One highly anticipated science fiction movie to be directed by J.J. Abrams and scheduled for release December 25, 2008 is Star Trek with Matt Damon lined up to be Captain James Tiberius Kirk. I have a feeling that a new "original" generation of Star Trekkers will accept this prequel and will add to the franchise.

I'm looking forward to the development of this movie. As one of the audience members who grew up with the original television series, if this movie can follow in the footsteps of the spin-off series and movies, Christmas '08 will be quite a starry night.

Hmm. This is the first I've heard of this. I like Abrams and Damon, but the original Star Trek is so campy. J.J.'s got his work cut out for him. Subsequent Star Trek series (i.e. The Next Generation), Firefly/Serenity, and the recent Battlestar Galactica have rendered the original Star Trek pretty lame as far as science fiction goes.

quote:

ericg75
Jedi
Posted 29 May 2007 06:00 AM Hide Post
Hmm. This is the first I've heard of this. I like Abrams and Damon, but the original Star Trek is so campy. J.J.'s got his work cut out for him. Subsequent Star Trek series (i.e. The Next Generation), Firefly/Serenity, and the recent Battlestar Galactica have rendered the original Star Trek pretty lame as far as science fiction goes.

Like with music, I suspect personal preferences can become frozen by generation (time periods). For example, I still enjoy the music I grew up with as a teenager (actually in my twenties) so the music from the sixties and seventies. So too with Star Trek, even with its campy style and poor (compared to today's standards) special effects and cheap set designs, I came to enjoy the original characters and some of the plots have resonated deeply then and even now. If one experienced this series when they were new and the series was enjoyed and brought pleasurable satisfaction, even today to see reruns brings back the same emotional buttons even though most people viewing this series now would likely find it pretty lame.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Hmm. This is the first I've heard of this. I like Abrams and Damon, but the original Star Trek is so campy. J.J.'s got his work cut out for him. Subsequent Star Trek series (i.e. The Next Generation), Firefly/Serenity, and the recent Battlestar Galactica have rendered the original Star Trek pretty lame as far as science fiction goes.

???

The foundation of all science fiction television has been rendered 'lame,' eh? O k a y . . .

I think it should definitely be interesting to see what Abrams does with it. The franchise as a whole needed a break from the continuing sagas, so I can see how a "reboot" could work for the better similar to the way Nolan re-energized the Batman series.

As far as "lame", well, in comparison I would tend to agree TOS suffers next to Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, or even The Next Generation. But tabuno's point is valid as well - it's entirely possible to acknowledge the shortcomings of a favorite while still recognizing its value or place in history. Some seem to forget TOS had some established SF authors contributing stories - Theodore Sturgeon, Norman Spinrad, and Harlan Ellison, to name just a few. For all its camp and negligible effects budget, it managed to create a lasting franchise that has thrived over forty years and many incarnations.

quote:

Originally posted by Ed D.:
As far as "lame", well, in comparison I would tend to agree TOS suffers next to Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, or even The Next Generation.

It's a cultural difference, though, and that's nothing really substantive when the analogy is drawn. What TOS means to folks is -- in most respects -- predicated on when it aired. It stood for something entirely different than anything that's come before. TNG, on the other hand, was a mild reboot of TOS based on culturally significant norms for the mid-80's to mid-90's. FIREFLY? I still don't understand why that show means so much to folks. nuBSG? I'm indifferent b/c the show, in some respects, feels like a retread of SPACE:ABOVE & BEYOND or even STARSHIP TROOPERS. That's not to say that I don't enjoy it. There are times when it feels entirely derrivative (sp?) of other sci fi shows. I never felt that way with TOS.

The Next Big Star Trek news ?!?!

Found this on Comingsoon.net this afternoon ...

Quinto Confirmed for Spock in Star Trek?
Source: E! Online July 24, 2007


E! Online is reporting that "Heroes" star Zachary Quinto (he plays Sylar) is close to being confirmed for the role of Spock in the J.J. Abrams-directed Star Trek:

Zachary Quinto's chances of being Spock in the upcoming Star Trek film are looking extremely good. I hear the deal is about to close. Best. Casting. Ever.

Update: Jen here. Following up on K.G.'s brilliant scoop, I checked with a source who confirms that the Zachary Quinto-as-Spock contract is with the business affairs team at Paramount. Business affairs is generally considered the last stop on the deal-negotiation train. The deal only awaits sign-off from outside counsel. Squee.

Leonard Nimoy originated the role in the 1966 series. Star Trek hits theaters Christmas Day 2008.

USA Today is reporting that Leonard Nimoy has agreed to be in the new 2008 movie as Spock while Zachary Quinto is slated to play a younger Spock.

Great news, but I hope JJ doesn't go thru all of the original cast and have stand alone young/old flicks for each.

There was some mention that William Shatner was interested in signing on.

Actually, Shatner passed after a meeting with JJ, from what I recall.

As huge of a Star Trek fan as I have been for all of my life, (I am 44)and through all of it's incarnations. I am going to have to say that a reboot is totaly ludicris. and as much as it pains me to say...if they can't make it work in the present continuem...enough is enough and allow James T Kirk to rest in peace.