Trek XI Update: Abrams Already Auditioning Actors – On Track To Start Shooting In Spring | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Trek XI Update: Abrams Already Auditioning Actors – On Track To Start Shooting In Spring October 19, 2006

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Rumor,ST09 Cast,Star Trek (2009 film),STXI Plot,STXI Status,Uncategorized , trackback

With so much reporting on other things, thought we should update you all on that other little Trek project 

Although Trek XI is still just in ‘development‘ there already is quite a lot of activity going on. According to studio insiders the assumption is that Trek XI will get a greenlight and will be one of Paramount’s tentpoles for Summer 2008. Apparently the first draft of the script is due shortly and the Abrams team are already seeing actors for the major parts. Although no names are available, TrekMovie is told that "many A and B listers have been in and out of Abrams offices" (which are actually still on the Disney lot). One Paramount source tells TrekMovie that it is possible there will be a casting announcement even before the script gets final approval and the film gets the greenlight (which should be sometime in December/January). "Although it hasn’t been greenlit yet, it is as close as you get around here," said the source. Still unclear how many TOS roles are being recast, but another source indicates that the treatment included the characters of McCoy and Scotty in addition to Kirk and Spock. The ‘Kirk’s first Mission’ plotline (which TrekMovie first reported in August) still seems to be the prevailing assumption amongst those TrekMovie has spoken to, but still nothing firm so it is still in the realm of ‘rumor’.

Trek XI could start shooting in 6 months
The last we heard the team were aiming to start shooting in the Summer, but now it seems that has been moved up a bit to the late Spring. A Paramount insider tells TrekMovie that the Abrams team is currently lining up various behind-the-scenes production people and telling them to be ready for an April start. Apparently the plan is to start pre-production in January and have production run from April/May through to September. This is roughly the same time frame as Abrams’ previous movie MI:3, except two years later. So far Abrams seems to be looking at his MI:3 crew for Trek XI, which is typical in Hollywood to stick with the people you know. One reason for starting in the spring is it allows Abrams to put the bulk of Trek XI’s production during the the TV production ‘hiatus'; as we have reported Abrams 3 TV projects are keeping him quite busy. This schedule also indicates an early Summer 2008 release. Although Paramount has yet to firm up their 2008 release calendar, we are told that Trek XI and ‘Iron Man’ (produced by Marvel Studios but distributed by Paramount) look like the ‘big’ summer 2008 movies.

Remember…things can change
It is important to bear in mind that things change in Hollywood every day. Films far further along than Trek XI have been shelved, gone through major delays, had  total changes in direction and plot, etc. Nothing is written into stone until the film is complete, but TrekMovie.com will keep track of Star Trek XI every step of the way.

 

UPDATE: Abrams Says Framework In Place, Story is ‘Cool’ 

UPDATE 2: Abrams Talks To TrekMovie.com, confirms Spring Start Date… and More 

 

Comments

1. trekmaster - October 19, 2006

Well, things are moving on.Good news!

2. Adam Cohen - October 19, 2006

I am surprised that TREK XI is being set up as an early-summer release.

The last Trek film to be released in the summer was 1989’s Star Trek V. Certainly, we’re all more optimistic about this project, but my feeling is that maybe a fall/winter release would give this movie some needed breathing room. What does Paramount expect this new movie to do at the box-office? Over $100 million? $150 million? That’s asking a lot for a franchise that has been used and abused for the last several years.

And that leads me to my next concern– casting. Are they going to insist on “name” actors to sell tickets? I fear that Star Trek is being hijacked here by a marketing campaign.

I’m not passing judgment on the movie yet, I’m just voicing concerns.

3. trekmaster - October 19, 2006

Names like Matt Damon and all the other listed actors show us that Star Trek is going to be a block buster. It will be an interpretation of our well known “non-commercial” and “little-world”-Star Trek, although the days of “non-commercial” Trek-productions are over for a long time now. Even the TOS-movies seem to be quite independent or “non-commercial” productions in relation to the TNG-movies.

4. hitch1969© - October 19, 2006

BIG DAWG A.P. scoops the TrekWeb again!!!

Don’t even look for this story at Trekweb. It’s not there yet. And when it will be, it will be a re-hash of what they read here.

AS for the new movie, I think they should totally re-cast and re-boot like they did on Galactica. Get a black captain kirk. A female spock. Get the Metron guy from Arena to be Dr. McCoy.

Wouldnt that be totally awesome?

Nah… let’s go with Shatner Nimoy handing off the torch to Matt Damon, what the heck.

In any event you WILL READ IT HERE FIRST. Trekmovie.com

Can a nigga get a hollaback????

best!!

=h=

5. Crambam - October 19, 2006

I want to see a movie where Spock saves Kirk in the 24th century, in some sort of storyline that involves a flashback to their first meeting. Two plotlines at the same time, involving Shatner and Nimoy in a nice role, a happy ending for Kirk, and a recast that can be used for the sequels.

6. hitch1969© - October 19, 2006

yo Crabman,

You want happy ending for James T. Kirk???

James T. Kirk want happy ending!!!!

My massage therapist tells me happy endings are the way to go. However, it costs a little more that way. I don’t consider it cheating, however.

Ba Doom Boom.

best!!

=h=

7. Magic_Al - October 19, 2006

McCoy? What about Mark Piper?
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Mark_Piper

If they’re going to try to do a canonical prequel then do it right. Otherwise forget canon and do a total reboot like Battlestar Galactica — that might be a better idea, anyway.

8. Crambam - October 19, 2006

Hitch–not THAT kind of happy ending….Then again, in the 24th century, Kirk could meet up with 7 of 9, and yeah, that would kick ass!

9. Surak II - October 19, 2006

Interesting…but not fascinating.

Can Abrams’ team write as well as Gene Coon’s did? Notice no use of established SF writers.

And Lost doesn’t equal the best X-Files, I think.

10. jon - October 19, 2006

I’d love to know what the budget of this film is.That would tell us alot about what our expectations should be.

11. jon - October 19, 2006

Also .Now that things are moving along,do the powers that be plan on doing a “making of” kind of book etc.with pre-production illustrations from the art director costume dept and set building depts so on similar to what was done for Star Wars.Loved that stuff when I was a kid.Used to collect Ralph Mc Quarrie,Joe Johnson,and ILM’s conceptual drawings.

12. Viking - October 19, 2006

Magic_Al: it’ll have to be rebooted in one form or another. If Abrams is going to do a TOS prequel, all that garish primary color, pajama uniforms, and dysfunctional-looking control panels are begging for some serious upgrades. Given that the budget is rumored at around $100 mil, I’d expect to see a re-interpretation of a lot of things during the original series.

Yo, Hitch! How’s thing over at the Army?

13. MichaelT - October 19, 2006

This is a good news story… not a signal to fret and worry.
Celebrate!

14. jon - October 19, 2006

Wow 100 mil? Can this be confirmed? If it’s TOS era the’ll have to re-conceptualize everything.I mean,obviously you can’t have a big movie with a cheezey 60’s TV era bridge.And the ship…can they finally make it look like a massive starship and not just some weenie plastic model inspired thing with white lights for windows?

15. Jonboc - October 19, 2006

“If it’s TOS era the’ll have to re-conceptualize everything.I mean,obviously you can’t have a big movie with a cheezey 60’s TV era bridge”

You think so? Ha, just wait and see. JJ is too much a fan to re-invent the wheel. It’s gonna be there in all it’s TOS glory,,,and that’s exacly why it will kick some major retro ass. Sure it will be fiberglass and LEDs instead of lamps and plywood…but don’t expect great changes in Matt Jeffries legendary design. Now if only JJ would really get crazy and shoot the film and the wonders and the awe of 23rd century space exploration in old school 3 strip technicolor. Man, wouldn’t that be beautiful? Modern audiences wouldn’t know what hit them with that much color and clarity!

16. Skippy 2k - October 19, 2006

I remember reading before that they had put the bridge from the Defiant (the enterprise version) in storage. An awesome recreation of the original bridge but also with a little updating, moving screens at the top of the bridge and such. If they did then why not just pull it out of storage? Wondered about it again because I thought I saw that it had been auctioned at Christies?

Even if they did though, if it is pre-TOS (kirk and spock academy) then it may have needed modification if they showed the ship in that era.

17. Borat - October 19, 2006

Will William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy be in this film?

I don’t think I’d care to see it if they don’t at least have cameo’s in it.

18. acb - October 19, 2006

I dont know why by having names like Matt Damon attached means that the film “is going to be a blockbuster.” Since when in hollywood does haviing a big name or set of big name attached guarantee at the most a blockbuster and at the least quality. I am not saying that no names should fill everyrole, but i think it should be something along the lines of Batman Begins or how Episode I was cast (and in casting only will i make the comparison to Episode I). There they took into account having names mixed with fresher faces to fill the roles. I think the best way for Paramount to expect a really strong return on the film (and that is what they will look to first) is if they attempt to respect the audience of fans and non-fans by capturing the characters of Kirk and Spock in fresh faces. Not only would it contribute to the story itself (since Kirk and Spock could possibly be starting out carry that since of beginning to the audience as well with unknowns) but it will also so that Paramount may actually be attempting to respect the franchise instead of trying to milk it til the taste is so bad that no one wants to come back to it for a long time.

And the only reason the TNG films seem different is that the focus was put more on the gimmick they were going to have occur in the film rather than focusing on the characters.

19. Crambam - October 19, 2006

Matt Damon is all wrong for Kirk. He’d be a good Gary Mitchell though.

20. LavianoTS386 - October 19, 2006

“I remember reading before that they had put the bridge from the Defiant (the enterprise version) in storage.”

It got auctioned off.

21. Darth Ballz - October 19, 2006

Umm! Matt Damon won’t be cast as Kirk because he already has a franchise and a career in Hollywood. What would this do for him at this point? Names are thrown around to keep intrest in Trek. If they do a re-cast of the old crew how many people are going to be pissed if they do more movies and change the history of trek like Enterprise did?

As much bitching as the TNG stars have done because they are out future jobs I think it’s a mistake to jump back again. New crew, new era, new Enterprise and one hell of a group of real actors. As much as the secondary actors were good people, most of them are crappy actors…..

Darth Ballz are bigger!!!!!

22. MichaelT - October 19, 2006

Hi darth,
Look at the poster….old style emblem.. science blue, command gold…. what era do you think this will likely take place in?

23. Darth Ballz - October 19, 2006

Michael,

I didn’t say it wasen’t going to take place in the past, just that it has a very good chance of not working.

Darth “mucho” Ballz

24. EBAR - October 19, 2006

I think re-casting the orignal characters is a big mistake. I can’t see anybody else playing Spock. In addition, although whoever they get to play Kirk would probably be a much better actor it still won’t be the same.

I don’t see any point in this movie idea. Why don’t they just create new characters and set them in the TOS universe?

I’d be happy if they just left well enough alone. forget another movie, and focus on fixing the poor effects for State Trek Remastered. How many nails can they drive into Star Trek’s coffin?

25. Dom - October 20, 2006

Star Trek’s already dead, so any new film will either resurrect it or confirm it’s dead. Although it’s not technically a reboot, the sheer fact of having recast TOS crewmembers, on the USS Enterprise, seen in the cinema means it’s a form of reboot.

I remember the remark the one of the designers on Generations made about the Enterprise for that film: movie sets require more detail and texture, hence the new bridge stations, the raised command area, bigger ceiling struts and different lighting scheme.

I suspect we might see a faithful reconstruction of the TOS sets, but with more texture and more complex lighting. Elements of sets will be exaggerated to an extent. Rails will have rivets in them; doors might have embossed logos; computer screens more detailed readouts. The same will go for the fabric and design of the uniforms, even the exterior of the ship. Think of the difference between TV show Spider-Man’s costume and movie Spider-Man’s or Christopher Reeve’s costume and Brandon Routh’s!

Nothing in the new movie has to contradict the core designs: it merely needs to enhance them.

26. db - October 20, 2006

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/dennisbailey/defiantbridge2.jpg

27. Duane Boda - October 20, 2006

# 26 Photo: Hmm…looks nice – more detail and such but it looks way too bright and artificial. Has a builders block look to it as if very little thought was put into truly defining it and making it better – making it shine!
Sort of looks like a rush job despite some noticeable additions and such.
Now…if they somehow could incorporate the lightening that was seen in key scenes in Balance Of Terror and perhaps the beginning of ST-TMP on
the Klingon Battleship THEN you’d have a real winner IF you ask me.
The darkness fit the mood for the Klingon ship and everything just perfectly while both the darkness and color schemes were equally enhancing in certain scenes on Balance Of Terror….exp. When Kirk was sitting in his chair and ordering the ship to fire upon the Romulean Cruiser. Also…the lighting combo seen at the beginning in the background
where the one crew member was getting married….wasn’t it purple and green?

28. Anonymous - October 20, 2006

This is a stupid idea, I tell you. Plain stupid. Why a prequel? TOS retire with TUC. It should remain that way.It’s true that I do want to see new Trek movies but make it focus in TNG era where we can explore the final frontier together with new characters, new ships and new directions.

TOS is dead. It is part of history. Let it rest in peace

29. anonymous jr. - October 20, 2006

The only thing that has died is Trek’s 24th century. Clearly, with the buzz about the new movie and remastered Trek by CBS, TOS is alive and well. Long live the king!!

30. Dom - October 20, 2006

#28 Anonymous.

There are already 4 movies set in the TNG era and they put a bullet in the head of the series. You can’t think like a Trek fan where the new film is concerned. The general public still thinks of Star Trek as starring Kirk, Spock and McCoy and lines like ‘I’m a surgeon, not a . . .’ and the never-used ‘Beam me up, Scotty!’

24th Century Trek has become the realm of nerds. The public wants cool, iconic characters and classic stories. TOS fits the bill.

By the way, strictly Trek XI isn’t a prequel: the technical term is ‘continuity plug-in.’ We’ve seen lots of stuff set before and after the period in which Trek XI is set!

31. Darth Ballz - October 20, 2006

Yo!

They need to let Trek sleep for a longer time, most si-fi is dark, realistic and gloomy right now. At some point people will want to see it again. It went from us begging for it to having it shoved down our throats. What it boils down to is $$$ and Paramount keeps sticking itself in the ass and people won’t give a rats ass about Trek anymore if it’s the same crap over and over again………

Darth “pimp’in ” Ballz

32. martin - October 20, 2006

I hope by “Kirk’s First Mission” it is Kirk’s first mission as Captain of the Enterprise. That makes the most sense if you are going to put McCoy, Scotty and Spock in the movie.

And I do think that Damon works great as Kirk… and he is the right age/appearance to be Kirk as captain of the Enterprise (actually he is about 3-4 years older than Shatner was in “Where No Man….”

33. hitch1969© - October 20, 2006

Viking, you crazy sombitch. How you been, man? Now we’re trekking together here. That’s just crazy.

Word up to all da haterz on the Matt Damon prequel continuity plugin as we kick it. Trek XI is going to kick some serious ass. Stick around, because trekmovie.com is going to be giving you the high def play by play in Dubly™ 5.1. You can take that shit to the bank. Tell em hitch1969© sent ya.

best!!

