Shatner Talks More About Being In Star Trek XI | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner Talks More About Being In Star Trek XI January 11, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Shatner,ST09 Cast,STXI Plot , trackback

Although JJ Abrams and Paramount aren’t confirming that Star Trek XI takes place before the Original Series and features a young James Kirk, William Shatner has no problem talking about it. In a brief interview with SciFi Wire, William Shatner repeated previous comments that he and producer JJ Abrams have met and that Abrams wants him in Star Trek XI. The Shat also told SciFi Wire "Yes, we know the story is based on young Kirk." The original Captain Kirk still seems fixated on how this will all work, but in this case he implies that he expects to be interacting with the young Kirk:

They need to figure out how to put the dead captain in with the young captain…It’s a very complex, technical problem of how to write the character in, and I’m not sure how they will solve it.

The article does mention the Academy storyline again, but it isn’t clear if Shatner said that or if the author added that (we are trying to find that out). TrekMovie.com has reported that the film may include elements at the Academy, but the bulk of the film will take place later in Kirk’s life between the Academy and becoming Captain of the Enterprise. In the above quotes Shatner only states that there will be a young Kirk, and also notes that he will be a ‘young captain‘. This seems to imply more of Kirk’s time on the Enterprise than at Starfleet Academy. See SciFi Wire for original article.

Comments

1. Kevin - January 11, 2007

I haven’t seen anything that really implies that this will involve the Enterprise at all. I’ll just wait until some official anouncements are made on plot.

I’m just hoping if they decide to use Shatner and Nimoy that they write them together w/ this new cast in a way that is plausible (that is… within the realm of Star Trek) and not lame.

I’m hoping for continuity maintained… for the most part

I’m hoping they can maintain the feel of the TOS era w/o making it hoky and appealing to non Trekkers

I’m hoping they make a film were the casual movie goer doesn’t have to know much at all about Star Trek (that also means, what a Vulcan is, what the Federation is, how Starfleet works, ect. )

I hope they cast people that look and act like the original characters/actors. I’m not saying 100% … but come on, Matt Damon? I don’t see a likeness at all, not to mention how tall he is. They’d have cast someone 7 feet tall to play Spock.

I hope it’s well written, exciting and character driven.

I hope it appeals to trekkers and non trekkers alike

Damn that’s alot of hoping… okay, I’ve said my 2 cents.

2. Dustin - January 11, 2007

Surely the only thing that points towards the Enterprise being in it, is what has been picked up from interviews and the teaser poster (wasn’t that an Enterprise symbol?)

Also, if this film doesn’t feature the Enterprise, it will be the first film to not feature a U.S.S. Enterprise!

3. Josh T. (Truncate) Kirk Esquire' - January 11, 2007

Sp-ooock, You…don’t understand….I…am back.

4. Kevin - January 11, 2007

I’ve never heard one interview that says anything about the Enterprise. The symbol is for the Enterprise, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. It’s a teaser poster put out before the script was even finished.

ST:IV only featured the Enterprise in the last 5 min. of the movie.

I’m not saying that we won’t see the Enterprise in it. But I’ve seen no evidence that we will, or that it will largely involve the Enterprise.

It’s all speculation at this point. The only thing we know is young Kirk and Spock. There isn’t even any evidence that any of the other crew members will be involved.

5. Dave - January 11, 2007

If the bulk of the film takes place earlier in Kirk’s life between the Academy days and becoming Captain of the Enterprise then they must draw on the 3 wonderful books written by Jan Micheal Friedman. These books detailed Kirks life during this time and also his relationship with Gary Mitchell. Please don’t more away from this established canon! Moreover, there is no problem with Shatner playing Kirk, because Kirk isn’t dead!!!! Read the books post Generations. I consider these to be canon. Therefore Shatners inclusion is no problem.

6. Magic_Al - January 11, 2007

If they can find a way to put Shatner in this, how about Gary Lockwood too?

7. Trevok - January 11, 2007

It is only canon if it has been featured film or television eps and so in reallity the story is wide open. But I wouldn’t be suprised to see the film end with Kirk taking command of the Enterprise. Ofcoarse I wouldn’t count on anything.
LLAP

8. StillKirok - January 11, 2007

You’re right about that. Books aren’t canon. But at the same time, canon is what Paramount says it is. If Abrams wanted to make the Shatner post-Generations books canon, he could. Hell, he could simply have a reference to it in the movie. That’s not the way I would go, but it’s something that COULD be done.

Personally, I want to see something new but definitive. Either way, so far, it still sounds like this movie is going in the right direction.

The day Abrams announces Shatner and Nimoy officially are cast, is the day Trek fans can truly celebrate.

9. JON - January 11, 2007

Citizen Kirk

10. Sam Belil - January 11, 2007

#5 Dave — those were EXCELLENT books, and I could not agree with you MORE!!!!

11. Don Corleone - January 11, 2007

This is your life James T Kirk.

It seems almost certain Shatner will be playing Kirk in this film in one form or another.

It must be post nexus. 14 years will have passed between Generations and ST XI. Shatner’s physical appearance has changed (just like the rest of us) in that time.

Im my opinion. If Shatner + Nimoy were to appear it almost has to be post nexus.

12. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

Why don’t they just have Kirk (Shatner) and Spock (Nimoy) having a discussion over dinner (OR SOMETHING), have them mention the launch of the Enterprise-B in casual conversation (to imply before Generations) and have them flashback to their “first mission”. Everything solved. Bringing back Kirk from the dead is just stupid, if that’s what they decide to do.

Have Spock explain he’s leaving for Vulcan to begin talks of “reuniting” the Romulins…”It may take some time”. i.e. Next Generation foreshadowing.

This is the only way I see it can be done and be plausable and make sense. There will need to be a little CGI touchups done for the horrible aging both are showing, but the Direct TV commercial proves it can be done.

I think it’s been proven that, despite the big fanbase of Star Trek that I truely feel is out there, it hasn’t been shown with any of the movies since really Generations.

If they scew this movie up and make it to where fans won’t see it, which let’s face it is all that WILL go see it, then they will declare “We were right, Star Trek really is dead” and that’s it…end of story, and it will be on them for making a sucky movie nobody wants to go see.

Since they obviously aren’t going to do everyone’s first choice, which is, I feel to further the story without going BACKWARDS. (This was proven by lack of interest for ENTERPRISE), then I say just call it quits.

It’s a no-win situation. If this movie does good (With recasted Kirk and Spock) then Star Trek as you know it WILL BE OVER. It will go the way of Battlestar and totally throw out the last 40 years of ‘cannon’.

Just my thoughts

13. Don Corleone - January 11, 2007

To much time has passed between that film and ST XI to set their parts in the pre Generations era.

14. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

How about forgetting the money gonig into this controversial movie and go the way of a new series. i.e. ‘The Titan”. Hell, Sirtis and Frakes aren’t doing shit and you know they would jump at the chance (just look at the finale of Enterprsie.)

