Nick Sagan's new novel concludes his triology.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Nick Sagan's new novel, everfree, has just been published--the third in a trilogy that began with idlewild and continued with edenborn. (Star Trek fans will remember Nick as a writer on TNG and Voyager.)
Nick has agreed to do an interview on this site in the near future. In the meantime, here's my review of his new novel.
Nick has agreed to do an interview on this site in the near future. In the meantime, here's my review of his new novel.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
The Shape of Trek to Come
by William S. Kowinski
Paramount’s announcement that they’ve hired a new production team to create the next Star Trek feature film represents the biggest change in Star Trek history of more than 40 years. With no one involved in the project as announced so far with any prior ties to Star Trek, it amounts to a revolution.
All we have so far are names: J. J. Abrams will produce and direct. Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, currently on Abrams’ production team for the TV series, “Lost,” will co-produce. Abrams will write the script together with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who wrote the forthcoming Mission Impossible III with Abrams. (This Star Trek announcement seems timed for that film’s publicity.)
We are told as well that the story for the film will be set prior to the original series timeframe, about young Kirk and Spock at the Starfleet Academy and their first space mission. The movie is tentatively scheduled for release in fall of 2008. Startrek.com added rather pointedly that Rick Berman is not associated with this film in any way.
So how different is this Trek film going to be? What kind of a movie is this team likely to make? Will it have the soul of Star Trek as well as the name of the franchise?
[text continues after photo]
by William S. Kowinski
Paramount’s announcement that they’ve hired a new production team to create the next Star Trek feature film represents the biggest change in Star Trek history of more than 40 years. With no one involved in the project as announced so far with any prior ties to Star Trek, it amounts to a revolution.
All we have so far are names: J. J. Abrams will produce and direct. Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, currently on Abrams’ production team for the TV series, “Lost,” will co-produce. Abrams will write the script together with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who wrote the forthcoming Mission Impossible III with Abrams. (This Star Trek announcement seems timed for that film’s publicity.)
We are told as well that the story for the film will be set prior to the original series timeframe, about young Kirk and Spock at the Starfleet Academy and their first space mission. The movie is tentatively scheduled for release in fall of 2008. Startrek.com added rather pointedly that Rick Berman is not associated with this film in any way.
So how different is this Trek film going to be? What kind of a movie is this team likely to make? Will it have the soul of Star Trek as well as the name of the franchise?
[text continues after photo]
The Revolution
Except for George Takei (who in fine Takei fashion wonders where Sulu is in this story), no one from Star Trek’s past has yet been quoted responding to this announcement. Nor have any of the new team commented on their plans (and are unlikely to, until after MI3 opens.)
But the first statement or press conference or interview from J.J. Abrams will tell a lot. Will he do or say anything that creates meaningful continuity with Star Trek past, with the Star Trek fan base? Will he hire anyone from past Star Trek productions in any meaningful positions?
He could chose not to, and risk alienating the most activist of fans--an increasingly fractious group—and relate instead to the vague fondness casual fans have for the old Star Trek, with its Tribbles and phasers, its warp speed and beaming up, its Vulcan salute, Klingons and Borg.
There’s one element of this story that perhaps does bode well for the future of this project: it was a complete surprise. There were no rumors preceding it. Arguably the many months of rumors and discussions over every element of Nemesis really harmed the prospects of Star Trek X.
But if this team does not include someone that brings continuity with past Star Trek, it will be the first such complete break in Star Trek’s history. When Star Trek went from a TV series to movies, it had Gene Roddenberry in charge (at least for the first one, and later for guidance) and the original series actors. When Star Trek added an entirely new cast in a new future, GR was the executive producer, and he created a culture of continuity that the Berman regime pretty much followed, enforced by a powerful fan base.
Now so far there’s nobody connecting Star Trek past to Star Trek future. The first press conference or interviews that the new team gives will be crucial in learning whether there will be any continuity of personnel, or how faithfully continuity will be followed, and above all the spirit, the soul of Star Trek.
Except for George Takei (who in fine Takei fashion wonders where Sulu is in this story), no one from Star Trek’s past has yet been quoted responding to this announcement. Nor have any of the new team commented on their plans (and are unlikely to, until after MI3 opens.)
But the first statement or press conference or interview from J.J. Abrams will tell a lot. Will he do or say anything that creates meaningful continuity with Star Trek past, with the Star Trek fan base? Will he hire anyone from past Star Trek productions in any meaningful positions?
