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!

Star Trek XI - What We Know

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the younger-space-babes-beware dept.

341

Jean Lucy writes "TwitchGuru has an article outlining in detail what is known about Star Trek XI. The film is in the early stages of production, led by J.J. Abrams (creator of Lost), and the movie will most likely be a prequel featuring Kirk and Spock in their younger years. No word of Matt Damon to play Kirk, though..." From the article: "As reported in early September, even former Star Trek actors are saying that CBS has kicked Rick Berman off the Trek bandwagon. This helps to allay the fears of those who say that 'they' will screw up this movie as 'they' have been doing for the past several years. As Anthony Pascale put it to me, however, 'There is no they any more. Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone. There's now a totally different production team running Star Trek. This is what people have been asking for now for years.'"

cancel ×

341 comments

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

interesting (0, Offtopic)

gnaa323 (1001568) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328723)

for as long as i can remember everytime I trip on shrooms I get bombarbed with homosexual thoughts. Do any of you guys get this as well? I'm straight (or at least I think I am), and for the first few times I was devastated and confused because I thought I was a closet homo somehow unknown to me. I think now I realize that I was either acting out an insecurity when I was tripping, or it was one of those modes where you just become some foreign entity. I've also "morphed" into a girl before, seen things thr

Re:interesting (1, Insightful)

Yonder Way (603108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328819)

"for as long as i can remember everytime I trip on shrooms I get bombarbed with homosexual thoughts. Do any of you guys get this as well? I'm straight (or at least I think I am), and for the first few times I was devastated and confused because I thought I was a closet homo somehow unknown to me. I think now I realize that I was either acting out an insecurity when I was tripping, or it was one of those modes where you just become some foreign entity. I've also "morphed" into a girl before, seen things thr"

That's what you get for leaving your screen unlocked.

Re:interesting (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328937)

That's what you get for leaving your screen unlocked.



Ahh, I see you're not familiar with the illustrious GNAA [www.gnaa.us] ... (I'd prefer not even to type what that stands for)

Ich.

What's known? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328743)

"TwitchGuru has an article outlining in detail"

It will, like the last 3-5 movies, suck.

Re:What's known? (2, Interesting)

Nos. (179609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328823)

I could live with it if you said 3-4, but 3-5? The fifth last movie is The Undiscovered Country, usually considered the second best move (after The Wrath of Khan). Though it had one major error (the equipment for cataloging gasious anomalies was on Excelsior, not on the Enterprise) it was still a great movie with a wonderful storyline.

Re:What's known? (1)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328913)

Nos wrote:
The fifth last movie is The Undiscovered Country,
Actually, the fifth movie sucks donkey. You are right however that The Undiscovered Country was pretty good, but its the sixth.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier [imdb.com]
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country [imdb.com]

Cheers!
~Rebecca

Re:What's known? (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328979)

He said fifth last, not fifth.

Re:What's known? (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329135)

She's probably still in denial over Nemesis. It's the first Star Trek film I've ever considered walking out of the cinema in the middle of; if I hadn't been there with friends I would have done.

Re:What's known? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329233)

Although it was bad, it brought to light the second rule of Star Trek movies (the first being even==good, odd==bad), that being: every fifth movie sucks.

Re:What's known? (1)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329469)

I'm not really sure what "Nemesis Denial" has to do with any confusion around "fifth last". It's a confusing method of describing a series of movies; I just misread the GP as talking about movies 3-5 which is only one off from using you know, their actual titles.

~Rebecca

Re:What's known? (2, Interesting)

Trogre (513942) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329781)

Really? I'm curious, what didn't you like about it?

I actually liked it a lot more than IX - Insurrection and V - The Final Frontier.

Not so fast! (2, Insightful)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329279)

Non-nerds usually consider The Voyage Home the best one (Non-Nerd: Is that the one with the whales in it??). But I agree, The Undiscovered Country was great. Kirk rules, Picard drools!

Nuh uhhhh, Picard * (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329393)

