…since he was the one who, years ago, heavily pushed the notion that the correct direction for “Star Trek” was to go retro and focus on Kirk, Spock et al in their Academy days. This notion was reviled by most fans that I know of, contending that there was no point in taking “the franchise” backwards. Star Trek, like a shark, must constantly be moving forward or it dies. And furthermore, what remote interest was there in watching the adventures of our heroes as teens? It seemed a pathetic and obvious ploy to court teen viewers rather than accommodate the interests of long time fans.
And now it’s years later.
And “Enterprise” took the franchise backwards and knocked it off the air.
And the success of “Smallville” plus other teen-oriented dramas must have registered on Paramount.
And thus do we boldly go backwards. Well…forwards, I guess, since it’s moving forward from “Enterprise.”
Of course, whether this actually makes it to the big screen, JJ Abrams or no, remains debatable. After all, quite a few Superman films by various big-name individuals crashed and burned before the upcoming installment got off the ground (no pun intended.) But if it does make it to screen, Harve Bennett–who was mentioned nowhere in the “Variety” article–is going to have to be wondering why he had to be so darned ahead of his time, in his concept if not his execution (Bob Greenberger swears Bennett’s script was terrible. Then again, who knows? By the dwindling standards of many of today’s moviegoers, it might have been a smash.)
PAD
• 
The next Trek film will probably have to appeal to all audiences, and that in itself is going to be hard to do since I’ve never considered Trek to be a concept that can appeal to everybody.
It’s possible. But the way to do that is NOT to use past material as a crutch.
In the ST universe, “canon” is what has been filmed. The novels can be used as takeoff points, but unless it’s been committed to celluloid (or its digital equivalent) at some point, it doesn’t really count.
As far as I know, none of the episodes or movies have ever addressed the question of when Kirk and Spock first met, or how long Kirk was out of the Academy before being assigned to Enterprise. We do know that Spock served with Pike for eleven years, but for all we know, he was assigned there as a young lieutenant, working his way up through the ship’s heirarchy until he became the guy whose job it is to relay the captain’s orders (can’t remember what the job title is…)
Also, when we first heard of the mind-meld technique, almost none of the humans on the ship’s crew were aware it existed. Spock said it was a very private thing for Vulcans. Later, he and Tuvok turned out to be mind-šlûŧš, melding with folks left and right and not even calling the next day.
Just my opinion in brief (brief being a relative term):
Voyager started out great–everyone was well defined, story was on target, everything. It immediately went off track. Since the series arc was based on the “Gilligan’s Island” syndrome, how could it not? Some great characters were developed, but the arc of the series never reached (in my opinion) DS9 proportions.
Enterprise started great, and then lost steam. How could you fail with the rich tapestry of the Foundation’s beginning to work from? How could you add that stupid war story arc? What a lame attempt to save a series, by ignoring the very thing that made it compelling.
Frankly, I stopped watching it. Manny Coto and team brought me back–what a shame that they didn’t have one more season to grow into. They had the key and were painting the epic canvas back into view. Shame that it was considered too little, too late.
Since the series arc was based on the “Gilligan’s Island” syndrome, how could it not?
I could fill a manuscript with ways not to.
In fact, seven seasons’ worth.
Just to jump in with a quickie – wasn’t there something written a while back to suggest that Spock may have been at the Academy in an instructor capacity? I have some vague thought in the back of my head that this concept had been brought up at one point.
VOYAGER could have worked, but unfortunately the conflict of these individuals having to work together – a rather unique concept in the ST television universe – evaporated as the first season went along until everyone was just one big ol’ happy family it seemed. Compound that with the ability of the crew to go about in a jolly romp from planet to planet, with rarely an urgent feeling of finding the quickest way home, doomed the series to come off as TNG-light in my opinion. What was the point of making them lost if it rarely was the focus of the program?
As to ENTERPRISE – it just seemed like a great loss opportunity to put together a first-rate program that would interest SF fans and yet also make ST fans happy. They easily – EASILY – could have stayed within established history in the show, but instead all too often went for easy remedies when painted into a corner. Shame.
As to the new movie – I still believe the biggest idea would be to do one that was floating around just a few months back, which was to bring back many characters from the previous series and involve them into one slam-bang big adventure. If not that, a movie dealing with new characters in “current times,” dealing with new problems would be much more satisfying and even draw more ticket-buyers than some heated-over Kirk/Spock in school concept.
