Trek XI Script Is Done

Sy Fy Portal has recently reported that the writing duo of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orchi have finished the Trek XI script. This film will dramatize Kirk's earliest missions.

Those who've read my other posts on this subject are aware that I feel it's a mistake to reinvent Kirk and the rest of the original series gang rather than to press ahead with new characters in a new century.

Also, I'm skeptical of director JJ Abrams. When I review his work to date, he starts out with some interesting premises, then jumps to another project rather than stays to develop what he started and take it to another level.

Alias fizzled after the first two seasons and I feel that Lost is losing it. Six Degrees and What About Brian both got cancelled.

And if this one Trek film turns out to be half-way decent, what will Paramount do with the franchise? Rehash Kirk's adventures?

IMHO, Star Trek, unlike Batman, James Bond and other franchises is about the future, which offers a wider tapestry for stories than franchises, which are set in the present.

I'll be curious to see how the films turns out when it's released in Christmas 2008.

Abrams May Not Direct Trek XI

A few days ago, SyFy Portal reported that Abrams may jump from Trek XI to direct an adaptation of Stephen King's "Dark Tower" horror series.

The Trek XI production has been the most circus-like of all films to date.

When Abrams was brought on, he at first denied that it would be about TOS. Then he and his collaborators said Kirk deserves to live again and they can't believe they're the ones hired to do the film.

Then Abrams said he may not be the right person to direct depending on the script--which he and his collaborators are hyping as being stellar. I seem to recall that was the early word on "Nemesis" too.

And then Abrams "confirms" that he'll direct the film after getting a nice contract. Didn't he already have one when he was brought on in the first place?

Now Abrams may bolt Trek XI for Stephen King's latest horror story adaptation.

If Abrams loves Trek so much, I can't help but wonder why he won't commit to it?

Why is he always jumping from one project to another, neither here nor there? The best Hollywood producers/directors stick with their projects from beginning to end: Ron Moore, Joss Whedon, Steven Spielberg, etc.

I felt from the beginning that a reinvented TOS film is the wrong direction for Trek long term and that Abrams is the wrong person to helm it for a variety of reasons.

But as long as Abrams' Bad Robot production company is on the job, it'll likely go ahead with the young Kirk and Spock story. Abrams may just delegate someone else to do it (like he did with "Alias" and "Lost"), while he plays with Stephen King's brain child--until something else catches his attention span for a few months.

I'll be curious to see if Trek XI will stay on its schedule.

I'm sad to see Trek in such a rudderless state of limbo nowadays.

BERMAN SAYS IT ISN'T HIS FAULT

SyFy Portal reports that Rick Berman, among other things, says UPN didn't help the "Enterprise" (ENT) series stay on the air.

He blames UPN for shifting from dramas to reality shows that cater to young women like "Beauty and the Geek" and "America's Top Model."

I'd say UPN's change in priorities didn't help, but if he and Brannon Braga had produced episodes that relied on character, dialogue, new plots, etc. rather than had the actors slather ointment on each other in their underwear, give neural pressure therapy while half-dressed, recycled old Trek stories, etc. to get ratings, ENT could've gone a full seven years like its predecessor series.

What studio would say "no" to making money?

Paramount's trying to revive the franchise after all with a young Kirk
story for Trek XI that I suspect will be a one-off at best. After seeing how "Alias" got canceled and "Lost" really begin to lose it in the current third season, I can't say I've got a lot of confidence in anything with JJ Abrams' name attached to it. Too bad Paramount passed on Bryan Singer ("X Men 1 & 2"; "Superman Returns") and a Romulan War prequel trilogy pitched by Eric Jendreson ("Band of Brothers") to settle on Abrams. I wonder if the current Paramount studio heads'll try recasting Picard and gang next?

It seems to me that with some financial sense, ENT could've been continued on cable with a reduced budget. Who's complaining about the SG1, Atlantis, and Battlestar Galactica production quality?

Boris

Abrams Still Not Committed to Directing Trek XI

Earlier this month, an article came out on SyFy portal regarding Trek XI.

