News Ticker

Trek XI On Track For December ’08 Release And Suckage

It’s been confirmed by Paramount that Trek XI will be released on Christmas Day, 2008 and that J.J. Abrams will be directing. But is Abrams, the brains behind Alias and LOST, enough to save this movie? I say ‘No! A thousand times no!”.

Let’s count the ways shall we? Yes, we shall.

  1. The biggest obstacle is the odd-numbered curse. I’m not sure how you can break this cycle of inevitable suckage, but I don’t see Abrams as being able to. Why? Keep reading.
  2. The story. Kirk and Spock at Starfleet. Yawn. This isn’t what made ST:TOS popular. Sure, characters are part of it, but do we really need to see them going on drunken binges and panty raiding the Orion slave girls? No! Except for, maybe, the slave girl part. I know! Abrams ought to make Porkys: The Next Generation.
  3. And if the rumors are true, just look at the cast. Matt Damon as Kirk? Really? Adrien Brody as Spock? Why do I see Alexander Dane from Galaxy Quest? Gary Sinise as McCoy? I like Sinise, but not as McCoy. James McAvoy as Scotty. At least he’s a Scott so he won’t have to fake the accent. And Daniel Dae Kim, from LOST, as Sulu. Isn’t this just reprising his role from Crusade? Now, if he brings Yunjin Kim along to play Yeoman Rand, that would work.
  4. I hear you saying: “Why are you such a hater? You have to cast new people if you’re going to focus on young Kirk and Spock!”. Well, yes, for obvious reasons and no, because you shouldn’t be focusing there at all! My point being that Shatner, Nimoy and crew are the iconic figures of classic Trek. Recasting them will raise the ire of many people and they new actors won’t be accepted by a large portion of the audience. Unless they’re furry. And now that I think about it, the slash people ought to have a field day here…

  5. A lot has been said about Abrams’ work on Alias and LOST and how he’s the guy to breathe new life into Trek. Well, I saw Mission Impossible 3, and if that’s an indication of his feature film ability, then we should pack it in right now. It wasn’t that good. And it was based on an established property. Much like Trek XI. Hmm…

So you see, ladies and gentlemen, far from being a sure thing to ignite the masses of Star Trek fandom, this movie has trainwreck written all over it. Sure, the Galactica re-imagining has worked out, but this? It isn’t even a proper re-imagining, just a focus on a time that isn’t that interesting. STar Trek has some mileage left, I think, but not on re-hashing older characters. We need new stuff. And good stuff.

About JP Frantz (2323 Articles)
Has nothing interesting to say so in the interest of time, will get on with not saying it.

18 Comments on Trek XI On Track For December ’08 Release And Suckage

  1. Couldn’t agree more. I have been disgusted with this idea since the very first rumor hit the internet. Why they think it will be successful to recreate characters that others have perfected…it reminds me of the latest Dumb and Dumber film.

    Watching the Trek documentary on the History Channel the other night did alot to rekindle my love of Star Trek, which makes the fact that the next offering from Trek is something this potentially awful, that much more disappointing. They have multiple casts out there to make films with and this is their grand idea to jump start the franchise? Idiots.

  2. This movie will be a disaster… of amazing proportions… ala Waterworld. Non trek fans wont go because, well, because they’re not fans and trek fans won’t go because it will be seen as a travesty. Done. What a waste. That trek managed to persevere despite the morons @ Paramount is the true miracle.

    Speaking of the history channel documentary… did any else catch patrick Stewart say something to the effect of “well i’ll never wear that uniform again”… or something like that…. something that singed my heart and led me to believe he’ll never play Picard again… sniff.. sniff…

  3. Well, I’m going to give the movie a chance. Kirk and Spock were obviously not grown out of a vacuum there is a breath of history that is itching to be put on film. My only questionable part about this project is, wouldn’t the concept be better served if it was a made for TV film then a full-length movie?:-S

  4. To me it’s not about the Director but about the Screenwriter and Producer. If they share a vision and it is a good one, then JJ will do fine. If they don’t and product crap, the JJ will fail. If JJ himself is involved in the writing – well, we’d have to see.

