The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > J Michael Straczynski Reboot?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-20-2008, 10:48 PM
Captain Tightpants's Avatar
Captain Tightpants Captain Tightpants is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glendale, CA.
Posts: 89
Default J Michael Straczynski TOS Reboot?

As I understand it in 2004 JMS was approached about taking over the ratings-challenged ENT and declined, but he and Bryce Zabel offered a proposal to reboot TOS instead. Those of you who are interested can read about it here:

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/fi...2004Reboot.pdf

Although I've never really been a Babylon 5 fan, I was intrigued by the idea. It seemed to have great potential to revitalize the franchise and I really thought it addressed everything I felt had been missing from TNG and the subsequent spinoffs. I'm sorry the powers that be didn't take him up on it. And I still wonder if the genesis of the new movie weren't in that proposal.
__________________
"The fact that he would have passed up a visit to the Louvre or the Prado in favour of ten minutes alone with a knicker catalogue—this, perhaps, was a personal quirk."—Martin Amis, London Fields

Last edited by Captain Tightpants : 02-29-2008 at 09:37 PM. Reason: OCD
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-21-2008, 05:48 AM
DS9TREK DS9TREK is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England, UK
Posts: 172
Default

Worse idea ever IMO.

I mean, making the Prime Directive the aim of gaining alien weapons technology? That's a liberty too far in my book.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-21-2008, 06:15 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Default

I saw the JMS plan a long time ago, didn't like it much. Very un-Trek-like.
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-21-2008, 06:15 AM
Lady Vaako's Avatar
Lady Vaako Lady Vaako is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: William Shatner's birthplace (seriously)
Posts: 878
Default

Interesting ideas and I wouldn't be surprised if somehow this is the kind of concept that we will see in the new movie. I have to agree with DS9TREK though regarding the Prime Directive: you do not mess with something so big and important. This is one of the foundations of Star Trek and changing it completely would just P.O. a lot of people. You can't just throw the Prime Directive out the window and still call the series "Star Trek". It would be preposterous. And turning Scotty into a woman?! Nooooo! It was bad enough when they did that with Starbuck in BSG... Major characters undergoing a sex change is a bad idea all around.
__________________
Uhura - "And here I thought you were just some dumb hick who only had sex with farm animals."
Kirk -
"Well... not only..."


Last edited by Lady Vaako : 02-21-2008 at 09:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-21-2008, 06:55 AM
flyer00jay's Avatar
flyer00jay flyer00jay is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In Space
Posts: 137
Default

I'm not a fan of changing the sex of main characters.
If you want a female engineer (just an example), create a new exciting person that we can get to know, don't just mess with Scotty and call it right.
Some of the other ideas were ok though.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-21-2008, 11:46 AM
Captain Tightpants's Avatar
Captain Tightpants Captain Tightpants is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glendale, CA.
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS9TREK View Post
I mean, making the Prime Directive the aim of gaining alien weapons technology? That's a liberty too far in my book.
Here's what it says about the Prime Directive:

"This Prime Directive states simply that it is the mission of the Starship Enterprise is to do whatever is necessary to find this long-lost race, and discover the truth about the common origin of all life forms everywhere, the truth that will unite a galaxy."

Trying to "unite a galaxy" seems very Trek to me. And I don't necessarily think that this means they'd have been throwing the non-interference stuff out the window. It could easily still be General Order 1. Although, it wouldn't be a big deal to me if they did get rid of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Vaako View Post
And turning Scotty into a woman?! Nooooo! It was bad enough when they did that with Starbuck in BSG... Major characters undergoing a sex change is a bad idea all around.
Here's what it says about Scotty:

"...but what if Scotty was a female character (just an example!), proof positive that in the future women equally excel in science and math?

Our point is simply this: the fun, the excitement and the passion of the re-boot is in the imagining of the alternative."