=h=

34. hitch1969© - October 20, 2006

And by the way, let me get a little gay here and say on the record that Matt Damon is quite a handsome Shatner. I think he’s a manly stud, a sassy sailor. He looks just hetero enough for the part. It’s kind of like Shatner himself. I once knew this chick who swore that she knew a dude that knew a dude that said that shatner was a pooftah. Yet I see no evidence of this. But still she insisted that Shatner would come to her town and visit a wealthy man on the hill for weekends at a time and get his gay on. I never BILLieved her though. I think she was just trying to ruin the Trek experience for me. She always wanted too much attention that way. She was kind of a whore. I still liked her and spent time with her though. I wonder what the hell she is doing these days?

best!!

=h=

35. Ralph - October 20, 2006

Too much info hitch. Who cares.
Anthony Pascale can you strike comment #34?

36. hitch1969© - October 20, 2006

Ralph, what’s happened to us, man? They were picking on you, hitch1969© came to your defense when the personal attacks got personal and attacking. We were grate mates with the popgear hate. Then what happens? Old Ralphie goes JUDAS™ on hitch.

Striking comments from the record is an inappropriate request. The record shall reflect accuracy; free of censorship and politicization. Obviously you did not agree with my comment. That is your right. However, jesus dude I just cannot BILLieve® that you went Judas on me like that. It hurts me. It’s a deep pain inside me. Like a swollen cancerous prostate.

Dude you gave me cancer. Thanks alot, pal.

best!!

=h=

37. Ralph - October 20, 2006

Sorry dude. When you put that trash on this site about Shatner, and after you talk highly of him, it was a shock to me as you desribe above.

38. trekmaster - October 20, 2006

On Kirks first mission McCoy wasn’t aboard the Enterprise…

39. Ralph - October 20, 2006

William Shatner turns down ride into space.
Read why.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006410413,00.html

40. Lex - October 20, 2006

Who is this hitch1969© guy anyway ? Is he a webmaster here on Trek Movie.com ?

41. hitch1969© - October 20, 2006

Lex Luthor™, no, I am not, but I should be. I am very trekmovie.com in the pants. Actually the webmaster is BIG DAWG A.P. who is also very trekmovie.com in the pants. actually, he is larger in the pants that way than me, obv.

But Lex Luthor™, that’s officer thinking and you are my bestest new e-friend. You’re hitchWORLD 4 life now.

Ralph by NO MEANS would I ever speak ill of Shatner. You totally read that wrong. I’m the biggest shatner fan around. trust me.

best!!

=h=

42. Ralph - October 20, 2006

If they could redo the Enterprise in the ship battles like at the 1:34 mark of this video, that would be great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFH8YqZBo0Y&mode=related&search=

43. Scorned - October 20, 2006

Let us hope this “Kiddie Kirk” movie gets scrapped! What a STUPID idea for a movie. Talk about going ass backwards.

Abrams is nothing more the Hollywood flavour of the month whos time is almost up.

Recasting…what an f’ing joke!. Too many pseudo fans out there will swallow just about anything.

44. JON - October 20, 2006

If the upcoming Trek xi is a hit and then there’s a sequel(Trek xii).I think a Trek xii would be more appropriate to expand on the new cast with cameos from the original stars.Nimoy in a cameo as Sarek perhaps.there’s precedent for that since spock’s father was a narrative on the Spock character in TOS.But I think a new Trek should start out fresh with no cameos.Save it for xii

45. DB - October 20, 2006

“Abrams is nothing more the Hollywood flavour of the month whos time is almost up.

Recasting…what an f’ing joke!. Too many pseudo fans out there will swallow just about anything.”

Nope, I’ve been a fan for forty years and the TOS recasting thing is the only idea worth doing now as far as I’m concerned.

And the attitude isn’t going to go over any better here than it did at Trekweb. ;)

46. Duane Boda - October 20, 2006

Ok…this is for those who have the Dish-Network West coast package.
IF you missed last weeks episode of I-Mudd (whatever?) it will be reshown at 6:00 A.M. – Saturday mornings – on KWGN – Channel 235.
I just noticed this myself the other day otherwise I would have mentioned it much sooner. Not a bad deal for those who miss the previous weeks episode and so on.

47. Darth Ballz - October 20, 2006

And it goes alittle something like this………

Shatner and Nimoy were asked to give imput on re-casting of there roles, something that was a request of Abrams. Both were ok with it but didn’t like that they wouldn’t be more involved. Don’t rule a TNG era movie out just yet. It’s all about the dolla bills yo!!!

Darth “The Shocker” Ballz

48. Scorned - October 20, 2006

DB

The very idea of “recasting” that is going to “save” something is a complete joke. This recasting is a dire attempt at trying to get one last drop of blood (ie coin) from a stone. Using the flavour of the money is the way they hope to do it. Chasing the Star Wars parade is not going to do it.

New cast, new century, new everything. Having some “two bit joe blow” playing any of the TOS cast is going to solve nothing. Are we going to hear some silliness about “Shatner”playing his grandfather?? hahah
MI3 was a horrible movie that was way too long and in dire need of a ummm what you call a “story” and “good editing”.

Abrams calls himself a fan of Trek. Well he called himself a fan of Superman and the script he wrote was pure garbage. It was even close to resembling Superman. I still don’t know why Abarms won’t tell everyone it is a “kiddie kirk” movie. What is the big secret? The studio already said it when they hired him. The fact that he is “hiding” it should make any fan of Trek worried.

I am expecting STXI to be yet another bomb in an increasing line of Trek movies. Go get Meyers back, Nimoy back and lets make a REAL Trek film. The return of both of them will generate incredible interest in Trek again. Go backwards seeing Matt Damon “act” like Shatner is going to be a 2 hr waste of time along with $12 bucks thrown out the window.

Trekweb…hahaha whatever….

49. Scorned - October 20, 2006

(I was running out of space..)

New cast in a new century.

You can change everything. The Federation is not as powerful. Allies are no more. Enemies are worse. In fighting is at an all time high. Trying to keep things together and yet “still move forward”. The change is to “over come”.

THAT is the answer. Going backwards doing a silly bsg revamp while chasing the vapours of the Star Wars prequel parade are not going to cut it.

50. DB - October 20, 2006

“New cast in a new century. ”

No.

Same old same old. All Trek eras are fundamentally the same.

“You can change everything. The Federation is not as powerful. Allies are no more. Enemies are worse. In fighting is at an all time high.”

That strikes you as “changing everything?” Generic suggestions concerning variations in the scenery? Not a character nor a story point in sight? Suggesting that making something “less powerful” is an interesting idea for innovation is the obverse and equal of saying that “the new ship is cooler because it has megaphasers.”

Pass.

Abrams makes entertaining films and television series — moreso than most of the stuff that Trek fans point to as “the best” of Trek post-TOS. And it’s about time that new actors had a go at the most iconic Trek roles.

51. Scorned - October 20, 2006

Same old same old. All Trek eras are fundamentally the same.

You are saying “same old same old” yet you want a “recasting” and rehash of TOS??? It has to have some “elements” of Star Trek otherwise it is not Star Trek.. You have seen Picard, Janeway be very by the book. In a new series you don’t have to see a captain be like that.

By changing the “time, era, the cast, etc” you have potential of starting something new on an old canvass. You had TNG build on TOS, Followed by DS9, VOY and ENT. Going backwards doing “Kiddie Kirk” is going to solve nothing.

Abrams makes entertaining films and television series — moreso than most of the stuff that Trek fans point to as “the best” of Trek post-TOS. And it’s about time that new actors had a go at the most iconic Trek roles.

That would be a personal opinion. I thought Alias started out ok but it fell very quickly. MI3 was a diappointment. The studio itself was not happy with the numbers.

And it’s about time that new actors had a go at the most iconic Trek roles.

New actors have a go? hahah Then you are just contradicting yourself. You want more rehashing. And this does what? Having some guy act like Shatner for what purpose? Do you really think that people are going to get pass Matt Damon playing Kirk? Come on.

