217413)

ST: The Animated Series introduced the holodeck.

Star Trek: Renegades (1)

Dialecticus (1433989) | about 10 months ago | (#45217053)

Don't forget about Star Trek: Renegades [startrekrenegades.com] , which was funded through both Kickstarter [kickstarter.com] and Indiegogo [indiegogo.com] . Tum Russ ("Tuvok") is directing the pilot, and the cast looks reasonably impressive.

Re:Star Trek: Renegades (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 10 months ago | (#45217083)

While that looks good, his first attempt (Of Gods and Men) was quite frankly, a disappointment, despite the presence of Koenig and Nichols. But I still have hope for Mr. Russ to come through (enough to send them a bit of cash.

Bee Ess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217077)

From the summary:

The attention to detail in the sets, costumes, and even lighting is incredible. It's far and away the most faithful re-creation of the original series I've ever seen.

More than General Alexander's office. I seriously doubt that.

Great! (2)

JeffElkins (977243) | about 10 months ago | (#45217133)

If the whole thing is as good as the first ten minutes, I'm in. The actors for fine (Scotty is excellent) and it's leagues better than the crap JJ Abrams is putting out.

Holodecks were supposed to be new tech in TNG (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 10 months ago | (#45217167)

That kinda bothers me the first thing I see is Holodeck technology in that vid. In season 1 of TNG, it was described as fairly new tech, of course that got retconned in Voyager as Janeway reminisces about using one as a child. Now it's in TOS era? I'm one of the few that actually liked Enterprise but even there it bothered me how they didn't make things primitive enough (having a transporter for one, no matter how leery of it they were) because it feels like the writers can't make do without these toys or imaginative enough to make a logical progression of tech. Of course, it starts feeling like the future stops advancing in a couple hundred years, other than being able to go to a higher warp.

Re:Holodecks were supposed to be new tech in TNG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217325)

They had something similar in the animated series.

Re:Holodecks were supposed to be new tech in TNG (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#45217503)

It first appeared in The Animated Series.

Re:Holodecks were supposed to be new tech in TNG (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | about 10 months ago | (#45217593)

If you watched Enterprise and--okay, okay! I know most people hate it but please, hear me out...

If you watched Star Trek Enterprise, they met an alien species who had holodeck-like technology in their era. But they didn't give them the technology or anything.

Even if you totally dismiss the Enterprise episodes, this is a plausible explanation. That Janeway and others could have used a holodeck made by a different species outside the Federation, and it wasn't until a few years later that the technology was traded to the Federation members and/or became widespread enough that anyone had easy access. Maybe she went to an alien theme park and had fun in one, but it wasn't like that species was going to hand out plans to the technology to just anyone.

Romulan Ale caused the delay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217209)

When Enterprise last had a checkup, Scotty had a hang-over from Romulan Ale and didn't notice the fuel gage was broken. Enterprise ran low on power and needed a fresh supply of natural dilithium crystals for interstellar travel. Being far from help and running on impulse power it took a few years to the nearest mining outpost. Now the 5-year mission may continue, of-course once a resupply of Romulan Ale is obtained.

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217225)

Having watched that flick a few weeks ago, I can say that it's definitely a cut above all the other fan flicks on Youtube.

However, it's still falling into the same trap as all the other fan flicks. Instead of writing a completely original story, the flick is basically what I call "fan-wanking": either bringing back some of the guest stars from the TOS days (same actors as in this case, or different ones), or taking one of the series stars from TOS, and use them in some cockamamie time-travel nonsense plot.

The only redeeming quality of this particular flick is James Doohan's son in the role of scotty. The dude is a spitting image of the old man, and the same voice, and accent. Quite surreal, watching his acting performance. And he can act. JJ Abrams is a douche, for picking someone else, instead of the authentic deal, here.

Star Trek New Voyages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217231)

Um. Isn't this already being done?

http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/

They even have some episodes with original cast members.

Re:Star Trek New Voyages (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 10 months ago | (#45217341)

nuts to these handful of Trek rehashes, I want to know why Man Conquers Space [wikipedia.org] can't seem to make any progress.

Re:Star Trek New Voyages (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 10 months ago | (#45217705)

Darkstar remake would be cool

And people wonder... (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 10 months ago | (#45217233)

And people wonder why the entertainment industry keeps producing sequels, remakes, rehashes, and re-imaginings...

What about "Star Trek New Voyages/Phase II" thing (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 10 months ago | (#45217271)

What about "Star Trek New Voyages/Phase II" thing that has James Cawley as Kirk? (http://www.startrekphase2.de)

Looks like we might have 2 groups creating Star Trek episodes.

Chris Doohan & Grant Imahara (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 10 months ago | (#45217289)

I'm not much of a celebrity wonk, but Chris Doohan (son of James Doohan) playing Scotty, and Grant Imahara (from Mythbusters) playing Sulu -- nice.

