Dorn Praises Frakes, Blames Baird, and questions Abrams at Detroit’s Motor City Con

The popular culture presented at a Detroit’s Motor City Comic Convention is multifarious. Last weekend’s con had The Greatest American Hero’s Robert Culp to I Dream of Jeannie and The Bob Newhart Show’s Bill Daily to Desperate Housewives’ Dagney Kerr all there to blend the worlds of science fiction, comedy, comic books, and entertainment. For Trekkies there were Star Trek XI posters offered as swag, fans dressed in Trek costumes, Trek items for sale, Lori Petty (Noss from Voyager) signing autographs and last but not least  Michael Dorn (TNG: Worf) sharing his thoughts on Trek’s past and future. About 100 people crammed into a small room to hear Dorn discuss his views and experiences of Star Trek.

TNG Memories

Dorn started things off by discussing how amazing it was that next year is the 20th Anniversary of Star Trek The Next Generation, asking the crowd "do you realize next year will be twenty years?" He wasn’t aware of any specific special events planned, but said he hoped the cast would get together for a special private event. He discussed how much fun it was to work with the Next Generation actors and crew telling the crowd how Jonathan Frakes (Riker) often sang during moments when not filming. On his time working on TNG Dorn said "it was like the best years of high school". The actor seemed to have genuine affection for his fellow cast mates. Apparently one big change for the actor since his time working on TNG is with his voice. "When I played Worf my real voice became like his, but now it has gone back"

A TOS fan too

The actor listed the ‘Wrath of Khan’ as one of his two favorite Trek films and told the crowd that he has always been a huge fan of the Original Series. As an example he said that before he ever worked on Trek he would play Trek trivia gams with his girlfriend. Dorn spoke very enthusiastic about his opportunity to work the Original Series actors in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The actor was particularly touched by the graciousness of DeForest Kelley (Dr McCoy), who often made jokes and helped him be at ease. Apparently Kelley joked that Dorn portrayed his defense attorney so well he wanted his phone number in case he ever needed a lawyer. Dorn told the crowd what is was like on the last day of shooting for the last of the TOS era films: "seeing the entire original crew of actors together was an emotional experience, I really wish I had a camera for that"

Where the TNG films went right…and went wrong
The other film that Dorn listed as one of his favorites was the TNG era film First Contact. He attributed much of the success to the direction of Jonathan Frakes, saying “he understood Star Trek and acting”. He mentioned that Frakes brought a great deal of improvisational ideas to First Contact, yet for some reason was not allowed that same ability with the next Star Trek film ‘Insurrection’. On why Star Trek Nemesis failed Dorn said there were many reasons, but he laid much of the blame at the feet of the director Stuart Baird. He also derided the script as ‘derivative’, saying "how many times are we going to do ‘Data’s twin’?"

Not up on Trek XI or Trek Remastered

On the subject of JJ Abrams rumored TOS era Trek XI the actor didn’t seem to have a positive view, saying: “I am from the Gene Roddenberry school and I think they need to go forward not backward”. He also speculated that perhaps Paramount may not be happy with Abrams after MI:3 underperformed, but admitted he did not know a good deal about the film. When asked about Trek Remastered (the CGI-enhanced version of the original series) Dorn seemed unaware of the project. Other fans in the audience started to discuss how such changes could distort the original show, or might result in changes to narratives. Dorn said that he thought that such changes would be a mistake saying that the effects should be secondary. (note: Dorn’s negative view of Trek Remastered was reported by the Detroit News, but his comments  seemed to be reacting to a somewhat distorted characterisation of Trek Remastered that bore no resemblance to the actual project.