He could chose not to, and risk alienating the most activist of fans--an increasingly fractious group—and relate instead to the vague fondness casual fans have for the old Star Trek, with its Tribbles and phasers, its warp speed and beaming up, its Vulcan salute, Klingons and Borg.
There’s one element of this story that perhaps does bode well for the future of this project: it was a complete surprise. There were no rumors preceding it. Arguably the many months of rumors and discussions over every element of Nemesis really harmed the prospects of Star Trek X.
But if this team does not include someone that brings continuity with past Star Trek, it will be the first such complete break in Star Trek’s history. When Star Trek went from a TV series to movies, it had Gene Roddenberry in charge (at least for the first one, and later for guidance) and the original series actors. When Star Trek added an entirely new cast in a new future, GR was the executive producer, and he created a culture of continuity that the Berman regime pretty much followed, enforced by a powerful fan base.
Now so far there’s nobody connecting Star Trek past to Star Trek future. The first press conference or interviews that the new team gives will be crucial in learning whether there will be any continuity of personnel, or how faithfully continuity will be followed, and above all the spirit, the soul of Star Trek.
The New Team
J.J. Abrams---producer, director, co-writer—will have more power over Star Trek’s future than anyone in its past, perhaps even including its creator, Gene Roddenberry. At least for one movie.
Who is Abrams? At 40 years old (in June), he is currently a very hot commodity. He created two hit TV series, “Lost” and “Alias,” when TV dramas are losing audiences to so-called reality shows. Paramount is apparently pleased with his work on Mission Impossible III, even though the film hasn’t yet been released.
MI3 is his first film as a director. It’s a big budget movie, with a high-powered cast. His past work as a writer for film, however, has not been especially distinguished. On the plus side, he’s been versatile: writing action, drama, comedy and romantic movies. But few of these films were successful, or critical favorites.
He wrote the screenplay for Armageddon (1998), generally considered the lesser of the two asteroid-threatens-earth movies of that year, starring Bruce Willis. He co-wrote a 2001 drama about a psycho killer (Joy Ride), an obscure comedy (Gone Fishin, 1997) for Danny Glover and Joe Pesci, a romantic drama (Forever Young, 1992) for Mel Gibson. Though it was not particularly successful at the box office, his one gem was Regarding Henry in 1991, which featured one of Harrison Ford’s best performances (and just guessing, I’ll bet one of his favorites.)
Abrams also created the TV series about college students, Felicity, that ran 4 years on the WB cable network, and a 2005 pilot for a series about bounty hunters (The Catch) which was not picked up.
His writing partners for Star Trek XI, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who worked with Abrams on MI3, have worked together before. They co-wrote the sequel, The Legend of Zorro (2005), which didn’t measure up critically or at the box office to its predecessor, The Mask of Zorro. They are writing partners on two films slated for release next year, The Transformers: The Movie, and Amazon (Orci is also a producer of this film, to star Scarlett Johansson.) The actual status of these two projects is unknown.
But perhaps most interesting is their early TV work: both wrote for the Kevin Sabo Hercules series, and Orci wrote for its companion series, “Zena, the Warrior Princess.”
All in all, I find more to worry about that to celebrate in the prior work of this team. They certainly are experienced at writing sequels, and working with established characters and fictional worlds. But they’ve never worked with a fictional world as complex, and as dependent on concepts and its internal history, as Star Trek.
If you are concerned about Star Trek continuity, about its history of the future and the key concepts that are crucial to that history, you have to worry about the casual attitude towards history and continuity in the groundbreaking Hercules and Zena series. Their playful use of anachronisms—of very contemporary dialogue and character attitudes in an ancient setting, their casual mixing of periods and places, myth and history in incorporating real historical figures—was a great part of the charm of these shows, and what made them different. But though a vein of knowing humor did work well for the last 3 or 4 TOS cast features, a casual attitude towards Star Trek’s past could play havoc with the Star Trek universe, as created and preserved in 40 years of film, tape and print.
My own perhaps obsessive fear about new Star Trek---that it will use the characters and the Star Trek universe as nothing more than a setting for an action move, a feature film video-game (or video game commercial) —is not exactly assuaged by what I know about this team. Abrams is reputedly a Star Trek fan, but on what level? Treating the Star Trek universe and Trek characters apart from the soul of Star Trek instantly makes it something else. And the revolution becomes an assassination.
Maybe they have the chops to really add to Star Trek not only with good storytelling, with action and adventure, character interplay and development, but by advancing elements of the Star Trek story that articulates its ethos, its view of the future and of the human potential. Or at least, not trashing what Star Trek has come to mean to so many people about a path to a hopeful future. Regarding Henry tells me that’s possible. Armageddon and Zena make me wonder. The idea of Transformers: the Movie makes me cringe.
J.J. Abrams---producer, director, co-writer—will have more power over Star Trek’s future than anyone in its past, perhaps even including its creator, Gene Roddenberry. At least for one movie.
Who is Abrams? At 40 years old (in June), he is currently a very hot commodity. He created two hit TV series, “Lost” and “Alias,” when TV dramas are losing audiences to so-called reality shows. Paramount is apparently pleased with his work on Mission Impossible III, even though the film hasn’t yet been released.
MI3 is his first film as a director. It’s a big budget movie, with a high-powered cast. His past work as a writer for film, however, has not been especially distinguished. On the plus side, he’s been versatile: writing action, drama, comedy and romantic movies. But few of these films were successful, or critical favorites.
He wrote the screenplay for Armageddon (1998), generally considered the lesser of the two asteroid-threatens-earth movies of that year, starring Bruce Willis. He co-wrote a 2001 drama about a psycho killer (Joy Ride), an obscure comedy (Gone Fishin, 1997) for Danny Glover and Joe Pesci, a romantic drama (Forever Young, 1992) for Mel Gibson. Though it was not particularly successful at the box office, his one gem was Regarding Henry in 1991, which featured one of Harrison Ford’s best performances (and just guessing, I’ll bet one of his favorites.)
Abrams also created the TV series about college students, Felicity, that ran 4 years on the WB cable network, and a 2005 pilot for a series about bounty hunters (The Catch) which was not picked up.
His writing partners for Star Trek XI, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who worked with Abrams on MI3, have worked together before. They co-wrote the sequel, The Legend of Zorro (2005), which didn’t measure up critically or at the box office to its predecessor, The Mask of Zorro. They are writing partners on two films slated for release next year, The Transformers: The Movie, and Amazon (Orci is also a producer of this film, to star Scarlett Johansson.) The actual status of these two projects is unknown.
But perhaps most interesting is their early TV work: both wrote for the Kevin Sabo Hercules series, and Orci wrote for its companion series, “Zena, the Warrior Princess.”
All in all, I find more to worry about that to celebrate in the prior work of this team. They certainly are experienced at writing sequels, and working with established characters and fictional worlds. But they’ve never worked with a fictional world as complex, and as dependent on concepts and its internal history, as Star Trek.
If you are concerned about Star Trek continuity, about its history of the future and the key concepts that are crucial to that history, you have to worry about the casual attitude towards history and continuity in the groundbreaking Hercules and Zena series. Their playful use of anachronisms—of very contemporary dialogue and character attitudes in an ancient setting, their casual mixing of periods and places, myth and history in incorporating real historical figures—was a great part of the charm of these shows, and what made them different. But though a vein of knowing humor did work well for the last 3 or 4 TOS cast features, a casual attitude towards Star Trek’s past could play havoc with the Star Trek universe, as created and preserved in 40 years of film, tape and print.
My own perhaps obsessive fear about new Star Trek---that it will use the characters and the Star Trek universe as nothing more than a setting for an action move, a feature film video-game (or video game commercial) —is not exactly assuaged by what I know about this team. Abrams is reputedly a Star Trek fan, but on what level? Treating the Star Trek universe and Trek characters apart from the soul of Star Trek instantly makes it something else. And the revolution becomes an assassination.
Maybe they have the chops to really add to Star Trek not only with good storytelling, with action and adventure, character interplay and development, but by advancing elements of the Star Trek story that articulates its ethos, its view of the future and of the human potential. Or at least, not trashing what Star Trek has come to mean to so many people about a path to a hopeful future. Regarding Henry tells me that’s possible. Armageddon and Zena make me wonder. The idea of Transformers: the Movie makes me cringe.
Academy Days
There’s a lot of fan debate over whether Star Trek should be going back to pre-original series days for the next film. The idea for a Starfleet Academy film featuring the young Kirk and Spock goes back to another period in which Trek’s future was in doubt after a perceived box office failure, right after Star Trek V. Harve Bennett’s initial proposal was for a story about racial prejudice against Spock but wrapped in a flashy package: the Star Trek version of Top Gun.