I liked Voyager at first, but it just got too silly. I got sick of Janeway asking, “Can we squeeze Voyager through that small hole?” every episode, and don’t get me started on the whole “Oh, Q is here, and he can send us home with a snap of his fingers, but we don’t want HIS help” thing. So I stopped watching.
I stopped watching Enterprise after the first episode.
To date, The Next Generation is the only Star Trek series I’ve liked.
Personally, I’ve thought for years now that the series they ought to make is STAR TREK: EMPIRE. Set in the Mirror Universe with a defeated human race struggling to be free (as seen in DS9) it would allow you to dispense with the ‘perfect humans’ of the regular ST universe while still having all those recognizable aliens and societies to play against.
I think the young Kirk and Spock actors have their work cut out for them. It’s a fine line between “being true to the characters” and coming off as a parody of Shatner and Nimoy.
As for the tangential Star Wars debate, I’ve read interview material from as early as the early ’80s (i.e., Somewhere between “Empire” and “Jedi”), where Lucas discussed going back and doing the prequels at some point. Given that the “Episode IV” screen crawl was not part of the original screening of Star Wars/”A New Hope”, one might speculate that George only considered sequels when he realized that there was gold in them thar Wookiees.
Sorry to jump on again so quick, but just had another thought on the Spock situation. Did he ever say he served eleven CONSECUTIVE years with Pike? Or that all eleven years were on the Enterprise? This might actually work then – Spock having worked under Pike for some time before heading to the Academy to learn or teach, thereby meeting Kirk. After a time, he returned to work with Pike onboard the Enterprise. Heck, make his reasons for going to the Academy directly related to his experiences with Pike and Pike’s crew; perhaps some type of incident that drove him to reconsider his commitment to Starfleet and his human side. (I can see it now … right after “The Cage” situation was resolved, Pike and the others have a good laugh over Spock trying to emote with the plants on the planet. “Hee, hee … wait, wait. Here’s my impression of Spock … ahem … ‘THE WOMEN!!!’ Hee, hee.”)
Okay, I’m joking about that last part, but still perhaps there could be something there if done properly.
Ah, who am I kidding? 🙂
About the STAR WARS aside: Jason M. Bryant wrote, “Lucas talked about the prequels in at least one interview before Empire Strikes Back. He didn’t have them written, but there was a general plan of what they would be.”
That’s pretty much the way I remember things. Once Lucas realized that his film was a success and he would be able to produce his larger story the original plan was for a total of nine films: One trilogy of prequels about the fall of the Old Republic, one trilogy about the Rebellion, and a final trilogy about the generation following Luke, Leia, and Han. Only later was the series trimmed to six films.
Back to STAR TREK, I kinda like the idea of a “Mirror Universe” series. Also, I was fully expecting a Q appearance in ENTERPRISE; I was just wondering how they’d end it so that Q’s existence would be kept secret.
For those curious about Kirk and Spock’s academy days, per the “character biographies” posted at the Star Trek website ( http://www.startrek.com/ ), Kirk and Spock were at the Academy at the same time, although Kirk was a year behind Spock. Also, during his last year at the Academy, Spock was selected by Pike to serve aboard the Enterprise.
Now, as to what Craig J Ries posted concerning Abrams’ denial, this is posted at IMDb.com under the heading “Abrams Slams ‘Star Trek’ Rumors”:
Mission: Impossible III director J.J. Abrams is hitting back at unauthorized reports he is directing the next Star Trek movie. The Alias creator is furious the news was released prematurely and is also upset that key details regarding the storyline were incorrectly reported. He explains to Empire online, “The whole thing was reported entirely without our cooperation. People learned that I was producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear rumors of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is not entirely accurate.” Last week, Hollywood trade paper Variety, reported Abrams was on board and that the film would center on the early days of Captain James T. Kirk and Spock and that Philip Seymour Hoffman was in talks to play the ship’s doctor. Abrams won’t reveal the true storyline, but hints that it won’t feature characters Captain James T. Kirk or Mr. Spock at all, but doesn’t rule out bringing some of the original characters back for the new film, adding, “Those characters are so spectacular. I just think that..you know, they could live again.”
I’m not a Trekkie (not that there is anything wrong with that), I have read maybe one book, and not all of the series.
It seems to me that the problem with the Star Trek Franchise was that the basic formula — starship crew solving some problem — doesn’t work anymore.
Star Trek movies I-IV, VI were good because they went beyond the formula, beyond the basic framework of the series. You had a nostaligia to the old crewdynamic but also something extra: they were older, they were promoted, they lost their ship,they were outlaws etc.