The happy ex Klingon
Some published writings provide the view that Dorn or other Star Trek actors are bitter about Star Trek XI not being about the Next Generation. There was no sense of that here. Dorn’s talk, with his respect for fans, enthusiasm for Star Trek, fondness for Star Trek actors, and his detailed discussions, was one of the better talks we have seen by a Star Trek actor. Dorn is a Star Trek fan of the Kirk era and the Picard era who seemed to relish his time with Trek, telling the crowd: "Given the choice between playing all the major roles of Shakespeare and playing Worf again I would choose Worf…I would be happy playing Worf forever." This is an actor happy with past achievements, and looking forward to new acting or directing challenges. His talk and the reaction of those fans there was an affirmation of his contributions to Star Trek for 11 seasons and 5 feature films. We left with a new appreciation for Dorn and a real sense that Dorn appreciates the fans of Star Trek.

 more at Detroit News: Worf At Motor City Con

 

Photo courtesy of the Detroit News, more from them: Worf At Motor City Con 

 

Want to learn more about the sociology of Trek?
John Tenuto is a sociology professor at The College of Lake County, Grayslake, Illinois. Next January he will be teaching a class called "Social Problems: The Star Trek Edition". The class discusses Star Trek’s presentation of social issues and solutions to social problems (
economic, environmental, technological, and sociological), comparing the real world to the reel world of Star Trek. Registration begins this November. Call 847-543-2537 for more info.

32 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Michael Dorn is a *class* *act*! Bravo.

And if he cannot play Worf again, I do think he would make not only a great Othello, but a great Lear and even Falstaff!

May he live long and prosper. :)

Michael Dorn managed to make an initially ill-thought-out character interesting. He was ill-treated by most of the movies.

As he says, though, he is from the Gene Roddenberry school, which, thankfully, the makers of the new film and the makers of most of the TOS films aren’t!

‘Go forward, not back’ is one of those silly quotes which gets to justify any number of people’s opposing views on Trek.

It’s a shame Mr Dorn didn’t get to play the Colonel again in another Trek!

Hats off to Dorn– a class act all the way.

It is sad that TNG is approaching its 20th anniversary and it’s pretty much dead, whereas TOS was at its all-time peak during its 20th, (c. Star Trek IV). Oh well, times they are a changing. Thanks Rick Berman!

I was there at the Novi show and meet Dorn. I know I was one of the many in line that said “No” to a silly prequel movie. You could tell by the look on Dorns face that he has been hearing quite a bit about a lack of interest in a prequel movie and an overall dislike as to how Trek has been runned in the past and why it is no better off now.

Lets face it Michael Dorn is a perfect example of “Trek moving forward”. Who would of thought that after TOS and after STIV that a new series with a new cast would be so popular. The characters of Picard and Worf and among the favourites of fans. So why do people think that a rehashing is a way to go? People need to get off the MooreRon bandwagon and stop following the vapour trails of the Star Wars prequel parade.

This was my second time meeting Dorn and he was just the same as last time. He took pictures and signed just about anything that people brought. I saw one guy bring him this “Klingon B’toh (sp?)”. It was signed by almost every Trek actor who every played a Klingon. Fans like that don’t need a “Wonder years” movie.

Yes I agree Michael Dorn is a lovable and a respectable guy.
In the begining I had different thoughts of him. He didn’t look right and his acting was a little off. But he matured towards the end.

To be honest, Scorned, what’s happening at the moment is a division between TOS fans and Church of Roddenberry fans (TNG and its sister shows.)

There’s a lot of interest in the new film from TOS fans. Church of Roddenberry don’t like the idea of the new film, because they’re into all this 24th century ‘evolved’ human stuff.

Church of Roddenberry drove me away from Star Trek. By the time this new Trek film was announced I’d long forgotten my deep-seated love of Star Trek. I avoided the websites, avoided the fans and didn’t read any Trek novels.

The announcement of a new movie, overseen by someone whose work I respect, featuring the characters I love, has brought me back to Star Trek after more than a decade. I know I can’t be the only one who feels like this!

To Dom To be honest, Scorned, what’s happening at the moment is a division between TOS fans and Church of Roddenberry fans (TNG and its sister shows.) Star Trek is not a religion so I don’t understand this need to say the “church of Roddenberry”. To me that is some disrespectful way of making any type of statement. There’s a lot of interest in the new film from TOS fans. Church of Roddenberry don’t like the idea of the new film, because they’re into all this 24th century ‘evolved’ human stuff. There is not much interest in a TOS film unless Shatner and Nimoy are brought back AS the characters they help make famous. By looking at fan reaction to the return of Kirk in ENT sent fan website off their ear. The return of Kirk in the Direct TV ads again showed interest in seeing Shatner do Kirk one more time and not some Matt Damon act. There has never been this drive to say “get rid of Nimoy get joe blow he will be better”. Sorry I am not buying that. Since when do fans of your so called church are stuck in the 24th century. I like TOS and TNG and I am all for a NEW cast in a NEW century. WIth the backdrop to be completely changed. I have already discussed briefly a few points about that already. (A lot can happen in a 100 hundred years.) There is no reason to believe that someone like Manny Coto or Judith and Garfield could NOT deliver a good series. We all know that they actually help salvage parts of ENT despite 3 seasons of lousy writing. Everyone keeps forgetting that “Star Trek” takes place AFTER mankind has evolved. Mankind has finally matured and such comments are even made during “FC” and even during “DS9” episdes that deal with the “Sanctuaries”. If you feel that Star Trek is too perfect or too evolved then maybe I am not watching the same Trek as you. You don’t have any Trek character with all the “answers” (please do not bring up Wesley..hahahah). You saw occasionally the Captains make decisions which were “not right”. (ie Picard NOT d/l that virus to destroy the borg, Janeway destroying the caretaker and stranding her crew 75 light years from home). Trek has mankind as being evolved but not perfect. Humanity being “evolved” is a fundamental of Star Trek. Church of Roddenberry drove me away from Star Trek. By the time this new Trek film was announced I’d long forgotten my deep-seated love of Star Trek. I avoided the websites, avoided the fans and didn’t read any Trek novels. I don’t understand something. You are saying that you were away from Trek for so long. What exactly of Trek did you watch? I personally don’t think you really enjoy Trek. Maybe Trek isn’t something you are really into. The announcement of a new movie, overseen by someone whose work I respect, featuring the characters I love, has brought me back to Star Trek after more than a decade. I know I can’t be the only one who feels like this! Work you respect. Alias and Lost. That is it? Alias, a show that barely lasted 4 seasons. Lost a show that is already starting to drop. MI3 which was a major disappointment. MI3 was completely stupid. What the HELL was the “Rabbits foot”? Abrams is the flavor of the month. There are so many other talented writers in Hollywood. I think you are the only one who feels this way. Despite being away from Trek for so long there has been that rare moment where something “good” came out. I think you are putting Trek (like many others) on this incredibly high pedestal which Trek itself can’t possibly match. I am for continuity in the Trek universe. I am not a major hammer against every little thing because I know mistakes are going to happen. Big mistakes are what I hate. Klingon blood in STVI was purple and then we see it “red” in STVII. Sloppy. Having some guy run away doing a Scottish accent trying to replace James Doohan as Scotty is not much of a “return to Trek”. It will not make STXI do $300 million in business. I personally think Abrams is going to hurt Trek just like he almost did with his ridiculous Superman movie script. Abrams has yet to prove he can do “Trek”. Trek and Lost/Alias are NOT the same thing”. With the delusions of being successful like George Lucas with the prequels only shows me that Abrams is just going to be heading up Trek at the end of a finished parade. Trek fans after the cancellation of the prequel series are not interested in anymore prequels.… Read more »

any talk by dorn, from those that were there, on his time on DS9, as his role on that show developed his character much more than it was on TNG.

par for the course for better-but-often-overlooked DS9, of course…

Ouch! Scorned, you really need to chill out a bit! I didn’t attack you, so there’s no need to act so . . . um . . . scorned! ;)

To address some of your (many!) points. I grew up watching TOS. Loved it. Saw every episode several times. I have all the TOS series DVDs and all the TOS movies. TNG was a disappointment to me. It got an audience, but its ‘matured’ humans surrounded by aliens (like the Ferengi) who were, frankly, racist stereotypes of present-day human cultures, did nothing for me. Nevertheless, I watched all of TNG and some of it was good.

I dipped in and out of DS9, which got better as it went along, but I moved on to other things, like The X Files. I saw quite a lot of Voyager, which was better than its reputation and was sent to sleep by Enterprise. I liked First Contact, but thought the other TNG movies sucked. STV was better than those three and STV was pretty flawed!

JJ Abrams has been writing, directing and producing films for something like 16 years. he’s hardly some kid who popped up out of nowhere! Alias is a television show that ran for five complete seasons and had a definite ending. Lost is a big success heading into its third season. Both Alias and Lost channel elements of the likes of Mission: Impossible and The Prisoner. The ‘rabbit’s foot’ is like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction. It doesn’t matter what’s in it. Abrams wrote his Superman script under instructions from the producers: he didn’t have creative control on the project!

The Klingon blood in STVI was pink because it looked cool to have zero-g blood and it couldn’t be red for censorship reasons. The Romulans in the TNG films had bumpy foreheads, but the ones in the TOS films didn’t. The Klingons in TOS looked different from the ones in the movies: Enterprise explained why, but it really didn’t need explaining. Indeed even the basic ‘look’ of the Klingons varied wildly between the various movies and later TV shows.

Fans can always be relied upon to come up with an explanation of some kind for these inconsistencies, anyway. The cinema-going audience will most likely not care. The differences, as far as I’m concerned, are because TOS is separate from the CoR Treks: they’re really different shows because of their philosophical views.

I say ‘Church of Roddenberry’ because Roddenberry developed some pretty whacked-out views in later life which he transplanted into TMP and the 24th Century-era Treks. Read his TMP novelisation – there’s some scary stuff in there!

Enterprise didn’t fail because it was a prequel: it was simply not very good!

As for ‘Kiddie Kirk’ . . . Matt Damon’s about the same age Shatner was when he first played Kirk, so I wouldn’t call him a kiddie! I’m not convinced Damon will play Kirk, anyway, given he’s doing very nicely with the Bourne films.

Anyway, the way things stand, we’re getting a ‘continuity plug-in’ Star Trek, as opposed to a prequel and it’ll have to stand on its own merits. I think it stands a chance as TOS worked very well on the big screen. Witha good script, a good cast and the right amount of support from Shatner and Nimoy including, perhaps, a cameo from them in the film, it could be great.

I’m cautiously optimistic.

Ouch! Scorned, you really need to chill out a bit! I didn’t attack you, so there’s no need to act so . . . um . . . scorned! Dom I am not upset and I making just a point. To address some of your (many!) points. I grew up watching TOS. Loved it. Saw every episode several times. I have all the TOS series DVDs and all the TOS movies. TNG was a disappointment to me. It got an audience, but its ‘matured’ humans surrounded by aliens (like the Ferengi) who were, frankly, racist stereotypes of present-day human cultures, did nothing for me. Nevertheless, I watched all of TNG and some of it was good. I am curious. Which stereotype were the Ferengi suppose to be? I liked it that each species had a special characteristic about them that made them stick out. Klingons were proud. Bajorns were religious/spiritual, Vulcans were logical, Fererengi were all business. That made for some good plot lines because as you saw “Klingons didn’t like races with no honour” etc etc. I still don’t understand this “matured” humans surrounding. Was the series suppose to take place in a high school? A College? It was very smart that TNG follow TOS with regards to mankind and the Federation moving forward. Things were built, new worlds discovered etc. I don’t think anyone wanted to view a “Jar Jar” character with an episode about “teen acne”. Not all TNG was great. None of the Trek series had every single episode as great. But the ones that stand out are the best which each series was able to show. I dipped in and out of DS9, which got better as it went along, but I moved on to other things, like The X Files. I saw quite a lot of Voyager, which was better than its reputation and was sent to sleep by Enterprise. I liked First Contact, but thought the other TNG movies sucked. STV was better than those three and STV was pretty flawed! I agree that DS9 got better but near the end it ran out of gas. I think you are more of a fan of the X-Files type of Sci-Fi then Star Trek. Voyager had few good moments and ENT was only good during S4. (Surprise Surprise) FC was not that great. It changed everything about the Borg. It turned them from “white pale cyborgs” into these “green, slimey reptilian cyborgs”. The very idea of the Borg was changed which I found to be annoying. You were told the Borg were “one mind” and here you have this “queen Bee” with the “hive mentality”. Again there are many parts of FC which were sloppy. The last two films were not that great because you had people in charge who hated Trek and just wanted the pay check. I am sure that film by Meyer, Nimoy, Coto, Reeves etc would of been much better. Lets face it Brannon Braga is a worthless writer and shouldn’t even be allowed to write “fortune cookies”. JJ Abrams has been writing, directing and producing films for something like 16 years. he’s hardly some kid who popped up out of nowhere! Alias is a television show that ran for five complete seasons and had a definite ending. Lost is a big success heading into its third season. Both Alias and Lost channel elements of the likes of Mission: Impossible and The Prisoner. The ‘rabbit’s foot’ is like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction. It doesn’t matter what’s in it. Abrams wrote his Superman script under instructions from the producers: he didn’t have creative control on the project! His time in the “biz” doesn’t mean anything. There are people who waited years before hitting it big while others didn’t. Alias near the end was all over the place time slot wise. The ratings tanked. Lost has been reported to be “dipping” as well. The reason I say this is that the “November sweeps” are coming up and “Lost” was mentioned in the “better do something big”. With Alias and Lost taking elements are we to expect the same for Trek? STXI: The Prisoner? STXI: MI4. Abrams did NOT write the script under instructions he clearly wrote it on his own which he is quoted as saying. For Abrams to use the Rabbits foot like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction was lazy writing in my opinion because you had this “super hero” character risking his life, pulling off an outrageous stunt in order to get it. All in order to save his wife’s life. To me I thought it was sloppy at best being placed under “the butler did it”. The Klingon blood in STVI was pink because it looked cool to have zero-g blood and it couldn’t be red for censorship… Read more »

“Such as? Is this something like “Scientology”? I would hardly start knocking a “dead man” for a book her wrote. He is not alive to defend it then I find it kind of cowardly to bash him.”

Damn! All those mean people out there who criticised Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan had better clam up then! Roddenberry wasn’t a saint and if I or anyone else chooses to criticise his work, that’s our right. You put your work in the public domain, it’s there to be criticised. You’re basically saying that if someone’s dead you can’t talk about them. What utter rubbish!

“Again with this “if it is done right/crossing of the fingers” approach. What does it take to get fans to do something? They wait and wait and when it comes out they go nuts. They should of said something “BEFORE” the train wreck was made.”

So you have officially appointed yourself flag waver to bring down the ‘evil leaders’ at Paramount. You know how to make Star Trek better than anyone else. How arrogant!

“All these celb movies come out AFTER the persons dies because they know they can’t slam the movie.”

This isn’t English. It makes no sense.

“Regardless of the book there is no reason to call fans of TOS “disciples of church of roddenberry.”

I didn’t call fans of TOS “disciples of Church of Roddenberry.” I called die hard fans of Roddenberry’s later Treks “disciples of Church of Roddenberry.” The ones who can’t accept a generation has had its last journey and that journey sucked! TOS reflected the influence of far more people than Roddenberry, including Gene Coon, Nicholas Meyer and Leonard Nimoy. TOS evolved under the leadership of many people. Sensibly, the movie producers kept Roddenberry as far away from the Trek films as they could.

“It has an insulting tone.”

[cough]Pot calling kettle black[cough] This from a person who says that my being a fan of TOS, who has issues with later Treks, shouldn’t be a fan. What a shame it is for you that I’m not going to prostrate myself at your feet and tell you you’re right and conveniently go away!

“I am curious. Which stereotype were the Ferengi suppose to be?”

If you can’t spot that, I suggest you check out Oliver Twist!

“Abrams did NOT write the script under instructions he clearly wrote it on his own which he is quoted as saying.”

Writers don’t just write a movie script based on a major property owned by major film studio without being commissioned to do so! Do you really think they’d hire Abrams to write a film about Superman, then just leave him to it? The producers have a specific plan for a film. The screenwriter’s task is to mould the producers’ concept into something concrete.

“For Abrams to use the Rabbits foot like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction was lazy writing in my opinion . . .”

Pulp Fiction borrowed the suitcase concept from Kiss Me, Deadly. It’s a maguffin. I guess, by your rationale, Alfred Hitchcock, who regularly used maguffins, must be the laziest man in history. Careful now: you might be insulting the work of a dead man! ;)

Scorned, you are writing bile about a film whose details are almost entirely unknown, under an assumed name. You’re insulting people’s intelligence and integrity and even stropping at the guy who’s nice enough to run this site. This relegates you to the position of a troll. Unless you lose the hatred, you’ll be ignored.

I hope to God you are both done.
The article was about Dorn. I am glad he, as an actor did not trash his show, his costars, the other projects or act pissy because he likely won’t be in ST:XI.
Scorned…. why are you picking Dom’s comments off bit by bit?
Damon’s not confirmed as Kirk or any other charactor on this show.
Very little is known for sure on this possible movie… it’s not even been green-lighted yet.
The ability to comment on these articles is fun and fun to read, but when you trash other’s opinions or attempt to speak for others… for example… “There is not much interest in a TOS film unless Shatner and Nimoy are brought back AS the characters they help make famous.”is not a fair statement. I may or may not agree with you on that statement, but please don’t assume your opinion is mine or any other persons.
Let’s discuss the possibilities, the events and the news of this maybe-movie and not get so wound up. Please.

Amen!
Lets have fun speculating without the drama.
Wana hear mine? Umm… the speculating part…

it’s your opinion, Ralph, go for it.

Worf!!!! Don’t fret they’ll be some Klingons in Abrams’ Star Trek… come on! Let’s have some bumpy Klingons!

Michael T I am not. pick on Dom. I am commenting on what he said. I am not making any personal attacks or any other comments. I am just commenting on what he said. But to show you that I am not the villian here. I will comment to him and if you has anything else he can “feel free to email me”. I would be more than happy to discuss this further via emails with him. Dom…..(my new VP!) Damn! All those mean people out there who criticised Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan had better clam up then! Roddenberry wasn’t a saint and if I or anyone else chooses to criticise his work, that’s our right. You put your work in the public domain, it’s there to be criticised. You’re basically saying that if someone’s dead you can’t talk about them. What utter rubbish! Please..you need to relax. I never once said that Gene was a saint. I asked you what the book was about. Care to tell us instead of jumping the gun because I never read it and I think many others on here haven’t as well. To make a comment on how you twisted that to get to this thing about Gene and Hitler is not only laughable but just plain not worth the time responding too. So you have officially appointed yourself flag waver to bring down the ‘evil leaders’ at Paramount. You know how to make Star Trek better than anyone else. How arrogant! I never appointed myself. But thanks for the nomination!! I must reciprocate by nominating you for something? Say my VP? A Scorned/Dom ticket. Come on!! Always remember “in every revolution there is one man with a vision”. It isn’t arrogance. It is common sense and if you look around at all the other Trek fan website you will see “their arrogance” as well. I called die hard fans of Roddenberry’s later Treks “disciples of Church of Roddenberry.” The ones who can’t accept a generation has had its last journey and that journey sucked! TOS reflected the influence of far more people than Roddenberry, including Gene Coon, Nicholas Meyer and Leonard Nimoy. TOS evolved under the leadership of many people. Sensibly, the movie producers kept Roddenberry as far away from the Trek films as they could. I just kind of called myself a Star Trek fan. I didn’t realize there was a huge religious title/connection that goes along with that. cough]Pot calling kettle black[cough] This from a person who says that my being a fan of TOS, who has issues with later Treks, shouldn’t be a fan. What a shame it is for you that I’m not going to prostrate myself at your feet and tell you you’re right and conveniently go away! I never said that. Again twisting. Why are you so angry? Have I hit a nerve? “Prostrate myself?????”……Whatever gets you through the night. If you can’t spot that, I suggest you check out Oliver Twist! I don’t agree. That is clearly your opinion and not fact. Writers don’t just write a movie script based on a major property owned by major film studio without being commissioned to do so! Abrams much like Kevin Smith submitted scripts because the word was out there was talk of another Superman movie. They wrote the scripts and they made a pitch. There was no studio suit breathing down either’s neck. If you read Kevin Smiths script you will clearly see “the fan”. There are PLENTY of website with the history about the Superman movies and all the “on and off again” projects which finally led to Superman Returns. It is truly amazing. Pulp Fiction borrowed the suitcase concept from Kiss Me, Deadly. I guess you missed the part where I said “in my opinion. You just gave a response about the audience being more supplicated earlier. Here is MI3 with all this “technology” (the computers, the mask making, the voice overs etc.” It was not out of the realm of common sense to just say “what” it was. You didn’t have to Technobabble it. They are not the same. The difference is that Pulp Fiction is a great movie and won an academy award for Best Original Screenplay and MI3 is well…a sequel (that did ok but others but not so good to the studio.) It’s a maguffin. I guess, by your rationale, Alfred Hitchcock, who regularly used maguffins, must be the laziest man in history. Careful now: you might be insulting the work of a dead man! Again the twisting of words in the dire attempt to make a point. Good try. Scorned, you are writing bile about a film whose details are almost entirely unknown, under an assumed name. I didn’t realize that we had to post up our real… Read more »