More recently William Shatner has pushed for such a concept, and is apparently writing a series of Star Trek novels with this theme. So far, he does not appear to be involved in this project.
According to one story, the Bennett proposal was revived a few years ago, but when it was sent to Rick Berman, he allowed it to be transformed into the Romulan War prequel that was recently axed. There was at least one other project that at least somebody was actively pursuing, a mixed-cast movie set in the 24th century, led by the Next Generation crew. Patrick Stewart was approached, and there were rumors about Shatner’s involvement in a Mirror Universe story.
I admit to a continuing desire for the 24th century story, though I see Q as the catalyst. Although not a lot of fans agree with me, the Mirror Universe concept worked only in its first original series appearance. (I really despised what Enterprise did with it.) But there’s no indication we’re ever going to see the Next Generation crew again.
So what about this Academy concept?
While fans speculate on who might be the younger Kirk and the new Spock, it’s worth remarking that an academy doesn’t have only students---it has teachers. The teachers in the Harry Potter series, for example, are nearly as important as the students in those stories. I expect that there will be at least one older character, a teacher, a mentor, who will be important, and I expect also it will be a big name star. The Harry Potter films again show this potential.
Looking at who Abrams has worked with before, several older stars could be possibilities: Tom Cruise (star of MI3 and the original Top Gun as well as Speilberg’s War of the Worlds) is an obvious choice, perhaps as a flight instructor. Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson are other stars to consider. They no longer carry movies as they once did, so being part of a Harry Potter-like ensemble, or even being the only box office star in the movie, might be attractive.
But the established actor I’d most like to see would be Harrison Ford. As mentioned above, Abrams wrote one of his best movies, Regarding Henry, though it was utterly outside the action genre. But Ford would be a perfect mentor for a young Kirk, with his borrowed flash from his Star Wars and Indiana Jones characters. There is also Spielberg’s new association with Paramount, and Ford is close to him and his associates.
Regarding Henry is an overlooked but quite good movie, interesting in Trek terms because of its theme: a greedy mover and shaker is shot in a robbery, suffers brain damage, and begins life over again as an apparently mentally impaired person, but he turns out to be more loving and more ethical, tuned into the basic values of life.
I’ve said before that while Star Trek often dealt with the perils of power, Dr. Who often dealt with the perils of greed. Star Trek did deal with greed now and again, especially TNG, but this is an opportunity to deal with it more directly. What if resurgent greed on earth threatens the Federations principles?
Or we could see a good classroom scene, in which a professor argues for the rationale of the prime directive, of reversing the history of exploration always also meaning exploitation.
I've only mentioned male stars, but there's potential for established female stars, not just as cadets but as instructors. It will be hard for any writers to resist creating yet another beautiful woman who is quite hopelessly in love with Spock. On the other hand, it might be fun to see young Kirk as a disaster with women. The series hinted he was a more of a scholar than a young Ulysses.
We might even see as an instructor, perhaps in Federation and space law, the descendent of Denny Crane, as played by William Shatner. What a moment it would be if he watches the young Kirk and observes, I don’t know why I like that kid. And another teacher offers, maybe you see in him something of yourself.
Villains? Klingons perhaps. Though something internal to the Academy would be more imaginative.
Perhaps Abrams experience with the college series, “Felicity,” will help with creating a believable Academy. I’d be surprised if we don’t see young Kirk as a solo pilot of some fast space vehicle. I’m certainly not worried that this team will shirk the action adventure. Abrams seems capable of handling character and basic storytelling. My question for them as for anyone: are they going to make a movie with Star Trek-named characters that deletes the soul of Star Trek? Are they going to keep Star Trek in the science fiction of consciousness, or toss it whole into the easy category of commercialized unconsciousness, a big budget exploitation of 40 years of meaning as well as entertainment?
Obviously we won’t know for awhile. But we may get some clues from what Abrams and company say in the coming months.
There is also a remote possibility to consider: since these guys were so good at keeping this a secret until the recent announcement, could the Starfleet Academy scenario be an elaborate deception to keep this movie a surprise, and not what they’re planning at all?