Until the story and script has been finalized, Abrams says he's not sure that he's the right person to direct the upcoming Trek XI flick, which rumors're saying will dramatize the first Kirk-Spock meeting.

When I read between the lines, I have the feeling this is due in part to long talks he's had with Shatner, who told him that his Kirk character is "uncastable" and that Matt Damon's people have announced that the actor isn't interested in playing a young Kirk.

To me, this fits in the pattern of Abrams' behavior to date with many of his TV projects. He takes something on and is excited about it in the beginning, then falls out of love, gets restless, leaves someone else behind to handle it for him, then jumps to another project which he also abandons later on.

I had serious doubts when I heard that Abrams was selected to bring Trek back to the screen. A lot of good candidates were passed over, including director Bryan Singer ("X Men" 1 & 2 and "Superman Returns").

IMHO, Abrams is something of a dabbler who works with other people's ideas, but is unable to develop them over the long term once he exhausts the initial storylines of the first season or two.

People like Ron Moore ("Galactica" & "DS9"), Brad Wright ("SG1" & "Atlantis"), and Joss Whedon ("Buffy," "Angel," "Firefly," & "Serenity") stick with their projects through thick and thin.

I don't feel that Abrams has shown that quality so far. It's my impression that he's having trouble making his young Kirk story float, so he's getting ready to pass the buck along to someone else while he goes back to playing musical chairs with his other projects.

Incidentally, I would prefer to see a Trek film with new characters and storylines. At the very least, something with a new chapter set in TNG, DS9, or ENT.

Boris

It's Kirk...Again

JJ Abrams reversed himself without saying so.

Not only is he revisiting the classic Trek era, but he's recasting Kirk. Rumors once pointed at Matt Damon, but he hasn't stated that he wants to sit in the captain's chair.

I wonder how far off a new Next Generation film with a new Picard and gang is?

It seems that Trek has reached the retread territory occupied by Batman, Superman, James Bond, and other franchises. Is it a good thing for Kirk, Picard, and others to be recast every 10 years, though?

Shatner made a recent announcement at a convention about how we can look forward to at least one more Kirk adventure.

IMHO, without new stories driving the Trek universe ahead, the Trek well is running dry. I therefore favor going forward or letting Trek go gracefully into the sunset.

The current Paramount studio leadership won't do either. They want to continue milking Trek as a cash cow, but won't take it forward into the future. And they decided to bring in JJ Abrams.

I was once a fan of Abrams, but after having seen how Alias ran in circles recycling its characters and storylines before getting itself canceled and Lost began to lose some of its mysterious allure, I seriously doubt he'll reboot the Trek franchise like what Chris Nolan did for Batman with Batman Begins. Barring a new film or series featuring a new crew and ship, it seems a good stand alone Kirk story is the best people can hope for.

Abrams says he wants to create a new generation of Trek fans. His method is finding new actors to play old characters. I wonder how well that'll work?

Before Abrams was brought in to helm the upcoming 2008 film, a prequel Romulan War trilogy was being considered. A first draft for the first movie was written by Erik Jendresen, who worked with Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan) on the epic HBO TV mini-series Band of Brothers. It was a critically acclaimed story of a WW II company of airborne infantry, 501st Easy Company, who fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and spearheaded the American drive into Nazi Germany. Jendreson said he had written his script with an eye to portraying a close-knit group of men and women defending Earth in tough conditions who were doing heroic things as a matter of course a la the Greatest Generation of Americans who won WW II. Speaking for myself, this vision appeals to me more than Abrams's plan of giving us Matt Damon in an unfilmed chapter of Kirk's life.

If DS9 alumni Ronald Moore (currently Battlestar Galactica), Ira Steven Behr, Michael Pillar, or Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, & Serenity), or Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) were calling the shots on the new Trek film, I'd be less dubious than I am with Abrams at the helm. Another person I wouldn't have minded seeing in charge, but got passed over was Bryan Singer (X Men 1 & 2 and Superman Returns).

I wonder what part Abrams'll give his actor friend Greg Grunberg in the new movie?

