Doctor Who

Abrams Wants You To Have An Open Mind

EW.com got a moment to talk Star Trek with JJ Abrams after his panel at the New York Times’ 6th Annual Arts & Leisure Weekend. Abrams confirmed TrekMovie.com’s earlier report that there is a draft of the script complete and that it will be ‘trimmed soon’. As usual JJA would not reveal any plot details but did address the contentious issue of who Trek XI is directed at. Abrams made it clear that they have a wide aim:

On the one hand, for people who love Star Trek, the fix that they will get will be really satisfying…For people who’ve never seen it or know it vaguely, I think they will enjoy it equally, because the movie does not require you to know anything about Star Trek. I would actually prefer [that] people don’t know the series, because I feel like they will come to it with an open mind.’

Will Trekkies keep an open mind?
Some may read a lot into the above statement, but it is important to remember that the writers and Abrams have stated that they are not going to throw out Trek’s history and that he has great respect for the fans. Bear in mind that just accepting new actors in roles that some hold near and dear will take an open mind for some. As has been discussed on this site before, the Trek franchise does not currently appear to be able to fully support a film with just the hardcore base. Therefore, if fans want Paramount to pump millions into a new Trek film then fans will need to accept that it will have to appeal to casual fans and mainstream movie audiences as well. Recent films like Casino Royale and Batman Begins have shown you can reinvigorate a franchise without abandoning the source material or disillusioning the fan base (except for a lunatic fringe). 

Trek XI’s Producer also expressed how excited he and his team are about Trek XI, telling EW ”I can’t wait to do this…it is an absolute thrill to work on this project. We really are still like, ‘How the hell are we able to do this?”’

 

Original article at EW.com

Note: EW list the screenwriters as Roberto Orci and Alex Christian…it is actually Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman

Sort by:   newest | oldest
January 9, 2007 4:40 pm

Well I for one still tend to have faith in JJ, and it sounds like he and his team know what to do, and what the fans expect, and what Paramount expects.

January 9, 2007 4:41 pm

This is great to read, and I am looking forward to hearing more about the cast and the plot. I am glad that JJA seems interested in bringing some life and vitality back to the series, and I hope that he isn’t afraid to take some creative steps while he seeks to honor ‘canon’.

Trekweb Forever!!!
January 9, 2007 5:24 pm

I’m glad Anthony’s willing to call the lunatic fringe for what they are. Unfortunately a few fans lose all perspective over things like continuity–in the end, it’s about quality storytelling, not about whether the buttons at the helm station perfectly correspond to the layout from the original series.

And while we’re on the subject of keeping an open mind, I’d like to point out while J.J. and his screenwriters have pledged not to violate prior established Trek history, all we can reasonably take from that is they won’t go out of their way to destroy whatever canonical elements that they know about. But we can’t expect them to have the detailed awareness of canonical minutiae that the hardcore fanbase takes for granted, so it’s entirely possible small elements of canon will be violated from sheer ignorance.

That’s a tradeoff I’m willing to accept as long as we get a great story in return, and maybe even a resurgence in Trek’s popularity.

January 9, 2007 5:28 pm

Trek can no longer afford to wallow in its exclusivity and the hardcore fanbase really needs to understand that their money alone is not going to support a major film effort. This film has to bring in those folks who can’t tell the difference between a Klingon and a Romulan.

January 9, 2007 6:12 pm

Abrams: “On the one hand, for people who love Star Trek, the fix that they will get will be really satisfying…”

What kind of fix? Is it the correction of the nexus incident and Kirk’s so called death? We know from the novel based on “Generations” that Kirk being in the nexus reflects several stations in his life, and that’s exactly what Abrams recently mentioned when he talked about a Kirk/Spock centered story based on biographical happenings in both characters’ life and at different times.

stallion
January 9, 2007 6:15 pm

I’m looking forward to see what he can do with it. If another Trek series is made I would love for Manny Cotto and Ronald Moore to be involve in it.

New Horizon
January 9, 2007 6:36 pm

I find it amusing that Trek is about being open minded, yet many Trekkers are anything but open minded. I’ll make my judgment after the credits have rolled on this film, and the lights come up.

Dip Thong
January 9, 2007 6:57 pm

It isn’t the “lunatic fringe” so much as the “collective ownership” mentality that must be overcome. It’s easy to dismiss fans who get caught up in nitpicking and minutia, but harder to ignore otherwise rational people who simply have the mistaken idea that creative decisions are subservient to the desires and opinions of the fans.

Scott
January 9, 2007 7:04 pm

But…aren’t ALL us Star Trek fans in the lunatic fringe?

I kid. I’m a kidder.

Seriously, I’m a long-time hardcore TOS fan, who watched most of the “other” Treks and enjoyed them to one extent or another. But to me, Star Trek is Kirk, Spock, McCoy, velour shirts, bright colors, blinky lights and rubber Gorns. Still, I have an open mind, and am looking forward to whatever Abrams does with it. I think as long as the guy in charge respects the source material, as Harve Bennett and Nick Meyers did in their movie efforts, it’ll work. Half the fun of watching (and rewatching and rewatching) the old episodes, the movies and the newer shows is finding the continuity gaffes…and then thinking up fun ways to reconcile them!

As long as there’s respect for the “real” Trek, and we get a ripping good tale, and I’ll doff my hat to this next new incarnation of Star Trek.

Scott B out.

CmdrR
January 9, 2007 7:23 pm

Bring it on! If it’s good in its own right, we can accept the ‘reset’ of some elements.
I swear I won’t dwell on other series in this forum, but a couple of them (BG, DW) have gone through the reimagining phase and come out modern and strong.
Continuity gaffs? Duh! It’s a fictional universe being constructed by hundreds of disconnected, imperfect humans.
Again, the point is to make a movie that works as part of Trek, but all on its own.

Norm
January 9, 2007 7:24 pm

I’m looking forward to this fresh start! I can’t wait for this movie.

Orbitalic
January 9, 2007 7:28 pm

#5 Trekmaster… I read the word “fix” in his statement as it would be used to describe what a drug addict needs to function… getting “his fix”.

It’s good that JJ is excited and ready to roll. I look forward to two things. One, the movie of course. Two…. the reaction. Anthony… buy more bandwidth… we may need it when the film comes out.

Le Martin
January 9, 2007 7:32 pm
I can’t wait to see what these guys come up with. I’ve seen all of Star Trek, most of it in a short period of time and there a clear line of similar thought running all thrughout TNG, DS9 ,VOY and ENT. Maybe it was the fact that Berman was in charge on all those shows, maybe it was the fact that the same people were involved behind the scenes, but, excluding varations in quality, those shows were very similar in style and presentation. TOS was completely different from those shows, much like the TOS crew movies were different from the TNG crew movies. I am hungry for something new, something fresh in terms of storyline and style. Can’t wait to see what Abrams and co. come up with. I hope it’s something different from the style of the Berman era. A new visual style (in terms of cinematography, directing and sets). I’m not talking about shi design or uniform design, but in terms of structure and presentation. To keep an open mind is good advice. The thing that I want less of is more of the same TNG style that ran throughout TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. To me, ENT was a breath of fresh air thematically and visually. Too bad that the only overall good seasons of it were 3 and 4, the least watched ones. I happen to love ALL Trek and to find redeeming values for all of it (including ENT, VOY and the bad parts… Read more »
mikeg
January 9, 2007 7:55 pm

I couldn’t help but feel Abrams enthusiasm when he said, “I can’t wait to do this…” Just imagine what it would be like if you (you, me and everyone here), were given the opportunity to do what Abrams is about to do. Being a fairly hardcore Trek fan, it would be beyond my wildest dreams to be able to actually make a Star Trek movie… I think I envy the new group of producers and writers more than anything.

Jeff Nelson
January 9, 2007 8:40 pm

Actor Jesse Lee Soffer plays Will Munson on the CBS soap, As the World Turns. He looks a lot like a young William Shatner, including the hairline bu tno toupee. Perfect casting… I hope J.J. Abrams sees this.

VOODOO
January 9, 2007 8:58 pm

Anthony P:

I loved Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. But, for the record Casino Royale is far from the most successful 007 film when you take inflation into account.

That honor goes to Thunderball with well over $400 million (domestic) when inflation is counted.

Also, I have no problem with younger actors playing these roles. But, I would like to see an aged Kirk and Spock have the chance to give these characters (espically Kirk) the ending they deserve. While taking the bad taste of Generations out of the mouth of all the fans who hated the demise of Kirk in that film.

Kevin
January 9, 2007 9:52 pm

Le Martin, I agree. The TNG crew does need a decent send off film.

VOODOO, I also agree that this could certainly give those actors a proper way to end thier Star Trek careers. At least that’s my hope, that it will be done right.

Isn’t nice when we agree : )

As for puttin’ butts in the seats at the movies. That’s getting harder and harder to do these days. People don’t go to the movies. Why would they? Pay 10 bucks now (per person) or wait a few months and rent it for a buck. So w/o the support of hardcore fans it could be the last Star Trek movie. So you can try to get as many people in as you can, but you have to appeal to and think of the hardcore fans when making a picture like this.

Captain Pike
January 9, 2007 10:44 pm

“I would actually prefer [that] people don’t know the series.”

Just think about for a minute.

Isn’t that the attitude that the director of Nemesis caught so much flack for?

Wasn’t that THE problem with Enterprise.

Can you imagine George Lucas saying, “I’m making the next Star Wars project for people who are ignorant about Star Wars.”

Would you trust your intellectual property to a producer/director who declares, “I’m making this picture for people who don’t know James Bond/Batman/Spiderman/Insert name of your IP here.” How in hades does that build on the value of the property?

I had an open mind, JJ, until I heard that. Now I’m moving to the extremely cautious side of the fence. You’re making a Star Trek movie. You think the movie going public don’t already know what Star Trek is?

Sorry but I don’t see how that sentence, even couched in terms of the rest of his statement, can be anything but a slap in the face to us fans.

I would much prefer a film that reward the fans that do know the series very well. Unfortunately I’m not the flavor of the month Hollywood wunderkind….

Sorry to be so negative, but this “news” annoys me. I think I’ll just ignore Trek XI news in favor of TOS-R news.

January 9, 2007 11:23 pm

Jeff Nelson, Paramount should hire you as a casting director. I just Googled Jesse Soffer and found this photograph:

Maybe it’s the fact that the shirt Jesse is wearing in that photo has a definite Trek-ish vibe, but I could *totally* see him as a young James T. Kirk.

January 9, 2007 11:26 pm

p.s., Hey Captain Pike, aren’t you jumping the gun just a wee bit? Star Trek XI won’t be in theaters for another 695 days or so and you’re already giving up on having an open mind about it?

SolFlyer
January 9, 2007 11:48 pm

14. “mantality”? not sure if that was a freudian typo or intentional. Either way, I love the word.

I agree that the “lunatic fringe” will not be happy. But really, what would make them happy? The Shat and Nimoy rolling around in wheelchairs the entire movie? Kirk/Pike and Spock/Pike would only be entertaining for so long.

I have been a fan since I was a kid watching Saturday afternoon reruns in the ’70s and I can’t wait for something new. As 19. Captain Pike stated, if you are too close minded to even give the new movie a chance then just stick with TOSR.

Adam Cohen
January 10, 2007 12:00 am
Now hold on a sec, Anthony- I appreciate the discussion and I think we all do need to keep an open mind on this project, but you are coming off a tad bit defensive. Case in point, your #22 post above. A person linking to an actor as a possibility for Trek XI is a fan game we play. We’re not saying (at least I assume we’re not) “Young Kirk must look like Shatner!”, etc. But at the same time, Abrams has set the stage for these kinds of discussions by 1) keeping Trek Xi in the known canon of TOS and 2) asking both Shatner AND Nimoy to appear in this film. And pointing to actors that look like the original actors is completely appropriate in that regard. And second, suggesting actors that look the part does not mean thay we don’t care if they are good actors. Why assume that there is a tradeoff between appearance and talent? I get your point, we may have new actors that don’t look a lot like the classic crew, but why make that tradeoff if there are actors that fill both requirements successfully? And for clarity’s sake, when I say “appearance” I mean both the look and the demeanor of the person. Yes, great actors can bridge gaps in our mind if they give full-bodied performances (one example that comes to mind is Anthony Hopkins as Richard Nixon) but those are rare, special exceptions to the rule. And I don’t want… Read more »
Lukas
January 10, 2007 12:58 am

Stingy bastard why doesn’t he give us any plot details even a little one I want at least a vague idea of whats gunna be in this film!

January 10, 2007 1:04 am

I think the definition of Trekkie is a lunatic fringe and this thread makes that clear. Calm down.

McCoy97
January 10, 2007 1:08 am

Greetings one and all
I for one have been anticipationg a new Star Trek movie for sometime. I make minatures for Starfleet Battles, and the ships I make have been acceppted with open arms. I create new ships from my imagination, and they are gobbled up as fas as possible. I pray that Star Trek XI dose attrack new fans, because I see the effects of dwindling fan base. The remastered edition of STOS has deffently made new viewers. I would hate to see Star Trek die off of old age. Greoge Lucas is hopping to keep Star Wars alive as well. Its not because he needs the money it is just like Star Trek, both are part of American mythology.
Last word, May Both Star Trek and Star Wars live long and prosper.
Nuff Stuff Said

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk Esquire'
January 10, 2007 1:10 am

# 22

Anthony, that guy that is the Elvis impersonator on the New Voyages fan films meets all of your “criterion” for Kirk – and his is a POWERFUL performance and representation of the character, heh heh. ;)

Josh T. (Thesaurus) Kirk Esquire'
January 10, 2007 1:34 am
I think with any casting decision, particularly WELL established characters, any potential casting call first and foremost begins on the written page- i.e. character traits, unique attributes, disposition,etc. What can be said about our merry intrepid crew? How would a casting director break down the essence of these friends and heroes we know so well? My take would be: James T. Kirk – Kirk embodies the Homeresque’ quintessential hero in both appearance and function. Brave, daring, a quiet confidence born of innate ability and experience in his chosen profession. Yet for all his bravado, tempered by a moral and ethical sense of duty and honor. Kirk long ago abandoned any preconcieved expectations of having a substantial long term relationship with a woman, having decided to first and foremost cherish the service to which he belongs and the charter the service pursues, to boldly go….. Spock – A reserved, stoic, dignified atypical Vulcan nearly unequaled in intellect, yet fundamental to SPock’s persona is his eternal struggle to justify his bloodline duality. ( Not to actors. Vulcans HAVE emotion, they simply surpress them, leading to many unique and fascinating emotional oppurtunities. Do NOT play a Vulcan as lacking emotion.) Leonard “Bones” McCoy – A loveable curmudgeon, bleeding heart liberal, quick to anger yet equally quick to mercy. “Bones” is the senior member of the crew and best friend to James Kirk limited where Kirk permits himself to have friendships. As senior Medical Officer , “Bones” McCoy has years of experience in the… Read more »
Buckaroohawk
January 10, 2007 1:34 am

If one more person mentions giving Kirk a proper sendoff, fixing “Generations,” or ignoring Kirk’s death completely just so Shatner can be in the new film, I’m going to go crazy.

Please, please, please…just leave it alone. Let go of it, for heaven’s sake. It’s over and done with. I wasn’t all together satisfied with Kirk’s demise, either, but I accepted it and moved on. Please do yourselves, and the Trek franchise, a service and do the same thing. Kirk still lives in the novels. They may not be considered canon, but if you need him to be alive that badly, go read about his further adventures in the books and leave the films to those of us who aren’t hung up on it. Enough already.

xizro345
January 10, 2007 1:41 am

Am I the only one that sees Abrams’ statement just as a PR stunt? Until something real (i.e. no rumors, no speculations, no sources that can’t be verified indipendently) comes up, I’ll just wait and see and disregard any official comment that is like this.

Trevok
January 10, 2007 4:28 am

Nice to read actual coments from JJ. And ofcoarse the knives will come out about his statement about wanting to attrack non Trek fans to the movie. This has to happen if the film has any hope of making any money. Too many existing fans are wrapped up in their own little world view of what Trek should or shouldn’t be. All you need do is read a few of the comment section of any article here to see that.
As for recasting leads I hope they get the biggest names possible for the roles, and add some star power to the film. Something all previous Trek films have lacked. Just emagine if Eddie Murphy Had played the Marine bioligist in IV.

Dave
January 10, 2007 5:08 am

Canonical elements however minutiae are important. They must respect star trek and it’s history. That includes recent star trek books that tells the story of Kirks return. I am very excited about the movie, but also a little concerned.

Dave
January 10, 2007 5:16 am

Regarding any new actors that may play Kirk, Spock , Mc Coy, Scotty and others, they must look like Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley. They must have the same mannerisms, in short, act exactly the same way, otherwise… it’s not correct, right or proper. Surely JJA must understand this. Generations can be righted!!, but not forgotten.

StillKirok
January 10, 2007 5:23 am

For me, the most important thing is that Shatner and Nimoy reprise their roles. That would be good for the nonfan too. And you don’t need to be intricately familiar with the franchise to show a clip of Generations and lead it into the next story.

I want this movie to highlight the Kirk and Spock friendship. We’ve seen the extreme Kirk went to when Spock died. I want to see Spock return the favor, while getting the story of how these two first met. But more important than anything–

FIX GENERATIONS. BRING BACK KIRK.

Dave
January 10, 2007 6:22 am

Anthony, I disagree, though respect your opinion. But things must ‘match’ Star Trek. If they show the early days of Kirk/Spock on the enterprise then, the actors must match, the bridge railing must be the right colour, the phasers in the right location, even the same furniture and decor in Kirks room, otherwise it’s not correct. I am worried a little by JJA’s statement. Please don’t change Star Trek, I beg you!!!!!

Trekweb Forever!!!
January 10, 2007 6:24 am

35- Ughh. We’re all TOO well aware of your opinions, especially over at Trekweb, StillKirok.

Starting off a new movie–especially one that’s supposed to take Trek in a fresh new direction to revive the franchise–with a clip from Generations is like starting a 100 yard dash by tripping and falling on your face. Too hard to recover from to have any real chance of success.

30 – I hear ya. I want Star Trek to be something fresh and exciting again. We can’t get there if the focus is on “fixing” supposed mistakes from the past.

Admiral Deem
January 10, 2007 7:12 am

I for one have an open mind on all this. I made a showing of every Trek film (I-X) on its opening day and,with the exception of Nemesis, I saw them all multiple times. When TNG debuted, I was expecting to hate it because it was NOT ST in that our holy triumvirate (as Walter Koenig put it) was not in it. But I was surprised, pleased and became a major TNG fan over the next three years.

That experience now allows me to maintain that open mindedness. Once before I learned to accept a new look at Star Trek. Knowing that JJA is a man of great enthusiasm for TOS gives me a certainty that he will do the best he can to bring honor to the series. I also recognize that any future franchise requires a lot more attendees than just us Trekkies so the movie doggone well better appeal to the casual fan.

I WILL be there on Trek XI’s opening day–this time expecting to love it– and, unlike Nemesis, I hope my wife and myself are not the only two in the theater (and that’s not poetic license–it’s sad fact!).

Git ‘R Done, JJ!

January 10, 2007 7:39 am

This all strikes me as encouraging news. Abrams clearly has the attitude that’s going to be necessary for this to have a shot at success.

If one is trying to read tea leaves in respect to the likelihood of seeing a different wrap-up to Kirk’s life than we saw in “Generations” I’d say that Abrams’ remark that the film should work for people who are unfamiliar with Trek militates against that.

Any minutes spent on explaining this ridiculously complicated notion of Kirk being sucked into the future, and then in ressurrecting him, are wasted minutes where story and character and moving Trek forward are concerned.

Kirk’s death is a fait accompli and has been for over a decade. The world has gone on spinning and there’s no good reason to mess with it. Leave Kirk Dead, and let’s get on with the business of living.

New Horizon
January 10, 2007 8:30 am

I love Shatner and Nimoy, but I don’t want them in this film. If they’re appear, it’s as if the producers are giving up before they’ve begun. Enough is enough. Shatner agreed to kill off Kirk…he didn’t have to, Nimoy is retired. I think one thing is certain, the new actors chances of being accepted could very likely suffer were Shatner and Nimoy in this movie. How easy it will be to compare and nitpick when both versions are on screen. Start fresh….stop caving in and wallowing in nostalgia. Nostalgia will kill Star Trek faster than sloping ticket sales. Surely everyone has noticed that Shat and Nimoy are a bit egocentric? The film would have to be about them…I think Nimoy said…Special. I don’t know, I’m just sick of the constant clawing at the past and refusal to move on. I’ve pretty much had it with Star Trek. It has become a huge joke. If Abrams can’t revive Trek without resorting to a Shatner, Nimoy stunt…then Trek can stay dead as far as I’m concerned. I don’t need it that badly, I’ve got better things going on in real life than to clamor for a fictional universe that has disintegrated into self parody.

Thomas Jensen
January 10, 2007 8:54 am

I don’t care what happens with the film. For me, its 79 episodes, 6 films and out. Everything else that happened after that doesn’t count. In my world Kirk is still alive.

As for this film, if it adds to the body of work above fine, if it doesn’t, then I’ll basically ignore it as I have with all trek since 1991.