Or, what about the Enterprise-B story. Harriman isn’t doing anything right now (Spin City got cancelled and just look at the crapfest called of gods and men.).

What about the Excelsior. Takai would have an orgasm to do Star Trek again, just listen to him talk about it.

GO FORWARDS..NOT BACKWARDS…

15. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

“To much time has passed between that film and ST XI to set their parts in the pre Generations era.”

For what? Their age? CGI (Direct TV Commecial)..

but if you’re talking about as far as Star Trek Time.. for god’s sake, they’re going back to BEFORE, and using different characters, so that argument holds no baring whatsoever on the situation.

16. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

RIKER=KIRK. That’s why Roddenberry didn’t put his character as the captain, because he’s too much like Kirk and they didn’t want to basically have an Original Series makeover.

If you people can’ t let Kirk go, and let’s face it I love the man to death, but I don’t want his legacy in Star Trek tarnished over stupid writing anymore than it already is (Generations). They should have called it quits with him after VI.

But if you can’t let him go, just pick up with Riker as captain… he’s the same character can’t you see that?

17. mikeg - January 11, 2007

I understand the Riker-Kirk connection, but I have to admit I always found Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk to show a lot more depth than Frakes’ portrayal of Riker. This is not a dig against Frakes, cos I do like him as Riker… But, in spite of the obvious similarities, Riker and Kirk are definitely not the same character, and the actors who portrayed them defined those characters more than anything else.

Also, I would wait until seeing either the script or the film of ST XI before assuming it will be more “stupid writing”. I think Abrams & Co. have already shown they are a bit above the usual crowd, and they are all TOS lovers… unlike the previous group who tended to look upon TOS like the black sheep of the family.

18. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

I think the reason Kirk’s character may show more depth because of the focus on Kirk’s character. It’s all on the writers, and you can’t argue that Kirk has gotten more focus than Riker, for obvious reasons. (Captain, First officer.)

I don’t know if you can really compare the two as far as depth.

19. John N. - January 11, 2007

#5 and #10

While it is always open for debate, most Trek fans acknowledge that books are not canon.

On a personal note, I also enjoyed “Enterprise: The First Adventure” by Vonda N. McIntyre. Not canon, but enjoyable.

20. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

#5 and #19

Not to mention the post Generations Shatner “THE RETURN” books are fun to read but would make horrible movies.

Kirk belongs in his own time, not in the Next Gen.

21. Jim J - January 11, 2007

I think it’s just time for us all to have an open mind and see what transpires. I think they can write it in a way that isn’t hokey. They’ll find a way to bring back Kirk (after Generations) and Spock and tie it all in to the Pre-TOS 5 year mission time of Kirk (and somewhat of Spock). I think they can still give us our Shatner/Nimoy fix in a believeable way, yet introduce new actors into familiar (and some new) characters-younger years. If the story is written well, I guarantee you MANY Trek fans will buy into it after grumbling a little (I was a grumbler about the new Bond, Superman & Batman, but I’m now sold on them). The story is what really matters and if written well and in a way that attracts “Joe-average” movie goer along with Trek fans, it CAN be a win-win situation. Sure, it could be a no-win scenario, but “I don’t believe in a no-win scenario!!!” It just MIGHT revitalize the franchise, and, isn’t that what we truly all want? I feel better about it’s chances without Berman lurking behind the scenes, that’s for sure.

22. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

Hope so. The fate of the franchise rests on this movie. You know how Paramount already feels about Trek.

23. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

You know what, I’m not setting up any expectations as to storyline or elements of canon or that sort of thing.

Why is everyone trying to script this movie? IF Abrams read anything here, he can’t even use it anyway, you know that. And honestly, I don’t think you’re going to be seeing details as obscure as Gary Freaking Mitchell. No way. Abrams has said that this movie is going to be accessible to everyone.

Shatner’s books, I think, will be ignored as well as any “canon” lit that exists on the pre-5-year mission. These guys are scriptwriters and were hired (ostensibly) from the rep of storytelling with LOST and such. No way they are going to head to WaldenBooks to try to tell a story that’s been told in paperback.

Hey – Waldenbooks!!! That’s where I special ordered my TOS collection at the foothills fashion mall in fort collins back in the ayyyyyyties!!! Proof and DA TROOF once again that moderated abuse of alcohol and drugs vastly improves brain functions. Joe SixPack™ isn’t quite so much what I am saying here. You need a little more committment to the cause. More like Joe 8-12Pack™. Then you take a few days off. Lather, rinse, and repeat, por favor!

best!!

=h=

24. Dennis Bailey - January 11, 2007

Shatner is likely to say anything that pops into his head. He’s talked to Abrams – what, once or twice? Since he’s not writing the movie and you can be pretty damned sure he’s not getting daily faxes of the script in progress, trying to figure out what the movie’s really like based on what he says when asked about it is like trying to figure out what living in Iraq is like from listening to George W. Bush. :lol:

25. dalek - January 11, 2007

Sign the Shat already.

26. SithMenace - January 11, 2007

B.Hathaway, I know alot of Trek fans want to go forward and not backwards, but there are also a huge number of Trek fans that DO want to go backwards, including Abrams himself.

Just because it’s a prequel doesn’t mean it’s going to be bad. Enterprise didn’t suck because it was a prequel, Enterprise sucked because it sucked. Period. No matter what time period it took place in, it would have been the same crappy show if the same people were involved. We don’t need to go forward, we need to get someone in there that understands Trek and it’s characters, who is not afraid to try something new. We need someone who can move the franchise forward, not the time period. The when and who is irrelevant, what matters is the story and characterization.

Finally a great new talent has come onboard to invigorate the franchise and I have to tell you, I can’t even remember the last time there was this much buzz over a Trek film, especially one that isn’t even going to come out for almost two more years.

27. Theo - January 11, 2007

Is there any Trek-related message board that isn’t stunk up by Dennis Bailey’s arrogance?

28. trekmaster - January 11, 2007

Well, I guess the next possible star trek series after Trek XI will be “Star Trek: Phase II – reloaded”…

29. Canonista - January 11, 2007

From Anthony’s description of what Shatner actually said, Shatner seems to be indicating that “old Kirk” could actually MEET “young Kirk”.

Recently, we’ve heard –in the comments section here — a lot of speculation about Shatner’s and Nimoy’s roles simply as a “flashback” device.

I admit to be intrigued at the prospect of a time travel meeting between young Kirk and old Kirk – even if it isn’t a major part of the movie -as long as it is done artfully and with relative respect for Canon.

I admit that this could make for an exceedingly complicated plot.

30. Mark T. - January 11, 2007

I think Paramount is also looking to go backward because of the successful “reverse engineering” of another franchise: Bond. “Casino Royale” was, in my opinion, a fantastic way to reboot a drained series. They had similar fan concerns over the story and the new actor playing the super spy. In the end, they went their own way and gave us a fantastic and very different James Bond from anything we’d seen before.