Re:Chris Doohan & Grant Imahara (2)

sconeu (64226) | about 10 months ago | (#45217669)

My brother in law was in a band with Chris. Nice guy.

Big shoes to fill (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 10 months ago | (#45217329)

Watched a bit of it. The kind of nailed it. The effects, lighting, swelling music - a lot of talent went into this and that should be recognized. If you're looking for an exact duplicate of TOS you will be disappointed. Try to keep in mind these enthusiasts have big shoes to fill. The other Star Treks were not able to fill those shoes either and they knew it. That's why the cast and set was so different.

From the site (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 10 months ago | (#45217395)

"I watched with pleasure the first episode some time ago and it stirred a lot of memories." - Rick B.

You had your chance, Berman...

MOAR of the hot redhead (3, Funny)

Cyfun (667564) | about 10 months ago | (#45217405)

I just hope we get to see more of the buxom Dr. McKennah in these episodes. I mean see her in more episodes. Not her naked. Or naked is fine too.

Her IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1073676/?ref_=tt_cl_t8 [imdb.com]

Re:MOAR of the hot redhead (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about 10 months ago | (#45217665)

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re:MOAR of the hot redhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217803)

Which word? They all seem correct to me.

I don't get why this is news for nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217483)

I understand this is star trek, and it (star trek) has played a role in many self professed nerds' lives, but why is this news?

If people get together and act out star trek episodes in a public park, is that news? What if they do star trek in fursuits and post it on youtube, is that news?

Focus, and keep it on the news. I'm afraid I'm going to come to the main page and find Han Solo/Picard slashfic as the next "news" article.

Re:I don't get why this is news for nerds? (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 10 months ago | (#45217733)

Yeah, only nerds would like something like this.

Still, Star Trek is the new Shakespeare so we 500 more years of this.

Very impressive production (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45217579)

You either 'get' the original series, or you miss its point entirely. TV almost always apes trends in films from 10 years earlier, so TOS was giving us the feel of 'Forbidden Planet'. Melodrama to the fore, interspersed with little jolts of simple humour. Themes straight from the pulp age of SF. A subtlety that knuckle-dragging fans of rubbish like TNG and nu-Trek will be completely oblivious to.

In many ways, TOS is off-kilter 'horror'- a disturbing future world with Lovecraftian elements. The bright, simple, advance way our crew seems to live their lives is belied by the incredible numbers of ways death stalks so many of them. Like 'Forbidden planet', the music and sound cues are chosen to be weird, other-worldly, and unsettling.

Making more visual stories in the TOS timeline means replicating the original feel exactly. To do otherwise is entirely pointless. Sadly, most written material for TOS goes in much more conventional directions- but getting the 'feel' of the show on paper would have been nigh on impossible. If one goes to the insane efforts of crafting new episodes, they MUST look, actors aside, as if they could have come from the original 3 season run. Otherwise, the effort would be MUCH better expended on totally original Trek ideas, or extending the cheesy, hopeless work of the later shows, or nu-Trek.

PS nu-Trek shows the relatively artistic worthlessness of the greater Trek IP. The two new films TRASH every conceptual idea from TOS, and yet most Trek fanboys praise them simply because they (badly) spend lots of money on really dull-witted CGI. A Star Trek film so VILE, it has Earth technology teleporting people between distant star systems, and yet dribbling fanboys lap this garbage up. But then the first nu-Trek film had everyone already KNOWING who the Romulans were, so one can safely define current Trek fans as the absolute bottom of the barrel in SF fandom.

Re:Very impressive production (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 10 months ago | (#45217829)

the incredible numbers of ways death stalks so many of them

holy cow, I never thought of it from that angle. It really is "Voyage of the Space Beagle" to some degree. Ok, not Lovecraft, but still -ish.

sciencefiction in particular seems to get caught up with superficial things like spectacle and shiny new effects. I like to think of TOS as being a stage play, with similar production values. The ideas and stories have to be more able to stand on their own feet. Yeah, that's filthy cherry-picking retconning, but it helps me to make it through the day in this world we live in.

Bad Idea (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 10 months ago | (#45217741)

Give us trek that none trekies at least has a chance of liking.

Being faithful to the original series is all well and good, but your market is extremely limited. Far far more limited than just producing good modern Trek. I love TOS, but even most trekies do not consider it the best series.

We need to reclaim Trek from the horrible things JJ has done, and you are not going to do that with something that 10 thousand people are going to watch.

Kirk (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 10 months ago | (#45217835)

TOG.

Just one thing... (1)

Endophage (1685212) | about 10 months ago | (#45217839)

It's a very good effort, it's just unfortunate that Vic Mignogna has such a nasal, weedy voice. Shatner had a voice and way of speaking that exuded confidence and leadership. Vic's voice makes me feel like he'd run away from most Kirk worthy situations.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>