Rod Roddenberry signs 'Days Missing' at Golden Apple

Last-minute notice, but ... Rod Roddenberry, son of "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry, will be signing the first issue of a new comic book series, "Days Missing," along with the book's creator Trevor Roth, tonight at Golden Apple Comics in Hollywood (7018 Melrose Ave.).

Attendees will get a free "vintage 'Star Trek' poster." Does that mean Ricardo Montalban as Khan or William Shatner with Tribbles in hand? Not sure.

The book itself is described as telling "the stories of a mysterious being known only as The Steward. His ability to literally fold days of time has allowed him to secretly remove critical days from our shared history that have forever changed the course of mankind." Oooh, sounds like it could have the same title as Oliver Stone's new historical series "Secret History of America."

Not another branch in the "Trek" universe, so to speak, but definitely sounds cosmic.

-- Jevon Phillips

RECENT AND RELATED

Chris Pine takes command: "I am not William Shatner"

REVIEW: "Star Trek" star Chris Pine takes the stage in L.A.

VIDEO: "Star Trek" meets ... Monty Python?

Leonard Nimoy: "Star Trek" fans can be scary

William Shatner: "It's strange to say goodbye"

Simon Pegg: "I felt damn sexy" in Starfleet uniform

Boy of Summer: Anton Yelchin in "Trek" and "Terminator"

Eugene Roddenberry and the legacy of 'Star Trek'

'Star Trek' director J.J. Abrams on tribbles and the 'Galaxy Quest' problem

EXCLUSIVE: This is the first part of an interview with J.J. Abrams about his cinematic voyages aboard the Starship Enterprise. Read part two here.

      

Gene Roddenberry had this notion in the early 1960s about a television show that felt like "Wagon Train" in space, a frontier tale with groovy sci-fi imagery and a proud parable spirit. And just look what he started. In May, the pop culture phenomena of "Star Trek" proudly returns where it has gone before -- the movie theater -- with the 11th film in the franchise. This time the director is J.J. Abrams, a creative force in television with "Alias," "Lost" and "Fringe" as well as the director of "Mission Impossible III." He talked to Hero Complex about navigating his movie through the neutral zone that lies between hard-core "Trek" fans and summer moviegoers. This is part one of the interview.

GB: As franchises move into new eras it's interesting to watch how they change -- or don't change. "Battlestar Galactica" could hardly be more different than it was in the 1970s while "Star Wars" is essentially the same. With "Star Trek" you seem to be pursuing a revival like we've seen with Batman and James Bond, which holds on to core mythology but recalibrates the tone.

JJA: I think I benefited because I came into this movie as someone who appreciated "Star Trek" but wasn't an insane fanatic about it. The disadvantage is I didn't know everything I needed to know immediately at the beginning and had to learn it. The advantage though is I could look at "Star Trek" as a whole a little bit more like a typical moviegoer would see it; it allowed me to seize the things that I felt were truly the most iconic and important aspects of the original series and yet not be serving the master and trying to be true to every arcane detail. It let me look at the things I knew were critical.

         

GB: What are some of the things that made that "critical" list?

JJA: The characters was the most important thing in it. We needed to be true to the spirit of those characters. There were certain iconic things -- if you're going to do "Star Trek," you've got to do the Enterprise and it has to look like the Enterprise. If you're going to do "Star Trek" you have to do costumes that feel like the costumes people know. You have to be able to glance at it and know what that is. Even the text, the font of "Star Trek" has to look like what you know.

The phasers, the communicators, the Starfleet logo -- there are all these things that are the touchstones, the tenets of what makes "Star Trek" "Star Trek." If you're going to do this series those are things you don't mess with. And yet, they need to withstand a resolution that "Star Trek" has never had to withstand before. And I don't just mean IMAX -- though it will have to work there too -- but what I mean is that audiences are so savvy now and they've seen every iteration of "Star Trek," "Star Wars," two separate versions of "Battlestar Galactica," they've seen "Alien" and "Aliens," they've seen countless science fiction movies. They've seen it all. And even worse, they've seen a movie as "Galaxy Quest" that completely mocks the paradigm in its entirety.