Trek XI: It Won't Be Kirk and Spock

Woohoo! I've learned that the earlier news about Trek XI is incorrect. More details're at http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=18614

At this point Abrams still seems to be leaning towards doing a story set during the time of Kirk. It MIGHT turn out OK, but this is not taking a bold new step in the future with the Trek franchise.

Gene Roddenberry didn't always go in the right direction with Trek, but watching how Trek is being twisted about gives me food for thought regarding making one's story ideas the property of a studio whose leadership changes every few months.

Unlike Lucas, Roddenberry didn't own his own company, so Trek didn't necessarily pass into good hands after his passing. There have been some excellent people, though, like Harve Bennet, Ron Moore, and Michael Pillar. Along with some not so hot producers, who dragged Trek into the ground and ran it off the air. Berman and Braga come to mind.

As a fan with no input in Trek's direction, one can only watch how things develop over the next few years.

Being an Alias fan, I've come to notice that Abrams and his disciples don't like to let go of the past. They're constantly trying to revisit the dynamics of Seasons 1 & 2, which they destroyed in Season 3 and tried to resurrect in Season 4 only to toss it all aside again by killing/firing Michael Vartan's character, and then bring him back in the last few episodes of Alias. First they couldn't let go of Irina Derevko, now it's Michael Vaughn. What sort of plan were they following for a series that had such early potential and then declined?

I seriously question the creative decisions Abrams and company made in Alias Seasons 3-5, which is another subject.

What's relevant here is Abrams fascination with the past is showing up in his early impulse to revisit the era of Kirk and Spock.

IMHO, going into Trek's past is not the best move if the franchise is to be rebooted for a new generation of would-be Trekkers.

Another Trek Movie

I'm passing this along from Louis, a Trek fiction writer, who got this off an AOL board, I believe.

>>>'Star Trek' Franchise Set for Revival 2008 Film to Be Directed by Man Behind 'Lost' Reuters LOS ANGELES (April 21) - More than three years after the last "Star Trek" movie crashed at the box office, the venerable sci-fi franchiseis being revived by the director of the upcoming "Mission: Impossible" sequel, Daily Variety reported in its Friday edition.

The as-yet-untitled "Star Trek" feature, the 11th since 1979, isaiming for a fall 2008 release through Paramount Pictures, the ViacomInc. unit looking to restore its box-office luster under newmanagement, the trade paper said.

The project will be directed by J.J. Abrams, whose Tom Cruise vehicle"Mission: Impossible III" will be released by Paramount on May 5.Abrams, famed for producing the TV shows "Alias" and "Lost," will also help write and produce.

Daily Variety said the action would center on the early days of "StarTrek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their firstmeeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer-space mission.

The paper described "Star Trek" as Hollywood's most durable performerafter James Bond, spawning 10 features that have grossed more than $1billion and 726 TV episodes from six series.

The 10th film, "Star Trek: Nemesis," bombed at the box office on its December 2002 release, earning just $43 million in North America. Lastyear, Viacom-owned broadcast network UPN pulled the plug on thelow-rated series "Star Trek: Enterprise" following a four-season run.>>>>

And AOL ran a simple poll. Not scientific, but still relevant, I think. Where do you stand on 'Star Trek' movies?
Make more, now82%
They are yesterday's news18%
Total Votes: 41,334

To me, the demand for more Trek is a sign that it's an enduring saga with a lot of emotional resonance to people.

It's a pity in my eyes that the studio is being conservative by revisiting the past of stock characters rather than beginning a new chapter in the Trek universe.

This movie might turn out great, BUT I'd much rather see what the Federation is like in, say, the 26th century rather than see how Kirk and Spock met for the first time.

JJ Abrams being hired to direct might or might not be a good move. Abrams is definitely talented, but he has a Jekyll and Hyde tendency to alternate brilliant work with not so good stuff. Compare Alias seasons 1 & 2 with seasons 3-5.

Also, because the release date is set 4 years from now, there's a greater chance for things to change, like Abrams quitting or being canned, and even for production to completely stop. Hollywood is like that for better or worse.

Now I really must get back to my Decatur script rewrite. Aaargh...

Boris