Lindelof Says Trek XI Will Focus On Character – Possibly Revealed Summer 08 Release Date? [UPDATE: did not reveal date] |
jump to navigation

Lindelof Says Trek XI Will Focus On Character – Possibly Revealed Summer 08 Release Date? [UPDATE: did not reveal date] January 15, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Creative,STXI Status , trackback

Damon Lindelof (pictured with Abrams winning Emmys for Lost) is Star Trek XI’s ‘other producer’. We don’t hear much from Damon who is still busy working on Lost day to day, but iF magazine caught up with him and got him to talk a little Trek XI. Although Lindelof gave the usual company line, he did repeat Abrams comments about a wide audience and a focus on character…and he may have inadvertently announced a release date.

"We’re not giving out any information about Trek at all,…J.J. and I are producing it and Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci are writing it.Paramount has announced a release date of [July 2] 2008. That’s all that’s official."

Back to summer again? had originally reported that Paramount were wanting a summer release, but subsequently we reported that by Abrams and his team preferred winter (Abrams said this himself in his interview with Recently we reported the debate had swung to winter, but maybe it has swung back to summer. One thing we are sure of, Paramount have not ‘officially announced’ anything beyond ‘2008’. If this is true it would put Trek XI in some head to head competition with some big films in July 08. It is possible that iF Magazine inserted the date without any legit sourcing…making this a moot point. has inquires out to both Paramount and iF to clear this up.

UPDATE: Nevermind iF Magazine have updated their story and removed the date. Paramount tell TrekMovie that July 2 is not the ‘official date’ for Trek XI and that there is nothing more specific than ‘2008’. Sources inside the studio still believe it will be in the winter. More here

Trek XI is for his mom in New Jersey too
Lindelof also approached the subject of how Trek XI will be for both Trekkies and non Trekkies, saying

we are trying to write a movie that Trekkers and my mother in New Jersey will all understand and love

Feel free to now take this out of context as proof that he hates all Trekkies, or maybe all people from New Jersey. 

It’s all about character
In the past Abrams and the writers have talked about how they want to emphasise character and drama. Lindelof emphasised this point:

the fundamental J.J. Abrams approach to storytelling is one I highly subscribe to which is character, character, character and we’re applying that same model on to Trek,,,I think fundamentally to set a movie in space and the future where crazy things are happening and they’re all aliens is not as engaging as ‘how are the people involved?

what no aliens?  (that is a joke…don’t read too much into these things). That being said the character focused approach can be seen in Abrams works like Alias, Lost and M:I:3 (where he have Ethan Hunt a wife and more back story). It is safe to say that Trek XI will really ‘flesh out’ the character of Kirk, and we will find out what really makes him tick. 

Abrams still not confirmed to direct
One last bit of ‘non news’ is that Lindelof stated that it is still ‘not confirmed’ that Abrams will direct. Last we heard he is waiting for the script to be approved to his liking…a bit of studio politics. This does bring up the topic of what will Lindelof’s role be on the film. If Abrams ends up as the director, then it might be reasonable to assume that Lindelof would take the brunt of the producing, especially during filming. This would be a big move for Lindelof as Trek XI is his first feature film (the rest of the team have all worked on at least one film). Also his comments about ‘we are writing’ is intriguing. Lindelof is an accomplished writer (for TV) and this might indicate that he has a hand in the script or maybe the story. 

check out  iF Magazine for the full interview 


1. Daren Doc - January 15, 2007

Wow… that’s on my 41st Birthday… how cool is that. :)

2. Robin Alexander - January 15, 2007

well at least J.J. Abrams is doing something what George Lucas didnt.

3. Flake - January 15, 2007

Thats a biiiiig weekend, Independence Day weekend. That date would also be a Wednesday. One of the biggest weekends of the year. Maybe they will have to move it if something like Indiana Jones or another POTC wants that date though.

4. Flake - January 15, 2007

There is also a Will Smith movie coming out on that date.

5. Anthony Pascale - January 15, 2007

ok I have slightly reworded the headline and section on release date to make it more \’iffy\’ I have a suspicion that Lindelof just said \’2008\’ and for some bizarro reason iF magazine stuck \’July 2\’ in there. I am trying to get this cleared up.

6. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

I’m not very happy with Will Smith and here’s why. OK, first of all, he killed his first wife and took the kid. What kind of OJ thing is that??? THEN, he made the kid have Jada Pinket as a stopmom which, I guess OK until Will Smith knocked HER up a few times, now guess who is the red-headed stepchild getting treated like crap with no REAL mommy around to run away to? THEN Will Smith does a movie with one of the Jada Pinkett babies and this first kid is out in the cold.

That’s why I’m not too happy with Will Smith. Dudes like him have no code, no character. I frown on that.



7. James Heaney - January 15, 2007

Well, it’s nice to see how many *other* people check their RSS feeds at least once every half-hour.

There’s a Wikipedia update in my future, after many a long dry week.

8. Anthony Pascale - January 15, 2007

James…do not change the release date yet.

as of now I am sticking with ‘winter’ until iF mag confirm their quote or Paramount confirm it.
i think they fucked up…could be wrong

9. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007


very very very shatner in the pants, AP. officer thinking.



10. Dave - January 15, 2007

I like the fact that their will be emphasis on the characters. I think that’s good. Prehaps the relationship between Kirk and Mitchell and how the vampire cloud profoundly affected the young Kirk. No aliens? I was wondering. If Klingons are represented in this movie, then will they look like the Klingons from TOS or the Klingons from STTMP and beyond. Previous Star Treks written has explained this difference in appearance.

11. An olde timey fan - January 15, 2007


“very very very shatner in the pants, AP. officer thinking.


Hitch — you are BIGDAWGAP inthepants ;-)

12. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

Dave… Dave…. Dave…. oh Dave.

Dude… There’s not going to be Gary Mitchell or the Salt Monster or Carol Marcus or even the Scalos chick that Shat laid down with the other night there on the remaster.

He’s making the movie so HIS GRANDMOTHER would understand it.

Did you read that part?

Oy Vey.


13. Dave - January 15, 2007

Gary Mitchell can still be in the film, being fundamental in Kirks younger years. The Salt Monster is in fact an interesting character. The only one that was left in the universe, if I am correct. However, I don’t believe JJA will include this in the storyline, no matter how interesting. But an interesting thought Hitch.

14. trekmaster - January 15, 2007

Hmm, 07/02/08 is on Wednesday. Is this generally a date for films to start? In Germany films often start on Thursday.

15. James Heaney - January 15, 2007

#14: The Two Towers opened on a Wednesday, IIRC.

Tony: I won’t change the formal date yet. I will put down a reference to it in the article, though, and we’ll see how things develop. I do *not* want WP to become the new iMDB of random Trek XI rumors.

16. Chris - January 15, 2007

That release date is extremely stupid. Trek XI is going to be directly competing with The Dark Knight, a movie that is very highly anticipated. Change it to winter for the bigger numbers.

17. Scott Vela - January 15, 2007

I dont recall correctly if past Star Trek Films have done well during a summer release or not….but anything is possible at this point. I think the last Summer movie was The Final Frontier which wasn’t very much loved by the critics or some fans for that matter.
I agree its too soon to say what date this movie should be released. Early spring might be better for Trek XI or early fall. Summer would be suicide.
Its hard counting on a non fan audience you dont have.

18. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 15, 2007

I can’t believe Abrams and Lindelof are spelling out what their approach to the movie is and yet some of the continuity fetishists still aren’t waking up and smelling the coffee. Heck, even hitch gets what Lindelof is saying….

Dave, Lindelof’s mother in New Jersey doesn’t give a frack about the salt vampire. And when Lindelof quotes Abrams and says, “character, character, character,” and then says the movie’s not going to be all about the aliens, that doesn’t mean the movie is going to be all about fleshing out the salt vampire as a character–in fact, it means the opposite.

This movie is not going to be some continuity porn fest. And before people start protesting about how you can have both good characters and continuity–ask yourselves when the writers of any Star Trek were ever all that focused on continuity (4th season of Enterprise excluded). Face it, nobody cares about continuity issues anywhere near as much as some of you hard-core types, and it’s not enough to make a movie that just connects the continuity dots. That’s not storytelling–that’s just fanwank garbage.

19. Josh T. ( Tesla Coil ) Kirk Esquire' - January 15, 2007

Shatner’s powerful girth and bloated red faced, swollen countenance just magically appeared to me from the year 2037 where he is adorned with a laundry list of well deserved titles and accolades, not to mention being synthetic and eternal, like plastic.
He calmly broke it down for me- his most humble accolyte, to spread the gospel that the film will actually open June 3rd, 2008, will be critically recieved but not make a spectacular splash at the Box Office, the fans will be very warm to the film, yet the shit stain of Berman era Trek is a powerful stench to overcome no matter how you try to sugarcoat any post Berman era Trek endeavor. Shatnertron stated the film earns a tolerable 72 million domestic take with a 240 million international take, coupled with DVD, HD, and Blue Ray sales, impressing the suits enough that a sequel is greenlit, and a new series is spat forth from Shatnercron’s mighty posterior region.
As fate would have it, the Shat suggested that due to the uplifting ofthe stem cell research ban, and cloning, James Doohan and Deforest Kelley are revived from their slumber under the clause that they can only live to perform in Trek films.
The Shatenstein says Trek XI is but the tease for Trek XIII, the REAL film fans have been waiting for.
Shatmeister says Trek XII wasn’t all it was hoped to be as Lucas interfered with the story by having Kirk NOT kill Obi-Wan Kenobi as was originally and contractually agreed upon.
After having recieved the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes for Trek XIII, Shat-NOR
states rather clearly he departs the motion picture industry to pursue photographing nude Fat women in honor of Leonardo Nimoy’s groundbreaking world peace bringing creative endeavor popularized by such groundbreaking DVD’s as “Homegrown Hotties” and “Real women have curves.”
The transmission was interrupted unfortunately by a Gamma ray burst, but just prior to deteriorating into a mound of burnt flesh Shatmandu stated rather eloquently that fans of Star Trek have nothing to be concerned about, as Rick “The hachet” Berman was tried for crimes against humanity in an international tribunal overseen by the Shat himself in Spring 2009.