GB: That's very true, you can't afford any accidental "Galaxy Quest" moments on your ship's bridge.

JJA: The trick is how do you use a ship like that, uniforms like that, characters who look like that and the name "Star Trek" and make it feel relevant and legitimate. the challenge is to take the familiar -- for better or worse -- and embrace the elements that make it unique but be sure the master you're serving is the making of the most entertaining movie possible. You can't look backward and try to make sure that every decision you're making is true to the past. that's not to say that we weren't true to the past, but that wasn't our guiding principle.

GB: You know that no matter what you do, you'll get an earful from hardcore fans.

JJA: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of "Star Trek" who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren't what what they want. But I can't make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship's engines look like. They're going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it's deeply true to what's come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it's literally not what they've seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it's going to blow people's minds because its  a completely different experience than what they expect.

Hollywood and science fiction, back to the future

This Sunday (Dec. 7) the Los Angeles Times Calendar section features a special package of science fiction stories that include a piece on Keanu Reeves and his alienated role in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," an article on Sci Fi (the cable channel) facing a crossroads with the end of "Battlestar Galactica" and even a fun look at the fashion of sci-fi cinema through the decades. That's just the start -- there's plenty more in the section. I wrote a cover centerpiece for the package, which is a look at three venerable franchises -- "Star Wars," "Star Trek" and "Battlestar Galactica" -- looking for new life and new audiences. Here's an advance excerpt of that story. I will put a link here to the entire story this weekend. It's a great section on Sunday, get a copy if you can. -- Geoff Boucher

(UPDATE: Here's that now-active link to the entire article)

The future looks very familiar. Science fiction, by its nature, is a celebration of the new, but you wouldn’t know that by watching Hollywood’s space operas. "Star Trek," for instance, is on the way back to theaters next summer in hopes that moviegoers will still want to boldly go where millions and millions have gone before. And it’s been more than 30 years since "Star Wars" made film history, but the Force is still very much with us -- whether we like it or not -- with a seventh film in theaters this past summer, one of the year’s bestselling video games and a new weekly animated television show (there’s also talk of a live-action series in the next year or two).

And that’s just the tip of the meteorite. The "Terminator" and "Robocop" franchises are being revved up now for more mechanical-man mayhem, and classic films such as "Forbidden Planet" and "When Worlds Collide" are in the remake pipeline, while the new take on "The Day the Earth Stood Still," starring Keanu Reeves, opens Dec. 12.

Even "Battlestar Galactica," which began as a small-screen "Star Wars" knockoff in the 1970s, has been revived with spectacular results and will break new ground in 2009 with the TV movie "Caprica" on Sci Fi, with a series to follow.

The question, though, is why does Hollywood keep looking to the past? "Science fiction should be about ideas and what it means to be human, it should always be about the new and the challenging," William Shatner said on a recent afternoon as he sipped a Starbucks coffee and watched traffic zoom past his Ventura Boulevard office. So why does Hollywood keep putting its money in the same old Enterprise? "'Star Trek' connected with so many people for so long, and 'Star Wars' is the same way," he said. "There’s a thrill for fans to see the heroes they know."

Shatner won’t be one of those heroes in the new "Star Trek" film -- a sour point for the actor who played Capt. James T. Kirk on television and in seven films and had hoped for a cameo -- but Paramount Pictures is absolutely hoping that the new film, directed by J.J. Abrams ("Mission: Impossible III," TV’s "Alias" and "Lost") will have the warp power needed for a 21st century "Star Trek" franchise built around young stars such as Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Mr. Spock). Those ambitions go a long way to explaining the Hollywood fixation on tried-and-true properties.
It’s difficult to find a sci-fi project in recent years that wasn’t based on an earlier film or television show, although "Minority Report," "Signs" and "Children of Men" did buck the trend.

Ronald D. Moore, creator of the modern “Battlestar Galactica,” said that commercial priorities push risk-adverse studios toward properties with established names, but he said it’s wrong to presume that artistic ambition is stifled by remaking the familiar.