Det forlyder nu at William Shatner, Patrick Stewart og Scott Bakula i en kommende “Star Trek” film skal spille hver deres respektive kaptajn, fra hver deres tid i “Star Trek” universet.

Hvordan dette tidsparadoks skal kunne lade sig gøre indbefatter angiveligt at handlingen kommer til at foregå i et parallelt univers, der er blevet set i både “Star Trek: Enterprise” og “Star Trek: The Next Generation”.

Oprindeligt var handlingen tiltænkt et afsnit af “Enterprise”-serien, men det blev udskudt, da Shatner blev forhindret, og da tiden var til det, var serien blevet annulleret.

En kilde fra det kommende projekt udtaler ”Idéerne til de pågældende afsnit indarbejdes i stedet i den nye film”.



Vis kommentarer (29)
Gravatar

#21 azathoth 18 år siden

Hvad skal man dog med Star Trek når der er Battlestar Galactica??? ;)
This is not the signature you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along!
Gravatar

#22 filmz-Bruce 18 år siden

#21 Enhver hovedret efterfølger en forret :)
Wishlist hos Axelmusic: http://www.axelmusic.com/wishlist.php?uid=11140
Gravatar

#23 filmz-Raven_ 18 år siden

#8 Well said

Tror ikke det plot kan andet end at floppe! Glem TOS og ENG og kom videre, ikke underligt at ST flopper for tiden. Det kører jo i stampe.
Gravatar

#24 filmz-cko 18 år siden

Star Trek døde næsten med Roddenberry....
........................................
"If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't"
Gravatar

#25 trekster 18 år siden

#21
Havde der ikke været Star Trek, havde der med stor sandsynlighed heller ikke været "Battlestar Galactica", som for øvrigt er en KANON fed serie (2003 versionen selvfølgelig :))
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
Gravatar

#26 filmz-Bruce 18 år siden

#25 Hvorfor ikk'? :)
Wishlist hos Axelmusic: http://www.axelmusic.com/wishlist.php?uid=11140
Gravatar

#27 trekster 18 år siden

#26
Fordi Ronald D. Moore, som står bag den nye "Battlestar Galactica" fik sit gennembrud som skribent for "Star Trek: The Next Generation" og senere "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". Havde han aldrig arbejdet med scifi på et seriøst plan, som han gjorde her, så var han sikkert ikke kommet videre med sine idéer for den nye BSG serie - hvis han da overhovedet var kommet på idéen :). I et parallelt univers kunne begivenhederne muligvis være forløbet således, for lige at komme tilbage til emnet omkring handlingen i den nye Star Trek film ;)
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
Gravatar

#28 filmz-Bruce 18 år siden

#2 Ja Ron Moores BSG er meget affødt af hans arbejde med Star Trek, men ikke så meget som en viderførelse, men en distancering fra Star Trek, som flere interviews har vidnet om (og her kommer, undskyld, en lang smøre fra et par interviews med Moore):

Q: Having watched Star Trek for many years, and now an avid Galactica watcher; I have noticed unlike the Star Trek shows of the past...we know little about how Galactica works. We don't know much about her engines at all, what powers the ship..weapons. Is this an intentional effort to steer Battlestar Galactica away from the technobabble Star Trek would often be muddled in and focus time exclusively on the characters of the show? Will we learn and see more of Galactica in the future?"

A: I did want to stay away from the technobabble that I felt sometimes swamped the characters in Trek, and so I have intentionally avoided discussion of the technical workings of Galactica. Bit by bit, however, small windows into the inner workings do come to light and I'm sure will continue to do so in the future. Also, in all honesty, the writing staff often felt that the technological detail of the Enterprise was as limiting on Trek as it was helpful. We'd established so much about the way the engines worked and didn't work that we sometimes found ourselves discarding perfectly good story ideas or scenes because it contradicted some bit of jargon we'd tossed out two seasons before. There was always the option to write around those kind of details, of course, but inevitably, the thought of yet more tech-talk to justify doing what we wanted to do became a real irritant and we'd usually just try a different approach.

Q: Does traditional science fiction remain relevant today?

A: I don't think so. I mean, I worked at Star Trek for a long time, and I'm very proud of what we did there. There's certainly episodes of Star Trek in all its incarnations that were social commentary, that said things about humanity, but I don't think they really relate to the here and now anymore.

Star Trek and those shows became very stylised and specific in their versions of Starfleet and the Federation and what the future is like. That distances the audience from the drama, in my opinion.

What we did with Galactica was strip away a lot of the artifice. We didn't want space clothes, and we didn't want space hair. All these things tend to hold the audience at bay. A new viewer to these properties comes in and goes, "Well, what does a chair look like in this world, and oh wow, that's a lamp!"

There's this whole vocabulary, visual and otherwise, that you have to get up to speed on. At some level that's part of the fun of science fiction, the escapist quality of it, but it also distances you from what's going on.

For instance, in the Galactica mini-series, when the Cylons attack the colonists, they attack them with thermonuclear weapons. They don't attack them with lasers and photon torpedoes, and strange things that don't exist.

When you see a planet nuked, and you see those mushroom clouds, and hear about the destruction of entire cities by nuclear weapons, that is a much more terrifying and frightening idea than if you're saying fifteen thousand photon torpedoes were launched at Caprica. One is real and one is not.

Q: How did you make the military atmosphere so much more convincing than in, say, Star Trek?

A: Starfleet in the Original Star Trek series was played more like an actual military ship than it was in later incarnations. As Star Trek went on, Star Fleet got more and more of a social animal, and became a large bureaucracy rather than a military organisation.

With Galactica, I wanted it to be true to a military aesthetic. It's also one of my interests, one of the things that drew me to the project. I'm an amateur historian, interested in naval history in particular.

I've studied a lot about the [aircraft] carrier battles of the Pacific in the Second World War, and my father's a veteran of the Vietnam war. I'm very interested in military affairs and military history. So I brought a lot of that knowledge and that interest to the project.

The actors were all put through a boot camp, and there was a military advisor on the set. It was important to us that that all had a sense of truth to it.


Jeg er stødt på mange eksempler fra Ron Moore interviews omkring hans irritation omkring den udvikling Star Trek havde, ikke at han ikke er stolt over hans arbejde på serien, men BSG er nærmest skabt på baggrund af det han ikke kunne gøre med Star Trek, en helt anden retning for et univers.
Wishlist hos Axelmusic: http://www.axelmusic.com/wishlist.php?uid=11140
Gravatar

#29 filmz-Kadann 18 år siden

Man kan jo også sagtens se at manden har en pointe.. Star Trek mangler altså noget nyt og spændende, hvilket dræbte Enterprise.

De først 1-2 sæsoner af Enterprise er mere eller mindre samme slags historier som i TOS og TNG, ikke noget nyt der.. og da først man så blev presset, så blev der smidt den ene konflikt efter den anden ind i billedet.

Jeg holder af Enterprise og en del af Star Trek universet, men nytænkning er desværre ikke det der er mest af.. og det er både godt og skidt.
http://www.modkraft.dk - http://www.ungeren.dk - http://www.christiania.org

Skriv ny kommentar: