Fans disagree on what the new Trek movie should be about
There is no shortage of opinions online, when it comes to the new Star Trek movies’ preliminary plans. As for deciding what the movie should be about, I read in one of the forums, as one surfer exclaimed, “Fans really don’t know what they need, if Star Trek were left to the Trekkies to make money for the franchise, it would be gone within a year”.
Sadly, I think there is some truth to that statement. There seems to be many passionate, yet diverse suggestions circulating on the web. Some of the forums on the subject are so heated that there should be some censorship for young readers. I am kind of taken back by all of the negativity. After all, one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover… especially when the book hasn’t been written yet!
It is ironic that Star Trek is all about an "evolved sensibility", yet all the fans gripe and whine so. Rodenberry predicts that we all learn to get along and work together to rid ourselves of things like famine and war etc., but the fans are quick to argue angrily about trivial issues—jumping to conclusions and it goes round and round. It’s an interesting observation.
I have to admit, I was kind of upset at first with the thought of a so-called “re-imagination” of my beloved Star Trek. I am not usually in favor of such films.
Like the Hulk for instance, while it was probably closer to what Stan Lee originally had in mind (more like a comic book), I was disappointed that they strayed so far away from the Bixby series. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for up-to-date cinematics—I even sort of liked the new movie, but it wasn’t what I was looking for. Though I’m sure it was just right for other Hulk fans. Not everyone can be pleased, but there was some entertainment value in it for me.
So anyway, it was a little unsettling for me when I heard they are going to retool Star Trek—at first. However, like I said earlier, Star Trek is always redefining itself anyway. As long as they stay in the same realm and don’t get too contradictive or totally undermining of all previous Star Trek, it should be fine as long as it is a good story.
Regardless, there really are some things that they need to rethink. In reality, we have technologies today that were considered futuristic in Kirk’s time (like ion propulsion) and other technologies that weren’t even conceived, let alone considered in the original Star Trek universe. Some things are being developed right now that would make one think that Kirk’s time would be much more advanced with. For instance, the colored wooden blocks they used for data storage are far surpassed today with flash drives that fit inside a wrist watch or a credit card. There are even data storage cards that you can find in Wal-Mart today that are smaller than my thumbnail. Heck, they used those blocks on Star Trek like we used to use the 5 ¼ floppy disks.
And then there are technologies that we are no where near—like the transporters that we likely will not have yet by Kirk’s time. I hate to be pessimistic (not usually my style), but ST: ENT is way more advanced than we will be at that time… unless we actually meet the Vulcan’s sometime soon. ;-) Among the biggest hurdles would be warp drive, interstellar communication, transporters, and gravimetric plating—not that we shouldn’t keep having fun imagining them in Star Trek. In fact, we could go even further with some things and even some new things not considered in Star Trek. For example, we will likely develop personal cloaking technology by then (that is underway right now for the military). We may even have holodecks by then (or something very close), which was not available on ST: ENT.
I personally would like to see a movie put out that has the ideals and hope of Star Trek but more that of a realistic vision of our future in space. There are too many space movies that depict grim views of our future in space. I want to see some of the visions of our futurists put into film. Moon and Mars bases and other inter-solar planetoid exploration would be interesting. Maybe a movie about what the implications might really be if we discover an Earth-like planet, or even one with intelligent life. The movie Contact was so close until the end—when it got weird.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Star Trek fans disagree
Star Trek reboot, why not?
It seems like to me that a "reboot" wouldn't really be out of the way for Star Trek.
I was raised on TOS and when TNG came out I was upset. Com-on... a bald captain!? The character Counselor Troi was pretty cheesy at first too. Then TNG did some revamping as more money pored in and it took off and lasted for seven seasons. To this day, TNG is my favorite, by far, and Picard is probably my all-time favorite character. And Troi... she got it goin’ on! Then came DS9 and VOY. I think every trek series had good, bad, and ugly scripts, but I watched them all (and still do) because it is Star Trek. For instance, I still watch TOS, not because I like the 60's decor, but because I love the characters and the concept of trek and the connections in the histrionics.
In one way or another, trek history has always been up for grabs anyway because of the time dilations in multiple episodes. Who's to say that this new movie isn't the history of one of the quantum states that might have emerged in TNG episode "Parallels" or a possible timeline created due to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy’s journey through the portal in the episode “The City on the Edge of Forever” or from countless alternative decisions made by any character in any other such episode? As long as a movie with Star Trek in the title is somehow connected to Star Trek as we know it, and pays homage to Rodenberry in some way (is based on his idea), and is not about a pig and a spider… we should be okay.
If we are honest, there is no way to keep the histrionics in the exact time-line or space-time-continuum. Time related episodes are partly to blame, and the fact that there is more than one person involved in the development and evolution of the franchise (reality check). How could anyone keep track of it all? What is the “right” time-line anyway?
