Jack_Bauer

I should point out that the sequel isn't greenlit. They've just commissioned a script and signed the same team.

Also all of the primary cast are signed for at least two sequels.

'Star Trek' sequel on track

Paramount hires trio to pen screenplay

By TATIANA SIEGEL

As Paramount Pictures readies the May 8 release of its "Star Trek" franchise relaunch, the studio is moving forward with a sequel, and has hired Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof to pen the screenplay.

 

J.J. Abrams, who directed and produced the latest chapter, is onboard to produce the follow-up alongside his Bad Robot partner Bryan Burk. No decision has been made yet on whether Abrams will return behind the camera for the sequel.

 

Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof also are receiving producing credit on the sequel.

 

Story is still in the embryonic stage, but the trio are aiming to deliver their script to the Melrose studio by Christmas for what would likely be a summer 2011 release.

 

"There's obviously a lot of hubris involved in signing on to write a sequel of a movie that hasn't even come out yet," said Lindelof, co-creator with Abrams of ABC's "Lost" who produced the upcoming "Trek" but did not contribute to Orci and Kurtzman's screenplay. "But we're so excited about the first one that we wanted to proceed."

 

As for potential storylines, Kurtzman stressed that the writing team will wait to take a cue from fan reaction about which direction to go.

 

"Obviously we discussed ideas, but we are waiting to see how audiences respond next month," he said. "With a franchise rebirth, the first movie has to be about origin. But with a second, you have the opportunity to explore incredibly exciting things. We'll be ambitious about what we'll do."

 

Though Orci and Kurtzman have worked together as a writing team for more than 12 years, the duo has worked with Lindelof on only one screenplay: DreamWorks' "Cowboys and Aliens," which they are currently writing together.

 

Paramount has high hopes for the "Star Trek" relaunch, and is pulling out all the stops on the marketing front. Studio began a full-scale campaign six months before the film's May bow.

An excellent vote of confidence. Also psyched about Lindelof being involved with the writing. His work on Lost has been fantastic, IMO.

Overall, the episode was disappointing. Typical of the hit-or-miss nature of Family Guy circa the seventh season. Not nearly enough of the TNG crew considering that they were the entire focus of the pre-episode advertising.

Futurama did it much better with Where No Fan Has Gone Before.

I read somewhere that TPTB at one time were toying with the idea of having the Vulcan on Enterprise be T'Pau, but they decided against it. I thought it would have been a cool idea to link the show with TOS.

That is true. The character was originally supposed to be a younger T'Pau. The producers realized that every time T'Pau's name was mentioned they would have to pay royalties to the original T'Pau actress so they settled on a different character and just used the actual T'Pau character later in the series.

I believe the royalties would have had to been paid to Theodore Sturgeon, who wrote Amok Time. I don't think actors have the same right, though I could be wrong.

It's the same reason that Tom Paris isn't just Nick Locarno. The producers would have had to have paid Naren Shankar and Ronald D. Moore (who wrote The First Duty).

As for the original question of T'Pol being Sarek's mother, possible but I'd say unlikely. If a future writer wanted to make that connection it'd be fine as nothing precludes it. However, as of right now there's not enough evidence.

Um, pretty sure insomnia wasn't Rip Van Winkle's problem. Actually, his problem would have been the exact opposite.

 

If your name is Rip Van Winkle, you really should get the joke right, IMO.

 

I think he was being ironic.

I suppose. Still not that funny though.

Um, pretty sure insomnia wasn't Rip Van Winkle's problem. Actually, his problem would have been the exact opposite.

If your name is Rip Van Winkle, you really should get the joke right, IMO.

I'm starting to think that we will be looking at this movie like the new Battlestar:Galactica. No relation to the original.

Doesn't quite work the same way. Battlestar Galactica is a clean break from the original. There are references and callbacks (especially in the design of the older Cylons) but it is not a continuation of the storyline.

Star Trek (XI) is a direct storyline continuation (as the villain comes from eight years past Nemesis) combined with an in universe reboot/timeline shift (primarily the destruction of the Kelvin and subsequent actions by Nero and their resulting after effects). It can't exist without everything that has come before it.

SPOILERS

The level of technology in this movie does have a logical explanation. Presumably Starfleet is going to identify the Romulans as the attackers of the Kelvin. That knowledge will force Starfleet to make more rapid improvements in their technology and that is also going to throw off things like the build date and location of the Enterprise. So in a sense, this movie is not a direct prequel to the events of TOS because some of them may not occur in this timeline. I guess its a prequel in the sense that it takes largely the same characters prior to the time we know them.

I think I'll have to go with Vaughn Armstrong, simply because he does have the record with thirteen different Star Trek characters (double counting a couple, I guess). And he's good in every one of them.

However, Combs is a very close second.

Thanks Jack. SPOILERS...

 

 

 

 

I wonder if that imploding planet is Romulus at the end of the Original Timeline or Vulcan of the New Timeline...?

Vulcan. I don't think Romulus' destruction will be depicted anywhere but the Countdown comic. It'll probably be referenced but will not be seen in the movie.

Up on the official site now (and available in HD)

www.startrekmovie.com

Sooooooo good.

So in essence Nero is just trying to create his own personal timeline?

Pretty much.

OK, there is just something about this new movie that I don't get.

 

The producers are saying that when Nero goes back in time that a new timeline splits off from his re-entry point. So what happens to the old, orginal timeline? Does it still exist in the sense that it has a physical form? Or is it simply a construct?

 

If Nero goes back in time to affect some change it would not affect the timeline that Nero came from, so what would be the point? Same goes for Spock's time travel.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think that, if time travel were to happen, then going back in time would indeed create a new timeline branching off from the existing one. (It wouldn't necessarily happen going forward in time so long as the time traveler never returned to the past or present.) However, it wouldn't make a very good movie plot unless there was also a way to merge all these separate timelines together.

In regards to the first point, the former timeline (i.e. the one Nero leaves) would still exist and continue after the new one branches off. It's like the TNG episode Parallels, every possible timeline exists, none less valid than the others. This movie is following the theory of time travel that states that when traveling back in time you enter an alternate timeline which is different from the original simply because you're there. It's not really your past, its a similar one that need not follow the same path. I think there is some belief that this is actually how time travel would really work because this theory eliminates paradoxes. To put it in pop culture terms, Marty McFly could never prevent his parents from meeting and thereby never be born. He could only prevent the birth of that timeline's Marty McFly.

Now, that doesn't make Nero's time travel pointless.

I don't what it is, I'm no good at physics but I seem to be able to keep timeline stuff pretty much straight in my head. Hopefully it makes sense in this post.

I believe the new movie is actually best classified as a prequel/sequel/reimagining.

Really, I think this is the best way to go. It doesn't wipe the slate clean but it provides a point of entry for new fans which is something that is absolutely needed.

You probably see a couple dozen people in any given Trek episode. It would be impossible to give them all screen time on the credits.

 

However, the determination of the order in the credits, or who gets credited and who doesn't, is a mystery.

 

Eddie Paskey, who played Lt. Leslie in TOS and often filled in for Shatner in rehersals (and is a member of startrekfans.net by the way) appeared in more episodes than Walter Koenig, but was rarely credited for it.

 

Then again, Paramount probably wishes they could undo the Andy Dick credit in Message in a Bottle.

It's hardly a mystery. Extras are never credited and neither are stand-ins (Paskey was both). The only credited parts are those that speak unless the actor requests that they not be credited (it happens). So unless Paskey were to speak he wouldn't be credited. Another prime example of this is Tarik Ergin who played Ayala on Voyager and is a regular Star Trek stand-in. He appeared in 119 episodes of Voyager but is only credited in two. The only two in which he speaks (Fury and Renaissance Man).

Additionally, I believe only members of the SAG can have speaking roles. So when King Abdullah of Jordan made an appearance on Voyager (Investigations) he couldn't speak on camera because he isn't an SAG member.

He's listed in the credits as Bill Mumy. I'll have to watch it again too but I'm pretty sure he gets killed in the episode.