Ralph…

….hit it!!!

They did not black out ST. WhoHoo! I’ll get back to you guys.
I Love You Man!!

Opps, thats me /\

Black out ST??

Ok, just saw the show. Still great! No glowing impulse because the ship is in warp during exterior shots. Blinking Gorn from the dusty world… cool.
But I ‘ll tell you what. This would have been a great future movie concept. Can you imagine 1000 yrs in the future the Federation is in a peace of a 1000s yrs. Then a new threat emerges. The Federation negotiates peace talks with a deceptive race for peace. The Federation is suspicious of the peace talks but go thru with it. The race wants to eliminate the Federation of Planets and proceeds with their conquest. It looks like the end is near when on the horizon a glimmer… a glimmer of hope. A new species comes to the aid of the Federation. To bring them out of the brink of defeat. The Metrons battle the evil empire in a great battle along side the Earthlings and all species of the Federation. Its a great battle of magnificent magnitude. It’s like all of the Universe is involved. The Metrons put up a heroic battle to save the Federation. The battle settles at one last stand. The Metrons advances to the front to confront the evil for one last battle. The Battle of Armageddon.

Too few people are simply seeing and obviously saying too much about something that is mere conjecture at this point in time. Lets all try our best
to keep it both friendly and on the staright and narrow if you’re able – Ok?

Scorned. I’m not angry, although I do throw myself into these debates with vigour. I love discussing stuff with people who have opposing viewpoints. It frustrates me when someone like you has good stuff to say, but spoils it with a one-step-too-far attitude of: ‘Let’s start a campaign to get the new Trek film pulled because I personally don’t like the idea!’

Better everyone comment ‘Yay!’ or ‘Nay’ as and when concrete news comes through about what’s happening. That’s far more constructive than expending energy jumping on faint shadows and press supposition.

I mean, look at Casino Royale: all that row and now it’s looking like the best Bond film in years!

Anyway, hopefully we’re at peace now.

All the best, Dom :)

Like I said before Paramount when they hired Abrams said “kiddie kirk movie”. That is a fact. Abrams must of pitched a story to Paramount. So he knows what he is doing seeing how HE designed the poster.

Scorned. I’m not angry, although I do throw myself into these debates with vigour. I love discussing stuff with people who have opposing viewpoints. It frustrates me when someone like you has good stuff to say, but spoils it with a one-step-too-far attitude of: ‘Let’s start a campaign to get the new Trek film pulled because I personally don’t like the idea!’

