DS9's my favorite, but let's remember...DS9 was a reaction to the
times. It's not like Gene had this vision of DS9 al those years. the
world was getting cynical and there was an undercurrent of
mistrust for authority in teh early 90s. DS9 appealed to people
who liked Star Trek but were having trouble relating.
On May 16, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Keith Johnson wrote:
That's my point. Abrams and all the non-Trek fans and box-office-
stars-in-their-eyes Trek fans seem to think that there were no
stories left to tell. DS9-with its brilliant creation of the
Dominion, and its fleshing out of both the Bajorans and the
Cardassians--showed that's just not true.
----- Original Message -----
From: wlro...@aol.com
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 6:44:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With
William Shatner Or Khan
I just wanted to chime in on the comment on TNG and where would
they go after the Borg. Well to be honest they could have done a
stories with the Founders. I mean if they did not want to pull the
cast of DS9 over they could have used Odo. I mean it would not have
been the first cross over we have seen in the Star Trek universe.
We never knew anything about what the Enterprise crew was doing
during this war that seem to have DS9 at the fore front.
--Lavender
From: Daryle Lockhart
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:40 PM
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With
William Shatner Or Khan
I don't think I need to remind anyone that I love Star Trek. But
the old continuity WAS restrictive. That's why the TNG movies fell
off after "First Contact", they had to make up species because --
where do you go after The Borg? (Well, you go to DS9, but that's
another discussion) The reason everybody loves "Wrath of Khan" is
because it stepped outside of continuity. After all, how COULD
Chekov have known Khan? And how could a whole planet explode and
people survive in a shell of a ship on the next world? If Mars BLEW
UP one day, we wouldn't exactly all be here to talk about it years
later. But that didn't stop the movie from being the best! Had the
movie series gone on the way the first movie dictated, it would
have died after 3.
That being said, this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, so I think
there is ONE direction to go in that would make things right with
everyone.
Ready?
Make nice with Harlan and do "City On the Edge Of Forever" the way
he'd originally written it. For $100M you can tell the whole story,
update a few things, and end one of the darkest chapters in this
franchise's history, by paying Harlan Ellison. You do a 2 hour
"City On the Edge Of Forever", with the right Edith Keeler, and I
dare say that it could be the first science fiction film to be
nominated for an Oscar. Think of it. Romance. Mystery. SCIENCE.
I don't think Paramount can go wrong with this.
On May 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like
"The old continuity was restrictive", it angers me. That's just
lazy film making. The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies,
and --including "enterprise"--about two centuries. You're telling
me he couldn't find something in *all that* to fuel new, action-
driven stories? He couldn't have brought together this crew in the
movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not just
have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his
crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as
if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have been
done.
My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young
cast members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than
Kirk was in the original timeline when he became captain, but you
can work around that. We don't know the backstories of how Bones,
Uhura, and Scotty were brought to the Enterprise, so you can write
that story. Just because Chekhov never showed up in season one of
the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit and bring him in
for the movie. Only three of the original five years of Kirk's
original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine?
Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit
for "Enterprise": the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found
on Earth (something blamed on "First Contact).... And while some
of that made some of us howl, as the series got better toward its
end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, we liked it precisely because it
was exploring the themes from the OS that had always been there.
So, they changed things a bit, but at least they explored the
original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, they
did a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus,
we all loved the storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion
"slaves"...the Augment storyline, which continued the story of the
Eugenics War, and set the stage for Data's creation someday....the
study of how Vulcan pulled itself back from the brink of becoming
violently emotional again, to embrace Surak's teachings anew...the
dude who was a disciple of Colonel Green's xenophobia and
racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for
the most part.
I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--
oh, it just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast
with the later hero he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--
oh, I guess it makes Spock's feeling of being lost and alone more
poignant..why we had to make Spock act like he's undergoing ponfar
all the time--oh, so we can really get the struggle, as I guess the
OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that.
Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to
recreate it. There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh
stories in Trek within the original continuity. I have felt all
along that we we've had is a guy who thinks Star Wars is superiour
to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over-the-head school of
filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as
opening up things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek,
Trek.
I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you
have to destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down
the old instead of building upon it. How eliminating forty years of
great storytelling is liberating.
Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracey de Morsella" <tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com>
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, ggs...@yahoo.com,
cinque3...@verizon.net
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:55:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With
William Shatner Or Khan
Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
'I wouldn't rule out anything,' J.J. Abrams says of sequel ideas
After last weekend's $76.5 million opening, three phrases keep
getting tossed in the direction of "Star Trek" director J.J.
Abrams: sequel, Khan, and William Shatner.
On Friday, as the filmmaker hoped to maintain momentum heading into
his second weekend, Abrams told MTV News that he's open to all three.
"The fun of this [new alternate 'Trek' reality] is that the destiny
of these characters is in their hands — it's not constrained by the
pre-existing films or TV series," the "Lost" mastermind explained.
"Believe me, whether it's William Shatner or Khan ... it would be
ridiculous to not be open to those ideas."
As those who've seen the film know, Abrams' new "Star Trek"
establishes an alternate timeline for the series' key characters —
one that veers off course when the USS Kelvin is attacked in the
film's opening scene, killing James T. Kirk's father and causing
the future Enterprise captain to be born in space. Other events in
the film also similarly impact the young "Trek" characters,
resulting in wholly new story lines.
"One of the reasons we wanted to break with the original 'Star
Trek' timeline was it felt restrictive," Abrams said of the plot
device that could conceivably fuel the venerable series for another
five decades. "The idea, now that we are in an independent
timeline, allows us to use any of the ingredients from the past —
or come up with brand-new ones — to make potential stories."
One buzzed-about ingredient is Khan Noonien Singh — arguably the
most memorable villain ever to inhabit the "Trek" series — whom
Kirk banished to a barren world in an old story line. Writer/
producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have statedtheir hope of
bringing Khan into the "Star Trek" sequel — and Abrams told us that
in his universe, the superhuman tyrant may never have been stuck on
Ceti Alpha V.
"It'll be fun to hear what Alex and Bob are thinking about Khan,"
Abrams said of their impending meetings to discuss sequel
plotlines. "The fun of this timeline is arguing that different
stories, with the same characters, could be equally if not more
compelling than what's been told before."
"[Khan and Kirk] exist — and while their history may not be exactly
as people are familiar with, I would argue that a person's
character is what it is," Abrams said of the notion that his Khan
could be just as evil, even if Kirk never stranded him on Ceti
Alpha V. "Certain people are destined to cross paths and come
together, and Khan is out there ... even if he doesn't have the
same issues."
Another intriguing possibility is that the door is seemingly open
once again for a William Shatner appearance, since the writers have
said that Chris Pine's Kirk won't die in the same manner as in the
original franchise and could live to be older.
"I wouldn't rule out anything," Abrams said of a possible flash-
forward that could make up for Shatner's near-miss inclusion in the
new film. "The point of creating this independent timeline is to
not have the restrictions we had coming into this one. And one of
those restrictions was that Kirk was dead."
"But this all assumes that there's another story that's going to be
told," Abrams cautioned, saying that there's a lot of work to be
done before such ideas can be sorted out. "We're all still coming
down from making this movie."
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611523/story.jhtml
People may lie, but the evidence rarely does.
