Check out the link - WARNING - some swearing by the posters.

http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=21953#1041209

I love the comment showing the USS Berman being destroyed by the Borg. Blow up the USS Braga too.

I think Singer would be able to get the Franchise back on track.

Link from scifi.com

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=33540

Harvey: I think Singer would be able to get the Franchise back on track.
Luigi Novi: Compared to B&B, hell, Ed Wood could get the franchise back on track!

I'd like to see an entire movie based on "The Mirror Universe" or an all-female crew (Like my "Aphrodite" idea.)

OH YES! Actually, I would like an Aphrodite series on Skinemax to make it VERY interesting!

A Mirror Mirror movie would be great! DO NOT do something stupid like a Starfleet Academy movie - the last thing we need is Starfleet: 90210!

I would like to see a DS9 movie. Unfortunately, the way the series ended, I doubt it could happen. Even a Voyager movie would be good as long as we got Jeri Ryan back into the catsuit!

And I will say it again - an Captain Sulu Excelsior movie/series would be great!

Peter David's books would make great movies - Vendetta for example.

And I agree with Luigi - Ed Wood would be preferable to those two idiots, the Killer B's.

Hopefully, Singer will come on board.

And I will say it again - an Captain Sulu Excelsior movie/series would be great!

I think the recent revelations make this scenario all but impossible now... Star Trek fans like to consider themselves "enlightened", but if this went ahead you would hear a bigger uproar than when they had the audacity to hire a bald Captain.

Come now, Influx. If Star Trek can't handle having an openly gay actor -- if the show that cast black people and Asians and Russians back in the 60s when at various times white America was hostile to all of them can't handle an openly gay actor in the year 2005 -- then Star Trek needs to die.

I think Takei's history with the series would be on his side - at least where the fans are concerned. He's Sulu. We've known him all these years. We know him. We're comfortable with Takei as Sulu because he's a familiar face. I'm not sure he's sexuality would be a liability to him as much as his age would be.

Live long and prosper.

[FUTURAMA]
We need an series based on Welshy and his adventures!
[/FUTURAMA]

Benn has a good post. I don't really care about Takei being gay. I really don't. And Matthew is right - if Star Trek fans can't handle this, then Trek does need to die.

Remember Sulu isn't gay.

Read the novel The Sundered. Great story! Sulu was Captain, Chekov was First Officer, Rand and Tuvok were there. That story, more than anything else, convinced me that a Sulu series could work. Besides, wouldn't it be great seeing Sulu match wits with Kang and Koloth again? Even Col. Worf could appear.

There are so many stories that could be told about the era between ST 6 and TNG. And if the guy who was the producer for the final season of Enterprise was on board, what's not to like?

When do we get to write the time travel episode?

Don't forget a holodeck episode too.

And an episode where we totally flush the early history of Star Trek down the toliet. All in the name of a good story mind you.

Don't blame Manny for that. He did his best to correct the timeline!

Toliet? Is that adjacent to Joliet?

I don't want to see another Star Trek film.

1. They aren't that good. 2 was the only great one. 3,4,6,7, and 8 are enjoyable, but really nothing special. (Yes, four was a good movie, but it's only because of the chemistry. Other than that, it's about talking whales.)

2. Define Star Trek. Is it a cast of actors? A production team? A series of copy-rights owned by Paramount Studios? A set of ideals about the future? An American TV show?

for your number 2, star trek is defined by the fans. Star Trek only survived because of the fans, not because of some clever writing, some good acting etc. but because the actions, opinions of the fans.

It is they who define what star trek is. Writers and actors try to cater to the fans. sometimes, their idea of what star trek is is just like the fans, other times its not... which explains why it died.

Well, I have to disagree, since often, fans don't know squat. It makes no sense to say that the actions of the fans and the actions of the creators are mutually exclusive, as if they exist in some sort of Either-Or equation. It is reasonable to point out that the fans would not have bothered "saving" Trek if the creators had not created something in Trek that the fans liked. That's one of the fundamentals of a free market; A product will be more likely to exist if the public wants it. The fans wouldn't want it if the writers and actors and directors and etc. didn't make it good enough for them to want. It makes no sense to me, therefore, to say that it's one or the other, since both operate as part of a feedback loop.

But this is a far cry from saying that the fans "define" it. They may define their own personal visions of what is and isn't Trek (i.e.: "I don't consider NextGen/DS9/Enterprise to be Trek", or "I consider the novels to be canon", etc.), but they do not have the power to make the property sellable or unsellable. Only creators who do good or lousy work do that. Fans ultimately vote with their wallets/viewing time to make the property financially successful. But the creators make it creatively so.

Torque: Well, you missed my point. Okay, true. If Paramount made a sci-fi film about Will Smith fighting aliens and decided to call it "Star Trek," it would be up to the fans to decide if it was actually Star Trek. Yes, if Trekkies didn't accept Next Gen as Trek, it would have died. That's not the point, however. The point is, what is Star Trek, and what would be in a movie based on Star Trek?

Look, the whole point of the Star Trek films is that Trekkers and the general studio audiance are willing to pay to see future adventures of the Crew of the Starship Enterprise, and it's sucessors. Now, you don't have a series for that. Next Gen could make a comeback, but if I remember correctly, half the cast wanted off a few years ago, and the last two films weren't that good. DS9 is pretty much considered a evolutionary dead end for the Franchise by the TPTB. A Voyager movie would (besides Dark Frontier) make no sense, unless it was set during the Journey home. That leaves Enterprise, which wasn't trusted with it's own Series Finale. So basically, any Star Trek film would be start from scratch. Which to me, just sounds like making another Science fiction film, except it's called Star Trek.

My point was that the fans can't make up their own minds about what star trek is or should be so the creators can't produce something worth watching. Anyway...

For a future movie, why must it deal with the Federation? It would take some clever writing, but I think a movie could be done from the point of view of the Klingons, or the Vulcans or some other species.

Apropos to your question, Matt, I think the setting and the underlying ideals of Roddenberry's (though not all of them) define Trek. And secondarily, the characters.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/16/apontv.williamshatner.ap/index.html

No, you're still wrong... its William Shatner who defines it.

(I'm just joking btw)

Luigi: Well, I would agree, except that Trek has deviated from Roddenbury's ideals on many different occasions, namely in DS9, and those episodes are more entertaining than "Spock shoots JFK". But Humans trying to overcome the human condition, yeah it's still the core of Trek.

I think that DS9 still upheld Roddenberry's core ideals, if not all of them. If anything, it's far more accurate, IMO, to say that Voyager deliberately abandoned them.

i would agree, and then state they were an important counterbalance to TNG's protrale of a perfect, flawless future. But I do think EWR would have hated it. But that could be said about half the Trek canon. His work had a grasp of things greater than it.

Voyager, on the other hand, was a parody of Star Trek's ideals.

Actually, Matt, EWR approved DS9 before his death.

Luigi N: I think the most objectionable seasons of DS9 come in seasons 3-7, with an emphasis on the Dominion War Arc. I mean, I thought they were great television, I think they stand amoung Trek's Finest Hours. But the thesis is that Roddenbury would have hated them for marring his glorious future.

Actionally, I think I have a solution for this Star Trek dispute. Make a reality show for the CW, called, "Who wants Brannon Braga's old job" and show 13, 90 minute Trek potential Series Pliots. The contestants would be the contending parties for the future of Trek. If Takei wants his Sulu series, or Singer wants his outcast series, or if Denise Crosby and Wil Wheaton want a chance to correct old mistakes, or Majel wants to reduce Star Trek to a boring talkfest like Earth Final Conflict, or if Ron Moore wants his Klingon series, or the Babylon Five guy wants to make, erm, whatever the heck that show was about, or if Bruce Timm wants an animated trek, or Joss Wheaton wants a series entirely comprised of the cast of Firefly with that guy who played Andrew in Season 6 of Buffy, let them at. Who ever produces the best examplar, as judged by a panel of Paramount executives and Trek historical figures (Bob Justman, William Shatner et alt) and voted on by the fans. It's a win win situation.

Again, I believe I read that Roddenberry approved the DS9 concept before his death, and that they had the arc more or less planned out ahead of time.

Matt, I couldn't disagree with you more. DS9 was almost unwatchable until they got the Defiant in Season 3. In my opinion, with Seasons 3-7, DS9 is the best series of all of the spinoffs. I wish that they would do a DS9 movie as I would like to see more of those characters.