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 To Return Christmas 2008

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the beaming dept.

Sci-Fi 358

Tycoon Guy writes "Paramount today announced the new Star Trek film is scheduled for release on Christmas Day 2008. The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.' Also today, rumors are out claiming Matt Damon, Adrien Brody and Gary Sinise will play Kirk, Spock, and Scotty, respectively."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


I've got a bad feeling about this (3, Interesting)

micpp (818596) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178284)

Somehow those rumours frighten and shock me. A Kirk that isn't Shatner and a Spock that isn't Nimoy?
What about a DS9 movie?

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (5, Funny)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178328)

I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (5, Funny)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178454)

I don't think they can make a DS9 movie because of the law they passed that hollywood has to make only movies that suck.

I hear Shatner is in negotiations.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (3, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178722)

How would a DS9 movie break such a rule?


Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (4, Funny)

RatRagout (756522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179172)

Does that mean this will be a Star Trek "holiday special" ? (http://www.starwarsholidayspecial.com/)

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (2, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178376)

Not just a DS9 movie, but one set in the alternative universe.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (4, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178402)

What about a DS9 movie?

(Warning: spoilers)

At the end of the series, they dismantled basically the entire crew (Sisko ended up in the celestial temple/wormhole, Odo went to join the great link, Garek stayed on Cardassia, Dukat died, etc. They'd need to either use a different cast (which would suck) or come up with an excuse to reunite everyone (which would most likely seem ridiculously contrived), which makes a DS9 movie relatively unlikely.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (4, Informative)

Babbster (107076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178586)

Actually, there are books that continue the story (an "8th season" of sorts) of Bajor, DS9, the Gamma Quadrant, etc. in some pretty cool ways. At the end of the first "arc" (that's as far as I've read) they even managed to get everyone back on Bajor in a way that made sense (at least in the context of DS9). I won't spoil any of it for those who might be interested in reading the books and I'll give a reading list/order below for anyone who cares:

1. Avatar 1-2
2. Section 31: Abyss (haven't read)
3. Gateways: Demons of Air and Darkness (haven't read)
4. "Horn and Ivory" from Gateways: What Lay Beyond (haven't read)
5. Mission Gamma 1-4
6. Rising Son (haven't read)
7. Unity
8. Worlds of Deep Space Nine (three books - haven't read)

Again, from the list above (cribbed from a post on trekunited.com by "wildcard1377") I've read seven of the books and only missed a few references while still enjoying the primary arc of the story. I'll get to the rest at some point when I have time to get down to the "big bookstore" and grab them up, but I definitely recommend the ones I have read to DS9 fans.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (1)

arodland (127775) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178762)

If you didn't want to do anything too heavy on long-term plot, I'm sure you could find enough space between the end of Season 1 and the beginning of Season 2 to fit a movie's worth of plot. None of the episodes at the end of S1 really established anything important, and there was no real plot carry-over and no established timeframe btween "In the Hands of the Prophets" and the arc started by "The Homecoming". I'm not sure that I'd want to see such a thing done -- in fact, probably not. But I'm just saying, it could :)

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178942)

It's just a movie, they could just discard a few episodes at the end and restart with an alternative story. Would even feet the alternative universe thing nicely. Sisko threw a coin, it landed face up instead of down and he decided not to involve Romulans in Cardassian war or something.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (1)

DevelopersDevelopers (1027018) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178494)

Perhaps they take some sort of perverse pleasure in crushing and soiling our childhood loves. If they had any sense in them they'd start a film series based on the DS9 Relaunch [wikipedia.org] series of novels. Those are actually pretty entertaining and worthwhile stories unlike, say, Insurrection and Nemesis.

Re:I've got a bad feeling about this (1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178850)

Friggen great. I can't wait for the polar bears, black smokes, and to find out which of Spock's parents are actually a double agent for the KGB.

oh good (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178306)

The studio also confirmed the film will be directed by J. J. Abrams, who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'

It's great that the guy charting that course is best known for a show called LOST.

