Orci & Kurtzman: Trek XI To Be ‘Reimagined’ Starship Adventure Titled ‘Star Trek’ March 8, 2007
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman, STXI Plot , trackback
MTV have a great interview with Trek XI screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. In it they still play things close to the vest about plot details and casting, but do reveal quite a bit. MTV is also reporting the film is not a prequel, but a ‘reimagining of the franchise,’ quoting Orci:
We’re not going to start totally from scratch…We want it to feel like it’s updated and of the now. That’s actually the discussions we’re having now: how to keep the look of the universe yet have it not look like nothing’s new. It’s tricky.
reimagined canon?
These comments should be read in context of Abrams comments in last week’s press release that Trek XI ‘embraces and respects Trek canon’ and Orci and Kurtzman’s previous comments about how they will not ‘reinvent Trek history.’ When looked at in this context TrekMovie.com does not read the Orci/Kurtzman comments to mean that Trek XI will be a ‘reboot’ along the lines of the new Battlestar Galactica. They seem mostly to be talking about the look of the Trek universe, and not necessarily the history of that universe. It is also worth noting that just a couple of days ago MTV issued an ‘open letter‘ on Star Trek XI which suggested many of the things they are reporting such as ‘Don’t do a prequel’. None of the quotes from the writers mentions words such as ‘prequel’ or ‘reboot.’ The dismissal of a prequel may just be editorializing on the part of MTV or a matter of semantics (would Kirk’s first mission on the Enterprise be a ‘prequel’?). The article also seems to contradict its own denial of the film being a prequel with this statement:
Rumors that the film would center on an early adventure of the crew or even on Kirk and Spock’s Starfleet Academy days — unlikely, though no doubt provoked by a long-dormant "Trek" movie idea — have yet to be addressed directly.
A Big Starship Adventure
As for the film itself Orci promised that it will be more of an action film, not surprising coming from the writers of The Island and the new Transformers movie. They noted that the film is being made for a broad audience, and will therefore be "the biggest one" of the franchise.
The economic models of the other [films] were very much based on the fans out there and their purchasing power. With this one we’re going for the broad audience to bring people into ‘Trek’ for the first time. on the larger economic model.
Specifically they said it will be a starship based adventure, saying:
I don’t know how you make ‘Star Trek’ without a starship…You have to trek through the stars, so you need a ship for that.
The pair also promised that the film will not totally abandon Trek tech. Kurtzman notes:
I actually love the technobabble!…I don’t think you can do ‘Trek’ without technobabble.
Wont talk casting…but hints
They wouldn’t talk casting or even confirm characters, but when pressed Kurtzman said:
I’m the hugest Matt Damon fan ever. If he became [Kirk], great.
They also played coy with the notion of Shatner and Nimoy appearing, but did say that Shatner and Nimoy did come in recently for a meeting. No details but they Kurtzman did say
It was pretty much the most stressful thing ever, but it was wonderful, they were amazing.
Confirm Chambliss as Prod. Designer and Mindel as DP
The pair confirmed the TrekMovie.com report from last year that long time collaborator Scott Chambliss will be doing the production design. In addition Daniel Mindel will again join the team as the director of photography. Mindel worked with Abrams on M:I:III.
Trek XI will just be ‘Star Trek’?
Regarding the title the pair said they hoped hoped the film will just be titled ‘Star Trek’ saying
‘Star Trek’ is the the intended title..I don’t think we want to put any colons or anything on it.
TrekMovie.com has already come out in favor of the simple ‘Star Trek’ and it was the clear winner of our poll on the subject last week. However, we are told that the final decision has not been made by the studio.
Respectful of the franchise: its about the soul
The pair talked about what giant fans they are, with Orci revealed to be the bigger fan. Even though their film essentially ends the TNG series of film, they only had praise for Next Gen and noting "we just hope they bless us." They believe that their script adheres to the Roddenberry vision, saying:
Orci: ‘Trek,’ more than anything, has always been about the human interactions," Orci said. "It’s all about the human soul.
Kurtzman: And the friendships,…and everyone being a family.Whatever the story was, we always knew what it had to feel like.
Comments»
I was against this at first….but it sound like its going to be a fun movie. And I like how they are talking about the soul of humanity. I think this movie will rock.
Film simply called “Star Trek”.
Sweet.
“Orci and Kurtzman also confirmed that the film is not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise.”
Oh kay… I thought it wasn’t a reboot.
I think it’s a “reboot” in the same sense Star Trek-The Motion Picture was a re-imagining.
This is good.
A wink is as good as a nod to a blind mule, so it seems this film will be about Kirk and Spock, with Matt Damon as Kirk, and be a starship based adventure with more action than the previous films, but at it’s heart have alot of humanity and character interaction.
All is well in the Trekverse I tell you.
Maybe they are going to re-imagine Star Trek: The Motion Picture… ;-p
Also, I like how they are keeping the same design aethestic seen in TOS, yet modernizing it.
See what happens when you get people involved on the creative end who actually LOVE and LIKE Star Trek, and are not just whoring a paycheck??
God bless you Paramount and Abrams.
I haven’t even seen this film yet and I already like the attitude taken with it behind the scenes.
TLC Baby, TLC.
i’m going to reserve judgment until i see the final product. this thing is so far back in the prelim stages that anything could change.
having said that, lets go to yellow alert. there is moderate cause for concern
um… that is all.
best!!
=the new and improved h69=
It’s good to hear that they are such hugh fans. Makes me feel that the ‘reimagening’ is about updating the 1906’s sensibilities to the 21st century.
Lets talk about this: “Orci and Kurtzman also confirmed that the film is not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise.”
Of course it’s not a real prequel because this movie shows us different situations in Kirks life. It’s a kind of “time-floating” Kirk biography.
BTW are there any “official” definitions that explain the difference between a “reboot” a “remake” and a “reimagination”? Seems like that anybody uses these terms and throws them around without knowing the exact meaning behind them.
#4 - Josh
“Orci and Kurtzman also confirmed that the film is not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise.”
I respect your take on it, but that quote is very open to interpretation. BSG could have been described exactly the same way, and people here have taken my head off for suggestion such an approach.
Count me as one who is not interested in a re-imagined or rebooted Trek.
I will stick with the ORIGINAL and Best.
I just think that terms such as reboot and re-imagining are perhaps too intellectually limiting to accurately convey the essence of what is being done here.
Was Star Trek -The Motion Picture a reboot or a re-imagining? Both, or neither?
It was independent of any previously seen adventure with only the characters remaining substantively the same, yet visually it was a completely different universe not at all related to the series.
It sounds as if Abrams and company are going for a little bit of everything yet conceptually, it is still the Star Trek we know with the same characters.
I agree labeling it a Prequel doesn’t exactly do it justice either, since there are canon established filmed events that take place previously to this adventure.
Hell, maybe we have a new categorization of film on the horizon!
A rebooted, reimagined, Prequel Sequel, but only slightly.
What the hell would you call a film like that? heh heh
Let’s official deem this project a TREKQUEL!
I expect royalties you know for the invention of a new term ;)
#10: “BTW are there any “official” definitions that explain the difference between a “reboot” a “remake” and a “reimagination”? ”
No.
That is the whole and correct answer.
Now, bear in mind that “reimagining” was first prominently used in promotion for a movie when 20th Century Fox so described Tim Burton’s remake of “Planet Of The Apes.”
Ready to love it, but not with Damon
Rebot of star trek franchise. I’am angry.
I hate reboots
That movie i will not watch.
Trek XI wont be real star trek
All I know is, I may be the minority here, but I’ll go on record and say if Abrams served up a steaming dish of shit and labeled it “Space Track: How Captain Kirk got his groove back”, as far as I’m concerned it couldn’t possibly be any worse than the deliberate shit that’s been served up COOOOOLD for the past few years so, I’m a DAMN happy camper. As I said before, from rock bottom there isn’t anywhere to go but UP.
“Orci & Kurtzman: Trek XI To Be ‘Reimagined’ Starship Adventure Titled ‘Star Trek’ ”
*************************************
Now Star Trek enters into it’s next stage of de-evolution: Berman and Braga part 2.
Because these 2 guys are completely incapable of following anything established.
Here’s to Vulcans with the heads of cats.
Nothing in that article to change my opinion which I will not state because then someone will get all mad and stuff.
I will say this… #12. James seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
I can understand this attitude from those that prefer the other series, but hey I’m a TOS fan myself, where exactly are you guys coming from anyway?
Until they can clone dead actors, and de-age geriatric living ones, or until they master CGI actors, this is about as close to a TOS era movie we can possibly get.
I love my three seasons of TOS and 6 motion pictures as well but, I thought the point here was we all wanted MORE adventures with that crew and era, and like it or not, this is about the only way to go about that, where’s the love here?
as long as this has Stanky McFibberich’s approval. You know that’s what is most important here. whatever Stanky McFibberich says is law, and don’t go breaking the law.
best!!
=h=
It’s all “Star Trek;” it’s all good.
Anyone that expects folks whose whole approach to Trek is to dissect it and declare that some parts are acceptable and some “don’t count” to hail something clever and different is bound to be disappointed. 8)
Notice that re-imagining is not quoted. It’s the author who wrote that. And they have said they would adhere to Star Trek canon.
There’s still no real information other than it appears Shatner and Nimoy met with them again.
“Reimagining” strikes little ripples of fear down my spine, at least in terms of Star Trek. Obviously, with new actors playing the roles, there is some reimagination inherent to the whole deal, but I don’t want to see changes in the basic archetypes of TOS. If they’re doing young Kirk, Spock, et al, they have to at least keep within a few parsecs of the universe defined by the originals, IMHO.
