The Big Announcement
Paramount has announced its plans for the next Star Trek feature film, slated for 2008 release. It's a story that's been picked up everywhere---Google even lists Pravda. So check your favorite Trek news source for the few details available so far.
I'll post my thoughts on the news, the new team in charge, and the announced theme of the movie, within the next day or so. Probably it will be dated Sunday, though it could appear as early as Saturday morning.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
Trek Who?
by William S. Kowinski
A story at SyFy Portal last week provided a few new details about the Erik Jendresen script for Star Trek XI, and some confirmation of previous stories about its fate, namely that it has been shelved, at least for the moment.
It was indeed a prequel about the Romulan War, which Jendresen reveals was designed as the first of a trilogy, to fill in the century between Enterprise and Captain Kirk.
As much as some fans would like to see a Romulan War film, the idea of a trilogy is daunting. There is only so much you can do in a trilogy: Romulan War followed by The Romulans Strike Back and Return of the Federation? It’s a three act play basically.
Steve Krutzler at TrekWeb wrote about the SyFy Portal story, and added his own comments to the effect that a prequel is a bad idea for re-starting Star Trek, unless perhaps it’s some version of the Starfleet Academy idea with a young Kirk and Spock, first proposed by Harv Bennett, but lately the basis of a William Shatner story.
This ignited a debate at TrekWeb about the future of Star Trek---should it go back to a prequel, or forward past the events of Star Trek Nemesis, in the 24th century or beyond?
Should it involve known characters, and if so, the actors who played them? Could other actors play Kirk and Spock, like several versions of James Bond? Or should Trek be re-imagined, as Batman and Superman have, several times?
It’s a fascinating debate, and I’m not ready to come down at any point on the timeline, but I will offer these thoughts about the re-imagining option, or as some call it, the reboot.
by William S. Kowinski
A story at SyFy Portal last week provided a few new details about the Erik Jendresen script for Star Trek XI, and some confirmation of previous stories about its fate, namely that it has been shelved, at least for the moment.
It was indeed a prequel about the Romulan War, which Jendresen reveals was designed as the first of a trilogy, to fill in the century between Enterprise and Captain Kirk.
As much as some fans would like to see a Romulan War film, the idea of a trilogy is daunting. There is only so much you can do in a trilogy: Romulan War followed by The Romulans Strike Back and Return of the Federation? It’s a three act play basically.
Steve Krutzler at TrekWeb wrote about the SyFy Portal story, and added his own comments to the effect that a prequel is a bad idea for re-starting Star Trek, unless perhaps it’s some version of the Starfleet Academy idea with a young Kirk and Spock, first proposed by Harv Bennett, but lately the basis of a William Shatner story.
This ignited a debate at TrekWeb about the future of Star Trek---should it go back to a prequel, or forward past the events of Star Trek Nemesis, in the 24th century or beyond?
Should it involve known characters, and if so, the actors who played them? Could other actors play Kirk and Spock, like several versions of James Bond? Or should Trek be re-imagined, as Batman and Superman have, several times?
It’s a fascinating debate, and I’m not ready to come down at any point on the timeline, but I will offer these thoughts about the re-imagining option, or as some call it, the reboot.
First, in terms of precedent, the superheroes that have been successfully reconceived all began their lives as comic book characters. Sketched and inked figures leave a lot to the imagination, and the Superman or Spiderman in peoples’ heads could vary. Kirk and Spock are Shatner and Nimoy, through almost 40 years. It’s hard to see anyone else playing those characters.
The older characters of successful reboots, Superman and Batman, had several iterations in radio, animated cartoons, movie serials and television series before they became big screen franchises. Superman is a fascinating case to trace. There are elements of the comics that went to radio, elements of the radio shows that were preserved in the animated movie cartoons, and elements of those—including the images and the kind of music in the opening---that became identified with the George Reeves TV series.
Then came the Christopher Reeves movies. The first was one of the great movies of the era. In its first part, the hero/savior myth merged with the American Dream, within the existing sketch of the Superman origin story. Then the Metropolis section brought new visual effects to enchant, a love story, a crisis with big stakes, and the comic panache of Gene Hackman's nevertheless deadly Lex Luthor.