# Has a bigger spaceship, which can separate into two spaceships.
# Quotes Shakespeare all the time. Hell, even the ability to speak without pausing every two to three seconds puts him above Kirk
# Not only the president of the Enterprise, but also a client.
# Was turned into a robot. Robots are cool.
# Can say "Make it so" in 43 different inflections in 6 different languages.
# Isn't a walking sexual harassment suit. Hiring Picard instead of a skirt-chaser like Kirk is estimated to have saved the Federation 23 billion credits worth of legal fees and hush money paid to the mothers of illegitimate children spread out across hundreds of star systems.
# Has an annoying techno song compsed totally of his lines. Then someone took the time to make a music video by finding the scenes the lines were from, and editing them to fit the song. Crazy.
# Wasn't made an admiral. Kirk told him not to let starfleet promote him, and he didn't. Therfore Picard is better.
# Picard would never, ever tell his fans to GET A LIFE!
# Kirk was a leader of followers. That's the only reason he (almost) got away with it.
# Picard's worst episodes were originally written for Kirk.
# Picard discovers new life, new civilizations and strange new worlds, not discarded movie sets from 1950s period dramas.
# Picard can act out entire Shakespearean plays, not merely remember 5 or 6 lines.
# Picard can get his ship to orbit a planet in both directions.
# Picard would never ever date a shape-shifter who had previously morphed into a little girl.
# Picard doesn't need to wear glasses.
# Picard has so much backbone Starfleet designers had to cut out a section of his command chair for it all to fit in.
# Picard didn't have to reprogram a computer to give him better grades in order to graduate from Starfleet Academy.
# Picard has to contend with crap Starfleet Admirals. If he stole a starship only to have it get destroyed, he'd get vaporized, not given captaincy of a new one like in the easy old days.
# Picard commands his ship using the big head.
# Picard has a ship whose engines can take it.
# Three words: seven whole seasons.
# Picard never uses Grecian 2000.
# Picard has to contend with the "Prime Directive", a ruling imposed on him by Starfleet after they saw what a complete shambles resulted when they let Kirk meet new alien races.
# The only way Picard would allow Tribbles on his ship would be as hors d'oeuvres.
# Picard never met Joan Collins.
# Picard's bridge doesn't sound like an aviary.
# Picard participates in the odd archaeological dig. Kirk would make a suitable subject for one.
# One question: to which Captain would you entrust the safety of your daughter?
# Picard is far too cool to beam down to a planet, strip to his waist and wrestle with some guy in a rubber lizard suit. He lets his First Officer do all that for him.
# Picard never shot his best friend's body into space in a photon torpedo.
# Kirk probably thinks a concerto is a kind of ice cream dessert.
# Picard doesn't need hair, real or not.
# Picard's crew are too sophisticated to be taken over by a bunch of women in gogo boots and have the most intelligent person aboard controlled by a box that has less buttons than a Super Nintendo joypad.

Re:Nuh uhhhh, Picard * (1)

chanio (321367) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329895)

# Picard was also Magneto (the head of the evil Mutants).
# He only admited Kirk's beloved nurse to work as a computer voice ;) in his shop (sorry) ship.

Re:What's known? (4, Insightful)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329639)

Actually, they all pretty much suck.
ST:TWOK(2) is good entertainment.
ST:TUC(6) is decent entertainment on par with ST:TSFS(3) and ST:TVH(4).

What I mean by "they all suck" is that they don't hold up well today. Watching them is like watching Logans Run, severely dated and off.

The only one that stands out as a decent timeless piece of science fiction is ST:TMP(1).
ST:TMP holds up as well today as it did then; slow, kind of boring, pretty to look at and listen to.
It is not nearly as dated as the rest of them and has a better vision of technology in the future.

One of the worst offenders of displaying future tech was ST:G(7). That movie is as dated as any Twilight Zone/Night Gallery episode that dealt with future technology.
Why the hell do camera crews have huge cameras on their heads when a starship can view, while in orbit, people on a planet at a comfortable distance?

The worst one was ST:TFF(5) followed by ST:N(10),ST:G(7),ST:I(9) as far as being unwatchable.
The only watchable Next Gen crew movie was ST:FC(8).

Alien holds up extremely well today. The only dated piece is the `mother` computer room but maybe by then, Linux will really have a foothold and command line interfaces will be commonplace.
Planet of the Apes (1968) is another timeless piece of Sci Fi.
Star Trek:The Motion Picture is probably the best Star Trek movie in terms of what Star Trek is about.

Re:What's known? (1)

Sillygates (967271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329565)

kirk@enterprise# touch -f CommunicationsOfficer

Harsh (5, Funny)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328763)

to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone

Poor guy...

Re:Harsh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328791)

If you hadn't downloaded movies and music on the internet, he and the set painter guy still would have their jobs.

Re:Harsh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329911)

I always loved that argument, cause I GUARANTEE that they're union, and always get paid.

Re:Harsh (3, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328987)

to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone

Poor guy...

Don't feel too bad for him he's head of programing now.

Re:Harsh (1)

Gospodin (547743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329529)

...at Slashdot?

Dennis Hastert: What We Know +1, Helpful (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329037)

I am not a diplomat and, as such, I am not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language of the diplomatic trade. I have a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. So I trust that you'll forgive me if I come across as a bit blunt when I state that Dennis Hastert uses the term "unproportionableness" with ostensible confidence that its meaning is universally understood. But first, I'm going to jump ahead a bit and talk in general terms about how I shall do my utmost to refute Hastert's arguments line by line and claim by claim. Then, I'll back up and fill in some of the details. Okay, so to start with the general stuff, some people think it's a bit extreme of me to disentangle people from the snares set by Hastert and his functionaries -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that griping about Hastert will not make him stop trying to demand that loyalty to cold-blooded, purblind blockheads supersedes personal loyalty. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life.

Although chimpanzees can be convinced to wear clothing, understand commands, and even ride bicycles (if well paid for their services in bananas), it would be virtually impossible to convince Hastert that I try never to argue with him, because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. Only duplicitous, peevish losers ever contend that his subliminal psywar campaigns are "grandly compelling", "articulate and persuasive", or "a vital contribution", and deep down in our bones, we all know why.

Once it becomes clear that moonstruck incendiarism is merely a symptom of the disease called "Hastert-ism", it becomes apparent that Hastert claims that the sky is falling. That claim is preposterous and, to use Hastert's own language, overtly satanic. No history can justify it. He has been, still is, and always will remain more insufferable than the most selfish parvenus I've ever seen. Even more remarkable, he wants us to believe that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. How stupid does he think we are? If I'm not mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Hastert and his habitués, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that the negativism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, unctuous attack on progressive ideas. Hastert thinks I'm trying to say that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Hastert's head.

I need your help if I'm ever to follow through on the critical work that has already begun. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, shameless airheads are more susceptible to Hastert's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle he puts them in. They then lose all recollection that even Hastert's least intolerant votaries supplement their already-generous incomes by selling contraband on the black market. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that Hastert's fibs are precisely the kind of thing that will reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with Hastert's activities while punishing those who oppose them in the immediate years ahead?

We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. Hastert is like a broken record, using the same tired cliches about family and education and safer streets, yet he is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's myopic to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of insolent interventionism; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that I aver that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Hastert, in contrast, believes that anyone who dares to keep the faith can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: There may be nothing we can do to prevent Hastert from making good on his word to form the association in the public's mind between any metanarratives he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his surrogates, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to defend with dedication and ferocity the very rights that Hastert so desperately wants to abolish. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without the most pretentious crooks you'll ever see? Hastert says that he is a model citizen. You know, he can lie as much as he wants but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd indubitably prevent anyone from hearing that I have a message for him. My message is that, for the good of us all, he should never manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings. He should never even try to do such a snotty thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never", I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that if Hastert could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Hastert has announced his intentions to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. While doing so may earn Hastert a gold star from the mush-for-brains racism crowd, if his thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, Hastert wouldn't consider it such a good idea to destabilize society. Hastert's secret passion is to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. For shame!

But there I go again, claiming that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Hastert has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. What is happening between his helots and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a warped attack on our most cherished institutions.

While I don't know Hastert's secret plans, I do know that Hastert believes that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. That's just wrong. He further believes that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through". Wrong again! Because of his obsession with recidivism, Hastert claims to be fighting for equality. What he's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that I can easily see Hastert performing the following bleeding-heart acts. First, he will harvest what others have sown. Then, he will force his moral code on the rest of us. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind. At no time in the past did wanton troublemakers shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. It has been said that some of Hastert's former cult followers say they were willing to help Hastert separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities because Hastert convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a vulgar global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as amoral. I, in turn, maintain that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Hastert's minions take for granted?

I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Hastert's blinkered, mawkish animadversions which allow federally funded research to mushroom into a rambunctious, grossly inefficient system, hampered by deranged urban guerrillas and the worst types of petulant slobs there are. Only Hastert could possibly feel that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery, yet he has come very, very close to making me go into hiding. This sort of vertiginous paradox is well known to most sophomoric, high-handed polemics. It's not that I have anything against politicos in general. It's just that I shall not argue that his newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse. Read them and see for yourself.

The struggle against chauvinistic pinheads must be a struggle against gangsterism, Pyrrhonism, and cynicism, or it is doomed to failure. Hastert cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Hastert has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. So he thinks that his activities are on the up-and-up? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: I'm not a larcenous person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Hastert's cohorts and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to shed the light of truth on the evil that is Hastert. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media because that's what Hastert wants.

It's debatable whether Hastert and his grunts are puppets of inimical segregationists. However, no one can disagree that he has commented that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. He claims that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. I respond that I'm not sure whether to classify his slurs under "paranoia" or "ignorance". Hastert's coprophagous, effrontive game of chess -- the daft chess of Maoism -- has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this two-faced Luddite and show him that he claims that might makes right. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Might I suggest that Hastert search for a hobby? It seems he has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings. Whether you call it "barbarism", "fascism", or "despotism", it is alive and well in Hastert's invectives. It's what convinced me that Hastert should feel ashamed of himself. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Hastert is clearly going to be the first to go. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Dennis Hastert himself or one of his operatives, will write a superficial piece about how utterly infantile I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.