There’s a lot of fan debate over whether Star Trek should be going back to pre-original series days for the next film. The idea for a Starfleet Academy film featuring the young Kirk and Spock goes back to another period in which Trek’s future was in doubt after a perceived box office failure, right after Star Trek V. Harve Bennett’s initial proposal was for a story about racial prejudice against Spock but wrapped in a flashy package: the Star Trek version of Top Gun.
More recently William Shatner has pushed for such a concept, and is apparently writing a series of Star Trek novels with this theme. So far, he does not appear to be involved in this project.
According to one story, the Bennett proposal was revived a few years ago, but when it was sent to Rick Berman, he allowed it to be transformed into the Romulan War prequel that was recently axed. There was at least one other project that at least somebody was actively pursuing, a mixed-cast movie set in the 24th century, led by the Next Generation crew. Patrick Stewart was approached, and there were rumors about Shatner’s involvement in a Mirror Universe story.
I admit to a continuing desire for the 24th century story, though I see Q as the catalyst. Although not a lot of fans agree with me, the Mirror Universe concept worked only in its first original series appearance. (I really despised what Enterprise did with it.) But there’s no indication we’re ever going to see the Next Generation crew again.
So what about this Academy concept?
While fans speculate on who might be the younger Kirk and the new Spock, it’s worth remarking that an academy doesn’t have only students---it has teachers. The teachers in the Harry Potter series, for example, are nearly as important as the students in those stories. I expect that there will be at least one older character, a teacher, a mentor, who will be important, and I expect also it will be a big name star. The Harry Potter films again show this potential.
Looking at who Abrams has worked with before, several older stars could be possibilities: Tom Cruise (star of MI3 and the original Top Gun as well as Speilberg’s War of the Worlds) is an obvious choice, perhaps as a flight instructor. Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson are other stars to consider. They no longer carry movies as they once did, so being part of a Harry Potter-like ensemble, or even being the only box office star in the movie, might be attractive.
But the established actor I’d most like to see would be Harrison Ford. As mentioned above, Abrams wrote one of his best movies, Regarding Henry, though it was utterly outside the action genre. But Ford would be a perfect mentor for a young Kirk, with his borrowed flash from his Star Wars and Indiana Jones characters. There is also Spielberg’s new association with Paramount, and Ford is close to him and his associates.
Regarding Henry is an overlooked but quite good movie, interesting in Trek terms because of its theme: a greedy mover and shaker is shot in a robbery, suffers brain damage, and begins life over again as an apparently mentally impaired person, but he turns out to be more loving and more ethical, tuned into the basic values of life.
I’ve said before that while Star Trek often dealt with the perils of power, Dr. Who often dealt with the perils of greed. Star Trek did deal with greed now and again, especially TNG, but this is an opportunity to deal with it more directly. What if resurgent greed on earth threatens the Federations principles?
Or we could see a good classroom scene, in which a professor argues for the rationale of the prime directive, of reversing the history of exploration always also meaning exploitation.
I've only mentioned male stars, but there's potential for established female stars, not just as cadets but as instructors. It will be hard for any writers to resist creating yet another beautiful woman who is quite hopelessly in love with Spock. On the other hand, it might be fun to see young Kirk as a disaster with women. The series hinted he was a more of a scholar than a young Ulysses.
We might even see as an instructor, perhaps in Federation and space law, the descendent of Denny Crane, as played by William Shatner. What a moment it would be if he watches the young Kirk and observes, I don’t know why I like that kid. And another teacher offers, maybe you see in him something of yourself.
Villains? Klingons perhaps. Though something internal to the Academy would be more imaginative.
Perhaps Abrams experience with the college series, “Felicity,” will help with creating a believable Academy. I’d be surprised if we don’t see young Kirk as a solo pilot of some fast space vehicle. I’m certainly not worried that this team will shirk the action adventure. Abrams seems capable of handling character and basic storytelling. My question for them as for anyone: are they going to make a movie with Star Trek-named characters that deletes the soul of Star Trek? Are they going to keep Star Trek in the science fiction of consciousness, or toss it whole into the easy category of commercialized unconsciousness, a big budget exploitation of 40 years of meaning as well as entertainment?
Obviously we won’t know for awhile. But we may get some clues from what Abrams and company say in the coming months.
There is also a remote possibility to consider: since these guys were so good at keeping this a secret until the recent announcement, could the Starfleet Academy scenario be an elaborate deception to keep this movie a surprise, and not what they’re planning at all?
Friday, April 21, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)