But by the last of this series of films, the audience and the special effects budget had dwindled disastrously. It was some years before the character was revived and redefined for TV, in “Lois and Clark,” the Superboy series and “Smallville.” Another movie was always in the works, and Superman Returns is still slated for this year, with many of the usual characters (including some of the 50s TV cast once again in cameos.) How much the character is reimagined remains to be seen.
The wrinkle in the Batman story was the 1960s TV series, which saw the whole comic book thing as campy, self-consciously played for laughs. The Michael Keaton Batman films had to reestablish Batman as having some serious adventure quality, but there was a residue from the TV series that kept it from taking itself seriously enough to be more than special effects melodrama with laughs. It benefited most from Jack Nicholson’s performance, though I’ve always like Michael Keaton. The movie series, later with Val Kilmer and George Clooney, never got over the distasteful second Tim Burton film, Batman Returns. They seemed to play with combining elements of Superman and James Bond films with TV Batman humor.
So personally I wasn’t expecting much when Batman Begins was announced. I'd heard about the new, darker Batman, and that didn't appeal to me. I didn’t even see it until it was on video, but I must admit I was pretty impressed. It retold the origin story for about the fourth time, but in the most convincing way. (Unlike the first Christopher Reeves’ Superman, the Batman origin had never been told very well or as iconically.) It actually found a way to make Batman impressive and a bit scary, mostly by the “whoosh” effects of his speedy, phantom movements. (And at last, Lian Neesen got to show his physical moves, that he must have gotten all prepared to do in the prequel Star Wars trilogy.)
There was no self-conscious irony or self-parody. An unknown in the lead probably helped. There was some sophistication in the ideas the movie played with---a little confusion, but at least some ambition. It made me rethink the possibilities for a Star Trek reboot. And then something else did as well.
The older characters of successful reboots, Superman and Batman, had several iterations in radio, animated cartoons, movie serials and television series before they became big screen franchises. Superman is a fascinating case to trace. There are elements of the comics that went to radio, elements of the radio shows that were preserved in the animated movie cartoons, and elements of those—including the images and the kind of music in the opening---that became identified with the George Reeves TV series.
Then came the Christopher Reeves movies. The first was one of the great movies of the era. In its first part, the hero/savior myth merged with the American Dream, within the existing sketch of the Superman origin story. Then the Metropolis section brought new visual effects to enchant, a love story, a crisis with big stakes, and the comic panache of Gene Hackman's nevertheless deadly Lex Luthor.
But by the last of this series of films, the audience and the special effects budget had dwindled disastrously. It was some years before the character was revived and redefined for TV, in “Lois and Clark,” the Superboy series and “Smallville.” Another movie was always in the works, and Superman Returns is still slated for this year, with many of the usual characters (including some of the 50s TV cast once again in cameos.) How much the character is reimagined remains to be seen.
The wrinkle in the Batman story was the 1960s TV series, which saw the whole comic book thing as campy, self-consciously played for laughs. The Michael Keaton Batman films had to reestablish Batman as having some serious adventure quality, but there was a residue from the TV series that kept it from taking itself seriously enough to be more than special effects melodrama with laughs. It benefited most from Jack Nicholson’s performance, though I’ve always like Michael Keaton. The movie series, later with Val Kilmer and George Clooney, never got over the distasteful second Tim Burton film, Batman Returns. They seemed to play with combining elements of Superman and James Bond films with TV Batman humor.
So personally I wasn’t expecting much when Batman Begins was announced. I'd heard about the new, darker Batman, and that didn't appeal to me. I didn’t even see it until it was on video, but I must admit I was pretty impressed. It retold the origin story for about the fourth time, but in the most convincing way. (Unlike the first Christopher Reeves’ Superman, the Batman origin had never been told very well or as iconically.) It actually found a way to make Batman impressive and a bit scary, mostly by the “whoosh” effects of his speedy, phantom movements. (And at last, Lian Neesen got to show his physical moves, that he must have gotten all prepared to do in the prequel Star Wars trilogy.)
There was no self-conscious irony or self-parody. An unknown in the lead probably helped. There was some sophistication in the ideas the movie played with---a little confusion, but at least some ambition. It made me rethink the possibilities for a Star Trek reboot. And then something else did as well.
The idea that Star Trek could be reconceived has pretty much filled me with horror for one basic reason: I don’t see anyone who can do it. There’s a lack of understanding, even a lack of sympathy, for the essence, the soul of Star Trek, even among many of the Trek alums.
While I deeply admire much of the work writer/producer Ron Moore did at Star Trek, and I recognize the creativity and achievement of his re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica, I don’t want to see Star Trek turned into a so-called “realistic” war series with futuristic/sci-fi twists. Especially since what “gritty” and “realistic” seems to mean to that generation of writers is all based on movie versions of World War II. I’ve found it more than a little ironic that they denigrate the view of war and peace in Star Trek, which was created by actual veterans of World War II.
I’m not saying Ron Moore would do that. But I fear a lot of other writer/producers would. The Berman & Braga regime of the past decade seems to have soured people on the idea that the Star Trek universe and ethos can still generate creative ideas. But I sure don’t want to see what seems to be the alternative: some combination of Star Trek aliens and technology with war and espionage video games. I don’t want to see Star Trek as a futuristic “24.”
The post-9-11 emphasis on terrorism and war, while it was never as dangerous to most of us as World War II was to our parents and grandparents, seems to have captivated the imagination of a generation of writers. I don’t even much like the Dominion novels in the Star Trek series, nor was a fan of the Dominion war episodes of DS9, which too often centered on war stories that were clichés that even the Horatio Hornblower novels avoided.
This even makes me fearful of a Romulan War movie, let alone a trilogy. There are possibilities for fascinating untold stories about how earth really got itself together, and how earthlings confronted their history of exploiting along with exploring, as well as how the attitude of peaceful exploration and the Prime Directive came to be such an important tenet of that future. And then how all these ideals were tested and evolved in conflict with Romulus. But I have no confidence that anyone in Hollywood would tell those stories. It would be all visual effects explosions and cliché conflicts and cliché heroics. The drama would be of personalities and not about the consciousness required by the future, in the hearts and minds and actions of people.
So that’s one reason I am all for a waiting period, before Trek begins again, unless it continues with the Next Generation crew at its center. As I’ve said before, I could see a mixed generations movie with the Next Generation in the lead for Star Trek XI. But the time for that may be escaping. We’ll see.
But getting back to the reboot, my confidence in anyone being able to re-imagine Star Trek now is not high, but it has just gotten a bit of a boost, from England.
Like Michelle at Trek Today, I’m quite taken with what I’ve seen of the new Doctor Who---the first season episodes airing on the Sci-Fi Channel. I’ve only seen two, but I must agree that they’re really good, and “Dalek” was really excellent (it even addressed the old joke about the wheeled Daleks being made helpless by stairs.)
But unlike Michelle, I do know the series. Back when I lived in Pittsburgh, there was a new public TV channel on cable and UHF, channel 16. They called themselves “sweet little 16,” because their programming was very modest. They did show a lot of old series’ from England, and their first hit was “Dr. Who.”
It was such a big hit for them, in fact, that they had a Dr. Who convention, and after airing all of the Tom Baker episodes (the Fourth and most famous Doctor, who reigned the longest, 7 years in the 70s and 80s) they started right at the beginning. So I saw at least some of the episodes of the first 7 doctors, (Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davidson, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy.)
I’ve seen all of the Tom Baker episodes, which remain my favorites. This was also the Douglas Adams era, who was a writer and producer for Dr. Who while he was creating The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. And to show how small a place and yet fascinating a time it was: Lalla Ward was Baker’s costar and also his wife. She divorced him and married Richard Dawkins, the eminent writer on genetics. How is this possible? The connecting link was Douglas Adams, who was friends with them all. He also got one member of Monty Python and a costar in a Beatles movie to appear in an episode of Dr. Who.