Patriotically,
Philboyd Studge

Re:Harsh (4, Funny)

g1zmo (315166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329145)

Must have been all that piracy.

Re:Harsh (1)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329203)

Poor guy...

Yeah, first they cut Wil's scene, and now this.
What a shame.

Re:Harsh (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329291)

Poor guy...

He probably was the one responsible for killing Data. Berman probably didn't know how to end the movie, so he asked the janitor and he said "kill the android." I say let him hang.

Re:Harsh (1)

Starfleet Command (936772) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329725)

No...they killed off Data because the actor, Brent Spiner, felt he was getting to old to play an android that did not age.

Re:Harsh (1)

hardaker (32597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329589)

You'd think he should have been smart enough not to show up to work in a red shirt.

CBS? (4, Interesting)

iambarry (134796) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328769)

I thought Star Trek was owned by Paramount...where does CBS come in?

Re:CBS? (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328815)

CBS and Paramount are tied up in the same megacorp.

You do realize that only half a dozen distinct corporations control 99% of the entertainment industry, don't you?

Re:CBS? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329649)

CBS and Paramount are tied up in the same megacorp. You do realize that only half a dozen distinct corporations control 99% of the entertainment industry, don't you?

Actually, It's only ten [thenation.com] .

Re:CBS? (4, Informative)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328841)

Here's the story- if you can follow it [wikipedia.org]

Basically, CBS created Paramount, which split off back in the 1970s, which was eventually aquired by Viacomm, which got swallowed back up by CBS.

Since corporate splits and mergers rarely make sense to me- go read the wikipedia article instead.

Re:CBS? (1)

lostboy2 (194153) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329169)

CBS created Paramount, which split off back in the 1970s, which was eventually aquired by Viacomm, which got swallowed back up by CBS.

Wait, wasn't that a Star Trek episode where the giant space amoeba ... oh never mind.

Lucille Ball! (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329193)

*ahem* Desilu Productions? You forgot that part of the story!

*Ricky Ricardo voice*: Luuuuuccyyy, I'm back from the Romulan Neutral Zone! (hits bongo drum)

- Bee Tiberius Beard

Re:CBS? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329301)

Not quite accurate, according to the Wikipedia article:

There was CBS, it created Viacom to syndicate old tv shows. Westinghouse bought CBS, renamed to CBS Corporation, Viacom bought CBS Corporation. Viacom didn't like the new structure so split into two groups, one named CBS Corporation and . . . Viacom.

Paraount! CBS! Star Trek! Lost in Space! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329371)

You've got the story slightly muddled. Paramount dates back to the silent movie era. The CBS radio network was founded in 1927, partly with backing from Paramount.

The company that CBS created was Viacom itself. Viacom started out as CBS's syndication [wikipedia.org] division, and got spun off in 1971. Somehow, Viacom became this massive media conglomerate, buying up dozens (literally!) of companies, including both Paramount and its former parent CBS. When it bought CBS it renamed itself CBS.

And that why's CBS owns Star Trek. I'm looking forward to the crossover episode with Lost in Space [wikipedia.org] !

Viacom (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329445)

Here's the story- if you can follow it [wikipedia.org]Basically, CBS created Paramount, which split off back in the 1970s, which was eventually aquired by Viacomm, which got swallowed back up by CBS.
That's how it happened but it's sorta turned around when you state it like that. The Viacom of today [wikipedia.org] is not the same as the Viacom media giant we all used to know.

Viacom didn't get swallowed back up by CBS, CBS got swallowed up by Viacom, which then split itself into two entities, the larger one took the CBS name and the other took over the Viacom name.

So it's sorta like the SBC/AT&T merger. SBC buys AT&T, then changes its name to AT&T, which to most consumers makes it look like AT&T actually swallowed up SBC. Only here the result is two smaller companies instead of a single larger combined entity.

One sticking point here though, according to the Viacom article, Viacom holds Paramount's movie studio, CBS only has the television side of Paramount.

Re:CBS? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328849)

Viacom owns Paramount. CBS owned Viacom. Viacom and CBS split, each taking part of the pie. Don't ask me to detangle it any further. My head already hurts trying to figure out who owns who.

Re:CBS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328911)

So you're saying we shouldn't discuss, for example, CBS/FOX Video, which released films made by CBS, 20th Century Fox, MGM, UA, BBC...

Re:CBS? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328945)

Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow...

Cruel bastard. :P

Re:CBS? (1)

Ponga (934481) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328931)

CBS now owns the rights to ST [startrek.com] .

Re:CBS? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329225)

I never noticed it before, but the new logo is the Eye of Sauron sat on Barad-dûr.

"The new name brings together two of the most iconic symbols in entertainment -- the CBS Eye, one of the most recognized logos in the world, and the Paramount mountain,"


Re:CBS? (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329263)

Ok, this confirms it:

Separated [wikipedia.org] at Birth [startrek.com] !

Re:CBS? (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329751)

In Soviet Russia, all-seeing demonic eye watches you!

Re:CBS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329789)

I, for one, welcome our ... shit, they're already in charge. Damn it.

New Trek Comics (2, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328773)

For those who can't wait until this movie comes out (or who may not want to think about it), there's an alternative in the meantime: upstart comics publisher IDW has announced that they'll be launching a new ST:TNG comics series in January (loosely tied to the series' 20th anniversary next year), with TOS and perhaps other Trek titles coming later. More details here. [newsarama.com]

Everyone gone? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328803)

Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone.

They fired Steve? Bastards!

Re:Everyone gone? (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329021)

> Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone.
>
>They fired Steve? Bastards!

But also in TFA:

"...the movie will most likely be a prequel featuring Kirk and Spock in their younger years"

So sure, they fired Berman from his janitorial duties, but because there a slash-fic author managed to sneak into the focus group, so they hired that Foley creep in his place.

"There's clingons on the aft nacelle, scrape 'em off, Rick!"

I don't care about young Kirk! (3, Informative)

avalys (221114) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328805)

Just because they've replaced the production team doesn't mean it'll be any better. And if their best idea is to churn out a freaking prequel, I'm betting these people will be no better than who they're replacing.

Re:I don't care about young Kirk! (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329095)

I quite like the idea of an Earth-Romulan War film / series. Unfortunately, you're now going to need a lot of retconning to go from the 'war fought with primitive nuclear weapons' in ST:TNG to all the much more modern weapons in Enterprise (not to mention the fact that in Enterprise they encountered the Romulans for the 'first' time, and they were flying in TOS-era ships. Actually, probably better to just pretend Enterprise never happened; I think most of the fans have.

The real problem with prequels is trying to squeeze existing characters into them (yes George Lucas, I'm looking at you). A prequel to Star Wars with Luke in it would be very dull (he was just a farm-boy, after all), or it would destroy continuity. A prequel to Star Trek that had both Kirk and Spock in it would just leave the fans wincing.

Prequels themselves are not a bad idea, but they are difficult to execute. There is a lot of Star Trek continuity you are constantly running into. The first episode of Enterprise had me wincing as they seemed to be trying to cram as many continuity errors into 40 minutes as possible. Sequels are generally easier, although it would be difficult to follow the Voyager finale where Janeway single-handedly defeated the Borg using a shuttle from a couple of decades in the future (are the Federation really only 20 years behind the Borg in terms of tech?). I might be tempted to take the series in a completely different direction; make a show about a group of Vulcan and Romulan terrorists/freedom fighters on Romulus pushing a reunificationist agenda, for example. Have the occasional interaction with the Federation (possibly some weapons being smuggled to them by Star Fleet Intelligence, and the moral issues involved with supporting 'terrorists'), but keep it mainly focussed on the Romulan Star Empire.

Re:I don't care about young Kirk! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329769)

are the Federation really only 20 years behind the Borg in terms of tech?

The Borg has always disappointed me for just this reason. They've been wandering the cosmos for ages scooping up races. They should have technology that makes ours utterly pointless. But I guess it's okay given that Star Trek is fantasy, not Science-Fiction :P

I have an idea! (5, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329903)

Q could wipe out the entire Enterprise timeline. Then we could all feel good about ignoring it

Re:I don't care about young Kirk! (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329577)

The prequel seems similar to the Academy movie that was one of the original ideas for a Star Trek movie (IIRC, fully developed into a script before the idea of bringing back the original cast and doing what became ST:TMP came up), and seems to be the most frequently batted around but never-gets-done idea in Trek.

My prediction: It will suck, hard, particularly with no one previously involved in Trek involved. A prequel works, if it all, by carefully balancing new insights with fidelity to the original characters, and its going to be really hard to do that without any continuity in either the cast or the creative team.

I think they'd be better to do a trek-universe film with an entirely new set of characters, either in a previously unused point on the timeline or overlapping one of the previous series or movies, and give themselves something new to build on without the risk of either doing caricatures of previous characters, or unrecognizable characters with old characters names.

Re:I don't care about young Kirk! (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329907)

Just because they've replaced the production team doesn't mean it'll be any better. And if their best idea is to churn out a freaking prequel,

No kidding. I'd much rather see a movie that took place in the future with Riker as Captain of the Enterprise with that uber-awesome cannon on top where the federation was in chaos. Kickass space battles, the universe at war, lots of death and phasers and really cool stuff...