It is time for “new actors” to take on “new Trek characters” . Just like Stewart, Spiner, Dorn, Brooks, Mulgrew, Ryan” did.

Again you looking backwards instead of movinig forwards.

52. DB - October 20, 2006

“Again you looking backwards instead of movinig forwards.”

For all your insistence that “moving forward” means something, you haven’t proposed anything remotely interesting in that regard.

The people who will either make this film popular and profitable or not don’t care whether it moves forward, backward or sideways in Trek’s faux-historical terms. Nor should they; it’s not important.

Good successful films are set in every period of real history and often feature characters who’ve been seen in other films and played by other actors; there’s nothing either sacred or so fascinating about Trek’s continuity that it deserves to be treated as somehow the exception to that.

53. Josh - October 20, 2006

Going back to the Classic Trek is Now man, stop being so Herbert wanting crappy pants 24th century “let’s go to the ready room and discuss” Trek.

I like my Trek’s larger than life, theatrical, in your face acting and camera use.

It’s Star TREK for God’s sake, not “placid space fantasy 101″.

Let’s get some Trek back into this show dammit, give me Shatner’s torn shirt and drop kicks followed by double axe handle chops, yes, the 76 year old Shatner, Nichelle Nichols in a skirt, Walter Koenig screaming at the top of his lungs, day glow 60’s mood lights, styrofoam baby, little morality plays resolved in a span of 45 minutes- life was much simpler then. Klingons as BAD GUYS, to hell with the cushy, P.C. 24th century friendly neighborhood Klingons, I’m talking about the politically incorrect Asian looking, goatee fumanchu wearing, brown makeup Klingons!
Give me John Colicos’ dead ass and Michael Ansara barking at some hot Klingon chick with blue mascara.
Aliens?? To hell with that bumpy nose, rubber prosthetic simpleton looking alien, give me shag carpets with pizza, big rubber suits, fat pigs with boofy hair, chinsy looking Andorians with glitter, and most importantly, Ruk! Let’s get Ted Cassidy’s CGI ass to hunt Kirk again, shouting about the “Old Ones.”
Star Trek works it’s damn best when it isn’t preachy and not taking itself itself too seriously.
Captain Kirk and crew are FUN, with a capital F. Picard and crew reminded us how bad our lives are with their joyless, souless, forced exploits.
How many TNG episodes ended with Picard cracking a joke and the entire bridge crew busting out laughing!
If you want to save Star Trek from the realm of the Library of Congress archives and bring it to the forefront of pop culture again get someone with a fricking sense of humor to run the show!
Cross eyed, “pleased” Berman is gone, and with him his tepid, neutral, polite version of Star Trek.
Why is space so serious?
Where are the Baloks out skipping around having fun, exploring, and meeting new people?
Where are the Excalbians creating dramas to watch?
Where are the Organians and their non-interfering ways?
Where are those two guys that kidnapped the deaf mute Gem?
Where are the Talosians and their twisted, perverted views on humanity and caring for people?
Where are those Indian people with their asteroid deflecting obelisk?

No we have been forced to suck on CGI whale people in fish tanks, space anomolies, Robot vampires called Borg, over, and over, and over, and over, MIT science class linguo, and 1,057 variations on nose prosthetic having aliens with their smug, self righteous dispositions and beliefs.

I want a Royal Fizzbin. I want fat, orange, spinning nacelle dome caps, I want Vasquez rocks, I want hard to port AND starboard, with camera shakes, overly lit eye closeups, I want Salt vampires, not Borg.
I want a Captain that doesn’t sleep on a temperpedic bed with pajamas but rather a hard ass military cot, a Captain that doesn’t drink TEA dammit, but Saurian BRANDY, A Captain that doesn’t surrender or have a group discussion at the first sign of trouble but rather yells to all the heavens “FIIIIIRE!!!!”

There is trouble in space. There always has been. Bad things come from space, rarely good things.
That’s why we need Star Trek. Space is INTERESTING.
Space has NOT been interesting with Star Trek for about 15 years now.

54. Scorned - October 20, 2006

For all your insistence that “moving forward” means something, you haven’t proposed anything remotely interesting in that regard.

I would disagree. I didn’t realize that I have to “pitch” you an idea or that my idea has to be receive your blessing of all knowing Trek.

I have said that you can start with a whole new cast , in a new era and you can completely change everything (i.e. the state of the nation known as the Federation). You can have any type of “ongoing fall outs” or “build ups” among worlds. You can serious make the next series using parallels to today’s times of world that is seeming to be falling apart and world leaders that don’t give a damn. The struggle to survive in this day in age is still very apparent and can be used in a new series. You can ditch the techno babble. You can see people get “killed” in order to survive. You can see the pressures and demands of a new captain (maybe he is new and inexperienced)

You have provided us with a desire to see “any old actor” rehash Pop icons. So please do tell us how seeing Matt Damon running around as Kirk will be good for Trek? How does seeing a cast of nobodies running around playing “pop icons” bring in the big bucks? Answer: it doesn’t and it won’t.

Moving forward is the only answer. This seems to be the major feeling among fans and Trek cast members from “all” series.

The people who will either make this film popular and profitable or not don’t care whether it moves forward, backward or sideways in Trek’s faux-historical terms. Nor should they; it’s not important.

It would beg to differ. You are under the delusion that Trek is “liked by all”. It is not. Star Trek is seen as “Sci-Fi”. Its been around for 40 years and people know/heard about what Star Trek is. It has its audience and that is that. Star Trek after 40 years, 10 movies and 5 series done “very well” with regards to the “money train”. However you will never see a Star Trek film do “Titanic, LOTR” kind of business. You have to be realisitic. There is no point in investing in a movie that no one really wants to see. So the point would be to make a movie that would first attract “Star Trek fans” then “Sci-Fi” fans and then the rest. This part could go into a huge discussion but let me just say that you must be joking if you think 4 teen girls/ 4 adult woman (all of which are going out on girls night out) are going to see a “Star Trek” movie over “the current hot chic flick”. Sci-Fi movies are geared for Sci-Fi fans. Just like “Horror Films” are geared towards that demographic of people.

Good successful films are set in every period of real history and often feature characters who’ve been seen in other films and played by other actors; there’s nothing either sacred or so fascinating about Trek’s continuity that it deserves to be treated as somehow the exception to that.

So in other words you want “new” but you again are all for “rehashing”? Do you really think seeing Matt Damon on the silver screen in a yellow shirt with “joe blow” with pointy ears in a blue shirt is going to be a hit?

You know for a split second I had a Trekweb acid flashback.
hahaha

55. TomBot2006 - October 20, 2006

Well, whilst, I enjoyed Alias at times, currently somewhat enjoy LOST, for it’s characters-not the mysteries… I have my doubts about a Star Trek movie in Abrams’ hands or anybody’s hands. I’m not sure I care anymore about who will be in it or what era it will be set in. I want some Star Trek that really pushes into “Where No One Has Gone Before”… I watched all of TNG, most of Voyager, some of DS9-regrettably there, and hardly any of Enterprise… Star Trek has just been so blanded out, stagnant… It really needs a sense of wonder, discovery, and some darn good storytelling. I want to leave the theater, not just smiling, but thinking about what I saw.

56. Scorned - October 20, 2006

Going back to the Classic Trek is Now man, stop being so Herbert wanting crappy pants 24th century “

Ummm I am all for 25th century Trek. Like I said before you can “change everything”. There is no point in rehashing TOS. Do you really think you are going to get all that action with Matt Damon as Kirk? Think again.

let’s go to the ready room and discuss” Trek.

Is there some type of “chat/forum” area on this site?

It’s Star TREK for God’s sake, not “placid space fantasy 101″.

I agree.