While I deeply admire much of the work writer/producer Ron Moore did at Star Trek, and I recognize the creativity and achievement of his re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica, I don’t want to see Star Trek turned into a so-called “realistic” war series with futuristic/sci-fi twists. Especially since what “gritty” and “realistic” seems to mean to that generation of writers is all based on movie versions of World War II. I’ve found it more than a little ironic that they denigrate the view of war and peace in Star Trek, which was created by actual veterans of World War II.
I’m not saying Ron Moore would do that. But I fear a lot of other writer/producers would. The Berman & Braga regime of the past decade seems to have soured people on the idea that the Star Trek universe and ethos can still generate creative ideas. But I sure don’t want to see what seems to be the alternative: some combination of Star Trek aliens and technology with war and espionage video games. I don’t want to see Star Trek as a futuristic “24.”
The post-9-11 emphasis on terrorism and war, while it was never as dangerous to most of us as World War II was to our parents and grandparents, seems to have captivated the imagination of a generation of writers. I don’t even much like the Dominion novels in the Star Trek series, nor was a fan of the Dominion war episodes of DS9, which too often centered on war stories that were clichés that even the Horatio Hornblower novels avoided.
This even makes me fearful of a Romulan War movie, let alone a trilogy. There are possibilities for fascinating untold stories about how earth really got itself together, and how earthlings confronted their history of exploiting along with exploring, as well as how the attitude of peaceful exploration and the Prime Directive came to be such an important tenet of that future. And then how all these ideals were tested and evolved in conflict with Romulus. But I have no confidence that anyone in Hollywood would tell those stories. It would be all visual effects explosions and cliché conflicts and cliché heroics. The drama would be of personalities and not about the consciousness required by the future, in the hearts and minds and actions of people.
So that’s one reason I am all for a waiting period, before Trek begins again, unless it continues with the Next Generation crew at its center. As I’ve said before, I could see a mixed generations movie with the Next Generation in the lead for Star Trek XI. But the time for that may be escaping. We’ll see.
But getting back to the reboot, my confidence in anyone being able to re-imagine Star Trek now is not high, but it has just gotten a bit of a boost, from England.
Like Michelle at Trek Today, I’m quite taken with what I’ve seen of the new Doctor Who---the first season episodes airing on the Sci-Fi Channel. I’ve only seen two, but I must agree that they’re really good, and “Dalek” was really excellent (it even addressed the old joke about the wheeled Daleks being made helpless by stairs.)
But unlike Michelle, I do know the series. Back when I lived in Pittsburgh, there was a new public TV channel on cable and UHF, channel 16. They called themselves “sweet little 16,” because their programming was very modest. They did show a lot of old series’ from England, and their first hit was “Dr. Who.”
It was such a big hit for them, in fact, that they had a Dr. Who convention, and after airing all of the Tom Baker episodes (the Fourth and most famous Doctor, who reigned the longest, 7 years in the 70s and 80s) they started right at the beginning. So I saw at least some of the episodes of the first 7 doctors, (Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davidson, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy.)
I’ve seen all of the Tom Baker episodes, which remain my favorites. This was also the Douglas Adams era, who was a writer and producer for Dr. Who while he was creating The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. And to show how small a place and yet fascinating a time it was: Lalla Ward was Baker’s costar and also his wife. She divorced him and married Richard Dawkins, the eminent writer on genetics. How is this possible? The connecting link was Douglas Adams, who was friends with them all. He also got one member of Monty Python and a costar in a Beatles movie to appear in an episode of Dr. Who.
Tom Baker was the quintessential Dr. Who, and everyone who played the part afterwards had to decide how much to be like him and how much to be different. Dr. Who on Channel 16 faded away with Sylvester McCoy, and it soon left the air in England altogether.
It was revived last year with much better visual effects and much less of a direct link to its origin as a childrens’ show. But it is also well acted and especially the writing is better than I could have hoped or even imagined.