None of this prequel crap. it sucked with Star Wars. It sucked with Enterprise, and it'll probably suck with this movie too, because ultimately we know the ending.

I don't know if a complete replacement is good... (4, Insightful)

Faizdog (243703) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328861)

I don't know if I like the idea of a complete replacement of the behind the scenes Trek crew. Sure I'm glad that B&B are gone, but what about folks like Mike Okuda? The man behind the TNG techincal manual and the Star Trek Encyclopedia? Who is reported to have the entire continuity in his head?

I think that replacing the problem people is a good idea, but replacing some of the other key old hands who know Trek inside and out? This along with the report on NPR this morning that A TON of old Star Trek memrobelia, props, costumes, ship models, etc are being auctioned, has me worried.

Sure Trek was really going downhill fast since Voyager, but fix the problem, don't just toss it all away. We still want our Trek, not something new.

Re:I don't know if a complete replacement is good. (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328973)

While I agree that I still want the spirit of Trek, I'm not convinced this is a bad idea. For a start, the continuity of Star Trek has been messed up beyond belief by Enterprise anyway. While I want things keeping generally the same, I'm not too bothered if maybe some planets get rearrange a little, or the time-line gets a clean-up.

Comparing to Marvel, I think their "Ultimate" universe restart was one of the best ideas they had had in a long time, as while the characters were basically the same, it helped sweep up a lot of rubbish which had built up. It is also a great help to those who haven't seen all the ST series. On one hand, I'd really like a series set after Voyager + DS9. On the other hand I accept you would either have to ignore much of what had gone on in DS9 in particular, or the storyline would be too complex for new viewers.

Re:I don't know if a complete replacement is good. (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329811)

I agree. There are a lot of people who were responsible for the look and feel of Star Trek, when only a few executive producers and writers screwed it up. Hopefully the summary is just hyperbole, the article itself doesn't say "everyone" was fired.

Everyone? (3, Insightful)

exley (221867) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328863)

Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone.


I don't know if this is exactly what people have been clamoring for. Quite a few people, yeah, they needed to go to get some fresh blood in there. But to mix in some new people and still have have some people around who have a history with Trek and who understand what the franchise is about wouldn't be so bad. Hopefully.


I guess it could go either way, though. You could bring in all new people who also have an understanding as to what it's all about and have them really rejuvenate things. Or they could get people like that guy who directed Nemesis (Stuart Baird) who was so clueless about the franchise that he thought Geordi was an alien for awhile.

Re:Everyone? (5, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329049)

Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone.

I don't know if this is exactly what people have been clamoring for.

I was. I hated the guy who swept the floor.

Re:Everyone? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329153)

The people that did the design, effects & post work were doing a good job. The problem is the directors, producers, executive producers and the network nitwit meddlers weren't doing a good job. Anyone that did the writing needs to be able to write something better than a fanfic.

Re:Everyone? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329803)

It's going to be a "re-imagined" series.. Kirk will be played by Anthony Michael Hall, and Spock will be played by Andie MacDowell... that's right, a CHICK!

Okay, jokes aside, in any case, I guess it's more of a wait and see thing at this point.

And to those who are gonna slam me re: the BSG ref, I like the new series.

Hurry up and make this, then make Star Trek XII (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328869)

Cause odd/even principle will show that this movie will be terrible anyway so lets just get it over with.

Re:Hurry up and make this, then make Star Trek XII (1)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329197)

Nemesis broke it! :( We're fucking owed. 2 bad ones in a row!

Amazing (1, Funny)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328873)

CBS has kicked Rick Berman off the Trek bandwagon

Someone at CBS actually has a brain?

Re:Amazing (1)

pavkam (947790) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328919)

Considering the latest "productions" I'd say - no?

Re:Amazing (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328999)

Someone at CBS actually has a brain?

He keeps it in a jar on his desk.

KFG

janitor (0, Redundant)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328909)

...to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone.

Lenny?! Oh no! I didn't know he got laid off!

Re:janitor (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329505)

Lenny?! Oh no! I didn't know he got laid off!

Yea, I thought it was Carl also.

New production crew, why not new characters? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328923)

New production crew, why not new characters?

I don't like the idea of introducing new characters and a set in a Star Trek movie, but I dislike the idea of bringing back old characters in their early academy days even more.

What is this movie going to be about? Kirk spent the night with a girl when he should have been studying for his final test, Spock tries to warn Kirk, but Kirk doesn't listen. Now Kirk may not pass and become a officer. The future of the entire Alpha Quadrant is at stake, Kirk won't be able to fly the Enterprise around and seduce alien women!