SithMenace
January 10, 2007 9:10 am
It is going to be interesting however to see how Kirk is going to be in the next movie. If it’s not pre-Generations then there is going to have to be a surviving/escaping the Nexus storyline. That said, I have alot of faith in Abrams and the re-casting. Prequels are not guaranteed to suck just because they are prequels. You just need to have the right creative team with a strong vision, which it seems like we have for this movie. Abrams knows these characters and seems to love them, so I don’t think he will let them be recast with the wrong people. As a writer he has a strong ability to put real people on the screen with real emotions, he’s not one of these guys like Paul W.S. Andersen that sticks cardboard characters in between action scenes. Abrams believes the action should follow the story, and the story should be about the people. He’s demonstrated this over and over. Now add to that the fact that he knows how to direct a great action scene, pace a movie and get honest, natural performances from his actors and you have a writer/director that knows how to make a very balanced film. He has all the right ingredients to knock this one out of the park and I personally can’t wait. As far as the lunatic fringe is concerned, I sympathize. I was one of the many that was disappointed in The Phantom Menace because it did not live… Read more »
Captain Pike
January 10, 2007 9:49 am

I’m fine with prequel and recasting. I personally don’t care if Shatner or Nimoy or any of the other cast appear. I’m hearing what appears to be a ‘casual’ attitude towards continuity. That is what is making me cautious. I never said I was writing it off. But I’m not going to get my hopes up after my disappointments in Enterprise, Voyager and the last 3 films.

Sam Belil
January 10, 2007 11:22 am

Re #42-Sithmenace, I could not agree more!!! The key is for the movie to be well done with great story telling as in the orignal series. I may be naive here, but I do believe whoever Abrams picks will do a fine job. However (if true) I’m not crazy about having a casual attitude towards continuity myself. To me continunity is critiical to the success of the movie.

Spock's brain
January 10, 2007 11:40 am

Forget about all this kirk’s death in “generations” stuff!

All I need to see is a an opening scene in the XI that shows kirk (Shatner) and Spock (Nimoy) looking out some window into space and start to talk about the early days….then BAM! we see a new, young, re-casted Kirk, Spock, etc. going on one of their first missions together. We then see the freindships develop and we get a story that is awesome. I’m holding out hope that all the sets and and and feel of the movie are at least similar to the orginal series. Improved look because of today’s technology, but “similar”.

January 10, 2007 11:49 am

Sounds good.

Picardsucks
January 10, 2007 12:09 pm

Sigh…….Can we at least all agree that there should be a cameo by Data’s cat

John N.
January 10, 2007 12:10 pm

#44 – Sam Belil

Can you or anyone please explain to me how on earth continuity (with respect to canon, not continuity within the film plot, etc) is critical to the success of the film?

#33, 34, and 36 – Dave

I hope that you’re just kidding… You MUST be kidding. You’re practicing your sense of irony by posting such an extremely close-minded view of what Trek XI ‘should be’ in a thread that was created to encourage open-mindedness. I mean really… surely the colour of the bridge rail can’t be THAT critical to you…. can it?

Otherwise, on opening night of Trek XI, I would suggest that you cuddle up with your TOS or TOSR DVDs, because with THAT attitude, you’re sure to be disappointed.

Dom
January 10, 2007 12:29 pm

I hope continuity is ‘casual,’ meaning it keeps the spirit of Trek, but does its own thing.

Think about it: how many TOS episodes were ever reliant on knowing earlier episodes in detail? Could you comfortably watch ‘I, Mudd’ without having seen ‘The Corbomite Maneuver’?’ By the same token, could you comfortably watch a Trek film set in that era without knowing the ins and outs of ‘For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky’ or ‘The Alternative Factor?’

We accept Trek novels set all over Trek history, so why can’t we accept a new adventure set in the TOS period?

Plus, of course, this isn’t really a prequel, the way ‘The Phantom Menace’ was: it’s set after ‘The Cage’, so it’s more what they call a ‘continuity plugin.’ One way or another, this approach indicates that this film can comfortably be a fresh start for Trek. Due to the number of years The Cage/TOS-crew Trek is set across (50-ish) lots of new adventures can be told without wildly contradicting anything else.

Think less in terms of Star Wars and more in terms of the Sherlock Holmes stories!

SithMenace
January 10, 2007 12:40 pm

#44 Sam Belil, I have a good feeling about the continuity of this movie. I don’t think the bridge will be constructed exactly like it was in TOS simply because they’re working with a much larger budget and higher production values, but I think alot of care will go into capturing the overall look and feel of the TOS Enterprise. There’s a chance we may not even see the Enterprise in this movie, but I think we will.

As far as story goes, Abrams seems very conscious of canon. Being a fan of TOS and TNG he wasn’t familiar with the other three series, so he went and watched them all. If that doesn’t say something about him wanting to respect canon I don’t know what does.

But I think you and I can both imagine what this movie’s potential is, considering today’s visual effects and his emphasis on characters. It’s going to be like watching an extended TOS episode with a 70-90 million dollar budget.

wpDiscuz