The newer movies felt like very mediocre chapters with a larger special effects budget and careless writing (except maybe VIII).
TNG expanded enough on the basic formula of the original series to be good, although if I watch it today (not often) it feels dated.
DS9 was great because it went way beyond the formula. It was more multicultural, more political. There were major developments and changes from season to season so it was not repetative. It had more dynamic characterization and character interaction, and, of course, a metaplot.
I have seen only 3 or 4 episodes of Voyager, which were excellent. But, from what I heard, it seems that in many ways it was just another enterprise cruising through a newer final frontier.
I have seen only about a season of Enterprise because they kept showing it at different times where I live, but the truth is I didn’t care enough to ry. It could have been great, since it could have shown how the federation was formed; how was it like before the days of the allmighty federation when Earth was just a small planet (interesting from an American perspective); how the wars with the Klingons and Romulans started. It could have explored the civilizations that went on to form the Federation. We stil know much more about Klingon and Ferengi culture than Vulcan. But instead it seemed stuck in the old formula, and the metaplots I saw didn’t seem to work.
I don’t really think that a plot involving Kirk and Spock in the academy will work unless the writing proves to be really excellent. As a supposedly new framework it does not seem to go enough beyond the old stuffy Star Trek universe framework. It just doesn’t sound that interesting. It could maybe be a good spinoff if the Star Trek franchise was as strong as it was in the late 90’s, but I doubt it can restart the franchise.
I also don’t think it is comparable to Star Wars or Smallvile or Batman. Star Wars told a story of a world much different than the one in the original trilogy that was very important to the story as a whole. Unfortunatly it failed, but it could have been good (I’m sure you all have some ideas about how it could have been done better. I’ve actually written some of them down). Smallville works because it refers to the known Superman structure while at the same time being significantly different + it combines supernatural and the regular (mostly teen) world. Star Trek does not have that benefit. Batman Begins worked because, like Star Wars, there was a story of the transformation of Bruce Wayne/Anakin that needed to be told. I don’t think the same can be said about the story of Kirk and Spock. I also think it would be more interesting if there relationship was that of a newly arrived young captain and more experienced veteran on the enterprise than by suggesting that they met before in the academy.
It seems to me that for the Star Trek formula to restart it is better to try to go beyond the formula.
Maybe the story of a civilian ship in which the humans are not the majority and whose attitude toward the federation is less reverent. I realize it sounds a little like Firefly, but sometimes it feels as if the fedration is actually a human, self-rightuous military dictatorship controlled by Starfleet, which also seems to be the only employer in the galaxy. It would be interesting to see some Firefly sensibilities injected into this world and present a different point of view of the Star Trek universe, as wel as explore its civilian side. Iactually have some ideas for characters and Metaplots for this one.
Another option for a movie could be to have Captain Sisko come back from wherever he is into a near future scenario. Look how much our world has changed since the series ended.
How about promoting Picard to admiral and having him command a fleet or a convoy. Sounds too much like Battle Star Galactica? Still, it could offer the opportunity to explore new crew dynamics as well as ways of doing things. And anyway, Picard has been holding the same commission for years. He’s holding back all the promotions in Starfleet. Even poor Worf, who was promoted, always ends up in the same lousy job.
Now, as to what Craig J Ries posted concerning Abrams’ denial, this is posted at IMDb.com under the heading “Abrams Slams ‘Star Trek’ Rumors”
The thing about Abrams “denial” is that in the same breath he says everybody’s info is wrong, he turns around and says he still might use some of the original crew.
Which is to say that you probably can’t rule out anything at this point, even if he says he isn’t using Kirk & Spock. 🙂
Required scene:
Teen Kirk: What’s going on in there? Everyone coming out looks like they just saw somebody die?
Teen Spock: They’re seniors. They’ve just finished up their Kobayashi exams. I understand it is a very difficult simulation — some say impossible to pass flawlessly.
Teen Kirk: Oh? Really? Doesn’t sound that hard.
Here’s an idea for you….
Let
Trek
die.
Star Trek had a good run and I liked most of it. We can go back and catch the reruns or pop in a DVD and see the Trek we enjoyed whenever we want to. Now, how about something new?
Look at all the comments above and out there on the net about Trek in general. Trek has to change. Trek needs a new formula. Trek needs to be shaken up. Trek needs to be something….. new.
Look at all the comments about Smallville Trek. The actors (if they do this) who get the Kirk, Spock or the whoever parts will always be picked apart by fans because they will never be able to be Shatner, Nimoy and the others. They will also never have the same chemistry and never have the same feel as the classic trek actors. Plus, they’ll move even farther away from their “adult” selves as the younger actors begin to bring more of themselves to the roles and most likely get even more complaints from fans about how Kirk, Spock and etc would never act that way.
Well, why make a Trek that aint Trek or cast a bunch of peolpe into roles that they are most likely doomed to fail in when you can have something new? Not having a bad Trek film on the production block clears the way for something else to be made. Maybe that something else will be a good sci-fi or fantasy film. Maybe it would even be a good film that starts a new franchise. The same argument can be made for the TV.
And maybe a good long death would be good for Trek. It did wonders for it the last time.
Again, I liked Trek (up until the last two) and I still stop channel surfing if I hit any of the first three TV shows or the first five films. The thing is, I really like seeing new stuff come down the pike as well and would rather take the chance on an unknown product then a franchise on life support machines.
Posted by AdamYJ at April 26, 2006 08:03 PM
“Ok, Star Wars was MEANT to have prequel’s because Lucas had PLAINED to make them, (Please reserve debates on his excicutions for another time).”
Um . . . bullplop.
He didn’t plan the prequels. He planned the sequels because he started writing Star Wars and it turned into a big, long endless movie as he was writing. However, he didn’t plan on the prequels. The only “proof” that he did was that “A New Hope” was labelled as episode four in the story crawl. The reason he did that was because he was modelling it after an old sci-fi serial and the good stuff always seemed to happen in the middle. So, he made it seem like people were coming into the middle of one.
Now you may go back to the Trek talk.
That depends on who you ask, AdamYJ. Lucas has recounted how he created a backstory as part of writing what became the first Star Wars trilogy. When Star Wars Episode IV became a phenomenal success, he became enchanted with the idea of eventually going back and creating a trilogy of movies that would chronicle this backstory.
As I recall, the idea that the story could span 9 episodes was bandied about around the time The Empire Strikes Back hit theaters. This seems to support the claim that Lucas had wanted to create Episodes I through III almost from the very beginning.
Lucas has since been quoted as saying he had entertained the idea of doing episodes VII through IX, but had lost interest in the idea.
So I don’t know how you could argue that he didn’t “plan” the prequels. Perhaps he hadn’t considered making the movies while writing the first draft of the script that became Star Wars, Episode IV, but it looks as though he had plans for Episodes I through III many, many years before he actually made them.
Posted by uncajimmy at April 25, 2006 12:27 PM
…set the series with a broken Federation with a ship named Enterprise tasked with rebuilding Star Fleet.
When Roddenberry originally wrote the premise for a new Star Trek show, the broken Federation ship was called…Andromeda! And her captain was called…Dylan Hunt! Those people who remember two failed pilots that Roddenberry created (Genesis II & Planet Earth) should remember that name! Robert Hewitt Wolfe “developed” the concept and changed it into “Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda” and I don’t believe that it lasted more than three years in its restructured form. I could be wrong.
As for a Star Fleet Academy series WITHOUT Young Kirk and Young Spock, didn’t DC Comics come up with that concept over a decade ago? I don’t recall it being a hot seller!
And Peter, didn’t you write a graphic novel with a scene depicting Kirk’s relieving Pike from command of the Enterprise with Scotty as HIS chief engineer?
For the continuity junkies out there who question the idea that Kirk and Spock knew each other before either of them set foot on the Enterprise, I recall a TOS episode called “Is There in Truth No Beauty?” where Spock, while sharing his mind with Medusan Ambassador Kollos, mentioned that Kirk AND McCoy were friends of his for many years! In the second Trek Pilot “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” Gary Mitchell mentions in Sickbay that Kirk was an instructor at the Academy in his early days by quoting one of his students: “Watch out for Lt. Kirk! In HIS class, you either THINK or SINK!” I once visited West Point for a week as a high school junior and I’ve noticed that it was customary for lieutenants to be posted as instructors before they served command positions in the field. Why would that be so far-fetched for Kirk and Spock to have done the same? Because Trek isn’t “real life?” Gimme a break!
While I would never be a booster for a “Kirk & Spock/The Early Days” concept, I strongly doubt that a film/TV pilot featuring new young actors playing a Later Generation of Starfleet’s finest would appeal to The Mass Audience anymore than it did the loudmouths who shouted “nineohtwooneoh!” when Bennett pitched it! “Follow the money” will be the catchphrase when they pitch “Star Trek” again and only a wide-eyed idealist who has no idea how television and blockbuster films work would believe otherwise IMHO.