Re:oh good (3, Funny)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178362)

i honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious

Re:oh good (5, Interesting)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178518)

Considering Lost has a suspiciously large number of similarities to an old show called "The New People", perhaps Abrams is the right person to resurrect the spirit of another show from the sixties.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063935/plotsummary [imdb.com]


Re:oh good (3, Interesting)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178868)

Not that similar. If you want to get technical, both are ripping off Lord Of The Flies, but the details are so different that it's basically a non-issue. There's only so many basic settings like "people crash on a mysterious island"; you're going to have some repetition of the basic plot. If anything, Lost is ripping off The Prisoner more than The New People.

Re:oh good (2, Insightful)

jfb3 (25523) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179024)

I thought Lost was just a re-hash of Gilligan's Island with just enough 90210 brooding and staring thrown in to make you think something is actually going to, eventually, advance the plot (assuming there is one, which I doubt).

Re:oh good (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178668)

It's great that the guy charting that course is best known for a show called LOST.

Well, at least we can be sure that there will be a sequel, since most probably at the end of the movie people will just look to their neighbors and see that I-don't-have-a-clue-what-just-happened look on their faces.

Scotty != Bones (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178322)

I don't know if the editors decided not to RTFA, but TFA doesn't talk about Scotty at all, rather is saying that the role is for Bones.

Re:Scotty != Bones (1)

Edward Teach (11577) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178544)

Actually, it DOES talk about Scotty, just not Sinise playing him. BTW, I'll watch any movie Sinise is in.

Re:Scotty != Bones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178588)

> I don't know if the editors decided not to RTFA

What, and break with tradition? You insensitive clod!

Re:Scotty != Bones (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178830)

Actually the story begins with Scotty and Bones being merged in a transporter accident.

Re:Scotty != Bones (4, Funny)

dabraun (626287) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178836)

I don't know if the editors decided not to RTFA, but TFA doesn't talk about Scotty at all, rather is saying that the role is for Bones.

Shhhhh .... scotty doesn't know.

Only One Question (2, Funny)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178324)

Will dax be in it!?

Re:Only One Question (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178452)

Which Dax: Curzon, Jadzia, Ezri, or whatever host lived at the time of Kirk?

(If you just want to see Terry Farrell (the actress who played Jadzia), you ought to just hope she's in it as a different character.)

Re:Only One Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178756)

My vote is for Joran!!! Now that would be an interesting Trek villain.

Re:Only One Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178864)

Yes. Rumors are that JLo will play Dax.

Fascinating... (2, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178338)

...they are attempting to build a vehicle to harness the power of the stars. I wonder if they will achieve worf capability?

Beating a Dead Horse (1, Interesting)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178340)

The "franchise" ran its course. Everyone should let it go and make way for other science fiction series.

Re:Beating a Dead Horse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178510)

Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it

Re:Beating a Dead Horse (4, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178738)

On a serious note, there is plenty of room for reimagining Star Trek, retelling the adventures with fresh faces or perspectives, or picking up on story lines open but never followed. What happens to future crews on the shore leave planet? What happends to the star ship that goes to collect next years taxes on the planet in "A Piece of the Action"? Just look at the evolution of Batman from camp series to the Keaton movie to Batman Begins.

On a humorous note, imagine John Madden playing Spock:

Spock: Captain, if you look here (circles empy space on viewer) this is were the bird of prey would be if you could see it, but you can't see, so it's invisible, and you can't see it. And when you can't see a ship, it's cloaked. Now as it moves laterally (Draws diagonal line from empty circle), and you can't see it, but you fire photon torpedoes, sort of like a Brett Farve pass that explodes, and it hits the bird of prey, well then, BOOM, and that's one dead bird of prey.

Kirk: Sulu, fire at Spock's coordinates!

Sulu: Aye Captain! .... A hit! We destroyed the bird of prey!

Kirk: No Sulu, I meant shoot Spock, I can't take this any more!

Gary Sinise?!?!?! Gary Sinise?!?!?! Gary Sinise?!? (4, Informative)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178352)

NOoooooooo! Why not Brendan Gleeson? Both Him and Gary where born in 1955, so they're the same age. And Brendan looks and TALKS much more like what I would settle for a Scotty. I could see Sinise as McCoy, hell he even looks a bit like him. Ohhh wait.. submitter got it wrong. [trektoday.com] Sinise will be McCoy and James McAvoy is going to be Scotty. James McAvoy?!?!?!? He's a slight and frail little man! He's not close to passable as the boisterous and strapping chief engineer before his more plump years. He better start gorging on meat pies.

Not too bad. (1, Interesting)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178364)

I'm a pretty big trek fan (currently watching all of it in chronological order), and these casting choices dont seem terrible. I hope the movie is better than the last two, although nemesis was kind of ok, but i think trek could use a rest. Watching/rewatching all of it has given me some perspective on all the series compared to watching them randomly in syndication on spike. So far IMHO, DS9 S4-7 > TNG S4-7 > DS9 S1-3 > TOS > TNG S1-3 > ENT S3-4 > VOY > ENT S1-2 > TAS. That may change, i may split voyager up, but im only on the first season of it/the third season of DS9 right now and i havn't seen an episode of voyager since it originally aired. General conclusions are still DS9 is the best, TNG is overrated, and ENT is very underrated. Oh, and Star Trek V still sucks.

Re:Not too bad. (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178430)

After having gone back and watched all of ENT (in order), I've actually come to the conclusion that it didn't suck after all. Perhaps it's still not quite up to DS9 or later-TNG standards, but I think it gives TOS a run for its money (that could also be due to the fact that I'm young, so I'm not viewing TOS through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia).

Re:Not too bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178758)

I agree. ENT is very good.


Re:Not too bad. (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178882)

That's not saying much, though... I mean, TOS really kinda sucked. DS9 4-7 and TNG 4-7 were some decent sci-fi, but the writing and acting pretty much everywhere else in the franchise blows quite hard.

Not only are they beating a dead horse.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178414)

They're making glue...

Good news! (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178416)

The Raliens have managed to clone all the original stars. In 18 years they'll be able to do Star Fleet academy with all the original actors! Next thing to tackle is a time machine so the fans don't have to wait nearly two decades for the new series. Paramount is so confident that time travel will be perfected that they have scehduled the premiere of the new series for this Fall.

Re:Good news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178822)

Dear Sir, Madam, or other xenosexual life form:

We regret to inform you that your plan is in violation of the Temporal Prime Directive. This thread will cease to have ever existed. Thankyou for your time. No, that was not a pun.


Hey. Stop it. (5, Insightful)

cbrichar (819941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178422)

Quit it.

Star Trek was a fantastic series - heck, I enjoyed all of the runs, which is more than a lot of fans would claim - but if you want to bring back the brilliance and optimism of Roddenberry's world (FTA), you don't do it with a "when-they-were-young" storyline which would most assuredly contain:
1 - A necessarily predictable storyline, to the extent that we know who manages to pull through into their later years.
2 - Shameless references to the more familiar versions of the characters (e.g. A young Scotty trying unsuccessfully to fix a coffee machine and making references to a lack of available power OMGHILARIOUS.)

So yes.
Stop it.

Re:Hey. Stop it. (1)

SamSim (630795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178916)

One of these days I want to do an "Ask Slashdot: What would you do with the Star Trek franchise?"

kill it (4, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179032)

No really.

It was good, well in places it was great, but not everywhere, but all they are doing is trying to get more money from a story that has been told and retold until they are inescapably trapped in a quagmire of ever repeating storylines.

Enterprise was a good example. They assembled a team of great actors, then forced them to regurgitate shit storylines until even the diehard fans started to cry out in pain. Its the only star trek where if I see its on I won't flick over to watch it.

If they left it for a decade or three that might be good. Let the dust settle, let some fresh talent tackle the story in a new way.

Re:Hey. Stop it. (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179268)

One of these days I want to do an "Ask Slashdot: What would you do with the Star Trek franchise?"
Write a story announcing that the entire Star Trek universe was a fiction created by The Master within the Doctor Who TV series, created to distract nerds everywhere from his plans to take over the universe and turn Tom Baker into Peter Davison :-P

emmmm...No (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179118)

The new Trek does not have to be like the old one. As our world progresses into the future, there are new things to tell, and Star Trek is a perfect environment for it.

Watch for the iguana to pop out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178474)

...and William Shatner to cameo as a futuristic Priceline.com commercial salesman, dockside

+1 for creative use of CAPTCHA

We come in peace (shoot to kill) (1)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178478)

Just in case, set phasers to suck.

Look what they did with Lost In Space, took a classic 60's tv show and turned it into a complete Hollywood schlockfest of a film. Here's hoping there's some people involved with the creative side of the film who are die-hard Trekkies to steer it in a good direction.

*feeling a little guilty he likes the LIS film and is actually quite looking forward to a new trek film*

I can't say those actors are a bad choice. (2, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178500)

I mean, I'm not a gargantuan star trek fan - I enjoyed 4 (who didn't?) I loved 2 and well the original series is camp fun at best.
Also TNG is good but yeah I'm not a circle jerk star trek loon (sorry guys, I know I should leave now)

honestly I don't see a need for anything to be re-made BUT - well gee wizz those 3 actors are pretty darn good for their roles.
could be interesting.

The cast (1)

C4st13v4n14 (1001121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178508)

Matt Damon and Adrien Brody as Kirk and Spock I can see. But Gary Sinise as Scotty? I think someone mucked up the rumour mill there, Gary Sinise looks more like Dr. McCoy.

Gary Sinise? (1)

nytes (231372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178568)

Maybe I'm old, or too into older movies (or both). I've enjoyed Sinise in most of what I've seen, but I feel the aura of Peter Lorre every time I hear he's in something. Is that a proper character for Scotty?

"She would always treat me mean, so I took a can of gasoline (and a match) to... my... old... flame."

Boldly going where we went in the Sixties... (5, Insightful)

Cordath (581672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178596)

I'm not going to claim that Star Trek was the most original piece of entertainment ever conceived. (They could have called it The Forbidden Planet: Weekly) However, it was at least somewhat fresh since nobody had made a TV show quite like it before. (just movies) Some of the subsequent spinoffs managed to carve out their own niches, but the last couple (i.e. Voyager and Enterprise) were unabashedly formulaic retreads. Boldly going where no man had gone before somehow became little more than cashing in on an old idea. Safe Trek. Safe Trek became marginally profitable Trek and eventually TV ratings rat poison.

So what does the franchise need? A couple years of laying fallow after the abysmmal Nemesis? (I am one of the few nuts who dutifully went to see that flick in theaters. I wanted to like it very badly. It was an even numbered Trek episode after all! But what did they give us? Picard expounding upon the appreciation of finer things in life, such as joy-ridding through pre-contact societies in a monster truck.) Well, Nemesis did suck, but its Enterprise that really killed Trek off. Sure, maybe it got better in its third season, but who was watching after the first two seasons?

Now, I'm sure we could debate the finer points of why Enterprise lost its audience for days. However, I would contend that there was one insurmmountable problem with the show that made it a sure fire failure.

TV Series #3 aboard the freakin' Star Ship Enterprise.

The Star Trek universe is vast and filled with limitless possibilities. Why keep going back to the same bloody ship? Give us a border-patrol ship with the rejects and misfits of the acadamy instead of a bunch of the same boringly perfect people. Heck, dive into the seedier side of the Trek universe. Give us a show about the orion syndicate or privateers. Heck, even Maquis terrorists would be a change. (Voyagers crew didn't really count since they were perfectly assimilated into perfect star trek life from day #1.)

Is this against Gene Roddenberry's vision? It's against his vision for the *first* Star Trek show. However, if the fellow were alive today I'm sure he'd realize it's time to move on and open up other aspects of the Trek universe instead of retreading the Enterprise yet again. Just because the setting is less than ideal doesn't mean your characters can't tell inspirational tales. (Likewise, despite its "perfect" setting one could easily critisize Enterprise for turning the Vulcans into hypocritical pricks and relentlessly extolling superiority of mankind like aryan suprecists.)

That being said, not only are we going back to the Enterprise (If not in this movie, certainly in the sequels, profits allowing), we're retreading the same characters! It's possible J.J. could make a good movie, but frankly, be choosing to do yet another retread of the same tired old Trek he's really making things more difficult for himself.

Re:Boldly going where we went in the Sixties... (5, Funny)

Cordath (581672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178626)

P.S. I'm posting about Star Trek while sloshed. Life can sink no lower.

Re:Boldly going where we went in the Sixties... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178972)

Heck, dive into the seedier side of the Trek universe. Give us a show about the orion syndicate or privateers.

Just watch Firefly and imagine Star Fleet logos on the Alliance uniforms.

Re:Boldly going where we went in the Sixties... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18179250)

Sure, maybe it got better in its third season, but who was watching after the first two seasons?
It's true, I've been catching the odd rerun and many episodes are actually quite watchable. The other things that killed it for me initially were that appalling soft rock theme song and crappy scheduling (in the UK.)

I definitely agree that Trek should get grittier with more imperfect, and hence BELIEVABLE, deeper characters; when DS9 was at its best it was really good for that reason. However, the fact that DS9 was never as popular as TNG ratings-wise may sadly persuade the studio execs away from that direction.

Resuming (3, Interesting)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178636)

who said the film will 'embrace and respect' Trek canon, but will also 'chart its own course.'

Resuming, it'll 'embrace and extend'. I just hope the warp drive keeps compatibility with earlier versions.

Film by committee (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178640)

The series were successful in other time, where what they offered was novel, and wearing spandex as a uniform wasn't ridiculous.

I can't be too wrong that they will come out with a mix of references/cliches from the original series, in attempt to please the fans, and also try to modernize everything, to make it look plausible for a new audience.

The result would likely be something like the upcoming Transformers movie. Pissing off both the fans and the new audience looking for a serious movie in attempt to please both.

It doesn't matter however, since a new Star Trek movie isn't about movie making. It's about reusing a very very popular brand to sell many tickets. Even if it sucks, many people will go to see it.

This *could* be a good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178656)

Personally I'm a prequel hater. Every time I think of what I'd do if I had to produce a new ST movie, the answer is always like this:
put it a hundred years after the last episode of any ST series, throw away all commodities (holodecks, food replicators, etc), start from the point when something terrible happened that left a bunch of inhabitable planets in the entire galaxy and make the crew(s) go around to see what happened and reorganize things. Make it so they have to travel at low speed in small ships then, maybe, after a half season they discover a bigger federation spaceship that the above didaster didn't touch, etc.
Another possible plot would involve the exploration of a different galaxy, which would bring the good premises Voyager had (being alone,far from home) without the sucking technobabble, but this time life must be very rare (ie, not a new alien race every episode). Of course one could mix the two plots and make a seres about a federation fleet that reachs a distant galaxy to find that something destroyed nearly all lifeforms. The point is that if you bring a powerful spaceship filled with healthy people into a space full with developed planets, the show's scifi factor disappears and it soon becomes a fanta-politics show. That can work for 4 episodes in a year, not for 25.

Now, about this prequel, the only way to make it productive IMO is to throw away everything, and I mean everything, we know about ST after the first series, movies and good series (DS9) included.

If they'll start from scratch a new ST concept and will develop it further after that prequel, this could really be a good move.
I'm not holding my breath though.

Re:This *could* be a good move (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179010)

throw away all commodities (holodecks, food replicators, etc), start from the point when something terrible happened

And make it postapocolyptic?

Alright, between TOS and TNG, we added the holodeck, we fleshed out the transporters and assorted technobabble a LOT, formed an alliance with the Klingons, added cloaking technology, made the communicators tiny, eventually added a holographic version of the viewscreen -- and that's just what our own race discovered.

It wouldn't necessarily satisfy all Trek fans -- and nothing ever could, really -- but I know for a fact that we have plenty more ideas for what we could do with technology. Certainly, we easily have enough to step a few hundred years into the future, and add completely new technology, people, and plotlines (and kill off some of the old ones).

Just for starters: Peace with the Romulans, conquer or subdue the Borg. The Dominion isn't theatrical enough, and I'm not entirely sure what to do about them. All of these things are stories which should be told, but not in a movie, and not with a huge budget -- Star Wars tied this kind of thing up nicely by throwing the whole Clone Wars into a cartoon miniseries between ep2 and ep3.

And what would the enemy be? I don't know. I actually liked the first Star Trek movie, although it was a bit predictable and WAY too slow, and borrows some ideas from one of the episodes. But whether you like it or not, it's the right approach for any more Trek movies: something completely out of nowhere, refreshing and new for longtime fans, and also accessible to newbies (since you can't rely on decades of Trek trivia if you're inventing something truly new).

Old news (1)

kahrytan (913147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178696)

  This is an old rumor from StarTrek.com. I've known about for few months now. This article just confirms CBS' support for the fan movie.