I know they are completely different series with different requirements. (The main argument being many actors played Bond over 40 years while only one man was Kirk) However, I think the lesson is still valid. They can go back to the beginning with iconic characters, re-cast the roles, and still create a great adventure. They just need the right team.

Now, why I am excited about J.J. being involved has to do with M.I.3. Shortly before the movie came out, I read an article in the paper about the director and the production process. I believe that he remarked that in the two previous M.I. films they had only used the main Lalo Schifrin theme music. Yet, there was another, equally important, theme which was always featured in the TV show, called “The Plot”. It’s the music that always accompanied the team members as they skulked around setting up their “sting” operations. For some reason it was never brought over to the films. This was something which bugged me as well. Abrahms made a point of working it into his film, and it was perfect. Overall, I thought the film was a lot of fun. Add in the respectful touches, like the music and mask creation scene (a brilliant way to finally explain this little illogical bit of M.I. lore) and I was sold. I am definitely in the “wait and see” camp. I think he will do a great job.

31. Lao3D - January 11, 2007

Since it now appears almost a given that Shatner/Nimoy are in this thing, I hope at least they allow them to appear as their true ages. They HAVEN’T aged horribly, they’re men in their 70s for heaven’s sake. They only look horrible when trying to pass for 50 or something. And please don’t mention that DirectTV spot — I get queasy every time it’s on. It looks some weird Kirk-Troll or something. If they’re going to be in it, just let them appear gracefully as they are, not some corsetted, CGI’d freak show.

32. trekmaster - January 11, 2007

@Canonista
And the old Kirk tells the young Kirk that he will die alone. That’s the reason why Kirk knows that in ST5. The old Kirk has to be part of the multidimensional nexus and maybe there will be revealed that Kirk’s incident on the Enterprise-B was absolutely forced by himself to get in the nexus… the nexus is a classical time travel paradox – you can go wherever you want.

33. SithMenace - January 11, 2007

30. Mark T., I agree completely. Abrams did a great job of capturing the look and feel of the original MI. He was even able to take the Tom Cruise one man show aspect out of it (as much as he could) and turn it back into a team effort, with everyone doing their part. If this doesn’t show his respect for original source material, I don’t know what does. Cool story about the music too, I also noticed this in MI:3.

34. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

Honestly, forgetting all of other posts… is a Titan epic , Excelsior, or Enterprise-B story not on anybody’s list of wanted things?

Do you think they would bomb ala Enterprise?

35. Mark T. - January 11, 2007

A thought continuation from my last post..

Flashing back to the “Friday’s Child” thread for a moment, given J.J.’s respect for unused, but classic, theme music, there is a possibility we might get to hear some familiar Trek themes other than Alexander Courage’s title music.

I think Michael Giacchino could do some nice things with Gerald Fried’s fanfare pieces.

Just another two cents..

36. Canonista - January 11, 2007

# 23 “Hitch”

I read “The Return” and some of the subsequent Shatner novels long ago. I never really cared for Kirk’s resurrection by the Borg. It always seemed to me that the Borg would have better things to do than resurrect a Captain from the 23rd century for use in the 24th century.

37. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

I’ve never seen LOST, or any of the mission impossibles. I have no clue what Kurt Russell over there is bringing to the table in terms of that stuff. But what I DO know is that he seems to have a respect for TOS that was sorely lacking during the reign of the twin AntiChrists and their revisionist history Next Generationism – which, don’t get me wrong was fine for the time – but still. TNG, DS9, Voyager, and even Enterprise what I saw of it were all good in the shadow of TOS, but taking the movie franchise back in this direction is what is needed.

And I disagree with anyone who says that the entire franchise’s future rests on this movie – they’ve said that with every Trek movie that ever happened. The truth is the regime at Paramount changes so often that anything is possible depending on who is in control at the time. SO on the heels of the failure of Nemesis, someone had the light bulb go off that this was a way to bring the franchise back. And a good decision it was. Lettuce hope that this shall come to fruition. It appears at this point that it still has a grate chance.

This is now 2 posts without any references to anything in the anything. Aren’t you guys proud of me? I am trying!

best!!

=h=

38. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

Canonista®, you are very macinDApants™ in addressing this. I too, thought Borg implants to resurrect Kirk as a Zombie like Shat™ was very creepy and never could get my head around the whole necroShat® when I read the first of the books, so I stopped.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Shatner, but those stories need to be disregarded altogether. One good thing I will say about Berman and Braga is that the Borg concept was brilliant. Too bad that Shat tried to jump on that bandwagon to bring his character back. Again, proving that Shat should have stuck to acting rather than storytelling Trek. I’ve always maintained that and always will. His music is top rate though. HAS BEEN is just dead-on priceline kinda stuff.

Does anyone know what the take from the folks as bringbackkirk.com is regarding the shatner novels? I’ll go with whatever they say. They have the campaign and I defer to and respect their authority on that.

=h=

39. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

37: what do you mean the franchise doesn’t rest on this movie? Have you not been paying attention the past two years? Trek was pronounced dead after Enterprise and had to have legions of fans convince Paramount to give us ONE MORE chance.. ala Trek XI.

People may have “said” that after every movie, but, with the exception of the 60′s, (which doesn’t count because Trek wasn’t in the culture by then), THIS has NEVER happened.

True, if this fails we may get another ONE MORE SHOT, but we’re talking about Years and Years on down the line MAYBE. Last chance for us.

40. StillKirok - January 11, 2007

The Shatner books are merely ONE WAY to bring the character back. But I think there are plenty of ways a creative writer can get the job done. But the worst possible way would be to have it take place before Kirk went into the nexus in the first place. That would be such a wasted opportunity.

Berman and Braga incidentally, are not the writers that created the Borg. They are the ones that took the big menacing Borg, and let Voyager kick the crap out of them on a weekly basis. The Borg were completely ruined by Voyager.

I’m not saying the Borg should be involved in Trek XI by any stretch. But what I would have a tough time with is a pre-Enterprise B Shatner.

Without a post-Generations Kirk, the audience now will KNOW just how Kirk dies. It kind of hurts past adventures knowing just how Kirk dies. And it would hurt the movie franchise too.

But knowing Kirk has an open future would do a lot to restore the optimism of the franchise. Otherwise it’s, “no matter what you do, you lose.” That is NOT Star Trek.

The Kirk/Spock friendship is the cornerstone of this franchise. This movie needs to be about that. Use the young Kirk and Spock to establish the origins, while using the older Spock to go to bat for Kirk’s life and return the favor so Kirk can cheat death one more time.

It has the making of a great movie without relying on a Khan style villain in an attempt to recapture that movie.

41. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

There needs to be an ending to this character. If we bring him back to life, then what? There’s no closure to this character then.

Star Trek VI was a great way to end the Original Series cast…but it was ruined with Generations.

Bringing him back to life would be rediculous if there was no closure, then fans would be pissed if you brought him back to life just to kill him again.. is this Friday the 13th?

Kobiashi Maru.

42. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

“Trek was pronounced dead after Enterprise and had to have legions of fans convince Paramount to give us ONE MORE chance.. ala Trek XI. ”

No, no, and no no no. That is NOT why this movie is being made. Paramount does not and should not care about “the fans” and giving us one more chance. And that’s not wrong.

Star Trek is a cash cow, um, it’s a FRANCHISE. It’s a freaking SIGNATURE franchise. It’s never going away as long as someone can sell it – and someone will buy it. That never goes away.

The fans did not “convince” anyone to revive the franchise, what are you saying? A career minded opportunist within Paramount convinced management that this was a safe bet. Where does that involve “the fans” and second chances?

Last I heard, even “the fans” ponying up production money could not get another season of Enterprise produced. This franchise will never go away, but the question is in which form can it continue. Obviously someone in the 70s made the decision that movies were the way to maximize that, and a good decision it was. The TV shows that followed were simply addendums, in one case to sell directly to syndication (TNG, DS9) and the other (Voyager) to kickstart a new network. Again, nothing about “the fans” being considered there. Just innovating ways of doing business. Which is ALL this is to Paramount. It’s what they do for a living, man.

I think you’ve been shot with the spores. I’m sorry for the poopypants. You’re still mac n th pantz though.

best!!

=h=

43. SithMenace - January 11, 2007

42. hitch1969©, exactly. Also, Abrams got Trek as part of his multi picture deal, otherwise XI would have been floating in development hell for years to come. It was an inevitable project, but Abrams fast tracked it.

44. Dennis Bailey - January 11, 2007

#27:”Is there any Trek-related message board that isn’t stunk up by Dennis Bailey’s arrogance?”

If there is I want it found and…taken care of.

45. Dennis Bailey - January 11, 2007

#34: “Honestly, forgetting all of other posts… is a Titan epic , Excelsior, or Enterprise-B story not on anybody’s list of wanted things?

Do you think they would bomb ala Enterprise?”

Yeah, pretty much at this point.

46. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

“There needs to be an ending to this character. If we bring him back to life, then what? There’s no closure to this character then. ”

huh? Who cares if there’s friggin closure? ALOT of us don’t like the way OR the reason that Kirk was killed in Generations. It was disrespectful. I don’t even understand why Shatner went along with it. Oh wait, yes I do it was the money, and the acting opportunity. I dont think he really cares about canon or understands the significance of what he did. So lettuce not fault him in that. Again, as he stated in Star Trek memories IT WAS JUST A JOB to pay child support. I’m down with that.

The theme here that I am getting at in my last 2 posts is that you need to understand and appreciate the other perspectives on this. The studio that gives us Star Trek is concerned with the financial bottom line. They are smart enough to see that creatively, the movie must work in order to do that. Ergo, Kurt Russell the flavor of the month being brought in. NOT a bad decision, really.

Then in looking at his perspective, he understands the fan base and the need to respect canon but still – this is HIS story creatively. His whole thing is going to be to tell that story in a way that adds to his resume. The actors just want to act and again, do not even consider or know the issues of canon or the plot lines and devices being mentioned in this thread.

Look, NO star trek movie is going to satisfy a fan base with expectations being set here because the people that make the movies have way way way different priorities than “the fans”. Here is where the fan movies pick up the gap. Try Newvoyages or Of Gods and Men. Movies made by the fans with no outside interests are going to be the purest in terms of what is being asked here.

As I stated previous, I am happy with whatever the new movie is going to be because of the direction of it. I trust in the creative people at Paramount and also the bean counters to keep them in check that this movie more or less won’t suck. None of the movies have sucked. I mean none of them. Some have been “better” than others, some have made more money… but bottom line is that all were pretty much the best that you could expect with all the outside factors being considered.

Pop a couple Xanax™, drink a 6-pack of Budweiser and call me in the morning. You need to chill.

best!!

=h=

47. Jim J - January 11, 2007

Perhaps the closure will be that (in the end), Kirk is immortal and will be roaming the galaxy in a starship until time ends-lol. Just teasing! Honestly, I’d rather know he is alive and riding off into the sunset (fate unknown) than buried under a pile of rocks ala Generations (fate known and stupid)!!!

48. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

“you trust the creative people at Paramount?” Are you kidding? wow….let’s just hope they don’t let you down.

49. Jim J - January 11, 2007

At least it’s a new creative team! Do I trust? Nope! But, remember…it’s not Berman or Braga so at least it IS new blood. Frankly, I am rooting for this movie’s success. I still the think basic time period of TOS is still the most interesting. Just enough balance of “hope” along with those silly human emotions (right, Mr. Spock?)! Not overly preachy like the later series, though I liked them all except Voyager….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

50. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

Look, Hath™Away… listen, you’re a good guy and you have every right to have a wishlist or things you would like to see for this movie. I just want to make sure that we don’t lose you from our Trek legion of fandom by talking down to earth under the yellow sun kinda stuff of the real happenings and goings on here. Its imperative that an appreciation of the perspectives is happening, and I present the studio perspective let me also say that I respect yours.

Its alot like little kids and Christmas. My 10 year old kid was going on and on about wanting the Wii, the XBox, the ninetendo DS, all that. That was fine up until the point where that was what he EXPECTED. So as any good parent would do, I felt that teaching about the spirit of Christmas that he had appeared to have lost would be much better for him than catering to his childish wants. SO what did I get the kid for christmas?

1 freaking pair of dark blue DRESS SOCKS. That was it. All the other kids got their nintendos and Wiis and I spent quite a bit of money on the baby with his riding tractor and all that.

You know what though.. my kid passed the test. He put on the smiley face and thanked me despite his disappointment and put on a pretty good show of appreciation.

I’m sure that he and I will both forever remember Xmas 2006, him for the day he got totally gypped, and me for the day that I was reassured that he was just a grate little kid and that because he understood the spirit of christmas, my parenting was sound. Despite the fact that everyone thinks I am a bad parent for subsribing him to Playboy©. I find that at his developmental age and given the tastefulness of the photo layouts that it is quite age appropriate. But he’s had the magazine for about a year or so now so it doesnt really matter.

hitch1969© – Parent Of The Year 2007.

best!!

=h=

51. Stanky McFibberich - January 11, 2007

=h=
Dr. Robert Hartley, Chicago Illinois…….Maybe he can help.

52. CmdrR. - January 11, 2007

Gary Mitchell. Carol Marcus. Finnegan. There are lots of ways to go if you want to give the hardcore fans a tweak. But, please don’t sci-fi the hell out of it. DO NOT HAVE KIRK COME BACK FROM THE DEAD AND MEET HIS YOUNGER SELF. Yikes, what a stupid movie that would make. Look at all the great narrative structures we’ve seen in recent movies. Just saw “The Good Shepherd.” Total jumble chronologically, but wonderfully well told. Go hunt up “A Very Long Engagement;” with its terrible title it’s still a great war movie with highlights including a blimp explosion and a killer hooker.
Don’t limit us to linear storytelling. Have fun and we’ll have fun.

53. Kev - January 11, 2007

Filmmakers– just make your film, forget the naysayers. I will support a well written story, and so will many others. Good luck..

54. Dave - January 11, 2007

What I feel the writers should do is write a stortline that will take 3 movies to tell. Start with Pike and Spock on the enterprise during their second 5 year mission. (The base for this storyline could come from the recent book written by Margaret Wander Bonanno, “Burning Dreams” ) A GREAT book. This would lead into Pike handing over to A young Kirk and him introducing him to Spock. Of Course the actors would have to look like sound act and act like the original actors. We could also see more of Pikes Number One and his doctor Phil Boyce. Then lead into the 2nd movie with a new cast playing the TOS characters. I must stress characters and ship that match the original in every way!! Then, the third movie with Shatner and Spock playing their roles post Generations based on the cannon books written after Generations. This is very exciting. Then the Star trek universe is back on track ready for a new era!!!!!

55. Dom - January 11, 2007

Guys, there are too many imperatives being used here: people saying the filmmakers ‘must’ do things, because they ‘have to.’

When the film comes out you should go to see it and, hopefully, just enjoy it for what it is!

I thought people got all this ‘do this, do that’ crap out of their systems last year! It’s not going to be a TNG movie or a future ‘Nth’ Generation story set on the Enterprise NCC-1701-ZZ-Plural-Z-Alpha, so the people who are deliberately misinterpreting the ‘forward, not backwards’ remark should try to give it a rest! Just deal with the fact it’s about Kirk and Spock, not Picard and Data, and move on (forwards, that is, not backwards, cos you might bump into someone!)

And canon/continuity freaks are going to have to bury themselves in their dog-eared copies of The Star Trek Chronology to find an excuse for the fact that the film isn’t a carbon copy of a TV show made 40-plus years ago! Hopefully the pages won’t be too badly stuck together!

Abrams and co are making their own film and he is the boss. He decides what goes, he has final cut and no one here can tell him a damn thing. Who do some of you think you are to say what he ***has*** to do anyway? Do you own Star Trek? No? Then clam up! (Imperative!)

This is a film for everyone, for fans of Star Trek and for Joe Average who simply wants to go to the pictures with his girlfriend and see a good film. Joe Average and Jane Average don’t care if this film will do something that will contradict an off-the-cuff remark made in the 26th minute of an episode of Voyager, because they never saw that episode and they never will. Frankly, most Trek fans won’t either! It’s not like Nemesis which wasn’t so much a Star Trek film as a film ***about*** Star Trek, which got its facts wrong!

This film isn’t setting out to contradict anything, but it ***is*** going to be a fresh approach to Star Trek that may well present a different slant on familiar situations! Good! Trek should be fresh and challenging, whatever era it’s set in.

We’ve got a fresh start with a new team brimming with ideas wanting to take an old concept that’s had some iffy treatment and do something ambitious and exciting with it. Leave the unnecessary accumulated baggage of the last 40 years behind. Just take the essential bits, the things that really make it Star Trek: the concepts and characters, the storytelling.

And try not to worry so much! :)

56. Dave - January 11, 2007

You can have a fresh approach to Star trek and still repect trek history, timelines and characters. I’m sorry to use the word again but they ‘must’ follow what is true, otherwise it isn’t star trek and you are murdering it. Don’t murder it please, stay true and develop new storylines. Why can’t that be done?

57. Dom - January 11, 2007

Dave (56)

It can’t be done because you’ve got that damn bridge rail in the way and it’s painted the wrong shade of red!!

58. Anthony Pascale - January 11, 2007

i must agree, some people use terms like ‘must’ and ‘have to’ in evey comment. And often it is for some very specific things. One gets the impression that these people will be carrying clip boards with their checklist as they watch the film…and will only declare it satisfactory if it fills out their specific lists or requirements

here is what is on my clip board
Is Entertaining? YES / NO
Feels like Star Trek? YES / NO

it is a very small clip board

59. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

I have a feeling that BIG DAWG AP might just might be getting not only the Wii, but also the XBox 360 AND Ninetendo DS for Christmas next year.

The rest of you are probably getting one pair of Blue Dress socks.

=h=

60. Still Kirok - January 11, 2007

The closure with a revived Kirk would be in the riding off into the sunset ending. Make no mistake, this would not be necessary if Star Trek 6 was truly the end. THAT was a perfect sendoff, ruined by Generations.

Get us back to that point. Kirk and Spock–going off to the next adventure, nice and open, doing what they do best. THAT is an ending.

61. hitch1969© - January 11, 2007

Oddly, Generations is one of my favorite Trek movies. Sure, it’s got the whole “killing off JTK™” part happening for no apparent reason, if only to satisfy the TOS hatred of the twin Antichrists. I think what I always liked was the entire numerology behind the fact that Tolian Soran much like Khan – both those dudes played Mr. Roarke on Fantasy Island. The two nastiest villians in Trekdom. Now, I know you all might say that Tolian Soran wasnt that all too scary a guy, and I agree. BUT he did kill JTK when no one else could. And Khan… hands down baddest bestest villian of ANY movie – did manage to kill Spock.

“there are always possibilities”

The bringbackkirk folks are going to get their wish. Shatner showing up in this movie in ANY form through any plot is a * proper * sendoff in my book. AND, who says that he can’t be in the next one?

I’m waiting for the Denny Crane and TJ Hooker movies too.

Shat is timeless. Shat will just get older but much like JTK he will never die. I REALLY MUST wear the old gold TOS uniform in this movie. Anything else would suck.

best!!

=h=

62. Dave - January 11, 2007

On my clipboard is

Is it star trek, ie: do the new characters look, sound and act like the original characters?
Does the enterprise look like the real enterprise of the era, ie: not some souped up , hi tech, made up thing to satisfy the special effects people. (and yes that means the same bridge!!)
Does it follow set cannon, ie: star trek history, timeline, which I deed to be extremely important.
Are the wrongs of Generations finaaly righted?

63. Dom - January 11, 2007

Dave, I strongly suggest you never go to see Star Trek XI. You will clearly hate it and the other audience members will probably kill you within ten minutes because of your endless nitpicking!!!

Your checklist is my worst nightmare for this film!

I’m presuming you’re writing your remarks to take the piss, otherwise you’re a very scary person!

64. Dave - January 11, 2007

No Dom I am not taking the piss and am serious. I love Star Trek, and collect TOS books and have read nearly all of them. I love the history and chacarters of Star trek, which is why I feel protective of them. I am not a scary person, but someone who simply loves Star Trek. We all have different opinions!

65. dalek - January 11, 2007

Shatner MUST return as Kirk if only to urinate on the arrogance of the shatner bashers! Let you forever be soiled in your own incorrectness fiends of the foul dog breathed domain!

66. Still Kirok - January 11, 2007

Actually Hitch, Soran didn’t kill Kirk. A falling bridge did. That was part of the meaninglessness of the movie. The bad guy is stopped whether Kirk dies or not. That, and Picard could have just left the nexus 15 minutes earlier and slapped the cuffs on him. He chose to get to Soran at the point where Soran was strongest. So Picard’s incompetence is also responsible for Kirk’s death.

67. Scott Gammans - January 11, 2007

All I care about is whether it’s a good movie and entertains me. They can use Gabe Koerner’s Enterprise and make Spock a woman for all I care–if it’s a great yarn and breathes new life into the series, sign me up!

68. Londo - January 11, 2007

Okay, here’s what I think’s happening:

- The bulk of the movie’s set at Kirk’s first mission as Captain
- There’ll be a flashback or two to the Academy (like how there was a flashback scene in “Superman Returns”, but it wasn’t an origin story)
- There’ll be several flash-forward scenes with the older Kirk and Spock (possibly as a “frame” for the movie) – dead Kirk meeting young Kirk is probably just speculation on Shatner’s part.

69. Dave - January 11, 2007

I would like to recommand that the writers of the new movie look towards the wonderful books that have been written that supplement the original series. Some fantastic storylines there. Also, it follows Trek history. By going back in time some of the fringe characters we saw a little of, should be in the new movie as well. Like Gary Mitchell, who did play a very big part of Kirks early like before the enterprise.

70. Xai - January 11, 2007

Hmmmmm… checklist?…. We are gonna get quizzed?

Dam… and I was going just to enjoy the movie.

#60… and Kirk likely will ride off into the sunset. But it won’t be Shatner’s wide-ass on that horse. It would blot out the sunset and hurt the pony.

Kinda like Ohio State this year….you don’t win them all. Let Shatner sit in the director’s special advisor chair and pretend to direct while groping Claudia Christensen’s ass. He’ll be happy and we won’t have Canadian Bacon all over the set.

71. Xai - January 11, 2007

#69 dave… possibly a good thought, but the first drafts are done. Ask Anthony.

72. B.Hathaway - January 11, 2007

If Abrams has already come out and said that the film will be for new fans of the series as well that have never even seen star trek, then how in the hell can they justify putting it in the future to revive a dead captain kirk? You would have to have seen the others for that to make sense.

They just better not be setting this up for a Battlestar type bullshit. A total reboot is not what 40 years of Star Trek fukin’ history needs.

I would love to say I have confidence in the writers and in this movie and I will be the first one on here when I get wind of the story/plot to eat my crow, but…..

I’m not holding my breath.

73. Nitpick o' the day - January 11, 2007

Future screenplay writers and general Trek fans.
PLEASE….

the word of the day is…
CANON. (please note the 2 N’s) as in Trek history

not to be confused with
CANNON
which involves gunpower, and Pirates of the Carribean and Yosemite Sam.

brought to you by Hitchworld: Poopypants vs.Mac-n-Da-pants
from Paramount this summer

74. Xai - January 11, 2007

B. hathaway…. you always this much fun? Give them a chance to actually film it before the comdemation.

75. V - January 11, 2007

excellant article. Thanks!

76. Buckaroohawk - January 11, 2007

The Star Trek novels are NOT considered canon. Not by Paramount, not by Roddenberry, and not by most of Trek fandom. If they were, character and event histories would go from difficult (in some cases) to completely unusable. Even the novelization of the films are NOT part of canon.

The rule is simple: If it wasn’t seen or discussed ON FILM, it is NOT canon.

The quote “I consider the books to be canon” is meaningless. They are not. There are some absolutely incredible Trek books out there (Greg Cox’s books detailing Khan’s history jump to mind), but they ARE NOT PART OF OFFICIAL TREK HISTORY. If you think they are, then you are wrong.

If JJ Abrams has a brain in his head (and I’m sure he does) the one thing he absolutely WILL NOT do is “fix” Generations. It doesn’t need to be fixed. We saw it. It happened. If you can’t get over the fact that the character of Kirk was killed on Viridian III, that’s your problem, not Abram’s, Paramount’s, or Star Trek’s.

My checklist for Trek XI will read thusly:

1. Does it look enough like Star Trek in production design? Y/N
2. Does it “feel” like Star Trek as I interpret it? Y/N
3. Do the actors accurately represent the characters they portray? Y/N
4. Did I have a good time and recommend the film to others? Y/N

That’s all I’ll need. Many of the posters here are trying to weigh this new film down with their own personal Trek baggage. If your enjoyment of this film when it’s released rests solely on strict adherence to previous design aesthetics or whether Kirk is “resurrected,” then you are most likely going to be profoundly disappointed. Be ready for it.

77. Canonista - January 11, 2007

Hey, before I “clam up”, here’s my clipboard I’ll take:

1. Feels like Star Trek?
YES/NO

2. Feels like Rambo in Space?
YES/NO

3. Makes Reasonable attempt to honor Canon?
YES/NO

4. Plot full of holes?
YES/NO

5, LOOKS like Star Trek?
YES/NO

6. LOOKS like Star Wars?
YES/NO

7. Good Casting?
YES/NO

I’d say that’s a pretty loose set of criteria…

**NOTE: Didn’t request red bridge rail.
**NOTE: Didn’t request a Picard-fest, though, there’s nothing wrong with that.
**NOTE: Didn’t request original uniforms.
**NOTE: DID infer request for the Enterprise to look something like an Enterprise and not a Superstar Destroyer.

78. Dave - January 11, 2007

How can you have an enterprise that doesn’t look like the enterprise? How can you have characters that don’t look and act like the original characters? This is just established fact, yes, fact. To change this is to change Star Trek and we don’t need to change Star Trek just to tell a good story and develop a new storyline. Are there Star Trek fans that feel this way?? How awful would it be to see a souped up enterprise just designed for special efforts? Awful, just awful! Or actors that disregard who their established characters are! Just terrible. I only hope and pray that this doesn’t happen, but if it does, my star trek is gone and I will be extremely sad.

79. DaveM - January 11, 2007

Even though Paramount licenses the books through Pocket Books, they would still have to pony up the money for film rights. They can’t just use sections of a book because it suits them to do so. Paramount doesn’t want to set a precedent of using Trek books writers (in some cases fan written material) as a source of Trek movie/series ideas.

80. Josh T. (TNG sucks) Kirk Esquire' - January 12, 2007

I think the film should open with the Shat smearing his rosey red bare, bald ass all over the camera lens with a tattoo extending the FULL range of ass cheek boldly stating “Hi Xai, you Kirk lover you.”

I’d pay the two bucks that would be worth to see. ;)

81. Sci-Fi Bri - January 12, 2007

“does it feel like star trek?”
i’m hoping that the new movie makes me think of trek in a new way, that is, i hope that it _itsn’t_ what i think of as trek.

“is it entertaining?”
bad star trek is better than most good TV, so i’m just waiting for 2008/9 ;-D

82. Dom - January 12, 2007

The thing I don’t understand is this business of ‘Abrams MUST respect continuity’ and so on that people are spouting off about.

When has he ever said he won’t? But the implication here is that, rather than ‘respect’ canon, continuity, 1965 set-design or whatever other anal obsessions certain people have, Abrams should slavishly adhere to what people believe is canon.

One nice thing is that Abrams and his team have said they even regard certain novels as useful material (perhaps Strangers from the Sky, Vulcan’s Glory, Final Frontier and one or two others!) But, ultimately, most books are ‘fanon,’ including the ‘Shatner-verse.’ I no more expect a Trek book to create a framework for a movie than I expect a Starship Exeter or ST: New Voyages episode to become essential continuity!

End of the day, we have a big TOS fan, who is increasingly well-regarded in the TV/movie business making a big budget movie about the origins of two of the greatest Star Trek characters. We should simply be excited to see what he comes up with.

Throw away the checklists and talk about your aspirations rather than your demands!

83. Dave - January 12, 2007

I agree that these books, particular Strangers form the Sky, Vulcan’s Glory and Final Frontier are EXTREMELY useful. However, The TNG movie “First Contact” disrespected the story line from Strangers from the Sky. However, there are aspects from the book that I can tie into the movie to establish canon. Vulcan’s Glory is a wonderful resourse. Please lets not forget the 3 books written by Micheal Jan Friedman detailing Kirk’s life before and in the beginning of his time on the Enterprise. And also the key figure of Gary Mitchell. If you are dealing with Kirk’s early life then the story is wrong wthout the inclusion of Gary Mitchell .

84. Trevok - January 12, 2007

Also the novel Federation was completly disregarded when they made First Contact.
On XI if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it looks like Trek, if it feels like Trek then it is Trek.
LLAP

85. Dom - January 12, 2007

Dave. IIRC, Strangers from the Sky was about the first true meeting of humans and Vulcans/Vulcanians, rather than the ‘official’ one seen in First Contact, so maybe Strangers can still work. I must try to pick up the re-release of that book, cos it’s years since I read it, and Vulcan’s Glory. Really enjoyed them.

Btw, I just started reading Burning Dreams. Seems pretty good, so far. Have you read it? :)

86. Dave - January 12, 2007

yes, I have just finished reading it. It was great. The story of Chris Pike finally told. Very sad in some places, but wonderful to read all about this strangely compeling character. I hope you enjoy it.

87. Dom - January 12, 2007

Yeah. Pike’s an intriguing character. Given he appears to be in STXI, we might get to learn more about him too!!

Funny no one’s playing up hell about Pike being recast! With those piercing blue eyes, Daniel Craig would be a fascinating choice for the character!

88. SithMenace - January 12, 2007

72. B.Hathaway, I know you ignore all of the posts that call you out, but you really need to read up on what has been said about this movie. Abrams has said this is NOT a reboot, he is going back and filling in a part of Trek history that has always been missing. As far as the design and characters, he’s making a TREK movie, so in order to sell a TREK movie, he needs to make it look like a TREK movie. I think you’re better off just not seeing this film, because you’re one of the closed minded individuals that is going to do nothing but complain about it because the shirt collars are the wrong shape and Spock’s ears are 1/16 of an inch too short.

89. John N. - January 12, 2007

I’d like to take all talk of canon,
shove it into a cannon,
and fire it into a deep canyon,
somewhere in the heart of kenya.

- reposted from a dead thread… :)

90. Andoriano - January 12, 2007

shatner y sus cosillas, ahora resulta que el tambien va a sacar un libro sobre los inicios de kirk y spock, toda una casualidad.

:) :) ;)

91. TrekNerd - January 12, 2007

That’s what she said.

92. Dave - January 12, 2007

Yes, it is interesting why people aren’t talking about recasting Chris Pike. Part of Pike’s charm and intrigue is because of the wonderful way he was part by Jeffery Hunter. Unfortunately this was only for “The Cage”. Chris Pike is a very complex character that need to be played like Jeffery Hunter.

93. Canonista - January 12, 2007

The Cage barely exposed Pike, beyond the weight attributed to his responsibility as a Captain.

Even as a “Canonista”, I see Chris Pike as a blank slate (with a grim future).

1 = Yes, 2 = No.

94. hitch1969© - January 12, 2007

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

(dramatic pause)

beeeep.

=h=

95. Dave - January 12, 2007

Yes, I agree we didn’t get much inner detail regarding the man Chris Pike, particularly from the Cage. But having just read “Dreaming Dreams” he is no longer a blank slate, but a very deep and complex man. This should be reflected in the movie.

96. Canonista - January 12, 2007

I haven’t read the book you’re talking about Dave, but as a long time Trek fan and “Canonista”, the novels haven’t been considered Canon. Even the Technical Manuals and Encyclopedias aren’t, although that is kind of an annoying reality.

I read almost every novel released by Pocket Books TOS & TNG released in the mid-to-late 80′s. My favorite author was Peter David. But even as much as I liked most of those novels, they’ve never been considered Canon. IMO, what’s considered Canon today should continue to be considered Canon in the future (with the addition of TAS, which I’ll reluctantly add). That’s the point of Canon.

That said, I’m not opposed to scriptwriters using material from some of the novels, though I believe that rarely happens because they don’t want to compensate the authors responsible for those works in the future.

97. John N. - January 12, 2007

Dave just takes any issues that anyone brings up and immediately responds with “canon must be adhered to”, all the while applying his extremely liberal, unyielding and personal view of what is considered canon.

He can’t be reasoned with. He can’t be bargained with.

98. Dave - January 12, 2007

John N, I am reasonable, but there is 40 years of Star Trek here to respect. Is it a crime to want to continue this great history, or are you another “reboot” and start again person??

99. Dom - January 12, 2007

Now c’mon Dave!

There’s a vast middle ground between a slavish self-referential continuation and a reboot, y’know!

The way I see this film is that the script will carry an awareness of the show’s history in the backstory, but there’s no real need to address anything except stuff that’s relevant to the film.

The secret is to make a film that doesn’t blow established future history out of the water, but perhaps challenges our assumptions about certain things, while still giving the non-fans a good story.

Abrams has never said he’ll contradict anything, so there are a lot of unfair, negative assumptions being made out there. But expect the classic Enterprise to be suitably enhanced for the big screen, where more texture and surface detail will be essential.

The interiors will have to be adapted for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, meaning sets will probably have more breadth. Metal will look like metal, rather than painted wood and cardboard, screens on the bridge will all have moving images, the bridge rail will be made of metal. The audio FX will be reworked for surround sound (actually, they already have been for TOS on DVD etc.)

Had they made a TOS film in the 1960s, the ship would have been redesigned inside and out along with the uniforms (look at some of the 1970s conceptual artwork!) Remember, this is a visualisation of TOS-era Trek made for a different medium in a different decade. Expect something new and expensive that will pay homage to the work the 60s designers accomplished on a tiny budget!

100. John N - January 12, 2007

#98 – Dave

Dom summed it up nicely in #99. There is a HUGE middle ground between reboot and what you demand in each and every comment that you post.

Ask yourself one thing. If Roddenberry thought that the set design and costumes would have translated beautifully onto the big screen, don’t you think they would have gone that direction with ST:TMP?

The only things that I desire are that love and passion are poured into the product by the creative team. Frankly, I find all of these canonista demands quite close-minded and stifling.

101. Dave - January 12, 2007

Dom and John, I can see what you are saying, and I agree with you in many ways. You make some excellent points. All I ask is that the movie writers, director, producers etc, etc, follow Star Trek traditions. Also, that they keep the enterprise like the enterprise. Just a sleeker version that reflects today’s advances in cinematography. That can be done and still have the same bridge, right down to the red bridge rails. What’s wrong with that?? Also, uniforms can be made to look nicer, sure!! But use the same design as the original uniforms. As for the new actors that will play our beloved characters, they should, no must reflect their originals. I am afraid that I can’t yield on that And yes …that word ‘canon’, that people find so hard to accept ( and I don’t know why) can be respected and new storylines introduced. There are always possibilities…..

102. Xai - January 12, 2007

You can only please some of the people most of the time.
I guarantee that someone’s vision of canon will be completely shattered by this movie… probably several. 40 years worth of a “universe” featuring what… 35 to 60 regular cast, several reoccuring characters and lots of guest stars and extras… will be hard to match up to.
This will fall on deaf ears, but all of us need to find that open mind JJ mentioned in another thread.

#80 Josh T… I was just starting to enjoy your relative silence of late. It was refreshing and I am sure something new for you. But all good things…

103. Josh T. (Turbulent) Kirk Esquire' - January 13, 2007

#102

Oh come on you know it was hilarious hah hah.

104. Sam Belil - January 13, 2007

Dave 101-Remeber the bridge of Captain Pike’s Enterprise had more of the monochrome look. I don’t know if you guys recall but there used to exist and beautiful Star Trek magazine, made in the late 90′s I still have copies. Every issue would focus in detail on a specific ship. One issue in particular focused on (in great detail) not only Pike’s Enterprise — but also the uniforms (as well as the field jackets they wore on away missions). I would like to see (somewhat of a modified look) be maintained. I also feel that exterior of the Enterprise should not be modified to look “sleeker”. All you need to is look at the remastered version the original Enterprise looks like they way it was meant to look. As far as actors go (as I already stated and I’m not so big in Matt Damon) — (I think we can all agree) this movie does NOT need “star power” to succeed. In fact perhaps some current/former ST actors can handle certain roles. For example, I can envision Kate Mulgrew playing Pike’s #1 — Will Weaton perhaps as Jose Tyler –. Captain Pike — WOW that will be a tough one (Jeffrey Hunter was a tall, straping strikingly hansome man) — it will have to be someone who is just as good looking as Shatner was back in the day (Perhaps Highlander’s Adrian Paul with fitted blue contact lenses of course). Daniel Craig might be a good choice also, but he (if I’m not mistaken) may be a bit too short. Megan Ward as Carol Marcus.

105. Dave - January 13, 2007

Sam, yes I couldn’t agree more with your comments regarding Pike’s Enterprise. Your 100% correct in your detail. Prehaps ‘sleeker enterprise’ was a wrong choice of words, and the remastered version is indeed excellent. With regard to the actors, yes, they don’t need star power, good actors that look, sound and act like the originals is what this movie needs.

Just thinking about Pike’s enterprise, remember the ach corridors and the very different bridge colours, the turbo lift doors were plain in colour and the bridge rail was brownish, if I recall. Actually the bridge had a smaller feel to it. Also, after every 5 year mission the enterprise was ‘refitted’ with new designs and technology included. This was why Kirk’s enterprise was different. The movie should reflect these changes, if we see Pike’s enterprise and Kirk’s enterprise in the movie.

106. Sam Belil - January 13, 2007

Thanks Dave — I rememeber Pike’s Entreprise with the same detail as you — I’m really excited about this. Perhaps in hindsight, a better idea as opposed to “Enterprise” might have been to do a prequel TV series based on the adventures of Captain Pike and his crew. Yes the you’re right the bridge did seem to have a smaller feel. Also recall that in “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, Kirk had the same Captain’s Chair as Pike, and I believe the same viewing screen. Being a full time husband and father of a 13 year old son (who is a HUGE fan of TOS) does not afford me the time to watch my DVD collection of TOS as often as I like. When my 13 year old son heard about the new movie, and MIND you my son was born nearly 30 years after “The Cage” was made — he told me in his own words, “Dad this better be true to the original series”. My gut tells me that we will actually being more of Pike’s Enterprise as well as more of Kirk’s (or should I say) Garrovick’s Farragut. Needless to say the last time I was this excited about a new Star Trek movie was prior to the release of TWOK.
The more I think about, I would prefer to see a cast of relative unknowns than Matt Damon. Having said that (being a huge Desperate Housewives Fan AS WELL as Teri Hatcher fan). The young man who plays Nicole Sheridan’s nephew (in my opinion) BY FAR passes off as a much better young James Kirk as opposed to Matt Damon. This movie (my only fear) should NOT be about so-called “Star Power”.

107. Dave - January 13, 2007

Some very nice thoughts there Sam. It’s great to share our love of star trek with family. My daughter and I watch Star Trek together, she is 8. We enjoy watching it together. How wonderful would it be if there was another series this time based on Chris Pike’s first 5 year mission. This is what Paramount should of done instread of the ‘Enterprise’ series. Well that’s my opinion, anyway. It could still be done….

108. Sam Belil - January 13, 2007

Dave — then we must be about the same age, as I have been watching Star Trek since I was five when it first came out with my Dad. Since I have very close bond with my son (in addition to our love for Star Trek), I also his personal basketball coach. Probably one of the biggest reasons (out of the “new incarnations) I LOVED DS9. The relationship that Sisko has with his son very much reminds me of the relationship my son and I have. Needless to say my favorite DS9 episode is “The Visitor”. Who knows anything is possible, and Captain Pike series could be potentially AWESOME!!!

109. Trevok - January 15, 2007

Hitch its scary when you make sense.
To all the people saying what JJ and co should or shouldn’t do, give it a rest. There is NO way your comments are going to make the slightest difference as to what happens in XI. Also remember one thing, this is only one film, if you don’t like it big deal, you have over a thousand episodes and ten other movies you can watch.
Good bad or indifferant this wont be the last Trek film, as Hitch stated earlier Trek is a cash cow for Paramount, proberly it’s biggest cash cow and no way are they going to stop milking it.

110. SithMenace - January 16, 2007

109. Trevok, “as Hitch stated earlier Trek is a cash cow for Paramount, proberly it’s biggest cash cow and no way are they going to stop milking it”.

That, IMO, is why they are going to make damn sure this is a good movie.

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