 

It's also on his IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0612621/

He does die and I checked Memory Alpha, he is credited as Special Guest Star. Maybe that's where the confusion lies.

oh I'm sorry, I didn't put Kes and Tom on the list. I'll try to edit it to add them :o

 

EDIT: I guess it's too late for me to edit my first post to add to the poll. Perhaps a mod can add Kes/Tom to the list pretty please

Added. Sorry, it took so long.

Since this is the cotton candy factory - the idea was to give clues that were easy to find an answer to - some clues are clearly a reference to one and only one specific show - which kind of stalls the game unless someone happens to watch that specific show.

 

So unless it is a city like LA or NYNY it's better to use a larger reference. As for Canada - how many Americans do you think know all the provinces and territories much less individual cities? We know Vancouver because that's where so many tv series are filmed. :)

 

And is Eureka set in Oregon - I didn't think it ever said for certain if it was OR, WA or Northern CA?

Well, it is possible to find articles on Wikipedia that are titled "List of Television Shows set in..." and the one for Oregon lists Eureka.

I'm not especially offended by the Canada thing. I just find it a little insulting to put Canada on the same scale as a US State or even a US city. But I fully acknowledge that any more specific reference would probably kill the thread. Hell, I nearly did that with Toronto but somebody got that.

(Also, Flashpoint is now officially set Toronto as the city's name was clearly seen on the uniforms of paramedics in the last episode.)

Really no need to take this conversation any further, IMO. Let's continue the game.

Scranton, PA.

Eureka

(I realize it's not a real town, but that was the most prominent series I could find that was set in Oregon)

(and c'mon Canada? I thought it was city or state, not country. And also for the record, The Red Green show is set in the fictitious town of Possum Lake, Ontario )

Scranton, PA

Wow. I just find it odd that were that many Trek references this week, as both Fringe and Lost both referenced Trek this week as well (of course, that's to be expected with Abrams EP on both shows).

On Fringe, Olivia referred to a prisoner using a transporter to escape prison as "he just Star Trekked himself out of a German prison" or something to that extent.

On Lost, after it was revealed that Charlotte spoke Korean, Daniel asked her if she spoke any other languages and she jokingly said Klingon.

I've consulted with the OP and I have no inclination to close the thread at this time as long as it stays appropriate.

And to speak candidly, everyone needs to relax. Remember, it's just a TV show.

Alright, I'm responsible for this forum and I guess it's time for me to step in (as I should have done much earlier).

 

I have removed all references to Chinese penises and spinning from the thread and I will do the same to any future references. They're off-topic and inappropriate for the Voyager forum. I regret not doing so sooner.

 

As for the topic of the thread itself. I am inclined to agree with my fellow mod. I will not remove opposing opinions from this thread as long as they expressed in an appropriate manner and IMO, all comments about Kes, even if they are criticisms, have been thus far been expressed appropriately.

 

I can agree on that.

 

But if the original poster states that this is "for Kesfans only", shouldn't that be respected?

 

I must also state that a picture from "Fury" may be seen as provocative since almost all Kes fans hate that episode because of the attempt to character destruction in that episode.

First of all, I am not going to remove a screen cap of a Star Trek episode from a Star Trek message board, under almost any circumstances. I would only consider it if it had been modified in an inappropriate manner and in which case, it really wouldn't be a screen cap anymore.

As for the whole "Kesfans only" thing, I've reviewed the thread, no one has said that they hate Kes or not stated at least one positive aspect of her character. There have been some valid criticisms and I am going to allow that. That's my final word on the subject.

Alright, I'm responsible for this forum and I guess it's time for me to step in (as I should have done much earlier).

I have removed all references to Chinese penises and spinning from the thread and I will do the same to any future references. They're off-topic and inappropriate for the Voyager forum. I regret not doing so sooner.

As for the topic of the thread itself. I am inclined to agree with my fellow mod. I will not remove opposing opinions from this thread as long as they expressed in an appropriate manner and IMO, all comments about Kes, even if they are criticisms, have been thus far been expressed appropriately.

Now I have even greater reason to look forward to Watchmen. It really is a nice pairing and I've been hoping for a third trailer. I really like the first two but some official sense of story (i.e. aside from spoilers) would be welcomed.

I'll say Dexter.

Washington D.C.