    I don’t automatically assume ‘doom and gloom’ over this news, but then I haven’t seen a Trek movie I have enjoyed in years anyway. It can’t be worse than The Search for Whales.

  5. Well JJ Abrams is great at starting stories… I haven’t seen him finish one yet so I can’t say how that will turn out. :-@

    Seriously though, I say let it proceed, but don’t use A-list actors. A-list actors have a hard time removing themselves from a role and always wind up delivering some line or quirk that they have delivered in every movie. An example of that would be; The Govenator with “I’ll be back” in almost every damn movie he’s ever done. Pitiful.

    If JJ and crew go out and find some quality unknown actors I don’t think there would be as much backlash.

    Star Trek needs a FRESH START if its going to suck me back in. Propping up the franchise with A-list actors will just cheapen the experience and pull people out of the Star Trek fantasy world.

    Oh, and an ending would be nice JJ just in case you forget that stories have those…. sometimes.

  6. Yep. It’s gonna blow.

  7. I am going to see the movie, if only to hurl my pop at the screen and cause a riot. I mean, either it’s time to put the series to bed or it’s time to actually put in an effort to start up new characters or bring back TNG! (6) We trekkies deserve better! I thought that we were done with Kirk! Geez.

    Anybody miss Data or Q?

  8. Kristen // March 1, 2007 at 6:47 pm //

    It’s Enterprise all over again. Where’s the continuity?

    I was under the impression that Spock is a good bit older than Kirk and the humans characters weren’t necessarily within 4 years of each other either which would be necessary to have them all at the Academy at the same time. McCoy probably would not attend the Academy anyway; Med school then OTS. There was never any reference that they were all at the academy together, and it does not make sense that they would be.

    As a TOS fan, I will skip anything which is so obviously ignoring Trek history. I would not be opposed to new actors recreating the characters, but not if it’s a big “screw you” to ST history and continuity.

  9. I too think this movie is going to be a flop. The idea, the actors, the director, everything about it tells me it will suck. I was at the last ST convention in Vegas and almost all of the actors disliked this idea.

    Michael Dorn said they should make a movie about Klingons which got loud applause. The only two actors that were even willing to give it a chance were Shatner and Nimoy, and as we can see they might get a paycheck out of it so no wonder they acted that way.

    I think Trek still has movie potential left, but this film is not it. And this film will kill the movie franchise forever.


  10. :-@ Butch, I hate the fact that you went to the Vegas Con and I didn’t! Now with that off my chest… I think the idea of Matt Damon as Kirk is digusting. As stated above, new faces are needed here. They need to break new ground and go where no one really has gone before. That’s what Trek is all about. Not, boldly going where we’ve already been.

  11. “Kev” is right; it’s going to blow and we’re not talking just about the warp core… (H)

  12. I was directed here by a blog and truly expected to find some people who understood the Trek universe. Some of you seem to think that the original series existed in a vacuum or something, and that there is no generally accepted timeline for the Trek universe. Obviously most of those people are unable to read anything not displayed on their CRT. To the rest of you true Trek fans, I apologize in advance if this sounds like a rant or a flame.

    There are well over a hundred BOOKS (look it up – they are still around) written from the 70’s to the early 90’s whose sole purpose was to flesh out and bring a timeline to the Trek universe. Many were written by people involved in the TV series and with the tacit blessing of Gene Roddenberry himself. Several were even used as the basis for TV scripts. Some of the best writers in sci-fi at the time wrote Trek novels, and the entire series is pretty internally consistant as far as the general facts and dates are concerned. The books even give clues that clear up a few peculiarities of the TV series.