Not too much said in the interview gives me reason to rejoice OR despair yet. However, I’m with hitch, yellow alert.
I hate rebot concept. This guys will destroy star trek franchise. That movie wont be tight up whit others star trek series and movies.
40 years of history down the toilet?
No, hopefully only the last 15
Dont get too hung up on the word reimagining. They seem to be talking about the look of the show there.
i have added my interpretation based on other comments.
of course if you were hoping they would remake TOS in exact detail you were bound to be disspointed
I grew up with the ORIGINAL SERIES. I don’t mind re-casting the actors at all. But, to re-imagine or re-boot the visual identity of the original is not what I am interested in. seeing. Star Trek has a visual identitty all it’s own, and it is just fine, cheese and all. This crap about trying to reach a broader audience is just that …. crap. If you are calling it STAR TREK, the general audience is still going to be the fans. I have better things to spend my $8.00 dollars on. Star Trek as we know it is over.
Rebot down!!!!
Make real prequel Star trek movie ( real new part of star trek canon )
ozy that is enough…you are just spamming…stop it or be removed
Ok Ozy, so what would be a “Real” Prequel Star Trek movie exactly?
Can you make Shatner and Nimoy 45 years younger and resurrect Deforest Kelley and James Doohan?
As far as re-imagining the visual identity of the show, if you read the article clearly it says moderning it but keeping the aesthetic of the original intact. That is FAR less severe than what was done with the first movie based on the show.
All of this huffing and puffing is amusing, as everyone and their brother will fall in line and adore this movie, remember this post next year.
It isn’t this film I’m concerned or worried about, it’s the sequel.
Ok, so what is a “real” prequel in your estimation? i’m genuinely curious and interested in hearing.
At least have a reason to be dissapointed instead of jumping on a negativity bandwagon for intellectually dishonest reason.
“The economic models of the other [films] were very much based on the fans out there and their purchasing power. With this one, we’re going for the broad audience to bring people into Trek for the first time.”
This is the single most important factor determining what the film will be like. As the old saw goes, “follow the money.”
I wish them the same success Hollywood had “re-imagining” Wild Wild West,
or
Planet of the Apes
or
The Avengers.
I am officially off the fence. This is not going to be my movie. I predict there is going to be a HUGE ground swell of disapproval and the studio will rethink handing the franchise over to these flavor of the month wonder children.
Me? I’m not going to comment any further of this debacle in the making.
More news about TOS-R and TOS-HD, please!
# 32: Thank you for your input on Ozys spamming - there is absolutely no need or place for that in here. Certain people (sadly) who have no useful contributions shouldn’t be allowed in here. So…seeing that you may remove him IF he continues is exactly what we need. Keep up your excellent work.
That only says to me Dennis they are going to spend alot more money on it than previous Treks, nothing more or less.
The actors fees alone, and production budget should be considerably higher than previous entries.
If you get Shatner, Nimoy, and Damon onboard, that’s a sizeable budget chunk right there before a camera even rolls.
I wish them the success of re-imagining James Bond, Zorro, Batman, The Fugitive, Battlestar Galactica, et al.
I guess the glass is either half full or half empty.
If the movie bombs(I hope not!), it could get rebooted again.. Doh!.. until they get it right.
I was a Top 40 music fan until I hit 40. At that point, I decided I could no longer stomach current hit music and have since listened to mostly oldies… music of my generation. Now, at 46, I think I’ll be sticking with “Trek” of my generation and letting the young-uns have the new versions. I’m having enough problems handling CGI updates that don’t work… let alone a “reimaging” of the whole thing. Have fun kids.
There was no technobabble in STar Trek. I hope they don’t fill valuable dialog with wasted technobabble. Kirk and spock and mccoy never needed it.
What a Joke.
I am kind of hung up on the look of the original series I guess. We’ve already seen the Enterprise “reimagined” as 70’s airport lounge (TMP and Next gen) and battle submarine (Enterprise) and nothing has been very successful. Nobody (I think) is recommending a slavish recreation of the original down to the plasterboard walls and painted wood consoles, but they have to recognize that the look WAS part of the heart and soul of the show. The intense color, the “mid-century” cool. And how about a phaser that looks like, well, a phaser?! The original series had some kick-ass designers from Wah Chang to Matt Jefferies to Bill Thiess to Irving Feinberg, etc. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, is all I’m sayin.’
I’m excited about it… I’m really looking forward to the first trailer. We shouldn’t base everything off this one interview. As more and more details emerge(and they will), it’ll be much easier to tell whether or not it’ll be good. I have a feeling it will be (good), and I’ll probably see it no matter what.
I’m very interested to see how the whole film will look. It’s interesting what he said about keeping the old feeling but modernizing it… (my interpretation) Heck thats worth seeing the film by itself.
I guess to sum up my opinion, lets wait and see.
For me real prequel will acept all star trek series and movies equely, and not changing establise trek canon, and timeline.
Rebot is changing of establise canon and timeline.
I love all five series and 10 movies of star trek. I cant forget 40 years of establise star trek canon.
star trek xi is not a reboot of canon and repeating that over and over is both silly and spamming/trolling
There’s no need to.
Those of us who liked TNG didn’t forget TOS simply because the new series didn’t closely match it.
There were quite a few narrow Trek fans who simply never accepted TNG and the follow-on series, but modern Trek nonetheless entertained tens of millions of people and commercially succeeded for the studio for almost twenty years. This new “Star Trek” film will probably be rejected by a portion of the existing, long-time fan base but that doesn’t mean that it won’t set the creators and the studio up for decades of new success with some old fans and many new ones.
And when, eventually, the tide ebbs on the success of “Star Trek 3.0″…then new people will find new ways to start it up again. 8)
What about this storyline for “Trek XII”!? The Enterprise-D still exists, Kirk never died and the TNG movies we know never happened that way. Just re-imagine…
“There’s no need to” references #45: ” I cant forget 40 years of established star trek canon.”
#45 — I completely agree with you, at first I was excited - now I have lost some of enthusiasm. “Reimagined?????”. Hell lets make James Kirk Jane Kirk or Jamie Kirk for that matter, etc. etc. etc. Lets the change the name of the Enterprise, Let change everything for that matter.
Reboot or not reboot, if it really turns out to be an “action movie” promising “fresh air” with a “new director”, I’m out.
One Nemesis is really enough.
I bet it will be like seeing the TOS set in HD from “In a Mirror Darkly.” They cannot stray too far away from the original or there will be protest.
Doesn’t this “era” resemble Pike’s time and look?
#52: There will be protest, period. If they were too freaked out by protests, they’d probably have stayed away from this franchise.
We need a Captain Pike movie. And why the original Enterprise the he commanded was styled the way it was. Maybe it was styled that way because there were three designers in the running for a new Constitution class ship and the winner was a 1960’s style designer. Ya, that could work.
It’s obviously too early to judge this project, but reading those comments does not inspire confidence in me. I recently read the Orci Kurtzman draft of The Transformers, and I got a taste of what they mean by “respecting canon”… it was not that good. Of course talking robots and Star Trek are fairly different ideas, and Abrams is in the mix here, so there’s plenty going for this movie. However… I’m concerned.
Those two, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman look rather young. Nothing against that, I suppose they will bring a new fresh perspective. But have they been fans long enough to really appreciate the Original Series? From what they say, it appears that they realize a big part of the series were the realationships of the characters.
What concerns me is the comment they make about a big film with a starship and action. Again, nothing wrong with that. But it rings up alert flags for me. Not every Star Trek movie needs a slam bam space battle. I am making assumptions, but it feels like what John Logan said. Basing his movie on Star Trek 2 which was one of the best and it happened to have a good space battle.
But to appeal to a general audience and to bring in young kids, it seems someone feels that this franchise needs it to bring in the audience. A shame in the sense that the best shows were when Humans learn we are not so smart afterall, Corbomite Maneuver, Arena and Errand of Mercy. If they can do a story with action, but have that kind of adult material, then it might have a chance. If not, its kiddy time.
My Skepticism Meter just twitched bigtime. All I can say is that I’m glad we have so many hundreds of hours of “old style” Star Trek to choose from, from TOS to Enterprise.
I had to look at the photo above again. Hell, compared to these two Berman and Braga are intellectuals.
So action for the masses it is.
#58. Agreed. So be it.
ok…now i have reason to be nervous…
It worked for Battlestar Galactica, but the original Battlestar had one season and not 700 television episodes and 10 motion pictures from the same universe. Perhaps a new space show that like Star Trek but isn’t. Star Trek is not sacred, but it’s amazingly established with it’s expanded story line with the tv and features. Tough sell folks.
OK OK OK Chill out! ! ! You are all reading way to much into these concepts let me just get this out there first and then type a longer response. This sounds very much like the “retooling” (new word used) they did for Batman Begins which by all accounts was an awesome movie. There are some that don’t like the new Batman but overall it was very well recieved.
I, for one, am all for a re-imaging, if that’s what it takes.
In my opinon, canon has been the albatross hanging around the neck of “Star Trek” for the last thirty years. Time to finally cut it loose. Canon is the creativity-killer.
There’s only one thing I want from the next “Star Trek” movie: a good story with characters I care about, which would be a refreshing change from the “Trek” that we’ve been getting lately.
Y’know, it’d be nice if people actually read the whole article rather than just taking a look at the title and screaming OMG OMG ITZ GUNNA SUCKK!!!!!111oneone. As in, the part where they said they won’t be changing any of the fundamentals.
Personally I’m glad they’re willing to change the look from ’60s-tastic to something better.
“The economic models of the other [films] were very much based on the fans out there and their purchasing power. With this one, we’re going for the broad audience to bring people into Trek for the first time.”
Just as much ignorance as Berman about the failure of Nemesis.
Oh yeah, Trek is in good hands… not!
Just look at what they are doing to Transformers to see these “fans” at work making a movie. While you are at it, rent Catwoman sometime.
All I need is for something to resemble TOS as far as apperance goes. Other than Kirk and Spock of course. If I see the unforms from TOS or a an engine room that resembles the the E’s or anything along those lines…that’s all I need. That, and a good story of course.
Gestures like that show me they respect what Roddenberry did 40 years ago!
I don’t have a problem with a re-imagined TREK. What scares me is the fact that the writers are stating the film will be action-packed AND made to find a broad-based audience almost in the same breath! This is precisely what has crippled TREK ever since VOYAGER–dumbed down STAR TREK. Sounds like a recipe for disaster for sure.
OK, I’m not really commenting on the article but rather the commentors themselves. Who really has time to visit, AND POST, on a Star Trek site that can even make credible assertions that because of such and such that they will not see the movie. “I have better things to spend my $8.00 dollars on. Star Trek as we know it is over.” (#30)
Find a better way to say your afraid how it might turn out than trying to peddle this stupidity. And it is stupidty. I’m always amazed at how nobody’s nothings can rip others work before they even have a clue what it’s about or have any information. Losers. You can’t write a posting that’s intellegent on thi ssite and yet you can slam real writers that make hundreds of thousands of dollars for their craft and skill? Keep your eight bucks loser. They don’t need it and you worked an hour flipping burgers for it. Better save up.
About the comments that the guys are “wonder children” and “flavor of the month” no they are not. Here is the deal as was pointed out by several people the Shat is to old to act and two cast members are deceased and in order to make TOS era they must recast. That is established. 2nd they need to re-image, re-tool, re-invent, re-boot or how ever you want to say it for one reason its a new word… to revitalize the entity that is Star Trek. I have before mentioned that I am a teacher yes and when I mention Star Trek here is the response from 99% of all kids in any grade. I quote “Star Trek is that old fart show…” end quote. The cast is old, the show is old and the fans of TOS are getting older. Sorry if I offend but in order to make Star Trek live it can no longer be the same “Old fart show…” it can’t. This is why the numbers went down. We need to face it statistics have proven that the vast majority of people whom go to the movies consistently on a regular basis are 25 years old and under and we must try to bring the younger generation in. I am 24 and I love Star Trek but I am one of the few my age that does. When you talk about paramount going after the money yes it is true. They have to! They are in a business after all they need to make money to make more movies. I am sorry guys but TOS fans who have been around since 40 years ago are dwindling as they age. I don’t think they are going to completely change the series and characters for example Spock is not all of a sudden going to be female like Starbuck on Battlestar. However they are going to change some things. We may not see the big E but if we do it will look a bit different, hey that is fine they did it in the Motion Picture and Again in Khan so no biggie. There will be all the things you come to expect just re-tooled a bit like Batman’s new outfit in Begins or Galactica in BSG. Don’t fret please and if you do oh well I hate to say it but fans of TOS in the most classic sense of show are now the low minority and new blood needs to be added to the fan base.
Best,
Aaron Ringewold
Writer/Director
Stage and Film
There’s another name for Technobabble… It’s called Bullshit.
I don’t think we need a Capt Pike movie. What we need is a Captain Pike TV Show! Or better yet, start with Capt April and work your way up. Have a Star Trek produced like Law and Order that never ends.. just change crews every 5 years or so and keep it always firmly rooted on the NCC-1701.
As for the movie… if they want to streamline and update the look of the Enterprise, and still honour cannon, why don’t they just have it take place during the 4th year of the 5 year original mission? Who is to say the Enterprise didn’t get a partial upgrade before The Motion Picture on it’s computers, weapons, uniforms, etc?
Oh, and Kurtzman sounds like an ignorant “Medieval” Trekker, along with this embracing canon thing… Canon and continuity are NOT the same thing:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/RSA/Canon.html
This is what you get if you arse lick JJ and Co the whole franchise flushed down the crapper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every time these guys speak I roll my eyes …. I can handle Abrams because he sounds and looks like a level headed person. A guy who sounds like he generally cares about what hes writing or producing. . These guys you’d meet at your local Star Trek Convention who haven no lives that wear their uniforms to work and your embarrassed your sitting next to them. A reimagination is BSG. I consider than a separate entity from the classic show itself. If it isn’t then what is it? A Prequel? a Sequel?
Thier confusing themselves more than they confuse thier audience writing Lost.
Frankly I liked the Island minus the ridiculous chase scenes…It remains to be seen if I’m interested in Transformers at all. The same problem seems to be here… If its more of the same thing chase over the top villain then its something that’s been done.
Just naming it Star Trek isn’t really enough…you can just slap a name on the product and think people will buy it no matter what…Otherwords you buy every commercial without Question from that product even if it fills your needs. Its kinda sad we’ll take anything.
Star Trek has been on the foothills for a long time Since the First Motion Picture. The only reason the film had a chance being made after years of development was Star Wars in 78’
After The Star Wars Prequels along with other fads Trek produced a prequel dud called Enterprise.
Now joining the remained wagon is Star Trek? Possible gender bending? What?
Is Star Trek going to be a victim of joining bandwagons? Or is it going to bring something unique to the theatres without riding bandwagons and lead them. I’m still waiting for the reality show band wagon. To me its utterly lazy and a fad.
What is this movie going to be that other franchises have already reimagined?
I think this film would be geared anybody under the mentality of the age of thirty.
Loads of action and very little substance, Yeah sorry I saw that a lot in Nemises. We all know how that came out..
Well, I don’t think that Shatner and Nimoy would have signed if the script wasn’t ok.
I think there is alot of overreacting and people are breathing WAY to much into what little info is being leaked.
TOS had alot of action did it not? I believe it also found a broader audience in it’s time to boot. Orci and Kurztman haven’t stated anything that hasn’t already been the plan since the show first launched in the 60’s. Damning the whole thing before shooting has even begun is just plain silly in my opinion.
I have a healthy optimism for the film because Shatner and Nimoy are somewhat involved and I believe those working on the project know how high the stakes are. This movie will either ressurect or kill the franchise. I for one will reserve my opinion until I have seen the finished product.
I know it’ll never happen, but wouldn’t it be wild if the new movie was the EXACT same flavour as the TOS right down to the costumes and sets? The one difference could be the upgraded massaging of better constructed scenes, expensive fabric for tunics, etc. The special effects could be of the current remastering mode used on the old TOS eisodes.
What the hell, just say RETRO is in and go for it! It would be a hoot watching Damon and the cast try to elevate the material in such a “unique” setting!
I have to say I’m satisfied with this news.
Josh T. I often don’t agree with you, but man I have to say this time I tend to agree with you. What you said in post 4 and 13 is pretty much how I view this project. Also #69, Aaron R, really hit on some points I tend to agree with as well.
#56 — ageist much? I grew up on a steady diet of TOS (from about age 5) and didn’t watch TNG until season 2 partially because of my love of TOS and partly because I was young [I’m 25] and had just been introduced to TOS only the year before. Not to be an ass here, but I bet I could go toe to toe with you on TOS trivia. So I don’t think age is the defining factor here.
On a different topic, I certainly get your point about John Logan, but I think these dudes are a heck of a lot more savvy then the sad team that produced the TNG films. Action has to be big since they made it clear they were targeting mainstream America this time and not just the niche.
#75 “I don’t think that Shatner and Nimoy would have signed if the script wasn’t o.k.”
Are you kidding?? Both these men turn 76 this month! They’d do the ribbon-cutting at an Electronics Store opening if it paid them a cheque with enough zeroes on it!!
#80 — LOL, certainly seems to be true of Shatner
i agree with matt strangely agreeing with josh
people really get worked up over the terms prequel, reboot and reimagining and canon. As if that is all that matters. To me these are the least relevent issues and least interesting things from the interview. Also those things have to bee seen in context of the rest, and it still isnt fully clear what the MTV writer was adding on his own…the words ‘reboot’ and ‘reimagine’ and ‘prequel’ are never quoted from the actual writers.
but as I have said before, if you expect dogma and exact copies right down to the color of the bridge railing….then STXI is not going to be a movie for you
what I found most interesting is how they descibe the film as being about the human soul, and how it will be ‘the biggest’ of the franchise. I also like how it will be a big spaceship action movie. It sounds to me that they are thinking more TWOK than TVH
‘Reimagined’ Starship Adventure Titled ‘Star Trek’
My trekkie dreams have come true. :)
People should forget TWOK. It was a good movie, but it’s not a blueprint for any other future trek movie. Star Trek failed in the last years because it copied itsself and suffered from a stereotyped black/white or good guy/bad guy scheme that never existed in the tv series since TNG. soran, borg queen, ruafo, Shinzon are examples for a bad story writing and a lack of ideas for interesting conflicts handled in an intelligent way. And of course Star Trek is a human adventure, but the producers really shouldn’t forget the soul beside the action!
re#69-Aaron R-
I think you said it well. I completely agree with you and I am a 40 something fan. Come now, youngs minds, fresh ideas.
But what concerns me is how much will it consist of action. We still don’t know if it’s TWOK action of something else. I will look forward to learn more and see what comes!
Anthony@82: “but as I have said before, if you expect dogma and exact copies right down to the color of the bridge railing….then STXI is not going to be a movie for you”
If it were, there would be no reason to make it in the first place.
I will agree with Mr. Atoz @66 before he jumps through the atavachron, though. For example: a “reimagined” bridge that takes the classic Matt Jefferies design that millions of fans and the U.S. Navy fell in love with and mates it with modern technologies that can make the displays more dynamic and the look more real will be a wonderful thing as far as I’m concerned. A “reimagined” bridge that looks like a Trade Federation ship from Star Wars Episode I will be a bad move for audience identification.
From what I’m reading here, I’m expecting the former more than the latter, though.
I’m jazzed. The more I hear, the more they sound like they have a plan of their own. That in itself is worth the price of a ticket to the first movie. It sucks, don’t go to 2 or 3. The good news is that the basic optimism and adventure should (should) still be at the heart of this new franchise. The better news is that it sounds less and less likely we’ll have someone his way through 132 mins of Shatner impressions. YAH!
Love the Shat. But, he belongs in TOS and the Movies through 6.
The color of the bridge railing is *inviolable.*
Anything else may be changed. ;)
#84: “People should forget TWOK. It was a good movie, but it’s not a blueprint for any other future trek movie.”
Absolutely agreed. Good movie. Made twenty-five years ago for the expecations of a pretty specific era in popular American culture, mainly by people who’ve done nothing interesting or innovative since the early 90s at the latest.
Forget it. Leave it alone. Time to move on.
Nelson@85: I’m not going to sound the panic button over the word “action.” Whatever Roddenberry had in mind at the moment he first imagined Star Trek, TOS had a strong action-adventure element that seldom interfered with what it had to say about the human condition. There’s a lot of room for both action and the more important things in life in a well-conceived movie.
Hmmm, I don’t know what to expect! A shroomy, vroomy twilight zoney Star Trek ReImagined? A fever dream of motion picture that will be a honest to god experience or just a sad re-telling of the same ol’ prequel sucks adeage? Somehow, I don’t think worrying about it will make it better or worse. We will have a fine backseat to watch the “new” crew either wreck the “franchise” or hit the winner’s circle. Here’s hoping it’s the latter, and that we all can embrace a possiblity, not merely grasp a death grip on old faves. :-D
Star Trek is not about technobabble it is what modern trek drowned itself in because they had no stories.
Redshirt@74: Glad you’ve already psychically watched the movie and reviewed it so we don’t have to blow our money on it.
Seriously, folks, I can get pretty cynical about some things…but it’s mostly things that have ALREADY gone south. I have to wonder what would happen if posters here who have decided in advance to be so negative about somebody else’s work that they can’t possibly have seen could even submit a treatment themselves that wouldn’t end up in the shredder pile. If the movie sucks, then it sucks, but I guarantee that its quality will have nothing to do with anybody’s bitching and moaning here.
As for the technobabble thing: I grant that recent Trek has gone overboard with the technobabble, but come on. TOS had plenty of it. “Phaser” is technobabble. “Tricorder” is technobabble. “Warp engine” is technobabble. And the last time I watched the first season, I noticed Spock using the word “gravimetric” in at least two episodes.
Well, I am curious why they don’t just go the full monty and use a new crew altogether. It seems like they want to put some creativity and invention into their ideas, and that’s GREAT- that’s exactly what Star Trek needs, but going back to Kirk and Spock to do it? My initial concerns over this project (when it was first announced many many months ago) went away but have now resurfaced. Mind you, I’m only concerned, not livid or furious. I just don’t know if its a good idea to go back to Kirk and Co. to do a story that apparently sounds like it is striving to re-invent the franchise and overall concept.
In other news, Paramount is looking to do a Forrest Gump sequel where Gump actually meets Tom Hanks (nope, not kidding!). So, the studio’s taste is dubious at best.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with tech dialogue If it’s worked into the picture in a clear and clever way. Some eps of TNG did that quite well, especially when you had a techy character saying the stuff and a non-tech “translating” for the audience. A lot of Trek writers didn’t get that, and really did go overboard with the babble part. I’m all for the science and the technology as long as it works hand in hand with a solid story and equally solid characters, and I’ve said that ever since 1987, all the while handing the writers and producers bits of plausible (and some admittedly implausible) Trek tech. Anyone writing tech should take a look at shows like the West Wing for the way they handled “political tech” or House, M.D. for the way they handle medical tech. Spock said there were always possibilities.
I admit I skimmed the comments but if someone already said this, count this as a ditto.
IMO… some people are dwelling on what the interview said, and in some instances only PART of what the interview said.
My point is, until this movie hits a screen, NO ONE here can judge it. Opinions I see here are being formed based a very limited information. At this time all bets are off and anything is possible. I would hope that all of us give this more time before assuming that “it’s not for me.”
I respectfully ask you all for some open-mindedness.