To some degree, ST:ENT essentially rewrote everything we have ever known about Trek from Kirk’s time and beyond due some of the decisions made (or not made) with the whole Daniels time thing. Not that ST:ENT was a triumph (one problem in my mind, too many gray/drab colors), but there is no reason why that wasn’t a valid story line in the Trek universe.
For the most part, I think the main idea Rodenberry was going for has been maintained throughout the franchise and, I'm guessing it will remain that way in any subsequent renditions. Star Trek is among Rodenberry’s greatest gifts to the rest of us—let’s just enjoy it! It is a vision of the future of man’s quest for knowledge and adventure. It’s a vision of our social accomplishments and brings hope that one day we will all put aside our differences and combine our efforts to know the universe (straying from my point).
My point is that Star Trek is always redefining itself anyway and there is no way to make everyone's ideal Star Trek possible at any given time. Of course, the best thing for the franchise would be to capture the biggest possible audience—both recapturing old fans and captivating new ones. After all, the money is what is going to keep the franchise alive (reality check again). Maybe the new director and writers will have something and maybe they wont... that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Despite my disappointments in recent trek, I am happy to see additions on film along with the other mediums. Besides, I'm not writing the story, nor do I have the time to do so. I am just looking forward to being entertained and immersed in the Star Trek fantasy/dream once again.
Star Trek: Reboot
The new upcoming Star Trek movie has fans in an uproar
The next Star Trek film has officially gone into production. The new movie will be the eleventh feature film for the franchise and is set to hit the theaters by Christmas 2008.
So far, the detail about the movies’ plot is still quite secret. However, the word on the web is that it will be based on James T. Kirk and Spock’s training years at Starfleet Academy.
The original Star Trek series (also called ST: TOS or TOS), starred William Shatner (the Shat), as Captain Kirk, and his first officer, Spock, played by Leonard Nemoy. The series, created by the late Gene Rodenberry, lasted for three years when it was first aired back in the 1960’s. Since then, there have been five television spin-offs, including the animated series, and eleven feature films. There have also been a number of related spin-offs in the book industry.
The first six films were based on TOS; the last four have been extensions of the second television series, Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG). Star Trek has yet to make a movie based on the other main Star Trek television series, ST: Voyager (VOY), Deep Space Nine (DS9), and Enterprise (ENT). Of all the series though, TOS and TNG seem to be the most beloved by fans. Recent incarnations have been somewhat unsuccessful.
The decision to base another movie on TOS will take advantage of the largest Star Trek fan base, it is hoped. Furthermore, the franchise feels the need to expand the fan base by attracting new fans to the world of Star Trek. To do this, the franchise is apparently looking to “re-imagine” the Star Trek concept.
Some say this is a risky proposition. Many “re-imagined” or “re-tooled” films, such as the latest Hulk and Planet of the Apes, were disappointing to their respective fans. The thought of redoing Star Trek has many fans in an uproar. The worry is that it will undermine the forty-year histrionics of the popular television portrayals.
It is unclear how far the new director and writers of the film will go with this revamp. Ultimately, it may simply be too early to tell.
To learn more about what fans are saying about the next Star Trek film and for the latest news on all new Trek, logon to http://www.trekmovie.com/ or www.startrek.com .
Moon Base
The moon has fascinated man ever since people came into existence. It has only been recently that man has developed the ability to visit the moon in person. Recently, that is, relative to the entire time man has lived with eyes to see the spectacle that is the moon and the mind to wonder about it. Technologically speaking however, it has been some time since we have exercised our ability to step foot on our nearest celestial neighbor.
Back in the 1960’s the space race was on. It was then that President Kennedy committed us to this giant leap. Though technology was still in its infancy, we did it—we achieved the impossible in only a few short years. Touted to be man’s greatest achievement, this was to usher man into the space age, promising a new beginning for all mankind. Sadly, since Eugene Cernan’s last walk on the moon nearly forty years ago, we haven’t been back and have achieved little in the way of manned space exploratory advancement.
So what is so special about space? Why would we want to go there? What’s the big deal with the moon? How can we expand our existence into space? What are we doing right now to step forward in the space age? Some say these questions are important to ask and answer soon, rather than later. Some even say it is vital. One example of that is the idea that the moon can help us overcome today’s energy crunch.
The moon can supplement Earth-based renewable energy systems to meet future energy demand. Ample energy from the Sun reaches the moon and is not interrupted by weather, pollution, or volcanic ash. Solar energy farms on the moon can “beam” limitless clean energy down to where it is needed on Earth or to satellites for relay to our planet. There also are other potential sources of energy, including platinum for fuel cells and an isotope called helium-3, which could be used in fusion reactors of the future. Moreover, supplying energy from the moon will enable us to help provide the Earth’s energy needs without destroying our environment.