Let's move beyond prequels let's even pass up the 24th century. We already know the past, lets see the future of the Federation of Planets in the 27th or beyond.

Re:New production crew, why not new characters? (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329385)

Let's move beyond prequels let's even pass up the 24th century.

The problem is that they can't. They already invented all the neat tech in the space-faring Sheraton of STNG. So the only way to go is back in the days when there was none of it. They can't go back to the beginning, that was Enterprise. So that just leaves academy days.

Re:New production crew, why not new characters? (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329419)

That's "United Federation of Planets". SOMEONE SHOOT ME IN THE HEAD.

Other Ideas people have had on the new movie (1)

dparnass (1004755) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328935)

I wish on the Star Trek movies they could get away from the Federation and do a Klingon Movie about the Klingons, all in Klingon. But I don;t think that would fly. I did have one friend who wants it to be the Pirates of Pinzance in Klingon. Now that would never fly. It would be interesting though. And no my friend was not on drugs, she is weird enough with out them.

Re:Other Ideas people have had on the new movie (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329107)

Save for keeping the language, it would do well as a TV episode (similar has been done in Trek-dom), but I don't think it would make for something that will have a decent mainstream pull to justify a theatrical movie. It's hard enough getting people to watch a foreign film with subtitles, I think the set of people in the US that are willing to watch a subtitled Star Trek movie is too small.

Re:Other Ideas people have had on the new movie (1)

WRX Gav (867999) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329199)

Be brave and do it in Klingon without subtitles - it worked for Mel Gibson :)

Re:Other Ideas people have had on the new movie (1)

AlfieJ (660051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329245)

It's hard enough getting people to watch a foreign film with subtitles

Yeah, Passion of the Christ only made about $600 million.

Re:Other Ideas people have had on the new movie (1)

Mad Marlin (96929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329275)

I think the Romulans would be a better choice. The Klingons have been rather thoroughly explored already. But yeah, a Klingon movie would have a lot better chance of not sucking than Kirk in his frat days.

Sounds Best In Klingon (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329647)

I could see a Klingon movie in Klingon being pretty nifty. I mean hell, even Shakespeare sounds best in its original Klingon.

my eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328939)

This blog hurts my eyes. And when will Slashdot learn to bypass the blog and go straight to the article?

Well, presumably (1)

xC0000005 (715810) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328961)

there will be stars, and some sort of treking, but not wars (unless you want George Lucas involved).

fros7 pist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16328983)

nonc-fuckiNg-existant. be 'very poorly

To the guy that sweeps the floor. (2, Funny)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16328991)

But they PROMISED us if we stopped pirating films, the little guys would get to keep their jobs!

NOOOOOOOooooooooo!!!!!!

They Killed Data... (4, Insightful)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329001)

...and as far as I'm concerned, if you kill Data you have to go.

Re:They Killed Data... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329191)

I don't know, my willing suspension of disbelief was having problems keeping up with the idea of an android that could put on that much weight over a few years. Especially after a film in which he explained that his body measurements would stay the same for his entire lifespan...

Prequel!?! What's next? (4, Funny)

B11 (894359) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329053)

'Nsync cameos as red shirts?

Re:Prequel!?! What's next? (1)

3waygeek (58990) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329105)

Most of us would consider that a good thing.

Trek needs NEW, not OLD (5, Insightful)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329187)

Enterprise failed because its just not that interesting to watch the "old" again. I don't want to see young Kirk.

Bring back any of the TNG/DS9/VOY actors that want a job; seed the environment with a couple familiar faces. Everybody loves Worf and Michael Dorn basically never turns down a chance to come back, get him. Get some new blood and tell a new tale. How about the crew of the Titan; heading up that task force near the neutral zone, that has some options and I'm sure Frakes needs a job. How about a period of recovery for the Alpha Quadrant post Dominion War; paralleling the WW2 Europe -> European Union evolution?

Maybe you like my ideas, maybe you don't. All I'm saying is seek out new life, and new civilizations; and don't try and cowardly go where we've already been a billion times. Unless you're trying to duplicate the success of Enterprise

~Rebecca

Re:Trek needs NEW, not OLD (1)

Municipa (99320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329333)

I rather see new stuff too, but remember how many old fans are out there. If they do old stuff right it can be good.

Re:Trek needs NEW, not OLD (1)

Changa_MC (827317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329685)

Enterprise failed because it had no storyline. Terrorists travelling back in time to destroy our world? Lame!

The idea was great, and although the dialog in the first episode sucked, it had potential. But they had no vision, no purpose to it at all.

No one's gonna watch this movie because.. (4, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329217)

What? A prequel? That means outdated technology? How on earth do they expect Star Trek fans to enjoy a film where space ships can only go to warp 5?