Captain Kirk and crew are FUN, with a capital F. Picard and crew reminded us how bad our lives are with their joyless, souless, forced exploits.

Again I said before you can “change” everything. You can do new Trek on an old canvass. You don’t need to rehash out the characters. You can have a NEW bold Captain.

Where are the Baloks out skipping around having fun, exploring, and meeting new people?
Where are the Excalbians creating dramas to watch?
Where are the Organians and their non-interfering ways?
Where are those two guys that kidnapped the deaf mute Gem?
Where are the Talosians and their twisted, perverted views on humanity and caring for people?
Where are those Indian people with their asteroid deflecting obelisk?

An answer to your questions: Who cares? I don’t need every little thing explained to me. Let it go.

New Trek in a new century!!!

57. Scorned - October 20, 2006

To: TomBot2006

Quote:”Star Trek has just been so blanded out, stagnant… It really needs a sense of wonder, discovery, and some darn good storytelling. I want to leave the theater, not just smiling, but thinking about what I saw.

I would agree and rehashing TOS is not going to do it. Where is the excitement of knowing which “remake” episode is next”?

Personally I think they should not do a movie and go straight to a TV series. That cast if it does well should go into the movies.
They can end the series after 5 (not 7….it is not a rule) and keep the momentum going.

The X-Files kind of did this with the movie but the following seasons after the movie until the end of the series were a major let down.

What is the old saying “Leave them wanting more…”

58. Josh - October 20, 2006

Dude, your “new Trek in a new century” stinks of “Enterprise” all over again- bland new characters, bland new universe, with even newer blander, prosthetic nosed aliens.

So it’s a new century, and???

So it’s the Enterprise -H now, and??

So it’s Captain Whilhuff Vanmurensmorgen now, and??

Your proposal is to get even FURTHER away from Star Trek that MATTERS.

I say thee, nay.

59. Warptek - October 21, 2006

Wouldn’t it be cool if the first 10 minutes or so of Trek XI dealt with Christopher Pike’s final mission then bringing the Enterprise home where Kirk is waiting to take her out as the new captain. This is around the time I believe when Kirk first met Spock, not at the academy. Spock had already been serving on the Enterprise when Kirk was at the Academy or just coming out. There could be a pivotal moment in the film where we see Enterprise getting a low level interim refit and Spock is thinking of going home to Vulcan to work things out with Sarek but Kirk persuades him to go out again for another 5 year mission. Ray Liotta would be an excellent pick to play Christopher Pike!

60. Josh - October 21, 2006

“I fail to see the logic in remaining for another 5 year mission when there are matters which require my immediate attention on Vulcan.”

“Listen Mister! You…don’t understand. I’m…Captain of the ship, I’m….in command. ”

“Ah, indeed. Where do I sign up? Anyone so eloquent in their dictation and articulation promises a plethora of surprising experiences.”

“Right. Play chess?”

61. Dave - October 21, 2006

TOS was never about the actors. It was about the writing and the character development. When people talk about TOS they talk about the stories. In later incarnations more talk was about the SFX and the story. While TNG had some good character development going many characters were left by the wayside in favor of exploring Data and Picard.

The only real aspect missing from Trek after TOS left the airwaves was hiring real SF writers to come in and write real SF stories set in the Trek universe.

Staff writers from sitcoms and action-adventure series don’t cut it and never will. The main draw in TOS was the writing and if Trek can ever figure this out again, a new series can be a success. Until they re-learn that lesson, future versions of Trek will always be a pale shade of the first series.

Its never been about who plays the part.

62. Dave - October 21, 2006

Hi Scorned,

Here are some answer to questions you posted earlier.

Balok and his people (the First Federation) have been cornering the Denebian egg market by genetically modifing chickens to lay square eggs that make shipping and storing much easier than those old oval eggs.

The Excalibians have taken a travelling road show on tour and are now currently playing live performances of “The Jazz Singer” to sell-out crowds on Cerebius III.

After the Organian Peace Treaty was put into effect, the many continuing boarder skirmishes taxed the collective mind force of the Organian race. Their collective mental powers are currently resting in a home for old aliens on Parkus IX.

The Vians who kidnapped Gem saved her and her people and moved on to try and help additional races facing utter destruction. Since the original series the Vians have managed to save three additional and left over 2,496 to die terrible deaths because they were not worthy.

The Talosian died out 75 years after the Enterprise dropped off Chris Pike. The Talosians were unable to reclaim the surface of the planet in the time that remained available to them.

Miramanee and her people survived for two centuries after the Enterprise replaired the asteroid deflector. Sadly, the Vogons came through and built a new hyperspace bypass that destroyed the planet and its people. That section of space has now become over run with space hotels and fast food spots as people use the bypass for a quick trip to Orion IV.

If you have any other questions about what ever happened to… leave them here and I’ll be ahppy to provide updates.

Disclaimer – This posting was meant to be fun and is not in anyway picking on anyone asking a question. Answers are courtesy of Dave’s Hitchhikers Guide to the Trek Galaxy. Available in many fine disc shops galaxy wide.

63. Ralph - October 21, 2006

I think everyone is missing something here. I believe what they need to get right, is the women. Star Trek women rocks!
They need to be like TPol at mark 1:40 of this fan clip. She rocks!
Another 7 of 9 wouldn’t be so bad either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esRLhsl01Co&mode=related&search=

64. Ralph - October 21, 2006

If you notice, the Villainous women have some kind of erotic beauty to them.

65. Scorned - October 21, 2006

To Josh

Quote:” Dude, your “new Trek in a new century” stinks of “Enterprise” all over again- bland new characters, bland new universe, with even newer blander, prosthetic nosed aliens. ”

And what do you propose? Rehashing? At least my idea has the potential for something different until seeing some “joe blow” going around trying to pretend to be Scotty. A new series with Manny Coto or with Judith and Gafield in the writers room would hardly suck. What Trek needs is a “fan” who is going to be in charge. B&B hated Trek and it showed. Abrams says he is a fan of Trek however his definition of “fan” is highly questionable when it is applied to his fanhood for Superman and his script. The fact that he is saying nothing about “kiddie Kirk” really should be a red light to people.

Even with regards to Warptek comments you have yet to provide anything of substance for STXI.

To Dave:

Ummmm whatever I guess, thanks for the information but they were not my questions.

Star is not about the “woman” it is about the adventure.

66. Ralph - October 21, 2006

Adventure with the women. Don’t you agree? Women are the BOMB!

67. Scorned - October 21, 2006

We are talking about a Star Trek movie not a porno.

68. Ralph - October 21, 2006

Women are beautiful like a ship. The curves the lines. Don’t you agree?

69. Scorned - October 21, 2006

I think you need to get out a little more.

70. Ralph - October 21, 2006

You don’t like women? Oh, sorry.

71. Scorned - October 21, 2006

I never said that. But I am talking about STXI not some adolscent view towards “a piece of ass”. So try and stay on topic.

72. Ralph - October 21, 2006

Sorry Hitch… I mean Scorned.
We have our opinions here. It’s not just about you.
I personally would like the plot to be a mystery for me. What good is it if you know what it’s about. I believe past Star Trek movies may have been ruined due to people stealing scripts and posting them on the internet. I just hope nothing like that happens here.
I would like to see what they have in store for us these coming months for TOS.
I hope they pull it off come 2008.

73. Sybok - October 21, 2006

I have realized to let emotions rule is wrong; did I tell Spock I was wrong and chose the wrong path?

At any rate, the one writer who I think, with perhaps the assistance of David Gerrold and D.C. Fontana, who are both alive, would turn in a remarkable script is Darin Morgan. Unfortunately, he’s not involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darin_Morgan

Or even his brother, who wrote some excellent scripts, and some credible work on Space Above & Beyond — the writing much improved towards the end; the literacy was evident, references to Achilles etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Angriest_Angel

I do not believe the current Generation X writers

74. Sybok - October 21, 2006

I do not believe the current Generation X writers, the ones selected, will bring the warmth and vitality and humor to make the screenplay a success.

Then again, I’ve been wrong.

75. Dom - October 21, 2006

Sybok, David Gerrold is essentially the man who created TNG. He’s the man who gave us a distant Captain who never beamed into adventures and put a psychotherapist on the bridge of a starship. David Gerrold was Roddenberry’s boy and is one of the last people who should be involved in any new Trek!

I don’t know why you believe the new movie’s writers can’t bring ‘warmth and vitality and humour’ to Star Trek. Have you ever seen any of their past films and shows?

Kurtzman’s and Orci’s Alias episodes were excellent, M:I:III was very good, only wrecked by a certain film star who was behaving in such a peculiar manner off-screen that he put audiences off his films.

Also, we have the prospect of (the extremely-talented) Michael Giacchino scoring the film, which, after years of diminishing returns from Jerry Goldsmith, means we can pretty much guarantee some memorable music!

76. Scorned - October 21, 2006

Ralph:Sorry Hitch… I mean Scorned.
We have our opinions here. It’s not just about you.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Dom

Music!? You are concerned about the music? What I don’t want is a lame rehashing of TOS. Move forward or don’t even bother.

77. hitch1969© - October 21, 2006

Ralph is talking about me. And confusing the fact that you are not me.

Scorned, you got quite a little discussion going here. No personal attacks either. Good work.

Still, you’ll never be hitch1969©.

Ralph please stop going Judas on me brother. You are breaking my heart with these allegations.

best!!

=h=

78. Anthony Pascale - October 21, 2006

ok people I think some chill pills are needed

this site is not for personal attacks and not for spamming

Plus I do think it is worth noting that Star Trek XI is being made and it is going to be a TOS era film and that is that. The TNG era or other era ideas are not and will not be under consideration. That ship has sailed and it is time to move on. As Dennis Bailey pointed out in his recent editorial, setting is not story and certainly not the determining factor of quality.

I have no idea if Trek XI will be good or not, but this site is dedicated to being open to the idea. If Trek XI sucks this site will be the first to say it. If you really just hate JJ Abrams and cannot open your mind up to the possibility of Trek XI being a good film then maybe one of the many of the other Trek sites may be a better place for that kind of vitriol. I am not saying you need to have decided tht Trek XI is going to be great and JJ Abrams is a god, I havent decided that myself…but I am hopeful. I can understand having questions or concerns, I can undersand preferring a different era (I may prefer a dif. era myself). What I cannot understand are those who have already decided…no question left in their mind, and who seem to only want to flame spread doom and gloom.

 

To borrow a phrase, this site is about the \’possibilities\’…for those who cannot see any possibilities and have made up their minds…I don\’t think this site has anything for you.

 

Lastly I would say…it is only a TV show and some movies. Star Trek isn\’t that important, Star Trek XI does not need to be Citizen Kane…it just needs to be an entertaining fun Trek film…that is good enough for me.  

 

Anthony Pascale, editor TrekMovie.com

79. Sybok - October 21, 2006

Nothing I wrote is in the nature of an “attack”; I have viewed bits and pieces of LOST and find the writing is not equal, to say the least, of the best X-Files, although I accept that it is different in tone.

If these are the writers to create a Star Trek based on the original, who knows? Harve Bennett and Nick Meyers worked to create good, strong drama. I shall wait and see.

I think Gerrold understands what made the best Trek work, i.e., his book THE WORLD OF STAR TREK. You cannot jude what he’s write without reading his own work, the books in the Star Wolf series, for example, or the Heinlein like Dillingilliad series.

http://www.gerrold.com/

Que Sera, Sera.

Therefore, all the more reason to enjoy the Remastered TOS, despite the flaws of its U.S.S. Enterprise.

80. Sybok - October 21, 2006

Correction: you cannot jugde what he’d write, meaning Gerrold. He had a big falling out with Roddenberry.

D.C. Fontanna has written excellent scripts, not just Trek, but she must be a ‘senior citizen’, and not twenty-something, and so is not involved.

That to me is illogical.

81. Sybok - October 21, 2006

OK, my own final thoughts, which I hope Tony Pascale doesn\’t find offensive.

First, Abrams film will be entertaining.

Second, I didn\’t care much for TNG, but with the third season, the writing and actors just came together, and I started to appreciate it, on its own terms.

I think fans who don\’t view Star Trek – The Original Series with religious ferver nevertheless are concerned about new actors taking the parts of Kirk, Spock, McCoy. That concern may not be misplaced.

Now, have any of you viewed, who have seen Balance of Terror seen the film that very much inspired that episode, The Enemy Below ?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050356/

Actors in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s were men ; Shatner was trained on the stage, as was Patrick Stewart.

Would any twenty-first century film studio cast a film with actors like Robert Mitchum or Jurgens? Or for that matter, Clark Gable or Greogory Peck or Henry Fonda? Is it only me or are the major names boyish and perhaps too youthful?

At any rate, this technology, like a sword, has promise; perhaps there will be an “ultimate” Star Trek film in time.

I respect each person\’s right to his or her opinion.

Live long and prosper!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/movies/15waxm.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fW%2fWaxman%2c%20Sharon

E X C E R P T

THERE’S nothing particularly remarkable about the near-empty offices of Image Metrics in downtown Santa Monica, loft-style cubicles with a dartboard at the end of the hallway. A few polite British executives tiptoe about, quietly demonstrating the company’s new technology.

What’s up on-screen in the conference room, however, immediately focuses the mind. In one corner of the monitor, an actress is projecting a series of emotions — ecstasy, confusion, relief, boredom, sadness — while in the center of the screen, a computer-drawn woman is mirroring those same emotions.

It’s not just that the virtual woman looks happy when the actress looks happy or relieved when the actress looks relieved. It’s that the virtual woman actually seems to have adopted the actress’s personality, resembling her in ways that go beyond pursed lips or knitted brow. The avatar seems to possess something more subtle, more ineffable, something that seems to go beneath the skin. And it’s more than a little bit creepy.

“I like to call it soul transference,” said Andy Wood, the chairman of Image Metrics, who is not shy about proclaiming his company’s potential. “The model has the actress’s soul. It shows through.”

You look and you wonder: Is it the eyes? Is it the wrinkles around the eyes? Or is it the tiny movements around the mouth? Something. Whatever it is, it could usher in radical change in the making of entertainment. A tool to reinvigorate the movies. Or the path to a Franken-movie monster.

The Image Metrics software lets a computer map an actor’s performance onto any character virtual or human, living or dead.

Its creators say it goes way beyond standard hand-drawn computer graphics, which require staggering amounts of time and money. It even goes beyond “motion capture,” the technique that animated Tom Hanks’s 2004 film “The Polar Express,” which is strong on body movement but not on eyes, the inner part of the lips and the tongue, some of the most important messengers of human emotion.

“One of our principal tenets is to capture all the movements of the face,” Mr. Wood said. “You can’t put markers on eyes, and you can’t replicate the human eye accurately through hand-drawn animation. That’s pretty important.”

Ultimately, though, Image Metrics could even go beyond the need for Tom Hanks — or any other actor — altogether.

“We can reanimate footage from the past,” said Mr. Wood, a stolid man with a salesman’s smile. He was hired to introduce Hollywood to the technology, which the computer scientists who founded the company sometimes have difficulty articulating.

“We could put Marilyn Monroe alongside Jack Nicholson, or Jack Black, or Jack White,” he continued, seated in the conference room where the emoting actress and her avatar shared the screen. “If we want John Wayne to act alongside Angelina Jolie, we can do that. We can directly mimic the performance of a human being on a model. We can create new scenes for old films, or old scenes for new films. We can have one human being drive another human character.”

