Rumors Fly About Plot Of Star Trek XI

Harve's a great producer who did an amazing job with ST II through IV when the series was considered DOA after the first motion picture. That said the idea of a prequel is not something he *owns.* Especially considering ST: Enterprise was a psuedo-prequel already. Playing into the game of public opinion like this is a bad call. Because after STIV, Harve also produced ST V which is easily the worst of the original cast films. So he had his chance with the baton.

Swallow your pride and give the new blood a chance, Harve. Calling up the WGA and suing for a piece of the action when you clearly have nothing but a coincidental right here is not a great way to ride off into the sunset. You'll always be fondly remembered for co-creating Wrath of Khan but now it's starting to sound like sour grapes.

Reply

No, Harve Bennett doesn't "own" the idea of either a Star Trek prequel or the concept of Starfleet Academy. What he *does* own is a script that he wrote and submitted to Paramount containing certain story elements. If a new film should happen to appear that contains elements substantially resembling those of his script ("substantially" being a key word here, such as similarity of dialogue, plot, etc.), then Bennett would have cause to suspect plagiarism.

THAT's what Bennett is concerned about, and to my mind he's perfectly within his rights. It has nothing to do with "sour grapes" or some perceived attempt to cash in on public opinion.

I It's worth adding that Bennett's a respected producer who's more than proven his worth time and time again on a myriad of projects, not simply the four Trek films with which he was involved, and doesn't especially need to claim some kind of false ownership to enhance a body of work that speaks for itself. So let's go easy on the Trekkie-fanboy, "defend-my-beloved-franchise against all potential slights" attitude, whaddya say?

Reply

I can't..... see... Matt Damon... as... Kirk

Reply

How can they get Matt Damon to play a ~young~ Kirk?! He's older than the Kirk of the original series!!

Reply

Scott- with all due respect J.J. Abrams is a good writer and nobody's fool. Why would he knowingly lift one word from an old script of Bennett's? Not gonna happen.

My point is that if Bennett believes the idea of a Starfleet Academy or any sort of school or initial meeting of Kirk and Spock meeting are somehow his property he's just wrong. By nature of what has come after, those events are canon and *have* to happen if you're doing a prequel.

Another example- if someone pitched a film about Spock's birth would they then own the rights to any film about Spock's birth because they created the concept of Spock being born? Of course not. He has to be born at some point. Now of course if every line of dialog in that pitch is lifted and plagiarized then you'd have something. But if J.J. is known for anything it's for having an original voice. Why he'd lean on Harve's script for plots and dialogue is beyond me.

My point is that Bennett is just wanting a piece of the action on a film that shares zero with his aborted project other than what is the ultimately inevitable prequel concept. If it's not a sequel and you somehow want to retain some form of continuity it's the last logical step. I'd say this approach has far more in common with the new Batman and James Bond films in approach than with the old ideas of Harve Bennett. So just let go and let god, sir.

Reply

aiden, I actually like the choices that have been floated out so far for all the characters we know and love. Regardless of the age differences I don't think that matters as much as the story being told. Matt Damon has proven himself to be a viable action hero in more than one role and he has honed his acting chops sufficiently to rank as one of the premier actors of his generation.

If JJ Abrams wants to duplicate Mr. Shatner's wooden acting & dialogue delivery style however, then Matt Damon is the wrong choice. He'd be much better off to choose Matt's buddy Ben Affleck.

http://www.myspace.com/scoobarama

Reply