I too will “wait and see,” but not with baited breath.
Here’s an idea for you….
Let
Trek
die.
This is not a unique problem for Star Trek. The genres of fantasy, sci-fi, super-heroes, are swamped with sequals, prequals, spinoffs, relaunches, remakes, revamps, continuations, and long running titles. On the one hand audiences and writers are tempted to go back to the worldsand characters they created. On another, there is the wish to make/see some new take on something familiar, on the third hand there are obvious risks of having something either too much like or too much alike the original, or both, while not matching what made the original great (I wonder if a New Indiana Jones movie will have similar probles to the new Star Wars trilogy). Some people think sequals are bad by definition. Many end up disappointing, few end up succeeding. But how can you know if it is worth taking the risk?
I think in Star Trek’s case it might be worthwhile. It has existed for so long that it has a real sense of time and internal history. It is interesting to see how the Star Trek universe changes as the world changes. Especially since the Star Trek universe has such an American perspective.
Posted by: Jerry C at April 27, 2006 03:58 PM
Here’s an idea for you….
Let
Trek
die.
Yes. And let Superman die the next time sales of that comic-book title wane, or a movie adaptation bombs. Or Spider-Man. Or the X-Men. Or Law & Order on television. Or…
The bottom line: entertainment is a business. They’ll let Trek die if and when they perceive that there is no more profit to be made from Trek, and not until.
And I really don’t understand the idea that the premise of Kirk and Spock in their younger days won’t work. Let me try another example…
Premise: a teenaged boy gets the powers of a bug. That’s the idea behind Spider-Man. It’s also the idea behind a comic called The Fly. One still endures today; the other does not. Why? Because it’s not the idea that counts, it’s what you do with it that matters.
Of course, this could all become academic. The way Hollywood works, by the time everyone at Paramount is done getting their hands in the soup, we end up with a Trek movie about a Starship run by Tribbles.
Posted by Micha:
Another option for a movie could be to have Captain Sisko come back from wherever he is into a near future scenario. Look how much our world has changed since the series ended.
Well, I’m not really sure just how well that would play out, as Sisko has already returned from his time with the wormhole aliens in the DS9 novels which have published new tales set following the conclusion of the TV series with the apparent blessing of Paramount. It’s not to say a new DS9-based movie couldn’t happen but the novels have done a largely fantastic job of carrying on the post-series tales of Kira and the rest.
Posted by Jerry C:
Look at all the comments about Smallville Trek. The actors (if they do this) who get the Kirk, Spock or the whoever parts will always be picked apart by fans because they will never be able to be Shatner, Nimoy and the others. They will also never have the same chemistry and never have the same feel as the classic trek actors. Plus, they’ll move even farther away from their “adult” selves as the younger actors begin to bring more of themselves to the roles and most likely get even more complaints from fans about how Kirk, Spock and etc would never act that way.
Not sure why you’d think anyone would pick apart someone new playing Kirk for not being Shatner. Hëll, that alone could be a plus. Shatner as Kirk has become one of the biggest jokes in SF fandom. (Don’t forget even Nimoy took time to “become” the Spock we all remember.) As for the chemistry, it wasn’t always there even with Shatner and Nimoy. (But, don’t forget an Academy-based series/film would be set prior to that “chemistry” took the shape we eventually saw in TOS and the movies.)
While I don’t think Trek needs to die, I do think screen Trek needs a good long rest.
Barring that, maybe it needs to think SMALL for a while. Perhaps a couple of direct-to-video movies. Maybe take another shot at animated Trek and actually give it some production values. (Look at how much better recieved Clone Wars was than just about any of the live-action Star Wars prequels.) Definitely keep some quality written work coming out.
Either way, Trek DEFINITELY needs new blood. Bring in the Abramses and Tartakofskys (sp?) on projects that could take some risks without making the huge financial gamble of a major motion picture.
I’ve said it before, but I’d love to see an animated anthology series similar to Star Wars Tales where different animators and writers can show off their own takes on the Star Trek universe, not being restricted to one time period, or even to canonical continuity.
-Rex Hondo-
Why don’t they just pull a Battlestar Galactica and blow it up and start all over again from scratch picking and choosing what continuity to keep and what to ditch?
“Premise: a teenaged boy gets the powers of a bug. That’s the idea behind Spider-Man. It’s also the idea behind a comic called The Fly. One still endures today; the other does not. Why? Because it’s not the idea that counts, it’s what you do with it that matters.”
The question is what kind of story you want to tell? The key to Spiderman’s success is that he had doubts and issues that older established super-heroes did not. So no we have to ask what is the hook of a story about Kirk and Spock in the academy? What will make it interesting?
About 15 years ago I read a book called Star Trek Federation that had the crews of the two enterprises meet + a story about Zephram Cochran (sp?). I guess it was an idea for a movie that was rejected. I don’t really understand how the systems of novels based on movie franchises like Star trek and Star Wars. I’ve read only few of them.
Only tangentially related, but all this talk of what it’d be like if other actors played Kirk and Spock and the TOS cast naturally calls to mind the great fan-project STAR TREK: THE NEW VOYAGES (http://www.newvoyages.com ) that creates and web-distributes new TOS adventures. It’s been written up in places like Wired and Now Playing magazine and has seen Trek professionals (on screen and behind-the-scenes) participate. (It’s apparently tolerated by Paramount as long as no one is making any money on the project, and apparently no one is…)
I heard that the actors have already been set for the new movie. The story revolves around a young James T. Kirk as he enlists in the newly formed Star Fleet. At the academy he meets a young intern, Leonard McCoy. They end up serving their first mission together. Its on the USS Omega, where they first encounter a science officer named Spock. Some kind of trouble ensues and the senior officers on the Omega are injured or killed. Kirk, Spock and McCoy are thrust into action.
The actors are apparently, Matt Damon as young Kirk, Ben Affleck as Spock and Christian Bale as young Dr. Bones McCoy.
Sounds awesome. Can’t wait.
The actors are apparently, Matt Damon as young Kirk, Ben Affleck as Spock and Christian Bale as young Dr. Bones McCoy.
Well, now I have another reason to skip this show.
Sounds awesome. Can’t wait.
Sounds like some serious fanwanking going on.
Although why anybody’s go fanwanking over Damon, Affleck and Bale in a Trek film is beyond me.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at April 28, 2006 04:16 PM
Sounds like some serious fanwanking going on.
Although why anybody’s go fanwanking over Damon, Affleck and Bale in a Trek film is beyond me.
Craig, I’m always amused when someone begins complaining about a movie before they’ve seen it — or, in this case, before it’s even made. It reminds me of the fan outcry over Michael Keaton as Batman prior to the release of that movie.
Frankly, I think the actors in question are all very capable and I’d be very interested in seeing what they do with the characters. But, y’know, we’re talking about Hollywood. I mean, remember how everyone was abuzz about Nicholas Cage as the next Superman — something that never materialized? Assuming this movie gets off the ground, what hits the screen may be very different from what we’re talking about now.
Besides, it could be worse. I think these posts got deleted in the last spam sweep, but I had suggested — facetiously — that Wil Wheaton could play Kirk and Rick Schroeder could play Spock. Then Bill Mulligan topped me by suggesting Jake Lloyd as Kirk and The Guy Who Played Screech as Spock.
Just wait a minute here… Since nobody’s going to be happy with anybody but Shatner playing Kirk, the idea could still work with a little tweaking. You just have to get Shatner to play Kirk again. Now, hear me out.
You title it Star Trek: Back to the Academy. Turns out that due to a recordkeeping error somewhere along the way, nobody can find any record of Kirk actually graduating, or for that matter actually attending, the academy. Well, the only reasonable thing to do is send him back, and hilarity ensues! I just remembered that Rodney Dangerfield is dead, so we’ll have to settle for somebody close to play the headmaster, Admiral Norris Peck. Then you get random hot actress #15 to play the hot (but smart and respectable) teacher Kirk wants to bone, and the thing practically writes itself!
-Rex Hondo-
Okay, okay, okay. First off, as MUCH as it made me happy to hear new Trek is in the planning stages, just don’t know about JJ Abrams. As much as I liked the first season of Lost, (been too busy to see any of the second yet) I was REALLY disappointed in Alias. Kind of like Kingdom Hospital, loooooooong on atmosphere, short on depth. At least, that’s how I felt.
And second, Enterprise, IMHO, was a success for the reason that it told good stories. And for those that said it trounced Trek continuity, I’ll say again, just because you never SAW IT ON SCREEN, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Look at any WWII era movie, especially the romantic comedies, and would you know what was happening in Europe? And for those that wanted more character development, they were trying for the Big Three dynamic that Jim, Spock and Bones had on the first show.
I liked it, anyway.
mary jane atk hairy atk hairy kingdom