The operative words are "what if." They're not saying unequivocally that this is something they would do. It's "(just an example!)."
__________________
"The fact that he would have passed up a visit to the Louvre or the Prado in favour of ten minutes alone with a knicker catalogue—this, perhaps, was a personal quirk."—Martin Amis, London Fields

Last edited by Captain Tightpants : 02-24-2008 at 10:33 PM. Reason: OCD
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-21-2008, 01:36 PM
_Eris_'s Avatar
_Eris_ _Eris_ is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado/Kurill Prime, Gamma Quadrant
Posts: 507
Default

Yea...I don't know. I'm a big B5 fan, but you can't just mix JMS and Trek together...
They're both good franchises for different reasons...I would not be against a mirror
universe series, though...Only way his idea could work.
__________________

"It might not be so bad. For all we know the Vorta could be gluttonous, alcoholic sex maniacs."
~Quark and Ziyal
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-25-2008, 04:27 AM
ctiii ctiii is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tightpants View Post
As I understand it in 2004 JMS was approached about taking over the ratings-challenged ENT and declined, but he and Bryce Zabel offered a proposal to reboot TOS instead. Those of you who are interested can read about it here:

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/fi...2004Reboot.pdf

Although I've never really been a Babylon 5 fan, I was intrigued by the idea. It seemed to have great potential to revitalize the franchise and I really thought it addressed everything I felt had been missing from TNG and the subsequent spinoffs. I'm sorry the powers that be didn't take him up on it. And I still wonder if the genesis of the new movie weren't in that proposal.
1. this seems fake-ish
2. the premise sounds boring and it was done in part already in TNG with the whole DNA common ancestory thing
3. they wouldnt need to "reboot" trek to do this...why not make it a section 31 operation of the true Trek canon that we've come to know today?

a reboot of trek in any form, series, movie...with whatever crew...is completely unnecessary: when studios do a reboot of any franchise it either means the franchise has run out of stories to tell and has no direction left in which to go, or the original is so outdated that they feel without a more modern look no one would watch it anymore. neither of those is true for trek.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2008, 05:06 PM
Captain Tightpants's Avatar
Captain Tightpants Captain Tightpants is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glendale, CA.
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctiii View Post
1. this seems fake-ish
2. the premise sounds boring and it was done in part already in TNG with the whole DNA common ancestory thing
3. they wouldnt need to "reboot" trek to do this...why not make it a section 31 operation of the true Trek canon that we've come to know today?

a reboot of trek in any form, series, movie...with whatever crew...is completely unnecessary: when studios do a reboot of any franchise it either means the franchise has run out of stories to tell and has no direction left in which to go, or the original is so outdated that they feel without a more modern look no one would watch it anymore. neither of those is true for trek.
I guess you never know, but I've never heard this document's authenticity called into question. If it were a fake, you'd think that Zabel or JMS or somebody would have made a point to say so and to my knowledge they haven't. And it's pretty hard for me to believe they aren't aware of it. If it is a fake, whoever wrote it really knew what they were doing. Even if you don't care for the content, in terms of form, it's well done.

Boring is a pretty subjective term. One man's trash, as they say. And the fact that the idea originates in established canon is exactly the point.

Of course it isn't necessary to reboot Star Trek. It isn't necessary to make movies at all. Any movies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Sure they could do another TNG movie or a movie that takes place in the TNG era with a new crew on a new ship that perfectly preserves existing canon. But in view of the franchise's steadily declining box office appeal over the last few years, is that really the best way to attract new fans and get Star Trek back on its feet? A reboot allows Paramount to distance the franchise from some of the failures of the last few years (e.g. Insurrection, Nemesis, ENT) and attract new fans, hopefully, without totally alienating its core fan base. A reboot is the easiest, most effective way of telling people that they are getting something different, but also the same. All the good stuff you like; none of the bad stuff you don't. God knows it's worked pretty well for James Bond and Batman. I really think it's too soon to reboot TNG. The iconic nature of TOS and the fact that it's more than 40 years old make it the obvious choice. But then, not everyone agrees.
__________________
"The fact that he would have passed up a visit to the Louvre or the Prado in favour of ten minutes alone with a knicker catalogue—this, perhaps, was a personal quirk."—Martin Amis, London Fields

Last edited by Captain Tightpants : 03-01-2008 at 05:24 PM. Reason: OCD
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:48 PM
T.'.'s Avatar
T.'. T.'. is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA, UE, UFP
Posts: 6
Default

T.'.

I believe Straczynski was the one who revealed his rejected proposal in the first place.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.