    And just so you all understand my feelings, I watched the very first pilot when I was in 7th grade and was thoroughly hooked. As to the spinoffs of the original series, TNG was good, but I was never a real big Picard fan. DS9 had potential, but drowned in it’s own complexity. All the rest of the series were just Hollywood, even though each of them had their moments. I must say I was intrigued by Enterprise, but alas, it was not to be. I pretty much agree with everyone elses opinions of the movies, so I have no real hope for a new retro movie that ignores the original Trek timeline and history.

    In my personal opinion, anything written or filmed after the death of Gene Roddenberry has either failed to advance his vision or has truly damaged the vision and alienated the present and/or potential fan base to the point where it is almost beyond salvage. It is almost beyond hope that the idea of Star Trek will ever be brought back to the glory and span that should be his legacy.

    Any comments?

    Mene nakkhet ur seveh.

  13. In my personal opinion, anything written or filmed after the death of Gene Roddenberry has either failed to advance his vision or has truly damaged the vision and alienated the present and/or potential fan base to the point where it is almost beyond salvage. It is almost beyond hope that the idea of Star Trek will ever be brought back to the glory and span that should be his legacy.

    THIS is the true point right here. Everything post Roddenberry has not upheld the dream or the vision, and has existed solely to make Paramount cash.

  14. To start with: I love the Star Trek universe. I’ve seen every episode of TOS, Enterprise, Voyager, and much of TNG and DS9. I’ve seen all the movies and ready many of the books. All told, I don’t mind being called a fanboy (despite not owning a Trek themed license plate or getting offered a Trek credit card!)

    That said – what exactly do you want in a feature film that you’re so sure you can’t get?

    Is it Gene R? Well let’s be honest, TMP isn’t exactly a world beater – Gene fell in love with the new special effects and goes crazy, sacrificing quality. The basic story premise is there, but the characters take a back seat to the FX. Sadly he passed away too soon, so this isn’t gonna happen.

    Maybe you want the actors from 10, 20, or 30 years ago? Well…despite potential advancements in CGI technology that can’t happen either for obvious reasons.

    For me, I want a plot-driven story with plenty of action and an ensemble cast that works together. Oh, and the story needs a believable villain. An anthropomorphized alien is cool, but keep it to something you can loathe effectively. Giant gila monsters need not apply.

    If the story of a young crew has these things then it will be fun to watch.

    I don’t need a message that preaches to me. But that said, social commentary was always part of Roddenberry’s efforts and I don’t mind if that continues.

  15. You forgot a reason why it’ll suck.

    You NEVER EVER EVER release a movie between Christmas and new years. It is a virtual bullet to the brain of it’s commercial success. The only reason studios would do that is if they expect it to suck and want to quietly bury the project. Look at “Analyze That”.

    A Christmas release date shows that the execs have NO confidence in the movie’s success.

  16. rruss45826 // December 28, 2007 at 9:53 am //

    I would rather they go into the future! This will of course require some real thinking and real writing! New ships! Warp drive past 9! New weapons! There is so much to work with! Going back to Kirk and Spock should be left to the “History Crystals” Teach Kirk style Commanding at Star Fleet! Come on guys! Wake up to the future!

  17. I’m hope Trek XI isn’t focused on drawing new viewers to the exclusion of regulars. Setting the story in Academy days makes for a younger cast–to attract a fresh supply of young (and hopefully long-time) viewers? Maybe CBS is also hoping for the germ of the next series.

    From Paramount’s perspective, this makes sense. Guys like me who watched TOS when it was new aren’t going to be watching and attending conventions forever. And I don’t see a whole lot of 20-somethings at the Las Vegas convention. Cast members aren’t getting younger, either. How many more years can we have conventions–the only ST activity maintaining fan interest without finding new fans and castmembers?

    But Enterprise was designed to draw new viewers in and I found it extremely well done (I know I’m in the minority here). I hope the new movie is better marketed and supported than Enterprise was.

  18. I an a loyal Star Trek soldier

    All you none believers need to get a grip

    on the institution that Star trek

    has created .

    truth justice and honer is a way on life.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: