Submitted by scifiwriterb on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 1:20am

Woohoo! I've learned that the earlier news about Trek XI is incorrect. More details're at

At this point Abrams still seems to be leaning towards doing a story set during the time of Kirk. It MIGHT turn out OK, but this is not taking a bold new step in the future with the Trek franchise.

Gene Roddenberry didn't always go in the right direction with Trek, but watching how Trek is being twisted about gives me food for thought regarding making one's story ideas the property of a studio whose leadership changes every few months.

Unlike Lucas, Roddenberry didn't own his own company, so Trek didn't necessarily pass into good hands after his passing. There have been some excellent people, though, like Harve Bennet, Ron Moore, and Michael Pillar. Along with some not so hot producers, who dragged Trek into the ground and ran it off the air. Berman and Braga come to mind.

As a fan with no input in Trek's direction, one can only watch how things develop over the next few years.

Being an Alias fan, I've come to notice that Abrams and his disciples don't like to let go of the past. They're constantly trying to revisit the dynamics of Seasons 1 & 2, which they destroyed in Season 3 and tried to resurrect in Season 4 only to toss it all aside again by killing/firing Michael Vartan's character, and then bring him back in the last few episodes of Alias. First they couldn't let go of Irina Derevko, now it's Michael Vaughn. What sort of plan were they following for a series that had such early potential and then declined?

I seriously question the creative decisions Abrams and company made in Alias Seasons 3-5, which is another subject.

What's relevant here is Abrams fascination with the past is showing up in his early impulse to revisit the era of Kirk and Spock.

IMHO, going into Trek's past is not the best move if the franchise is to be rebooted for a new generation of would-be Trekkers.