From syfyportal, How does Rod Roddenberry, son of the late Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, feel about the upcoming prequel movie? According to a transcript of a podcast reported on by SciFi Pulse, he's got some reservations.
"I am concerned about them doing a prequel because it's always tricky to do one," said Roddenberry, who manages the family business at Roddenberry.com. "There were a lot of issues with ['Star Trek: Enterprise'] because it was going against established continuity. That's always tough."
Roddenberry hasn't seen a script, and he doesn't think CBS/Paramount will ask him to read it. His father sold the rights to Star Trek to Paramount in the mid-1980s.
"Paramount does not have to give me a script; so no one has to give me one to read to get my approval," Roddenberry said. "I would like to read it, but I think they know that I speak my mind for the most part."
Roddenberry said he has met J.J. Abrams, the creative force behind the next Trek film.
"I don't know the guy really. I've met him a couple of times, and he seems like a great writer," Roddenberry said. "From what I hear when I talk to people, he's got the mind to write Star Trek. He knows Star Trek, he's a fan. I think he gets it. So am very happy that he is doing it and I believe he's got a lot of creative control on it."
How would he have done things if he had been in charge of the franchise the last few years?
"First of all I would have kept 'Enterprise' on for a couple more seasons because it was doing better" in the ratings, Roddenberry said. "But then after that was over I probably would have let the franchise rest for five, 10 and maybe even 15 years because there's enough Star Trek in circulation to go round and round."
The next Star Trek film is due in theaters on Dec. 25, 2008.
8 comments:
Agreed.
Is there any other franchise that people suggest should "rest" for a bunch of years?
I can kind of see the point of it, that during a period when there's nothing new happening people might get hungry for more, but that sort of passive marketing just doesn't happen. Trek's earlier rest had nothing at all to do with planning, nor can I ever see that being the case.
And they probably shouldn't have named the kid Rod. I wonder if he was taunted as "Rod Rod" when he was a kid. I wonder if there's a way I can taunt him like that now.
How about Nimrod?
The "James Bond" franchise HAS "rested" more than once. Nobody made a big speech about it, but the delay between License to Kill (1989) and Goldeneye (1995) was a deliberate "rest" while they got their heads together, man.
Star Trek Nemesis (2002) to Star Trek (2008) is exactly the same delay -- seven years. It's just that everyone's making big speeches about the "important rest period"; that's the only difference.
Return on the Jedi was 1983 and AOTC was 1999 - that's a hell of a rest! See also Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Indiana Jones and (whatever the hell the new one is called).
"Nimrod" = too much like Nimoy = confusing
How could there even be a "Kingdom of Crystal Skulls?" It doesn't make any sense intrinsically. There are a lot of skulls made of crystal, I get that; but how is it a "kingdom"?
Obviously the skulls themselves are not "in charge" in any regal way, but there must be a King, must there not? At least a vestigial royal structure. Maybe it's just a normal kingdom (with a King) but the entire place is best known for its astonishing collection of crystal skulls, so thats its colloquial title.
Meanwhile we're going to be hearing DVD commentary from ILM guys explaining that they "kept getting camera reflections in the crystal skulls."
I wonder if Spielberg is thinking, "Crystal Skulls...Jesus. Let's just get this one over with so I can go make the Lindbergh movie."
Post a Comment