First off you flew off the handle and second you are over exaggerating again with such comments like “myself starting a campaign”. Which is clearly not the case. In an attempt at “damage control”. You say I have “good stuff to say” yet you never negated anything about it. Instead I hear “you write under an assumed name, bile etc”. I have no problem with you but your “speech” here is far from sincere. It is clear you are a member of Trekweb.

Better everyone comment ‘Yay!’ or ‘Nay’ as and when concrete news comes through about what’s happening. That’s far more constructive than expending energy jumping on faint shadows and press supposition.

What is the point of saying “yes or no”? You are going to have a whole column of “yes” or “no’s”?

I mean, look at Casino Royale: all that row and now it’s looking like the best Bond film in years!

I am not getting in a JB debate because I really don’t care too. This movie is a prequel and I have no interest in it. The actor is old looking and looks like nothing like the character described in the book Casino Royale. The said they didn’t want a “super hero” Bond. More grit blah blah. Go look at the trailer. All action. So the studio in this case said “one thing” and “did another”. It is only your opinion that is looking like the best in years. I personally am not interested in this “bond”.

On a completely different note…Christmas will soon be here the first draft will be submitted and it will then be leaked out…

Scorned you are really skirting into troll territory. if you are here just to make basesless attacks like \’kiddie trek\’ which I can assure everyone here has never been stated by anyone at Paramount and is not the movie they are making then I suggest you just move on

RE: Abrams superman script
have you read it? didnt think so
the slam agains that script is that it made various changes to the SM mythos. these were things Abrams was told to do by Jon Peters, otherwise the script was pretty good. In the end WB realised Peters was such a screwup and sending people like Abrams and Smith in the wrong directions that they tried to fire him but his contract was too good

This site is for the open minded, the people who are looking forward to the future of trek with projects like Trek Remastered and Trek XI. This site has not shied away from crtitiques, but is not going to play the game of being opposed to things on pricincipal, especially things that are not out yet.

if all you want to do is attack and you have closd your mind to the future of trek then I suggest you do it on one of the many other sites that cater to that kind of thing. TrekMovie.com was created to be a different kind of site.

 

And no this is not a \’everyitng Paramount does is good\’ site, just look at our Trek Remastered coverage…we call them as we see the. There are many legit questions about the future of trek. This site is for people who want to learn more and discuss the possibilities with Trek XI and other future Trek projects. It is not for people who have already decided what those things will be and is just here to attack them…that is not a \’discussion\’ that is trolling

Anthony.

I am glad to see this site will not shield away from critiques. Some sites do. I am not being closed minded I am merely pointing out the possiblities.

Oh yeah, with regards to the Superman script. I found this article to be very interesting.
http://www.agonybooth.com/forum/topic2730.htm

you have shown zero evidence of being open minded and if you continue to make baseless accusations (such as those about Paramount saying \’kiddie trek\’ and Abrams SM script…things of which I guarantee you are not true) you will no longer be welcome here.

so far all you have done is demonstrate that your mind is made up and you are only here to attack and pick fights…that is not a discussion that is trolling and this is not that kind of site. This site is open to critiques as our  coverage and commentary of Trek Remastered has made clear, but this is not a place to attack that project or Trek XI on principal. We fully support both projects and hope and endeavor for them to be as good as possible. TOSr is being done…so there is no debate anymore about \’should it be done\’. Trek XI is being made by JJ Abrams and will be  TOS film, debating those issues is irrelevent and distracting

If you do  not want CBS to make TOSr or want Paramount to fire Abrams…fine…go tell them about it, but dont do it here. 

 

and that is all I will say on the matter, you have been warned

Anthony,
Thanks for clearing the air in here. Now, back to business…

“Open minded”?

You know what they say about being open-minded … your brains fall out!

But I don’t think you’re in trouble there — your “counter-attack” was pretty close-minded and opinionated. Hmm … that getting close to your definition of trolling …

Welcome to the club! ;-)

P.S. “Scorned” — thanks for your opinion and debate. You make some valid points. Apparently, those of other opinions don’t have the confidence to defend theirs.

Erm . . . what’s trekweb? :)

HIghly Illogical

Like I said before “having crossed” fingers is not the way to think.