Oh yes fellow Trekonauts, good times ahead, damn good times.

20. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 15, 2007

I can’t believe Abrams and Lindelof are spelling out what their approach to the movie is and yet some of you here still aren’t waking up and smelling the coffee. Heck, even hitch gets what Lindelof is saying….

Dave, Lindelof’s mother in New Jersey doesn’t give a frack about the salt vampire. And when Lindelof quotes Abrams and says, “character, character, character,” and then says the movie’s not going to be all about the aliens, that doesn’t mean the movie is going to be all about fleshing out the salt vampire as a character–in fact, it means the opposite.

Before people start protesting about how you can have both good characters and continuity–ask yourselves when the writers of any Star Trek were ever all that focused on continuity (4th season of Enterprise excluded). Face it, nobody cares about continuity issues anywhere near as much as some of you hard-core types, and it’s not enough to make a movie that just connects the continuity dots. That’s not storytelling–that’s just continuity-porn drek.

21. Josh T. ( Tesla Coil ) Kirk Esquire' - January 15, 2007

Oh, and Star Trek The Motion Picture was released in Winter 79
The Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock Summer 82 and 84,
The Voyage Home if memory serves summer 86, The Final Frontier summer 89, and the Undiscovered Country winter of 91.

I think there may have been another film or two afterwards but, they mattered so little I honestly forgot. ;)

22. Humble Trek Fan - January 15, 2007

I can’t believe Abrams and Lindelof are spelling out what their approach to the movie is and yet some of you here still aren’t waking up and smelling the coffee. Heck, even hitch gets what Lindelof is saying…..

Dave, Lindelof’s mother in New Jersey doesn’t give a frack about the salt vampire. And when Lindelof quotes Abrams and says, “character, character, character,” and then says the movie’s not going to be all about the aliens, that doesn’t mean the movie is going to be all about fleshing out the salt vampire as a character–in fact, it means the opposite.

Before people start protesting about how you can have both good characters and continuity–ask yourselves when the writers of any Star Trek were ever all that focused on continuity (4th season of Enterprise excluded). They’re all much more focused on trying to come up with good character arcs,dialogue and plots.

Face it, it’s not enough to make a movie that just connects the continuity dots, for regular people. That’s not storytelling–that’s just fanwank trash.

23. Humble Trek Fan - January 15, 2007

P.S. I used to go by Trekweb Forever!!! but my posts wouldn’t go through anymore. Why the censorship, Anthony? :(

24. Humble Trek Fan - January 15, 2007

19 – Voyage Home was a winter release.

25. Scott Gammans - January 15, 2007

I’m still holding out hope that they premiere Trek XI on the first Friday in December. The Wednesday before July 4th is going to be a *crowded* weekend. I would also humbly point out that three of Trek’s biggest B.O.’s were winter releases: movies #4, 6 and 10.

26. Josh T. ( Tesla Coil ) Kirk Esquire' - January 15, 2007

Are you quite certain 22?

I seem to recall seeing it at the Drive In, and I can’t imagine a Drive In being open in Winter hmmmm.

27. Josh T. ( Tesla Coil ) Kirk Esquire' - January 15, 2007

Trek’s biggest box office was Christmas 1979.

Star Trek -The Motion Picture is still my favorite of the films, quite epic and BIG.

Anthony, what happened to movie reviews? Did I miss “The Voyage Home?”

28. Scott Gammans - January 15, 2007

^^^ D’OH! How could I forget ST:TMP?! Yep, that was also a Winter release.

29. Cold Warrior - January 15, 2007

21 – Indeed, why the censorship? It is not logical. We’re your CUSTOMERS and we can go somewhere else if you want us to leave. also, why not post an email address or general forum where we can send story leads, compliments and complaints? That way, we won’t get off-topic. Unless you don’t care about your customers/readers… The Federation would never censor it’s citizens and it’s not an honored custom in the USA either. The soviet union’s a different story… When we make a comment you don’t like, don’t kill the messenger. Profanity and blatant rudeness are the only things that should get someone banned. Power corrupts… Don’t let it corrupt you, cause a lot of people actually LIKE this site.

30. CmdrR - January 15, 2007

#1 – My brother turns 51. Three weeks later, I turn 46. It’s cool. It also means I’m old. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

31. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

Josh T. ( Tesla Coil ) Kirk Esquire’±®… you’re full o’ negativity. But your posts made me laugh. So good job, just try an kick er down a notch next time. I enjoyed your posts immensely. You have alot to offer and bring much to the table in terms of caring for the subject matter and knowledge.

Humble Trek Fan™ AKA Trekweb Forever!!!© Again, my personal perspective is that all view points should be not only represented, but also repsectah’d as me Ali G say. THE IDEA being that IF what you are arguing against is strong enough, it will hold up to the criticism. I think that the new Trek movie WILL. I think it’s going to be awesome, so having poopypants around to poop on it is fine by me and I think that IF you were banned, BIG DAWG AP should rethink that. And don’t lose faith in AP, I never did. Lookit, today he dropped the F-bomb and all that. He’s a good guy. Please dont come here with adversarial intentions from that other site. It’s a grate site, but this site is better. endofstory®.

And to ALL: Just because the dude says that he wants his grandmother to watch the friggin movie and they’ve both said that they want it accessible to the masses DOES NOT mean that they are going to neglect the core audience. Please not let me be misunderstood on this. I’m just saying understand that the particulars that YOU want may not be what makes the movie.

I like BIG DAWG AP’s clipboard perspective. Don’t worry.. the movie will be grate!



32. Anthony Pascale - January 15, 2007

this sites comments are protected by something called the askimet spam filter…your post got caught in that. perhaps another site flagged your ip or ip range as a spammer

the system is automated

but thanks for the assumption that i maliciously am censoring each and every of the hundreds of post made here ever week

by the way hitch…I have never claimed that Trek XI ‘will be great’ (or grate)

i have only said it can be great

if trek xi bites the big one…this site will be the first to say it.

33. Anthony Pascale - January 15, 2007

re; movie reviews
well those were ‘filler’ for weekends without a TOSR episode. there will be more as more repeats happen.

if there is a clammoring….maybe i can speed up the process

34. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

BIG DAWG AP… I wasnt quoting you, man. I was quoting ME.

TREK XI will be grate. THIS I GUARANTEE. Like Namath with a Super Bowk win.

This site will never have to say that it sucked, because it will not suck.

AP, I’m here singing your praises man. I am sorry if that made you uncomfortable. Take it with grace, brother. You’ve got an awesome site and deserve the credit.

35. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

and to the naysayers…..

TMP WAS NOT a character driven movie.

Trek II WAS a character driven movie.

Thats the level of excellence that you can expect from Kurt Russell and crew. BUT don’t expect that what you played out on the RPG Saturday night or fan fiction attention to canon will be happening. In between is a nice expectation, aye?


36. Canonista - January 15, 2007

I guess Lindelof’s mother represents mainstream viewership, since its now part of the “official” record that (1) connecting with a mainstream audience is important and (2) writing the movie so his mother can enjoy it is an example….

Lord of the Rings was a supremely character driven show and a box office hit. How much of that was parents taking children to see the movie? There was violence, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it gratuitous. The Star Wars Prequels I & II were character driven and both sucesses, quite a bit more (gratuitous) violence, but still a lot of parents taking children to see the movies….so what is mainstream…mainstream adult…mainstream kids…what…

If I were a gambling sort, I’d wager that Lindelof’s 45-65 y/o mother probably isn’t into gratuitous violence and shallow plot shoot-em-ups, so I suppose that’s a good sign. Yet I still wonder (and often times fear) exactly what the definition of the term “Mainstream” is.

37. Xai - January 15, 2007

Anthony, you don’t read every post?… certainly you read ALL of mine. (Don’t read this one.)

And definently Josh T.( Tantrum) Kirk, Jr.’s no doubt.

JOSH, buddy… R. Berman called and asked me to relay a message (he seemed confused that you were screening your calls)

The message…

“Josh, I cannot understand why you hate me like you do. It would seem that I’ve hurt you somehow. But until you can find it in your heart to tell me why you ran… why you drag my name through the mud like you do… I’ll never know. Please call… I am always here for you.
Your loving father, Rick Berman”

OMG… my eyes are tearing up…

#28 you owe Anthony an apology.

38. Xai - January 15, 2007

Sorry, Josh,…. had to do it. LOL

39. Jeff Driscoll - January 15, 2007

Don’t know what’s been said yet in these comments but consider a couple things regarding the release date

-Release dates change.

-Magainze interviews are usually completed a month or more ahead of time [unless this is an online-only magazine?] because of printing. It’s possible that at the time he gave the interview, Paramount was set to make a release date public but something in their plans have changed (hence when we heard about it moving to winter); at the same time maybe the magazine hit publication ahead of schedule and we should be expecting an announcement in the next few timeframe.

40. Stanky McFibberich - January 15, 2007

Star Trek XI news. Yawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn.

and why the need for the F word?

41. Orbitalic - January 15, 2007

#39 the name of the site is TrekMovie…. thus the XI news.
Stanky…if you don’t care… why read the movie related news stories?


42. Stanky McFibberich - January 15, 2007

You’ve got a point.

43. DC - January 15, 2007

“Feel free to now take this out of context as proof that he hates all Trekkies, or maybe all people from New Jersey. ”

yeah, ok i will
im DOUBLEY offended cuz im a Trekkie AND from New Jersey

44. Josh T. (Told ya so) Kirk Esquire' - January 15, 2007

Xai you should know better, being a faux Vulcanian and all, how has Xon been by the way? Alright now im gonna have to have a Andy Griffith moment with ya now and sit you on my knee…… ;)

You have clearly seen through my facade, I attend BA meetings, Berman anonymous. The man vandalized my Trek stash and collection then proceeded to Shinzon mind rape me, Im suing for damages. Not to mention his perpetual roaming crossed eye.
I personally think if his eye hadn’t of been crossed, and his vision distorted, his vision for Star Trek wouldn’t have been distorted and skewed. ;)

It isn’t anti-Berman vitriol I speweth, My Gods, we are talking about a man whose entire producing credit prior to Next Gen was the “flaming red donkey” or whatever the childrens show was called, and this genius of creativity was never, EVER, bestowed by Roddenberry to be the bearer of Trek’s future.
One of the books out now reveals this exquisitely. Don’t make me track it down and actually corroborate my claim.
He slimed and slid into the role as any professional worm does, a powerful corporate hatchetman.
I love Star Trek.
Rick Berman did not love Star Trek. He viewed it as a paycheck. A new car. A cushy house.
I am not alone in my dislike for Rick Berman and his direction for the Star Trek story.
Ron Moore, Jeri Taylor, and the bald guy with the blue goatee, forgot his name, have all expressed reservations about working for and with Rick Berman.
He is the great Turd of the Galaxy, not the great bird.

Gene Roddenberrys’ rotting, stinking corpse wants revenge against Rick Berman, that’s why he manifested J.J. Abrams to avenge his most precious creation. If it ends up sucking Andorian ass, trust me, Roddenberries will have Abrams ass too.

Great Birds of the galaxy shall not be doublecrossed or trampled upon, there’s just too much vengeance awaiting the fool that dares n’ doing so.

45. Darth Ballz - January 15, 2007

Why would you open a movie a few days after the 4th of july weekend? Maby the weekend before but not after. OMG! How much can they suck from the Trek teet?

Darth “on the chin” Ballz

46. Dave - January 15, 2007

Yes, I’m sure that Lindelof’s mother in New Jersey doesn’t care about the salt creature. I just said that I thought it would be an interesting storyline and I thought it was an interesting thing that Hitch brought up…. I think most Trek fans would agree. I have always wondered about the story behind the salt creature and why exactly so many of them died. I guess that is the wonderful thing about Star Trek, is that there’s alwyays so much to write about and discuss. Which is why I LOVE IT. Who knows, prehaps JJA is thinking about this storyline?

47. Humble Trek Fan - January 15, 2007

31 — I wasn’t implying you were personally going through every single post before allowing them to go through.

When I wrote my earlier message, I kept changing it when it wouldn’t post, thinking that might be the problem. And this isn’t the first time this has happened.

Ultimately, what allowed the post to go through was changing my name. Everything else was kept pretty much the same but this time it went through. I figured maybe you just didn’t like me mentioning a competing site in my name (others here don’t like me mentioning it) so you had it put on the block list.

What made me unhappy was that if that was the case, I would have preferred you just simply request I stop mentioning the competing site in my name, before going to such lengths. But if you’re saying that’s not what happened, then there’s no problem.

48. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

Josh T. (Told ya so) Kirk Esquire’ ™.

Dude, you make-a-me larf.

Knee-jerk kinda stuff there. Witty, well-written… AS is the F-Bomb to BIG DAWG AP, SO is Josh T. (Told ya so) Kirk Esquire’ to the radical mindblowing post which is so full of controversy. I’ve ejaculated three or four times since I first said that Will Smith killed his wife.

It… was… fun.

Keep me laughing, and I shall not banish you to the alpha quadrant. Make it so, number one. I’m going to make a number 2.

Your strongest point: “The man vandalized my Trek stash and collection then proceeded to Shinzon mind rape me, Im suing for damages. Not to mention his perpetual roaming crossed eye.”

That got me, good good stuff. Shinzon mind rape I LOL’d.AND, does Berman really have a lazy eye? 2 kewl 4 skewl.

a weaker moment was: “Gene Roddenberrys’ rotting, stinking corpse wants revenge against Rick Berman, that’s why he manifested J.J. Abrams to avenge his most precious creation…”

that was kind of raunchy and mean, dude. But still.. a little funny?



49. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

Humble Trek Fan™:

perhaps it was the mention of the other site that was filtered?

I, too thought I was banned and have changed posts JUST as you said.. but through the process of elimination…… determined that it was the mentioning of an erectile dysfunction medication, rhymes with Niagra … that was the offending culprit.

WHICH would back BIG DAWG AP’s side of things.

I doubt that he’s out to get you. DO you take the pot, my friend? After some use, it has been known to cause paranoia. I would suggest a legal alternative such as alcohol.

Alcohol is the new fitness craze, doncha know?



50. Humble Trek Fan - January 15, 2007

36 – Don’t see what 28 needs to apologize for. We should be able to express whatever views we want to, as long as we do it in a way that promotes respectful discussion and doesn’t devolve into profanity and excessive rudeness. That shouldn’t be controversial.

51. Humble Trek Fan - January 15, 2007

hitch- Whether I take the pot or not is my own business! And alcohol just causes people to be mean drunks, and has caused more fights than anything, so that’s no help.

But why shouldn’t I be able to mention the other site’s name? This site’s name isn’t banned at the other site! And if it is against the rules to mention the other site, I would have preferred it if someone just politely mentioned that that was taboo here.

52. Mark - January 15, 2007

Anthony – If you are taking requests for additions/improvements for the site, I’d appreciate the ability to filter posters. I can certainly do without hitch.

53. Xai - January 15, 2007

#43 Josh T. (The Berman’s son they didn’t know they had) Kirk, Jr.®

You should pay me for the kind of set-up I gave you for that Soapbox Moment™. You won’t get many more of those from me.

Trek should open with the big dawg releases. I don’t think it needs to be hidden, or worrying about competing. I think Paramount will give this far more press and ad time than they ever gave any of the other films. XI isn’t intended to be a “one time shot©”. This is not a reboot, but a new visit to a dear old friend that is suddenly a hot property again. If this succeeeds.. there will be more.

pardon the Hitch-isms©… it was a weak moment.

54. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

Mark… Mark.. MARK???

Dude, I’ve never said a bad word about you. Never.

What’s this with the running to the teacher and telling on me? Why the tattletale, it’s very Cindy Brady in the pants, bro.

Either you are a massive WIll Smith fan, or you are a hitch1969© detractor. BOTH I find unacceptable.

Lettuce turn your frown upside down and change your poopypants diapy. My personal feeling is that you just wanted some direct attention from a legend – ie – moi. AND there, I’ve given it to you.

I would never say that “I could do without Mark”. I want to hear what you have to say, so please show old h69 the same respek.



55. Xai - January 15, 2007

#51 mark…. he’s harmless and if you don’t like, don’t read… true?

56. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

Humble Trek Fan®,

Of course the OTHER site’s name is not verboten, I doubt that BIG DAWG AP would endorse that.

Of course, I will.

TrekWeb is a good source of information, was for years… DURING the Berman reign. NOW they want to expand their CLICKS to include Gallactica, the 4404 etc. Whats up with that, dude? EF that BS.

This site, MAY INFACT be over in 2008 with such a narrow topic and point of interest. BUT MAYBE NOT with another movie on the success of XI and the remasters on dvd.

Shizzz, they told me that hitchWORLD would never last back in Dec 2000 when I kicked that up. NOW, it’s bigger than TMZ and Perez Hilton combined.

Trek Web dot com was the Beatles of Trek sites. BUT this site is the Van Halen of the Trek sites.

do the math there. obv.


57. Josh T. (Told ya so) Kirk Esquire' - January 15, 2007

Who in the hell’s mom are we talking about in here? Hassehoff’s Mom? Is she a Trek fan too? I mean, I liked Knight Rider as much as the next prepubescent adolescent but I see no reason whatsoever that David “The Hoff ” Hasselfhoff should be included in Trek XI.

It’s being filmed in New Jersey? Or the story takes place in New Jersey?

I hope Orson “FCC regulations” Welle’s has a cameo as a planet eating monstrosity affectionately nichnamed “Cookie spoon” and he tricks the Enterprise crew into thinking an alien invasion is occuring on Halloween.

Orson Welles owns you. His drunken Paul Mason’ wine outtakes are the stuff of legends I tell you, the man had no shame.

Anyone good enough to narrate the commercials for Star Trek- The Motion Picture DESERVES to be in Trek XI.

“William Shatner… Captain James T. Kirk.
Leonard Nimoy…Is Mister Spock.
Deforest Kelley….is Doctor, Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy.
James Doohan…is Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott
George Takei….is Lt .Commander Sulu.
Nichele Nichols….is Lt. Commander Uhuru.
Walter Koenig….is Lieutenant Pavel Chekov.
Stephen Collin….is Commander Willard Decker.
Persis Khambatta……is Lieutenant Ilia.

That shit is EPIC.

58. Josh T. (Told ya so) Kirk Esquire' - January 15, 2007


Does anyone remember how epic marketing for films used to be?

I distinctly remember having several Marvel comic books with coming soon posters on the back for Star Trek – The Motion Picture, depicting the Phase II Enterprise, and at the bottom a little icon picture of each member of the crew with the actors names.

That’s how advertising and marketing should be, make a real event out of it, let everyone and their brother know who the actors and characters are, pump them up like they mean something.
The first Next Gen film may have made a bit more of a splash had the crew been pumped up as living legends like the first film marketing me thinks.

59. hitch1969© - January 15, 2007

two effing words….

DARTH “insert description here” BALLZ™.

dude is mac in the pants, like Steve Jobs grade.


60. Adam Cohen - January 15, 2007

We’re close… oh so very close to casting announcements. Gimme a greenlight, Paramount! I want to see who they’ve already picked to be in this movie (you know they’ve got it figured out by now- why? Because they will probably have to work out a three-picture deal with a bunch of actors and that is going to take some negotiations!).

Oh and hitch: “Cindy Brady in the pants” is my new favorite catchphrase.

61. Humble Trek Fan - January 16, 2007

>Oh and hitch: “Cindy Brady in the pants” is my new favorite catchphrase.

In regards to my comments above, I have no problems banning pedophiles outright from this site, and if Adam Cohen is what I think he is, he ought to be booted outright. Get yourself professional help, Adam.

62. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007


When MarkyMark® tells on hitch1969©, he is really just telling on himself. He’s telling the world that he is a tattletale. And no one likes a tattletale.

I think that Tony Soprano would call him “rat in the pants” which sounded kind of cool to me, actually. BUTT then again I thought that maybe Tony Soprano would call him BIG PUSSY in the pants as well, which I thought was too mean and possibly, emasculating.

I’ll leave emasculating to Rosie O’Donnell and her herd of lesbians. hitch1969© never was about that. Mark made a mistake, lettuce rekognize™ and give him chance to redeem. ALL young kids make mistakes and shoot off at the mouth, they say.

you are correct, Trek XI is becoming a real iPhone in the pants kind of reality. may you lay down with many many many promiscuous woman, AdCo™.



63. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

Humble Trek Fan™,

Stop provoking AdCo™ with your boooooLsheeeeeet. I’m tolerating you on a case by case basis AND yes, you’ve cracked me up in the past AND you care about Star Trek. BUTT, take another shot at AdCo™ and I will ban you outright back to Gustavo PoopO-Pee-O land0 calrissian prime.

You are very TrekWEb in the pants, but dude… that aint so fun now innit?



64. Humble Trek Fan - January 16, 2007

If you’re going to vouch that Cohen isn’t some sicko, that’s fine. But I’d rather hear it from him.

65. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

Humble Trek Fan™,

Dude obviously you have a boner for the guy, with all due respek to you and implications thereof. Speak it at TrekWeb or elsewhere, but preferably not in my presence here.

AdCo™ is a personal friend of mine, and I would consider it a personal favor to me if you stop talking booooooooooLsheeet about him poste effing haste.

Also I would appreciate an apology and retraction to him for the besmirchment of his nomenclature.



66. Humble Trek Fan - January 16, 2007

I never made fun of anyone’s name. I questioned what he wrote, and what it implied. If he said it as a joke, it was in poor taste, and he should apologize.

It’s decent of you to stick up for a friend, but how well do you know someone through the internet? Why not let him defend himself, if he is blameless like you claim?

67. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

Neeener Neeener Neeener Humble Trek Fan™ is a poopypants weeeener!

ha ha dude.. ALMOST trolled me, you poopants! ALMOST.

The Chargers ALMOST went to the AFC championship yesterday, too. Being the #! seed and all, with the home field advantage and 1st round bye.

I heard that Ladanian® killed his first wife. That guy hath NO CODE®.

uh uhu hu h uhuh uh uh uh uhuh uh



68. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

Humble Trek Fan™ , not so macinthepants when confronted with DA TROOF.

very sad. very Jan Brady insecure in the pants.

(insert AdCo™ insult here)



69. Josh T. ( Theta Omicron) Kirk Esquire' - January 16, 2007

Can we return the discussion to Star Trek here and cease and desist all of this Mickey Mouse shit?

70. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

Josh T™, up to no good. I LIKE THAT.

The sheep in the lambskin condominium, the horse o’ da trojan.

You and Humble Trek Fan™, working the troll, in tandem….

brilliant, just brilly.


71. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

cat got your bung?

uh huhu h uh uh uhu h uh uhu h

72. Dave - January 16, 2007

Along with the salt creature, prehaps another good storyline for JJA to think about is the life of Cochrine and the’companion’ after Kirk, Spock and Mc Coy returned the the enterprise. How was their life together? Did they have children? How did the companion continue to feel while in human form? This is another story to tell. Prehaps this could be touched on in the movie or future movies?

73. Josh T. ( Theta Omicron) Kirk Esquire' - January 16, 2007

I have a sneaking suspicion Shatner is being quite sincere and the film will literally feature an aging Kirk meeting up with his youthful self, I’m sensing a Time Travel story, perhaps something sinister occurs in the universe and somehow Kirk is integral to either resolving the issue, or being a primary participant, and different eras in Kirk’s life will be visited and showcased, necessary of course to the plot, and ultimate resolution of whatever crisis has appeared.

I do not believe the film will be a flashback but rather an insert story, to continue the timeline of Kirk beyond Generations, while conviently filling in other gaps in Trek history due to the nature of whatever incident is occuring, the catalyst to drive the film.

74. Stanky McFibberich - January 16, 2007

re: 51. “I can certainly do without hitch.”

I second that motion. Enough of the idiotic trademark spewing and baby-talk. We understand you like copyright symbols and trademark symbols and baby-talk and the f word, and making up nicknames and self-indulgent catchphrases nonsensical gibberish.

75. Darth David - January 16, 2007

‘Damon is still working on lost’…would that be Abrams? havent seen enough lost to know if matt damons in it.

76. Cervantes - January 16, 2007

As I AM feeling controversial today, I firstly reckon we KEEP the likes of Hitch & Josh…chill out a little my friends, they’ve both made some interesting contributions as far as I can see, since I first came across this site…and secondly, and more importantly…
By all means give us “character driven”, but PLEASE, DON’T give us ANOTHER plot featuring bumpy headed KLINGONS!!! No offence to fans of bumpy headed Klingons out there…but the’ve already been heavily involved in enough previous Movie plots. I really hope the makers of this one take us “where no man has gone before” in it’s plot. Hell, I’ll even accept Salt Creatures as opposed to Klingons!

77. Humble Trek Fan - January 16, 2007

I also would like to see hitch calm down a little.

Anthony, couldn’t you at least give him a warning? I hope your head hasn’t been turned around by all this “BIG DAWG AP” stuff…

78. brady - January 16, 2007


79. John N. - January 16, 2007

#28 – Cold Warrior
#49 – Humble Trek Fan

The apology to Anthony would be for jumping to conclusions. Scratch that… not JUST jumping to conclusions, but jumping way PAST conclusions and accusing him of being a jerk. Next time, why not just wait for him to explain the situation before you bring out the tar and feathers.

#60 – Humble Trek Fan

You can’t SERIOUSLY be that naive.

“Cindy Brady in the pants” was not a reference to pedophilia. It’s a reference to someone’s lack of manhood, and a humourous one at that.

First Anthony is a dictator, and now Adam is a pedophile? IMHO, that kind of garbage is not needed on this site.

80. diabolik - January 16, 2007

Boy, did this talkback ever degenerate. I thought I was on AICN while reading it.

81. Canonista - January 16, 2007

As the Klingon lawyer said to Quark in that DS9 episode…

“Can we get back to the issue at hand…”

82. THEETrekMaster - January 16, 2007

“By all means give us “character driven”, but PLEASE, DON’T give us ANOTHER plot featuring bumpy headed KLINGONS!!! No offence to fans of bumpy headed Klingons out there…but the’ve already been heavily involved in enough previous Movie plots. I really hope the makers of this one take us “where no man has gone before” in it’s plot. Hell, I’ll even accept Salt Creatures as opposed to Klingons! ”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…I want to see CGI spear chuking rodent creatures on Planet Dimorus!!!

83. DaveM - January 16, 2007

The Only Official Release Dates for July 2008
(courtesy of Coming

July 02 – Tonight, He Comes

July 18 – The Dark Knight

July 25 – Step Brothers

84. DaveM - January 16, 2007

Mainstream in reference to films is generally – a product that does not cater to fans of the genre.

85. John N. - January 16, 2007

#81 THEETrekMaster

I really agree with you on this one. Nothing against Klingons, but they really seem like familiar territory now, particularly after thorough investigation via TNG and DS9.

I would like to get back to some of the wonder… the mystery of space. Give us something new and exciting.

86. Canonista - January 16, 2007

I loved the Klingons in TNG, DS9, and even ENT. Particularly DS9. But in this case, I have to agree with John N.

It’s time for something different in that respect….I’m tired of POS Birds of Prey taking out (supposedly) far superior Federation vessels.

Its really a shame Nemesis totally screwed up the Romulans. They could have been a really interesting diversion for 23rd century Trek. I guess they still could be, but it’s been done so recently now…

87. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

Stanky McFibberich,

Baby-talk, Baby-talk, it’s a wonder you can walk. Again, more Cindy Brady in the pants. More poopypants in the diapy, reeking of Bobby Brady is very safety monitor in the pants, with the tattletale go rounds and goings ons.

SO team, what’s up with all the negativity happening here? I’ve always said that they all either hate me, or they want to date me. SO maybe old h69 ain’t your cup of tea. Sometimes old h69 ain’t even MY cup o’ tea.

I got an email from Josh T™ last night. Good kid… why not follow suit and drop me a line. Get to know me. OR maybe just spam my inbox… it does not matter to The Jesus®.



88. Adam Cohen - January 16, 2007

Sorry I missed the excitement!

First, hitch, thanks for sticking up for me in the face of some really silly stuff. “CindyBradyinthepants” was a goofy catchphrase about being a whiny teenage girl. It’s internet silliness, people!

And Humble Trek Fan, I’ll give you a pass this time because you obviously don’t know me by my past posts here. I am a sober and devout Star Trek fan. Your exasperation with hitch’s posts is unfortunate. Hitch is a comedian. If you don’t like his jokes, I understand. But you’re assuming that hitch and anyone that finds him funny is some sort of deviant. That tells me you’re missing the point in its entirety. Go watch an episode of Ali G if you want to see how this humor works. I won’t even attempt to defend my moral character in this regard because you’ve made some drastic assumptions that border on the absurd. I hope you can maintain an open mind about people different from yourself (IDIC baby!) because hitch is a great guy and so am I. Good luck.

89. Stanky McFibberich - January 16, 2007

My last post.

90. Adam Cohen - January 16, 2007

Back to the article at hand!

If they release this movie in the summer, one added benefit is that its DVD release will coincide with the holidays, which means faster sales from the get-go. I think the big downside to making it a summer release is that (in general) summer movies tend to have only a two-week window to make the majority of their gross before they get crowded out by a competing movie. In the winter you get an envirornment where people can “find” the movie on their own time, and therefore word of mouth and positive reviews can elevate a movie’s box office. Take Casino Royale as an example. It opened to a decent $40 million weekend, but that has only accounted for 25% of its overall domestic take ($163 million). Winter gives movies breathing room. To be a success, I think Star Trek XI needs that kind of space, particularly since we all think that the budget will be above $100 million. As it stands, Trek is not a hot enough property to have some huge opening like $40-50 million. Things can change in the next year, and with choice casting, etc., Trek may become “hot” again. But one must take the present situation into account instead of hoping for a more favorable one months from now.

91. SithMenace - January 16, 2007

I think a mid August release would be perfect for this movie. That’s the time when the studios are pumping all of their trash into the theaters, so it would almost force people to go re-discover Trek. The winter Holiday movie scene has become too crowded lately and if it truly is a good, character driven movie, it won’t stand a chance in the ADD driven summer schedule.

Another release time I think would be good is right after the Oscars, again a time when studios are dumping their trash and taking their losses. However, if they are talking about a July 2nd release date, that may say something for the amount of confidence they have in this film to compete. I’m sure there’s a grand plan we know nothing about.

92. Anthony Pascale - January 16, 2007

I am still looking into the date thing…so this report is not for sure.

I think Trek can do fine in either a summer or winter. And winter is no slouch, the Bond prequel made $170 Domestic and a whopping $370 International.

speaking of int’l
Trek has always done just ‘ok’ biz internationally, but mostly in the english speaking countries (and does pretty well in Germany). The only way I think Trek can make the same or more internationally (especially big asian markets) is if it has a big global star in it.

93. Dom - January 16, 2007

Lindelof sounds like he wants to make the sort of Trek movie I’ve been wanting to see for a long time!

I’ve said all along the the mainstream is essential for this film to rebuild Star Trek and taken a lot of flak for it at times. But Mr Lindelof’s Granny is the one to aim for!

(Now I have to check if this email gets thru – got a strange message saying someone was using my IP address configuration!)

94. SithMenace - January 16, 2007

Dom, same here. I feel Trek’s potential has never been exploited to it’s fullest, and I can’t wait for this movie. Can you even remember the last time there was this much buzz for a Trek movie? I swear it hasn’t been since TVH.

I really liked the one comment made up there about the ad for TMP being on the back page of a Marvel comic, because that’s what I remember. Trek used to be an event when a new movie came out, everyone knew about it whether they liked it or not. As TNG took over the movies (and maybe starting after TFF), that went away. It became more of a “cult” thing, and even got to the point where the average person would not admit to liking it, which they probably didn’t. Abrams needs to fix all of this. Make it an event again. Advertise on Highway billboards, cereal boxes and Pepsi bottles. Get it to the point where average Joe Shmoe can get excited and say “Damn, I actually want to see a Trek movie again”. This is what I remember and want to see again, not the cultish self parody of what it once was.

And I’m sure I’ll get flamed for the cultish self parody comment, but seriously, that’s what it’s become. It’s so far removed physically and culturally from what TOS was it’s barely recognizable except for the name. It’s time for a Trek renaissance.

95. Adam Cohen - January 16, 2007

SithMenace, you’re on the money. Star Trek needs to gain back its street cred. Even if it never approaches the “event” status of the late 1970s (when every single movie was an event, thanks to Jaws and Star Wars), it would be good of Paramount to market this new movie as a rebirth, a return to the good ‘ol days but with modern production values- basically the “ultimate” Trek.

96. SithMenace - January 16, 2007

Adam, you ARE money. And I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it, I want a two hour TOS episode with a hundred million dollar budget, which, after reading Lindelof’s comments about character, is what I’m pretty sure we’re going to get. Ultimate Trek indeed. I can’t wait.

97. Dom - January 16, 2007

Thing is, although STIV:TVH was a lot of fun, it shifted the series in a parodic direction, with the forced comedy in STV:TFF and STVI:TUC not helping. The 80s and 90s film studio executives had a bad habit of ruining their franchises by taking the piss out of them after a couple of films!

This film needs to reestablish the balance. TOS was serious, but had a great sense of humour, which is why I like it the best of all the Treks and why it’s one of my all-time favourite TV shows.

Although this isn’t strictly a reboot, it ***does*** need to be a Batman Begins or a Casino Royale in terms of restoring the public’s perception of what Star Trek is!

98. John N. - January 16, 2007

#91 – Anthony

I couldn’t agree with you more. There will be many, MANY people in here who will scream that Trek doesn’t need… scratch that…. MUSTN’T have a big name star.

But the reality is that Trek has established a reputation for itself internationally… and it’s not a very interesting reputation. It’s been a luke-warm response at best.

A great script and great acting may not be enough to break through it’s own stigma. It may need a familiar face to push people over their ho-hum feelings about Trek.

This isn’t the case of Lord of the Rings or Bond, where there was such an appetite for the product that (relatively) unknown faces were considered an obstacle. Here you’re dealing with a product that is suffering from franchise fatigue, and they need to figure out how to engage people again from the get-go, and a famous face on a poster can do that.

Of course, fame without talent will sink the ship just as fast… so the actor has to actually be able to act!

99. Canonista the Cultist - January 16, 2007

TVH & TWOK were without a doubt, character driven, mainstream crossover, box-office successes. I also agree they were outstanding films artfully done.

But I can name countless Non-Trek films that weren’t big budget “blockbusters” which also happened to be very, very good entertainment. Sometimes thought provoking, which I obviously prefer (and I believe Trek, both TOS and TNG were).

…and no, I’m not saying it needs to be low-budged fan-fic internet stuff. I’m thinking more along the lines of, say, Solaris (the remake).

Similarly, I can name many “box office smashes” that were also really stupid movies filled with cliche’s, weak characters, crappy plots, etc.

I hope JJ will balance them as has been said repeatedly, but I’m curious why so many of you insist that for YOU to like it, it also MUST be a huge financial success. Or vice versa, that because YOU liked it, it must then naturally be a huge financial success.

100. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

Ok.. I just got off the phone with JJ. A few things worth mentioning:

First off, BIG DAWG AP… he loves the site and sends his best.

second, he is in strict agreement with Canonista™ about the direction and tone of what should be done on the new movie.

Third, Dom Perignon®, while he agrees with SOME of what you have said. Other things not so good.

Last, he thanks everyone for their input and will strive to not only continue getting ideas from this site, but will also include every idea mentioned. then he said something about DARTH BALLZ™ but I think that had to do with an itch that he was having at the time.



101. Trevok - January 16, 2007

Back to the subject of the article, I’m pleased to hear the movie is to be character driven. As much as some people will disagree the film also needs real Star power, even if they bare no resemberlence to the established actors. IF they get real draw card actors in the lead roles then I think the July release date would be best, as Anthony stated it also means a end of year release for the DVDs.

102. John N. - January 16, 2007

#98 – Canonista

I can’t speak for the others, but here are my 2 cents:

I LOVE the Evil Dead series, but it’s not for everyone, and thus has never been a huge financial success. It has a cult following, and not much more.

However… you don’t see many more Evil Dead movies being made, do you? Why? Because director and creator Sam Raimi is slightly more occupied with a franchise that IS making money… Spider-Man.

Trek doesn’t need to be a huge financial success in order for me to like it. However, I believe that it has to be a huge financial success in order to restore studio confidence in the franchise, thus leading to more Trek.

And THAT, I would like.

P.S. Not to dig at the canon lovers in the crowd, but I believe that if they made a film that some of the hardcore canon purists in here would have (and thus falling into your category of “because THEY liked it”), that the film would suffer greatly under its own convoluted weight… ;)

103. Adam Cohen - January 16, 2007


My post (#89) suggested the July release would allow for a holday DVD release later that year. I am flattered that you confused me with Anthony, I’m in good company.

104. John N. - January 16, 2007

#100 – Trevok

And I agree with you… big name actors, and they might be able to compete in the summer.

No name actors? Better hold off until a little less competative date… perhaps late summer, early spring, or fall… lol… in other words, just not summer. :)

105. Canonista the Cultist - January 16, 2007

John N.:

I understand the “wanting more trek” part. We all want that (I think). If More Trek = Good Trek, then great.

Some people though speak as if they need to see the mainstream success to validate their own opinions….and thereby infer that any Trek that didn’t enjoy “mainstream” success was somehow inherently flawed (which is an inferred derision).

That where the “Cultists” (such as myself) become slightly annoyed. As far as “purist” Canonistas, I suppose I’m not one since I’m ok with an updated bridge, etc. But I took on the perjorative title because I’m far more of a Canonista than pretty much any of the regulars here (except maybe

106. Canonista the Cultist - January 16, 2007


Good to hear……no “poopypants” here.

107. Captain Pike - January 16, 2007

I want to see stuff like the aftermath of the Killer Cloud’s attack on the Farragut and Garry Mitchell taking an poison dart for Kirk on the Planet Dimorus. Events like that could and should be part of a story about Kirk’s rise to Captain the Enterprise. The mass audience doesn’t need to know or care that they are tie-ins to TOS, but the Fan audience would be ecstatic.

108. Anthony Pascale - January 16, 2007

Canonista “Some people though speak as if they need to see the mainstream success to validate their own opinions….and thereby infer that any Trek that didn’t enjoy “mainstream” success was somehow inherently flawed (which is an inferred derision).”

please provide a single example of this.

it is important for all Trekkies to understand that Star Trek is a property owned by a large corporation who want to absolutely maximise their revenue potential out of it.

That doesnt mean they ‘hate the fans’ …it just means they have shareholders. Making money and being successful is not a bad thing, as it attracts a better degree of talent to the franchise both behind and in front of the camera, and allows for larger budgets.

The reason to want trek to appeal to the mainstream also means that it will be more entertaining. I am sorry but a film that is solely geared for the hardcore can devolve into pure fanwankery and continuity porn.

and I know that many seem to want to make it seem like there is some choice for Trek to appeal to either the fans or the nonfans. The objective is for it to appeal to both. They are not ‘leavin the fans behind’ to appeal to others…and reading into various statements and concluding that is essentially just paranoia

109. Canonista the Cultist - January 16, 2007

I’m not trying to have a major argument with you, Anthony….nor am I “attacking” you. I’m offering a viewpoint with regard to the definition of the term “success”.

Remember the “Graph Thread”. I’m not going to pick fights with individual commenters…I don’t call people names nor do I want to devolve into that. But there has been quite an emphasis on the need for the film to be financially successul…often raised in concert (by commenters) with “or the franchise will die”..yada..yada..”Berman was killing it”..yada..yada. I’m not going to reference individual posts and pick fights. You know what I’m talking about here.

There is quite an emphasis over the need to make the film a huge crossover financial success. But there are very few of us making the point here that financial success does not automatically equate to good movie. There are other ways Paramount could go. Example: Battlefield Earth. Possibly the WORST movie of all time had (1) Big Budget and (2) Big Name Actor. Example: Waterworld. (1) Big Budget and (2) Big Name Actor.

Solaris had small budget big name actor. The Constant Gardner had low budget, no name actors, but was also very good (IMO).

You won’t find anywhere where I posted “JJ Abrams Hates the Fans”. It’s not paranoia to be moderately skeptical. Neither is it derision (inferred or blatant) for Mr. Abrams or yourself, Anthony.

110. Dave - January 16, 2007

I have to agree 100% with the comment from Capt Pike. To have a story based on the aftermath of the vampire Cloud’s attack on the Farragut and Garry Mitchell taking a poison dart for Kirk would be a wonderful storyline that all Star Trek fans would LOVE. As a matter of fact I can’t see how JJA can leave out Gary Mitchell and the vampire cloud if he is making a movie about Kirks earlier life before the Enterprise. Because they are fundamental characters (I say character for the vampire cloud, because Spock thought it was a life form as it turned back to attack the enterprise) in Kirk’s life. And I’ll sorry to all those who hate this word…but it is established canon, and that’s important!!

111. Humble Trek Fan - January 16, 2007

78 – I never accused Anthony of being a jerk. I just asked why my post was being censored. Because it was, and it seemed like it was all over something as silly as having the name Trekweb Forever!!!

Meanwhile, it seems like hitch was getting a free pass on far worse antics. Why, because he sucks up to Anthony and calls him BIG DAWG AP, like a classic kiss up/kick down guy?

87 – In that entire post you didn’t even bother to condemn pedophilia. If by IDIC and ‘people who are different than you’ you were hoping to promote tolerance for that sort of thing, sorry, that’s just outright criminal behavior and you belong in jail. Your posts are on the record here, and I would advise you to keep that in mind.

I agree with those that want to get back to talking about Trek. But I didn’t start these issues, and they needed to be discussed, not swept under the rug.

112. Matt Wright - January 16, 2007

Our spam system uses a communal open source database, clearly something triggered it. I just found one of your comments made as Trekweb Forever and recovered it, you’ll see it in this thread. When I did that I told the comment system it isn’t spam. Try posting again under your old name and see what happens.

113. Flake - January 16, 2007

The closer it is in look, tone and feel to the series of 40 years ago the more money it’ll make. I don’t doubt some stuff will be updated, where painted grey plywood was we would get brushed steel – and so on – but as long as it resembles the original I’m happy.

The polar opposites of Trek are TOS and TMP. TMP took away the majority of what made TOS great in favour of FX, stale grey sets, bland uniforms, poor dialogue – they lost the campiness! Bring it back!

Space opera!

I hope they go retro on this, no BSG-style Trek re-imagining for me thanks, I would love to know what Abrams is thinking about such things right now.

Regardless of the outcome, hell they could turn Spock into a black woman – This zombiefied Trek fan will be in line on July 2nd.

114. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007


115. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007


Making a comeback…. flaming it up at that. You know what I need IS a dude like you for my site. I used to have this guy named “The Riddler®” and his trolls were so legend that I gave him his own forum. Then the dude burned out. But YOU have stamina, my friend.

Your feigned jealousy of me and continued eggings ons totally crack me up, but they also give you away for the master troll that you are. Did you offer apologies to AdCo™ yet? AND, why havent you emailed me like I asked you to?

Tsk Tsk. Butt®, never fear. I still think you’re pretty mac in the pants.



116. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

112 – Thanks, Matt Wright! That was decent of you. :)

117. Dave - January 16, 2007

I certainly would not be in line to see the movie, except in protest !!, if they made Spock a women or if they changed the characters in any way. That’s something I will and cannot except!!

118. Dom - January 16, 2007

Hi Anthony (107).

Nicely put! To me, ‘appealing to the mainstream’ also means ‘making new fans.’ Hopefully, there will be kids out there who will want to be Jim Kirk or Spock and can see this film without any knowledge of the other Star Treks.

I think some people are very scared of the potential ‘new fans’ and the impact they’ll have on the franchise and how it’s perceived: it means the nature of the fan following of Star Trek (and Star Trek) itself will change dramatically.

For example, book covers for pre-TOS-era and TOS-era Trek novels might well change to show the new cast rather than the original. A section of the fans might well come to see the big screen TOS incarnation as ‘definitive’ and the Shatner and Nimoy version as ‘the old ones.’

In one way, it’s sad, but in another it’s great: it means that Star Trek has a shot at really lasting. As inevitable as an attempt at a ‘next generation” series was, we were bound to get an attempt at recasting the classic series at some point.

If Abrams can pull this film off, we can be looking at new Star Trek for years to come. When I’m in my 80s, I might be able to go to see a new Star Trek film, starring the third or fourth actors to Kirk and Spock, with my grandchildren.!!

In my 30-ish years, I’ve seen many relatives die, which hurts terribly, even as I accept that it happens. Along with that, many of the stars of TV shows and films I’ve cared about have died as well, turning their shows into historical documents, robbing them of their vitality. That’s de-stabilising: an important part of my past turning into nothing more than an old recording to be played again and again, but never again coming up with something new!

All the Star Treks are set to go that way eventually, but the thought that new designers, writers, casts and directors will be allowed to bring something fresh to the mix means that a constantly-renewing Star Trek can feasibly continue throughout our lives. That’s a thought I find very comforting.

And the canon-priests will have to be realistic: Abrams might pay lip-service to established Trek history in 2007/8, but eventually the old canon will fade. Ten or twenty years from now, does anyone really expect writers and producer of Star Trek to be constrained by all the details of TOS through Enterprise?

Star Trek XI is a myth-making film – The Cage or the Where No Man Has Gone Before of our time. For at least a decade to come, this film will be the major source of Trek! I’m excited to see what it’ll be like!

119. Canonista the Cultist - January 16, 2007

I’m not sure how many of you have seen this already…

But since I’ve been engaging in some pretty heavy discourse here, I thought I’d share this rather humorous bit…Borat meets Star Trek….

Actually…those would be some pretty *sweet* retro uni’s.

120. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

118 – Well said. Change is an inevitable part of living, and none of us can make time stand still. In the case of Star Trek, though, we can at least try to embrace that change, if Star Trek stays true to the message of hope and optimism.

I remember reading in one of Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001 series of books that in that universe, Star Trek was still being revived centuries from now. That might be a little optimistic, but we can at least try to get there, no?

121. Dave - January 16, 2007

Yes, i’m sure that the post Star Trek novels will have the new ‘faces’ of the Enterprise crew on the cover, rather then the old ones. And I find that very sad indeed. But I will accept it, only if the new characters are carbon copys of the originals. Why? because this is Star Trek guys and if the new fans can’t accept that ..well they will have to find another sci fi story to follow. Or they can accept Star Trek the way it is and develop the love that we have for it.

122. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

113 – quote: The closer it is in look, tone and feel to the series of 40 years ago the more money it’ll make.

Amongst hard core fans, but I just don’t see how that would excite the casual audience member, especially those too young to have caught TOS in syndication, even. There’s just too much of a period look there. There’s going to be some updating to make the movie appeal to a modern audience, and if that gets a new crowd into the seats on premiere night, that’s fine with me.

123. Flake - January 16, 2007

^^ Oh yes I agree totally!

I don’t expect it to be a carbon copy of the original, it must be updated enough to appeal to the sort of people you describe yet still resemble the original set. Changes in the lighting, materials, controls, sound effects, fonts, displays to bring it up to ‘modern specs’ and appeal to the ipod generation whilst still retaining its original ‘charm’

If only I could sketch what I’m thinking about ;)

124. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

123- Well, I can’t draw either. But here is a link I found on The Site That Cannot Be Named.

This is NOT official Trek XI art, but the artist is a professional. I think we can expect to see this level of updating in the new movie.

125. Anthony Pascale - January 16, 2007

trekweb forever

i am getting a little sick of your insinuations. I did not ban you, i do not ban mentions of trekweb, i just linked to them last week. In fact I manually went into the system to unspam your previous comments

Gustavo of TrekWeb and I send emails to eachother almost daily, Gustavo writes for my other site GeekMonthly

I have no issues with Trek Web

so stop trying to make it sound like i do

126. Adam Cohen - January 16, 2007

#111 Humble/Trekweb

You are no good at being a troll, so do us a favor and skip the routine. First of all, your assumptions about me are confounding. Let’s be clear so we don’t have any confusion here in the future- you don’t exist to me. I will never post to you or respond to any comments you make towards me. You’ve been ruse and nasty and an all-around waste of my time. I don’t owe you any explanations, particularly in the face of some outlandish, libelous accusations. As a matter of fact, I am an attorney, an officer of the Court and I am ethically sworn to protect and uphold the law of the land. Keep defaming me and you will find out what recourse I have at my disposal.

127. Adam Cohen - January 16, 2007


Strawmen and silly accusations are Trekweb’s modus operandi. I say we ignore him from now on. All of us.

128. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

125 Well then you have my apologies, Anthony. But in my defense, since you kept ignoring my concerns and given the circumstances of the whole thing, it wasn’t unnatural to think something was up.

126 Stay out of trouble, Adam.

129. Mack N. Thupanz - January 16, 2007

Just a shout out to my dawg hitch® !
Cindy Brady’s change those poopypants© diapys! ™
Berman’s lazy eye©!
I’m feelin’ macinthepants™
Have to go I’m feeling a riddle coming on
Trekweb is on the line with old news
About those fan-film blues™
With a buncha toupee’d has-beens who have no clues

Worship the glory of the one true Shatner!

130. hitch1969© - January 16, 2007

That’s testimony. That, my friends… is tha REAL DEAL.

wonder who it is?

I dont want to know, i just wanna wub wub wub it some more BAYBEEE


131. Matt Wright - January 16, 2007

So now you see we’re a friendly responsive staff around here right? Tony and I both addressed the issue with the spam filter. So let’s all get this topic back on track. No more of the trekweb, Anthony, or whatever else bashing. Otherwise I think this thread will be considered out of control and close it off. OK?

132. Mack N. Thupanz - January 16, 2007

I’ll give you a clue
And then I must go

But I’ll be back tomorrow
Same Bat-channel & tyme®
I may even visit Trekweb
For fan films r a cryme©

Here’s the rub ruba-dub
your here b-cause of me
hitch® I come thru your closest door
the chicken-necked visitor


133. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

131- Sounds good to me.

134. SithMenace - January 16, 2007

I think there’s some serious MPD’s in here.

Anyway, count me in for the new movie. Change is good, and I can’t wait to see what Abrams does.

135. SPOCKBOY - January 16, 2007

Alright men,
Get a load of this F%$king AMAZING picture of a NEW Enterprise.

It was designed by some EXTREMELY talented guy named Gabe.

What do you think?

136. SPOCKBOY - January 16, 2007

Here is an even BETTER picture….

137. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

135, 136 —

I posted the first picture earlier, as an example of the kinds of changes we might see in the new movie.

Did you do the second picture? Are they different versions of the same style of Enterprise? Tell us the story, Spockboy.

138. Kevin - January 16, 2007

ummm… it looks like the original Enterprise and the Enterprise- E had a baby.

139. SPOCKBOY - January 16, 2007

Thanks for the compliment but I dont do any CG work.
I do animations and voice acting.

No, I just stumbled on this about 20 minutes ago.
Initially it was touted on TREKWEB as the ACTUAL new design for the Enterprise but its actually some guy named Gabe.

Personally I dont think anyone could top this Re-imagining of the Big E.

It’s totally modern and detailed and yet FEELS like the original.

Fantastic work!

I certainly hope Mr. Abrams gives it the once over.
Here is a video of the same ship…

I dont know who you are Gabe but you rock!

140. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 16, 2007

Wow. Thanks for the link to the video, Spockboy.

In another thread I said I didn’t really care for the sparkling orb-things at the nacelle tips, but now having seen the whole ship in motion I take that back. Also, I like the work on the back of the secondary hull that you can see here too.

141. Mark - January 16, 2007

#55 – Yes, I can skip past Hitch’s crap, but I’d rather that wasn’t necessary. Besides being a moron with the maturity of a 3rd grader, he’s also a liar. After simply stating I could do with him, he implied I said something bad about him (I didn’t), and referred to me as a tattletale (I’m not). He’s an idiot, and I’d appreciate being able to filter him rather than having to skip past his garbage.

142. Xai - January 16, 2007

Gentlemen (?)
will the three or four of you CUT out the damn pyrotechnics and get along?
Hitch, please… I have defended your humour, but your current string of hits in here amounts to throwing gas on a flame. I like your (sometimes) amusing slant on this site… but this was no longer funny and not pertinent to the thread. Thanks

#138…I agree… kinda like it… but the fanboys will heave…it won’t be right.


143. Xai - January 16, 2007

141…. mark.
I have reconsidered what I’ve said then and now agree wholeheartedly

144. Canonista the Cultist - January 16, 2007


Love Gabe’s Enterprise concept. Realistic. FINALLY torpedo launchers instead of the Swiss-army knife lower saucer dome. Love the nacelles. Fits design standards established in future ship designs and compliments what we say in ENT.

Close enough to canon for this Canonista. Dare I say that I PREFER Gabe’s design…hmmm. You see, I’m not that hard to please.

Consistent colored phaser fire and realistic bridge design that **compliments** earlier and later designs and we’ve got a winner.

Now watch the damn movie ship end up looking like BSG…&$@*^%^!

145. Sean4000 - January 16, 2007

That new TOS- Ent-E hybrid made my heart skip 3 beats! EXCELLENT Find. That would be a killer ship to have Kirk ride around in if they bring him back. That probably won’t happen but the ship sure looks nice. :) :)

146. Dave - January 17, 2007

While the picture looks good, I must point out that it is not exactly like the original. OK, ….. the image is very good…. but, lets have the enterprise look like the real one The actual neck of the ship leading up to the saucer section is different along with the arms that hold the nacelles up. Also, the enterprise is a beautiful gleaming white colour, which offen is considered by James T Kirk in his private thoughts in alot of Star Trek novels written in the era after his five year mission. Therefore it follows, that if Kirk thought this in his later life then he would of in his earlier life.

We can digitally remaster the enterprise, but lets not change it’s design!!!!! Stay true!!!!!

147. Anthony Pascale - January 17, 2007

‘lets have the enterprise look like the real one’

…um there is no ‘real’ one

Dave (and other purists)…it has been said before, but I feel an intervention may be in order. You are setting yourself up for a big fall if you think that ‘your’ star trek XI is going to be made. Many things will be different, they are not going to be using the books as sources, there will be a lot of change.

I know that is frightening, but it might still be an amazing film if you go to it with an open mind and not one trying to ‘fit’ perfectly into your trek world.

I say this as a friend…put down the clip board and stop counting trees…there is an amazing forest to see

148. Kevin - January 17, 2007

uh-huh. For you guys crying reimaging (remake)… and let’s face it- that’s a way of saying “we have no imagination, let’s just re-do what’s already been done and capitalize on those titles and crap all over any the work”…those end up being one hit wonders. If you can think of any successful sequels/prequels to those movies, please let me know. Not to mention the idea of Shatner and Nimoy being in it. You think it’ll make any sense having them w/ a new big ugly Enterprise (and it is ugly).

Now I have no problem w/ a little bit of creative license. I’d like to see more detailing on the Enterprise. I’d like to see animate screens on the bridge. I’d like to see less rainbow lighting so it’s not so dated. But a total revamp? Forget it! It ain’t happening! If it did, would be yet another dumb ass mistake in Paramount’s list of dumb ass mistakes.

Enterprise couldn’t work b/c it didn’t capture the feel of show. Better technology in the past, disrespect for cannon. Even hardcores like me who watched up through Voyager couldn’t bare it… and it failed.

149. Dave - January 17, 2007

Anthony I appreciate your words and agree that it is frightening all this talk of change. It’s very hard to let go of Star Trek as I’m sure it means a lot to many people in many different ways. For me Star Trek, particularly TOS has helped me throughout the years. When things are going bad, put on star trek and I feel better. Escape into another world by reading the wonderful books. The show, its characters, the stories, means so much to me. This is why I find this talk of change so disturbing.

150. Rick - January 17, 2007

Interesting comments here. I think I will throw in a few pennies. I have noticed a trend of sorts when a property is translated to the big screen like say BATMAN for instance. Actually the 89 film wasn’t so bad, but later films had to over detail the main character look, along with other things like the Batmobile, etc. I am just talking visual here not story! Of course film is a visual media so image does had a tiny effect on the story in ways.;) I know, I know it is the big screen, so it seems logical for more detail/strong style. But what happened to less is more at times? The worse those BATMAN films got the more overly visually detailed/badly designed they got. Of course this will not happen in every case, but I seem to see it many a time with some film adaptations or translations. Now yes we have had STAR TREK already in films, updated and moved forward, which worked for me in some parts and in other cases not at all. Now with the new ST film I would love a bit closer look to the retro TREK. I am not a slave to that vision, but the irony is if they went with this over detailed, so far updated look that some seem to feel is needed, then it would lose the retro TREK feel I was always hoping would be on the big screen. Of course what is retro in design and visual look? Actually in real life clothing/industrial design/building/etc. visual designs make comebacks or cycles. Hell walking around SF I see people that look like they stepped out of a time machine from both the 40’s and 70’s at times. I am not expecting big buttoned overly colored lighted control panels, but I think they can keep some of that look/stye with some logical adjustments. See the funny thing is I really was sort of burned out on the retro TOS TREK for a while and got into the ST films and some of the new series visual looks. The ironic thing is all these fan films like EXETER and remastered TREK really got me back into the look and feel of the very early TOS feel/style. Then I find out a new ST film will reflect TOS and I got more excited. So hey why not stay at least 80% close to the look. But in the end the story is the most important thing, but visuals are an element to a degree and I hope fun is reflected there. I would really love to see a very close look of these early TREKS on the big screen. Go over the designs and make tweeks based on what is more possible now, but don’t overdo it. Yes the women don’t have to have 60’s looking skirts or hairdos. Actually when you look at THE CAGE the women had pants and seemed to have more 40s and 50s hairdos.;) At least that’s what I was seeing. ;)

By the way I like the image of the Enterprise that was linked up, I just hope it is not in the film. It is a very nice image and well done, but it feels too much like Berman TREK to me. But hey it is just my opinion. ;) Sorry to ramble on like you know something is in my pants.;) I hope the script is tight and the film in the final result is fun. I just would love to see a certain look on the screen. I will now take my pennies and beam out. Later…

151. Adam Cohen - January 17, 2007

SPOCKBOY, re: the Koerner Enterprise

I can see the cool factor attached to that sort of revision, and I think Koerner is an extrememly talented guy. That being said, I have a hard time accepting a version like that as Kirk’s Enterprise. Anthony, calm down, before you re-state the “open-minded” speech again, let me explain:

Its obvious that the original Enterprise’s design is a product of the 1960s. The level of design detail that we take for granted today was not on anyone’s radar back when Matt Jeffries designed the original ship. I get that this is only a TV show and that change is inevitable. But here’s the rub, the one thing that JJ Abrams and Co. (and Anthony and others) need to understand about the psychology of fans:

Every single change made is going to be noticed by the many millions of fans out there that have devoted decades of their leisure time to this show. Fans don’t own Star Trek in name, but the level of attachment many feel to this show has a proprietary undercurrent to it. As consumers, we buy parts of the show- books, artwork, videos, models, etc. Paramount has made billions of dollars off of fans over the past 40 years because of that devotion. Paramount should not singly cater to these fans (it would be foolish to attempt so seeing how varying fan opinion is anyway!). But Paramount (via its productions involving Star Trek) would be smart to take fan reaction into account to some degree. For example, making “Koerneresque” changes to the Enterprise might be over-the-top for a lot of fans. Basically, that new design is attempting to supplant an aesthetic and image that has been in place for 40 years. Imagine if they retroed that ship into Star Trek Remastered, In terms of continuity, that would make sense, no? And supplanting aspects of the original show is what raises a lot of concern among many fans. A new Kirk? A new Spock? A new Enterprise? If this new movie said flat out “We’re an alternate version of The Original Series, not a prequel” then that would be perfectly acceptable to me. I would check my attachment to the Original Series at the door and support any and all changes based on their merits, not their similarity to the Original Series. But they’re not saying that. In fact, they’re employing Shatner and Nimoy to “bridge the gap” in this movie. They’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. That’s where the conflict arises.

I use Koerner’s Enterprise as an example of something that can go either way to be honest. I think seeing something like that would be “cool” but at the same time I worry that sort of change will bounce me out of a truly immersive experience while watching the movie, and thus prevent me from appreciating the more vital parts of the movie (story, acting, action). And rejecting one part of a movie could lead fans to reject other borderline changes as well. Look, I won’t boycott the new movie if they go that type of route with the ship- heck in a few months I might be totally cool with it. Nor will I won’t boycott the movie if they cast Matt Damon as Kirk, even though I don’t want to see that happen. I’m seeing this movie opening day regardless. But that’s $10. I, like many other fans, have a lot more money to offer Paramount. So, taking fan psychology into account is good business. Change is understandable. However too much change threatens to discredit the production in the eyes of the fanbase.

152. Trevok - January 17, 2007

The more I read and see on this site the more my opinion changes. I would love it if XI was a carbon copy of TOS, but I very much doubt it will be. Also I have stated on this site the one thing I don’t want changed is the big E. But having looked at the links of pictures of her I now think I can even live with her being changed.
I’m firmly of the belief what is truely important for XI to succeed is it needs to have a really good story, the characters have to gell well together, and to be a real Trek movie it has to blend both drama and comedy. Through in some big name actors to bring in the general public and hopefully you will get a film that generates plenty of good word of mouth publisity and return business, which these days any film needs to be successful.

153. Adam Cohen - January 17, 2007

#150 Rick

Right on, I’m in the same boat as you.

154. Rick - January 17, 2007

Oops I dropped some coins.;) You know if this who film was a reboot I would take all the possible changes even better be they visuals, story and or character. Yet all the creators of this new film say it is part of the existing continuity of TREK. So there you have it. I know a reboot would cause as much controversy as the rumor mill going on, but a clean slate taking the elements and giving a whole fresh spin without any limitations would be fun. Although I would still love bits of that very STAR TREK look. Sometimes the visual look is part of what makes the project what it is. Here we go again with Batman and Bond and even BSG, but I really dug those rebooted films/shows! Granted in many ways they are way different from the STAR TREK property. But I could really get into a reboot of TREK for some reason. They should of rebooted SUPERMAN, but hey this is a STAR TREK site. ;)

Oh well either way it should be fun to see this film come together. I did catch JJ Abrams give a talk once and he seemed like a creative and intelligent individual. I have alsoenjoyed some of his creations so far. Well I believe I have typed enough on this. Beam me up.

155. Canonista the Cultist - January 17, 2007

What # 151 said and a bit more

156. Sean4000 - January 17, 2007

Kind of incestuous. The Enterprises E and A had an offspring and the inbreeding caused some nacell traits to emerge. lol.

Love the ship although it is purely theoretical in design. I would not expect it to live on anywhere else but the creator’s website.

I never had a problem with the 60’s designs being forced-considered superior to Enterprise’s. The mirror universe episodes of enterprise were all I needed to prove Kirk’s time and show were superior to Archer’s.

I read into the destruction of the Avenger as kind of “TOS is superior to Enterprise, now watch us prove it by vaporising Archer’s enterprise.” Somebody could do some creative splicing with episode clips.

157. Trekweb Forever!!! - January 17, 2007

152 – Way to go, Trevok. We all love Trek as it has been in the past, but if it’s going to have a real future it really does need to change a bit with the times. As long as those changes are cosmetic ones and Star Trek’s still about optimism and exploring the human condition, then it’ll still be real Star Trek.

158. Adam Cohen - January 17, 2007

Star Trek XI is a PREQUEL. Already, that poses *some* set of limitations on the new movie.

159. Josh T. ( Tarbold ) Kirk Esquire' - January 17, 2007

I dont like it at all.

It shits all over Jefferies original concept and notion of the Starship Enterprise being a lean, streamlined, NON-busy yet functional thing of beauty.
Jefferies insisted space is dangerous therefore you would not want to expose the crew to vaccum often hence no greeblies or otherwise business on the exterior of the ship and hull.

It’s fine for imagination and what if, but keep it away from Trek, it looks entirely too much like the NX-01.

160. Xai - January 17, 2007

Good God…. If anything changes the least bit it causes insecurities, anger, irritability and MORE comparisons to the dreaded… non-TOS Trek.

#159… it likely won’t be the XI Enterprise and it doesn’t “shit” on anything. This is one person’s concept… a free-thinker… who said “let’s build on Jefferies saucer and struts design”. It’s a compliment to start with the basis of the original. We have all seen the conceptual sketches of E when they were trying to develop TMP, Phase II and TNG. Many of them far away from the original. Hell, I recall one looking like a Concorde jet with nacelles added.
I still can’t decide if I dread or look forward to the day when the cast is announced, the working title is presented and the new E is shown to the world. Some of you will need to buy your Depends now before the store runs out. Need a coupon?

161. SPOCKBOY - January 17, 2007

Well, I’m glad to have stirred up all this wonderful discourse.
I really enjoy listening to you guys sound off about things. There are alot of valid points made here, and many things that I would never have considered, left to my own devices.

Well done.

162. Josh T. ( technicolor) Kirk Esquire' - January 18, 2007

Xai we’ve seen firsthand what the old girl can look like with a little money and TLC thrown her way.

No one is anti-change or anti-interpretation.

This film allegedly takes place during TOS timeline. It only stands to reason the ORIGINAL Constitution class Enterprise will be featured.
Only in this particular outing, with all the bells and whistles of a multi-million dollar creative endeavor. Jefferies design is so ingrained in pop culture, and so aethestically eye-catching and aerodynamic, I think you can easy get away with blowing it up on the big screen provided you render either a physical, or CGI model of the ship with details down to the square foot scaled.
Keep in mind, modeling techniques were slightly less advanced 40 years ago, different materials, different attitudes, different approaches.
CGI wasn’t dreamnt of for “The Motion Picture” hence a new approach to the Enterprise was adopted. Now, 40 years on, the technology exists to where you can get away with a film featuring the original Enterprise.
I’m sure some people on this website have fairly large screened TV’s and they can surely attest to how good the CGI Enterprise appears blown up.
Now add another million dollars and bingo, a movie ready original Starship Enterprise

163. Canonista the Cultist - January 18, 2007

There’s a group of people posting here that feel….redesign the Enterprise to look like no Federation ship ever seen before, fine. No nacelles, no Saucer, etc. “Bring on those changes!!” I think that is completely absurd and is as ignorant as what Berman’s camp did with the “Akiraprise” (although I did like the interiors on that ship).

I guess there’s another camp that wants the original E featured as is, only rendered in CGI. As a Canonista, I’m fine with that I guess…but I’d prefer a little creative updating…(as opposed to wholesale change). Besides being “metal finished” rather than White, I think Gabe’s Enterprise is a transitional state between TOS’ E and the TMP-E. Perhaps the time period of the film isn’t right for a transition, but I’m good with that degree of change.

We all know that later Trek series featured Grey, highly detailed ship designs — i.e no smooth metals and no “White” paint on the ship. That isn’t Berman’s fault, blame the people that designed the Excelsior if you don’t like it. You can blame Berman for allowing NX-01 to be the “Akiraprise” but not for the later looks.

I’m ok with the ship being grey or white. But I prefer more detail than a simple CGI replica. Slightly revisionist, but I don’t believe extreme.

164. SPOCKBOY - January 18, 2007

The only thing I dont link about this ship..(UH-OH HERE WE GO)is :
(drumroll please…)

-the struts holding up the nacelles( I prefer the TMP struts by far)
-the neck holding up the saucer(I dont like how it has become a part of the saucer (like the ENTERPRISE-E)
-I think the secondary hull needs to be smoother in shape on the bottom (too busy looking)but I love the new markings though.
-I like the shape of the shuttlecraft bay on the TMP Enterprise the best. Very sleek and streamlined.

-TMP secondary hull (shape)with Gabes details and deflector dish.
-TOS saucer (with detailing to blend it in)
-TMP nacelle struts.
-GABE’S wonderful nacelles.
-and a side order of coleslaw.

165. SPOCKBOY - January 18, 2007

More Gabenterprise pics…

166. SPOCKBOY - January 18, 2007

167. SPOCKBOY - January 18, 2007

168. SPOCKBOY - January 18, 2007

169. SPOCKBOY - January 18, 2007

170. SPOCKBOY - January 26, 2007

You know THIS would have interesting applications for a CG Kirk and Spock in the new Trek movie….

171. single women - August 29, 2007

Skin on skin- is that too forward???
We are only looking for couples and single females. Single males are automatically filtered out and never reach our inbox.
It always amuses us that single guys cannot read and think that if they email us they will be the “one”
that breaks down that rule and makes us just gotta get together with them. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.