    I think any true Star Trek will be glad to see Rick Berman and Brannon Braga won't be involved in the movie. I hope JJ Abram calls in support from Majel Roddenberry if she can help out. No one knows Gene's dream better then her.

Also, check out StarTrek.com's article [startrek.com].

  Maybe next year, CW will have some Trek marathons to advertise the new movie.

Just like MI III (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178724)

It's interesting - I used to have this professor at Oxford, okay? Doctor Wickham, his name was and he was, like, this massive fat guy, you know? Huge, big guy. We used to call him - you know, well, I won't tell you what we used to call him, but he taught biomolecular kinetics and cellular dynamics. And he used to sort of scare the underclassmen with this story about how the world would eventually be eviscerated by A BAD STAR TREK FILM. You see, it was inevitable that a BAD STAR TREK FILM would be created which he referred to as the 'WORST STAR TREK FILM EVAH'. It was like an accelerated mutator or sort of, you know, like a, an unstoppable force of destructive power, that would just lay waste to everything - to buildings and parks and streets and children and ice cream parlors, you know? So whenever I see, like, A FILM COMPANY willing to spend this amount of money on a mystery STAR TREK FILM, I always assume... it's the WORST STAR TREK FILM EVAH. End-of-the-world kinda stuff, you know... But no, I don't have any idea what it is. I was just speculating [imdb.com].

Matt.. Damon.. as Kirk?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18178728)

You may as well spit on the Koran and burn the bible: there is no such thing as a non-Shatner Kirk.

Fools! The movie will flop, just like all the other remakes, and you can go back to the drawing board trying to figure out how to convince Trek fans to spend more money than they already have on a franchise you built to such geeky specificity that anything but the original is merely a misty shadow of its former glory.

Here's a hint, you gomers: the instant you mix well-known non-geek-adored actors with angsty dystopian plots into the geek-dominated positive-outlook Star Trek universe, all the geeks out there no longer empathise with the characters or feel the familiar hope that Trekkie escapism provides and you're just wasting your stupid-ass time.

Life's bleak enough without you idiots making more Blade Runner hopelessness with impossibly good-looking male actors that no geek could ever feel anything but thinly-veiled jealous contempt for.


Re:Matt.. Damon.. as Kirk?! (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179046)

there is no such thing as a non-Shatner Kirk.

<trekkie>Actually, you'll find at least one episode in which Kirk switches bodies with a woman. That woman is Kirk, and most definitely is not played by Shatner.</trekkie>

But seriously, give the man a chance. It could be much worse -- at least they aren't trying to replace Picard. Matt Damon can laugh, I imagine he can act, and he certainly can do physical violence. All he really needs is the arrogant swagger. Because that's really what Kirk did -- swagger arrogantly, get his shirt ripped, beat up the alien, and fuck the hot alien chick -- in other words, just like Riker.

I don't like them replacing Kirk, but I don't think Matt Damon is such a bad choice.

Probably another time travel episode (2, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178760)

Adrian Brody as Spock, huh?

The plot: Kirk, Spock, and crew travel back in time to early 21st century Earth using the tried-and-true slingshot effect. They are arrested by police for their suspicious activities as they recon various historic landmarks in the United States. When a policeman removes the dew rag that Spock is wearing around his face, Kirk must convince him that Spock's appearance is due to a childhood accident in which his nose was caught in a mechanical rice picker.

Who are these uninitiated? (2, Funny)

tm2b (42473) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178766)

They're going to worry about it being viewable by the UNINITIATED? Like, the 3 of them who will see this movie?

Guys, you've already lobbed ten of these over the fence and saturated 2nd tier television stations with reruns of the myriad TV versions. ANYBODY (okay, anybody who was older than 6 when the last one came out) who is likely to see this stinker is pretty going to have to know at least the basics about Star Trek - except perhaps for that Bedouin family that's been lost in the deserts of Cleveland since the Korean war ended 24 years ago.

Of course, they'll probably have to find a mysterious advanced technology device from the past, with a drawing of Kirk embedded in its design along side a warning. No worries, that's actually Kirk's sister. Spock's father will play a role in having deceived the Andorians into helping form the Federation, and his mother will have hidden his lost sister away behind a mysterious hatch on a jungle moon. Everything will go topsy-turvy when the Klingons take off their masks and turn out to have been from Secion 31 the whole time, and everything will end with no satisfying explanation having been given for any of this. But by that time, everybody will have forgotten why they entered the theater in the first place.

great (-1, Troll)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178796)

More bullshit to keep the trekkie pedophile geeks happy.