J.J Abrams (1)

Gli7ch (954537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329219)

The creator of Lost? Wow, I'm sure this is going to be a cinematic masterpiece.

Bring back the Gorn, dammit! (1)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329227)

Fuck, a prequel? That's pretty damn sad. Didn't they learn anything from Enterprise?

You know what I want to see (it's there in the subject line so you shouldn't have to guess too hard). That's right, the friggin' Gorn. That was the coolest damn alien in the original series and he only got one episode. Stronger than hell but also very clever. They seem like they would be an interesting species to have as an enemy. There was a ST:TNG comic featuring the gorn that made them sound like just another warrior civilization like the klingons. What a cop-out. The way the gorn captain meticulously made traps for Kirk on that planet suggests to me that there's a lot more to them than head-bashing, adrenaline brutes. I'd wager that Star Trek fans would love to see more Gorn; why else would they have stuck that CGI abomination in the mirror universe episode of Enterprise if not for fan service?

The problem is that gorn makeup probably costs more than the usual bumpy-forehead-of-the-week aliens we're used to seeing in Star Trek so it's probably prohibitive for a TV show. So why not feature the gorn in a movie? This prequel idea sounds like a TV show. Don't waste the movie budget on special effects. Spend it on some interesting aliens.

A prequel featuring Kirk and Spock, even for just a short cameo, just screams of lack of ideas.

GMD

Thank GOD! (2, Insightful)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329367)

'There is no they any more. Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone. There's now a totally different production team running Star Trek. This is what people have been asking for now for years.'

It was bad enough hearing Berman defend his crappy opening credits music choice for Enterprise on the first season DVD.. About time he got the boot.

I for one welcome the new trekkie overlords..

Firsst 4ost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329399)

show that *BSD has rapid, very sick and its = 36400 FreeBSD for a living got but many Find it ops or any of the first organization

"You killed my franchise. Prepare to die." (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329451)

"There is no they any more. Everyone who has worked on Star Trek previously, from the top executives at the studio to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone. There's now a totally different production team running Star Trek. This is what people have been asking for now for years."
"I want Gene Roddenberry back you son of a bitch."
-- Ensign Montoya

PPF and Star Trek. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329609)

Boarding the Enterprise: Transporters, Tribbles and the Vulcan Death Grip in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek [amazon.com]

"Trekkies and Trekkers alike will get starry-eyed over this eclectic mix of essays on the groundbreaking original Star Trek series. Star Trek writers D. C. Fontana and David Gerrold, science fiction authors, such as Howard Weinstein, and various academics share behind-the-scenes anecdotes, discuss the show's enduring appeal and influence, and examine some of the classic features of the show, including Spock's irrationality, Scotty's pessimism, and the lack of seatbelts on the Enterprise. The impact of Star Trek on subsequent science-fiction television programs is explored, as well as how the show laid the foundation for the science fiction genre to break into the television medium.

About the Author
David Gerrold is the author of the Hugo and Nebula Award-nominated The Man Who Folded Himself, When Harlie Was One, and the Chtorr, Dingillian, and Star Wolf series. He also wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles" episode of Star Trek, which was voted the most popular Star Trek episode of all time. He lives in Northridge, California. Robert Sawyer is the author of several science fiction novels, including the Nebula Award-winning The Terminal Experiment and the Hugo Award-nominated Calculating God."

I know what would spruce it up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329617)

Daleks!

C'mon, that's still got to be the best idea they've got. Also, if they could answer the age-old Enterprise Vs Death Star question, that's would be just dandy.

from the creators of Lost (3, Funny)

eadint (156250) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329655)

Lets see here, there are rope traps in the hallway.
half of the crew is the enemy.
there is a lot of sexual homosexual hermaphoditic and beastial sexual tension going around.
you have two watch 10 movies just to know what is going on.
oh yea and their trapped in an alternate univers that they cant get out of.

The new army has arrived! (1)

chanio (321367) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329765)

Thanks god we are now having all that SCI-Fi nonsense aside and working on what matters:
The new army has arrived!
These people are willing to bring peace to all their universe!
Dump away all those hippies!
And let's EXTERMINATE every terrorist that might still be daring to boldly go, where this new generation is!

Prequilitis (3, Funny)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16329865)

*another* prequel? They never learn.

So Kirk will be 12 and Spock will be 100 and McCoy will *still* be 90 and Uhura will not have developed yet.

It will die quickly.

The plot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16329929)

The enterprise gets diverted from its course by a mysterious electromagnetic beam which attracts the ship to a habitable planet. This beam breaks the ship into three separate parts, which crash into different parts of the planet. Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the crew are stranded on the planet, where they fight a fog-like creature, some polar bears, and an alien race known as "The Others".
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>