To prove the point Mr. Wood brought up on-screen an animated character that he showed at the Directors Guild of America this past summer. The character, a simple figure comprising just a few lines drawn in the computer, made the “I coulda been a contender” speech from “On the Waterfront,” in Marlon Brando’s voice. (Because Brando didn’t gesture much, the stick figure’s movements were based on those of a hired actor.) Then he pulled up a video of the musician Peter Gabriel singing a scat beat alongside a half-dozen animated figures who, one by one, joined him in precise concert. Finally he brought up a scene from a Marilyn Monroe movie in which animators replaced the original Marilyn with a computer-drawn version of her. The image isn’t perfect — or rather, it’s a bit too perfect for credulity — but it clearly shows the path that lies ahead.

The breakneck pace of technology combined with the epic ambitions of directors has, up to now, taken movies to places undreamed of in the past: the resinking of the “Titanic”; war in space between armies of droids; a love story between a dinosaur-sized ape and a human-sized woman. (Whoops, we had that one before.)

But if Image Metrics can do what it claims, the door may open wider still, to vast, uncharted territories. To some who make the movies, the possibilities may seem disturbing; to others, exciting: Why not bring back Sean Connery, circa 1971, as James Bond? Or let George Clooney star in a movie with his aunt, Rosemary; say, a repurposed “White Christmas” of 1954? Maybe we can have the actual Truman Capote on-screen, performed by an unseen actor, in the next movie version of his life.

Projects are already circulating around Hollywood that seek to revive dead actors, including one that envisions Bruce Lee starring in a new Bruce Lee picture.

Asked what he might do with the new technology, Taylor Hackford, the director of “Ray” and a dozen other movies, was at first dismissive. “It’s phenomenal, but its uses are in the area of commercials,” he said. (Image Metrics made a commercial last winter that revived Fred and Ethel Mertz of “I Love Lucy” discussing the merits of a Medicare package.) But after a moment’s reflection, he shifted his view. “If you’re working on ‘The Misfits,’ and Clark Gable died before the end of the film, you could have used it in that instance,” he reflected.

Or what if Warren Beatty, or Robert Redford, wanted to play a younger version of himself? “If you had Warren or Redford in a great role, and there was a flashback to a young character” — he mused — yes, that would be a reason to use it. Perhaps in “The Notebook,” he went on, in which Ryan Gosling played the young version of James Garner’s character? Mr. Garner could have played both versions himself.

Still, one thought was holding Mr. Hackford back. “If you want Ethel Barrymore to give you an incredible, heartfelt and painful performance, that comes from the soul of the actor,” he said. “It’s not something you can get by animation.”

IMAGE Metrics began in the living room of Gareth Edwards, a shy, baby-faced, 34-year-old biophysicist from Manchester, England. He, Alan Brett and Kevin Walker, all postdoctoral students from the University of Manchester, were conducting research into image analysis, a technique first developed to help computers analyze spinal X-rays. “We were very much scientists looking for the big problem,” he said. “Big in terms of the problem, and big in terms of the benefit.”

They decided to start a company, of which Mr. Edwards is the chief technical officer. He doesn’t work out of his living room anymore; now he works in the Santa Monica offices. (His colleagues remain in England along with a half-dozen other computer and physics Ph.D.’s.) But some things remain the same. “Image analysis is a difficult scientific problem,” he said. “You’re trying to analyze complex objects: the human spine, or the mapping of the human face. How do you teach a computer to understand the context of an image when that image is complex?”

82. Anonymous - October 21, 2006

I want Hitch back with Mudd like performances. Bring back all his eccentric and lavish wording. Very colorful guy. And Happy!

83. Dom - October 21, 2006

Sybok, to be honest, a Star Trek film has to be taken as a whole. But there are many parts which make that whole. Music is a vital part of that. Where would TOS have been without its wonderful, often creepy, music? TNG and its sister shows were frequently criticised (notably by Ron Jones!) for their lack of atmospheric music.

Would TMP or TWOK have been as good without their superb scores by Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner?

So yes, I am concerned about music. I’m also in the position where I’m willing to take STXI on its own merits. Why does a film that features familiar characters in a new adventure have to be a ‘rehash?’

It’s a rehash if it’s an anal film, obsessed with the minutiae of Trek continuity.

A film that tells a rollicking good story with likeable versions of the classic characters, good FX and the sort of music you remember and would like to buy on a CD isn’t a rehash: it’s a Star Trek film, whoever acts in it.

84. Scorned - October 21, 2006

To: hitch1969©.

Dude it is all about the discussion.

To:Anthony Pascale.

I would have to disagree with this “You can’t fight city hall attitude”. Paramount has said openly “kiddie kirk”. Abrams won’t say anything. With Abrams idea of being a fan and compared to his Superman script. This should all be RED flags for fans to see. So as a lifelong fans of Trek we are suppose to sit here and “be happy”? Take whatever Paramount “blesses us with” by their choosing? I would disagree. Paramount should know and I think this fan site and the various others are a good place to let it be known that this “idea” stinks. Trek films are a business. They are there to make money. But if you are not attracting the Trek audience to the theater then who is going to go?

STXI doesn’t need to be Citizen Kane. I completely agree but it doesn’t need to be “STXI:The Wonder Years” either.

85. Dom - October 21, 2006

Scorned. I replied to your post on another thread. You dislike the idea of a TOS Trek movie, but you’re one person who’s making the same sort of noise that sections of the James Bond ‘fan’ world made about Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond.

Paramount have made a decision and the execs will dismiss the sort of noises you’re making as the rantings of a ‘nerd’ (I’m not saying you are, incidentally!)

The Superman screenplay was written by Abrams under a producer’s instructions.

I’m afraid you’ll have to deal with the fact that the movie’s happening. The TNG-era film series failed and is gone. The revived TOS offers numerous possibilities. Why not wait and see what happens rather than condemning based on wild suppositions?

86. Scorned - October 21, 2006

Dom

Scorned. I replied to your post on another thread. You dislike the idea of a TOS Trek movie, but you’re one person who’s making the same sort of noise that sections of the James Bond ‘fan’ world made about Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond.

I dislike a TOS movie if it is going to be “kiddie Kirk movie’. Bring back Shatner as Kirk and Nimoy as Spock and I am “soooo there”. I am not interested in seeing some “joe blow” walking around thinking he is going to pass himself off as “Scotty, Sulu etc”. Then do interviews and feed everyone with this line of crap of “oh the character this, oh the character that, I bring this, blah blah blah”. Who are these people kidding?

As for Daniel Craig. Letting Brosan go was mistake. They wanted a “younger Bond” with their silly “prequel” idea. Have you seen Daniel? He looks 50 years old and the guy is what 38? He doens’t even look like the character described in any of the James Bond books. There is “no Q” in the movie. They said they wanted more “think” and “less muscle” but when you see the trailers the whole thing is again “super hero”

Am I happy with Daniel being bond? Nope.
Will I go see it? Nope.
Will I set up a site to slam Daniel as Bond? Nope.
Will I point out the silliness of this prequel idea and throwing 40 years+ out of the window? Yes.

if we are lucky Daniel will be the new George Lazenby of Bond. Then they go get someone else who at least doesn’t look 100 years and at least comes to looking like Bond.

Paramount have made a decision and the execs will dismiss the sort of noises you’re making as the rantings of a ‘nerd’ (I’m not saying you are, incidentally!)