Tell me, loserboys, how many of your stupid fake "uniforms" must we rip apart? How many ridiculous ray gun toys must we smash under our feet?

A guy in my school once came in dressed and made up as one of those stupid klingon "warriors" and carrying a plastic sword. He spouted bullshit about "honor", "war" and more stuff nerds can't really understand.

I ran after him down the hallway, grabbed him by the neck and smashed his face against a locker. Then I broke his plastic sword, punched him hard in the belly and on the nose. He wailed like a broken siren and flailed his arms about aimlessly like all geeks do when they get beaten up.

I kicked him in the ribs, dragged him into the toilets and pushed his head into the lavatory. Held him under the water for a good minute, then I played some good vertical ping-pong with the loser. You know when you punch the nerd right on the chin with your left and your right, so that his head bounces like a ball? That's vertical ping-pong.

Of course, the loserboy went down to the floor in a couple of seconds. I left him there and got out, trampling over him on the way. I consider pissing on him, but it would have been a waste of urine.

Re:great (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179134)

Then you went back home and got beat on by your dad because he is a mean drunk who drinks to forget the fact that his football dream never happened and that his son will probably never amount to anything either.

New Star Trek Movie? (1)

jdubois79 (227349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178884)


* Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
* Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

I just hope (2, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178908)

That they are found by the Galactica and Adama promptly puts them all out their misery.

Battlestar Dramatica? (4, Insightful)

IdahoEv (195056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179270)

I just hope that they are found by the Galactica and Adama promptly puts them all out their misery.
Not bloody likely, now that we're in season three of Anguishstar Dramatica. When was the last time anyone fired a weapon or flew a ship in combat on that show? I think Adama's crew is getting soft on military tactics.

OTOH, if the Enterprise crew needs a showdown debating the finer points of depression, suffering, love triangles, class struggle, and generalized angst, Adama's crew will lick 'em good.

Just like bringing "I love Lucy" back (3, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18178924)

We need a different film for a different society. People no longer expect computers to be operated with fixed touch panels or consoles to explode from feedback as if 802.11n remote controls were never invented. More fundamentally, US audience would no longer accept "USS" Enterprise as total do-goders. More likely, we'll support Cardassians in their fight against ruthless and religious Bajorian terrorists.

Re:Just like bringing "I love Lucy" back (4, Interesting)

tm2b (42473) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179020)

Wireless controls on a warship (or a vessel likely to be in engaged in combat) seems like a really bad idea. One good jamming at the right frequency (or, say, an EMP), and the ship is dead in the water. Worse, they get your encryption key and now you're fighting on the enemy's side (and no, that's different from what Kirk did to the Reliant in STII:WoK).

Warships need to be hardened. The Galactica is the right idea - heavily shielded cables.

What I want to know is when (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179122)

is Paramount going to bring back the TV franchise. Before "Enterprise" reared it's ugly head - I thought they had a sure fire winner-in-waiting with the USS Relativity. I'm a sucker for the time-travel episodes, and the appearance of what looked like a very non-temporary bridge set for the Voyager episode it appeared in (which was a hoot btw) had all the ingredients of Dr. Who and the Star Trek universe.

This is pissing in the wind of course, but I'm curious if anyone else might like to see something like this?

I mean the whole point of a good science fiction series is providing as open-ended structure as possible to hang good stories. Time travel is a godsend in this regard.

fiR5t? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18179158)

cen9tralized writing is on the move any equipment users', BigAzz,

Eh just make Star trek continue forward (1)

Gamecraze (1026900) | more than 7 years ago | (#18179228)

Screw prequels, that got us Star wars 1-3 and enterprise. All of which are inferior to the older one's. Continue after voyager. Rehire the DS9 writers that went to 4400 and continue it. I personally want a Borg invasion of the alpha quadrant but that's just me. We've seen Star Trek in peacetime, and avoiding war, so how about alliances against a common foe. Besides almost every Borg ep of all the series that had them + the movie are the best Trek episodes anyway, so just go with it. Exploration for added allies and defense technology, is a good goal to me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account