The first episode I saw was the second part of “World War III,” and the beginning wasn’t terribly promising. It took a few minutes for me to warm up to Christopher Eccelston’s Doctor--- a working class bloke in a leather jacket, close cropped hair whose dopey manner (though very Doctorish) didn’t seem to fit. But it didn’t take long for him to win me over. And in “Dalek” his portrayal of a Doctor who is deeply angry, even bitter and hardened, was riveting. There already seems to be more of an apocalyptic edge to this edition of Doctor Who, though the sense of hope, if not confidence, is also there.
Eccelston played the Doctor for only the first season. He’s been replaced by David Tennant. But the production team is intact, and they’re planning on returning some old characters (liked the beloved Sarah Jane Smith of the Tom Baker era), deliberately modeled on what The Next Generation did in bringing back elements of original Trek, including some major characters.
In only the two episodes I’ve seen, I’ve been impressed that Doctor Who could be reconceived, including not only effects but lessons learned from plays and television in England that dealt with social history as well as science fiction from elsewhere. But then, Doctor Who always had that tradition of quality drama nearby. Not only did its monsters speak with impeccable stage English accents, but they sometimes were positively Shakespearian.
Does any of this transfer to Star Trek? Admittedly, not a lot. The idea of new Doctors was built into the series since the elderly actor playing the first doctor became too ill to continue. (The Doctor occasionally “regenerates” his form.) So it doesn’t say much about replacing actors who established the characters of Star Trek.
As for whether a similar strength of imagination and quality of writing and production is possible, there are major differences. British TV, with its access to theatre and intelligent television, as well as to the dramatic and comedic traditions of Oxford and Cambridge, is very different from the hermetic hothouse of Los Angeles TV. Of course, that does happen to be where Star Trek started, so it's hardly impossible.
Still, the fact that this imagination and creativity exists anywhere is heartening. Maybe there is a future for a reimagined Star Trek. As long as they don’t forget its soul.
It was revived last year with much better visual effects and much less of a direct link to its origin as a childrens’ show. But it is also well acted and especially the writing is better than I could have hoped or even imagined.
The first episode I saw was the second part of “World War III,” and the beginning wasn’t terribly promising. It took a few minutes for me to warm up to Christopher Eccelston’s Doctor--- a working class bloke in a leather jacket, close cropped hair whose dopey manner (though very Doctorish) didn’t seem to fit. But it didn’t take long for him to win me over. And in “Dalek” his portrayal of a Doctor who is deeply angry, even bitter and hardened, was riveting. There already seems to be more of an apocalyptic edge to this edition of Doctor Who, though the sense of hope, if not confidence, is also there.
Eccelston played the Doctor for only the first season. He’s been replaced by David Tennant. But the production team is intact, and they’re planning on returning some old characters (liked the beloved Sarah Jane Smith of the Tom Baker era), deliberately modeled on what The Next Generation did in bringing back elements of original Trek, including some major characters.
In only the two episodes I’ve seen, I’ve been impressed that Doctor Who could be reconceived, including not only effects but lessons learned from plays and television in England that dealt with social history as well as science fiction from elsewhere. But then, Doctor Who always had that tradition of quality drama nearby. Not only did its monsters speak with impeccable stage English accents, but they sometimes were positively Shakespearian.
Does any of this transfer to Star Trek? Admittedly, not a lot. The idea of new Doctors was built into the series since the elderly actor playing the first doctor became too ill to continue. (The Doctor occasionally “regenerates” his form.) So it doesn’t say much about replacing actors who established the characters of Star Trek.
As for whether a similar strength of imagination and quality of writing and production is possible, there are major differences. British TV, with its access to theatre and intelligent television, as well as to the dramatic and comedic traditions of Oxford and Cambridge, is very different from the hermetic hothouse of Los Angeles TV. Of course, that does happen to be where Star Trek started, so it's hardly impossible.
Still, the fact that this imagination and creativity exists anywhere is heartening. Maybe there is a future for a reimagined Star Trek. As long as they don’t forget its soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)