Paramount can say whatever it wants and so will I. Their actions are clearly that incompentent management. They don’t have a clue what they are doing with Trek. Who’s idea was it to release Nemesis during that Christmas 2 years ago. Up against movies Nemesis clearly didn’t havea chance of beating. For Gods sakes “Maiden In Manhatten” beat Nemesis. They can say whatever they want but in the end the “dollar” is all that counts and they are not getting any for me (or fans like me) just because they “spit on something and call it Star Trek”. Like the double dipping of DVD’s. What a massive rip off! TOS on DVD when they came out came to a total of $500-600 bucks. Forget that! I wait and I paid less than $40 bucks a piece at Costco.

The Superman screenplay was written by Abrams under a producer’s instructions.

Abrams in various interviews has stated that it was “his” script and his script alone. The script even got a green light from the studio at one point. So regardless Abrams said he was a fan of Superman and that script wasn’t even close. The Kevin Smiths script was 100% better and everyone knows how much of a comic book nut Kevin is.

The revived TOS offers numerous possibilities.

Rehashing offers nothing new.

Why not wait and see what happens rather than condemning based on wild suppositions?

I would rather not be the typical Star Trek fan who sits around going “i wish I wish” and then say something “after the fact” when it bombs”.
What wild speculation am I saying? I have said before and this site is also saying it “prequel kiddie kirk movie”. It is very clear that Paramount thinks the fans are so stupid they will “follow” another Star Wars prequel parade. It is really quite sad.

87. Scorned - October 21, 2006

Man I haven’t typed this much in a long time.

Another acid flash back to Trekweb.

88. Dom - October 21, 2006

“As for Daniel Craig. Letting Brosan go was mistake. They wanted a “younger Bond” with their silly “prequel” idea. Have you seen Daniel? He looks 50 years old and the guy is what 38? He doens’t even look like the character described in any of the James Bond books. There is “no Q” in the movie. They said they wanted more “think” and “less muscle” but when you see the trailers the whole thing is again “super hero””

Yep, thought so. Check it out folks: craignotbond.com has officially moved over to Star Trek! ;)

89. Sybok - October 21, 2006

Hello, didn’t anyone notice ? Shatner, Nimoy, et al. with the Image Metrics technology can play themselves at age 35 or younger!

The technology will capture their performances but they’ll look 40 years younger! I know ILM could get this to work or Weta Digital! Heck, DeForest Kelley could come back!

Even Daren Doc on his Mac with this software could make it happen, but it would take a few years! ;)

Is that great or what? Do Paramount Executives read the New York Times?

Will Paramount do this? Probably not, but if there is another film, I think they should. That would be the ultimate TOS film!

Again, from the New York Times article:

But if Image Metrics can do what it claims, the door may open wider still, to vast, uncharted territories. To some who make the movies, the possibilities may seem disturbing; to others, exciting: Why not bring back Sean Connery, circa 1971, as James Bond? Or let George Clooney star in a movie with his aunt, Rosemary; say, a repurposed “White Christmas” of 1954? Maybe we can have the actual Truman Capote on-screen, performed by an unseen actor, in the next movie version of his life.

Projects are already circulating around Hollywood that seek to revive dead actors, including one that envisions Bruce Lee starring in a new Bruce Lee picture.

Asked what he might do with the new technology, Taylor Hackford, the director of “Ray” and a dozen other movies, was at first dismissive. “It’s phenomenal, but its uses are in the area of commercials,” he said. (Image Metrics made a commercial last winter that revived Fred and Ethel Mertz of “I Love Lucy” discussing the merits of a Medicare package.) But after a moment’s reflection, he shifted his view. “If you’re working on ‘The Misfits,’ and Clark Gable died before the end of the film, you could have used it in that instance,” he reflected.

90. Sybok - October 21, 2006

Oh, the link:

http://www.image-metrics.com/

91. Scorned - October 21, 2006

Dom

There is no reason to be upset. You take things way to seriously. You asked a question and you got a response. You should be happy. I have nothing to do with that website. Surprised that you seem to know it.

Quote:”Shatner, Nimoy, et al. with the Image Metrics technology can play themselves at age 35 or younger!

You don’t have to touch up their faces that much…… It would add to the story of it being “years” later.

92. James Heaney - October 21, 2006

Wikipedia has been updated accordingly. As of two days ago. I am pleased by their lack of lack of progress.

93. acb - October 23, 2006

There is a difference that needs to be made i feel about recasting a TOS film. I for one believe and know it can be done. Can it be done with just anyone, hell no. I am an actor myself, so i can say that from the method used to creating a character if u get the right person that in some forms has the personality needed or has a clear understanding of character integration than this movie can be pulled off. Just look at Brosnan, Christian Bale, or even Christopher Reeves. All were actors coming in after a character had already been played by another actor, but all knew that you can not mimic a performance. You have to find the drive and spirit of the character first, then things such a mannerisms or physical gestures are added after that, but it has to come in that order otherwise you receive a parody of the character.

Now, at the same time (except for the possiblity it of Brosnan) the successful recasting examples were relatively unknown to the masses, which allowed for more believeability for the audience. But most of all, if the actor can find that place where the character is emotionally driven from both in goals and in personality then Kirk and Spock can be recast and done in a fashion that is totally acceptable to both old fans and new ones.

There are plenty of actors out there that can be tested and two that can be found who will fit the roles, the only problem comes in when Paramount decides to look at only “a” listers to fill the roles, which there are none that even come relatively close to mind who can capture the personality as well as visual comparison to where I can say “That’s Kirk/ Spock!” and not “That’s so and so dressed as Kirk and Spock.”

Everyone just has to remember that just because we do hear a tree fall in the woods does not mean it did not make a sound. So just because there are no actors that we “know” from all the stars out there does not mean there is not an actor who can not take on the reigns of these characters. It simply means that the concept of the unknown, i.e. unknown actor, must be addressed. It is not as impossible a task to go and find them, it is all a matter of whether or not Paramount cares enough for the fans (both old and new) to do so.

94. Dom - October 23, 2006

Good post, acb!

Obviously, from my other posts, you know I think that the characters can be recast.

I’m not even too worried about the issue of casting ‘names’ in some of the roles.

I’ll use the example of Matt Damon, since his name’s been bandied about. I based my knowledge of Mr Damon on his work with Ben Affleck and Kevin Smith, along with his writing Good Will Hunting.

I assumed he was just another slightly smug, good old, all-American actor . . . y’know . . . the sort of guy who was like Tom Hanks became after Tom Hanks decided not to be funny any more and become a safe, if a little dull, actor.

Then Damon turns around and makes The Bourne Identity and is so convincing in it that the whole spy film genre was shaken up. Eon revamp their Bond films, JJ Abrams gets hired to sort out Mission: Impossible (unfortunately he can’t ditch an increasingly eccentric-seeming Tom Cruise!)

There could well be one or two ‘stars’ out there who could pull the rabbit out of the hat and blow us away. I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

95. Dom - October 24, 2006

As a certain person would say: ‘Fascinating!’

Thank you!

96. Ralph - October 24, 2006

Wow, cool. Please spare us the details of the script. The less we know the better the movie.

97. acb - October 24, 2006

wasn’t the enterprise in TMP the refitted version of enterprise. It did happen only 2 and 1/2 years after the original series.

98. Ralph - October 24, 2006

Can someone verify S. Lansing post?

99. Anthony Pascale - October 24, 2006

uh…it is just some dude in Virginia pretending to be Sherry Lansing of Paramount. And this dude better stop doing that

100. Dom - October 24, 2006

Shame. ‘Twas and interesting idea!

101. Paolo Visitor - November 12, 2006

Beautiful, interesting site. Has added a site in bookmarks, tomorrow I shall return, to esteem still.:)

102. Star Trek XI On The Fast Track For 2008 Release - The Movie Insiders - April 18, 2007

[…] digg thisPosted in News and Rumors, Star Trek No Comments » No comments yet. RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry:inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Name (required): […]

103. Phillip Castro - November 12, 2008

y9cpqdiyvs6jg6es

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.