X
Shatner has been quoted repeatedly as saying “I don’t know how they plan on connecting the two Kirks in the same movie.” We all assumed that he was talking about figuring out his Nexus dillemna. Folks, it now seems like he was referring to something different- to the fact that Shatner’s Trekverse and Abrams’ Trekverse are not the same and that linking those two doesn’t make sense.
Just a theory, but I think that’s what Shatner is concerned with when he talks about “problems” with the story.
Adam@97: This is just one guy’s opinion, but I don’t really trust The Shat’s sense of story as far as I could spit a rat. Remember STV, for cryin’ out loud?!?!?!
Sure, it’s not like Shatner’s track record as a storyteller is golden, (and Star Trek V was screwy for many numerous reasons, in addition to Shatner’s handling of the film) but the guy has made his contributions to the franchise. And I certainly don’t regard him as being a fool based on one bad movie. What I am saying is that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman collectively have a track record for taking pre-existing stories and turning them into their own versions (whether you like that or not is your own personal taste): Abrams’ Superman concept was a significant departure from canon, Orci and Kurtzman’s Transformers script equally redefined the concept from its original version.
I think what rubs me the wrong way in general is that studios own “brands” and I think they say to themselves “Let’s throw the brand out there again and see if it sticks” relying on audiences to flock to the theater to consume their product. Sometimes marketing departments have a little too much sway in the creative genesis of many projects. I hope that’s not the case with this movie.
I like Russell T. Davies’ approach to technobabble on “Doctor Who:” You defeat a plastic-controlling alien with “anti-plastic.” :lol:
Adam@99: I hope so too. What I can say at this point is that I like the energy I’m seeing about this movie, and what I’ve learned about the way the filmmakers are doing it sounds like what I think is the best thing for Trek right now (well, short of a “TOS reimagined” series, but I’m unrepentant in my preference for good televised Trek over good movie Trek given a choice of the two).
Dennis@100: I like Davies’ approach to just about everything on “Doctor Who.” The first series, anyway; the series two DVDs are out of my price range at the moment, but I’ve heard little bad about it that I actually trusted.
Ditto on Dr. Who. I just got the series 2 (2006) DVDs so I dunno how it is yet, but series 1 (2005) was just great.
#102:
Season Two DW is different in that Tennant is different, less tormented and perhaps more obviously empathetic. His character opens up a little more to Rose’s family and Earth-bound friends. I still prefer Eccleston, but Tennant is fine and I really, really enjoyed the second year.
Dennis@104: I think the difference is fine, then; the action and dialogue in “The Parting of the Ways” convinced me that Eccleston’s Doctor had redeemed himself in his own mind. I hear that Tennant is a bit goofier in his eccentricities, maybe a little more like some of the earlier Doctors, and at this point I think that’s okay for the character. Eccleston was eccentric in ways that were either darker or seemed a little forced, but that suited what the Doctor was going through.
It’s interesting that in spite of being a little lighter - and certainly “goofy” as you say - Tennant’s Doctor seems more tempermentally inclined to embrace the role of protector/redeemer/avenger than Eccleston’s. Doctor #10 is pretty judgmental as well: “No second chances. That’s the kind of man I am.”
Seeing Shatner and Nimoy in the movie would be neat, but another reason can explain the meetings. If you wanted to make a new Trek movie, set in the TOS universe, but with new actors, and to attract a new audience, while incorporating whatever it is that makes good Trek really good, who better to consult than those two?
#107 and I think that’s what is being done, I believe that they are project consultants, nothing more.
I think bottom line is this, if you liked The Island or Transformers you will like the new Star Trek
If you make a new movie about an established but quiescent franchise like Trek, you can either “reimagine” it or try to copy the old stuff with new actors.
If you choose the second alternative, you run a very real risk of self-parody: New actors trying to imitate old actors on new sets delibertely designed to look like the cheap cheesy sets from a cash-starved TV show 40 years ago. You’ll probably release something that smacks of Galaxy Quest of onf othe those awful Flash Gordon movies.
The odds of the new movie being a good movie as well as a commerical success are much greater if they avoid the slavish adherence needed to keep a few fans happy.
Remember, the lesson Paramount learned with Enterptise and Nemesis is that Trek fans are a fickle bunch who can’t be counted on to make a production financially successful. If those two productions had made a lot of money, do you think anyone would even be talking about reimagining?
I’m not real crazy about their statements regarding technobabel, which I detest. It’s one of the things wrong with later Trek. The statement that you can’t do Trek without it is completely wrong. The earliest and often the best Trek had very little technobabel.
Orci and Kurtzman’s interview on MTV’s website made me even more leery. Now we get to add “reimagining” as a stated goal of Trek XI along with “crossover” and “more mainstream” and “prequel” and “reboot”.
They emphasized ‘relationships’ when asked about staying true to Roddenberry’s Trek. Character relationships were indeed a part of Roddenberry’s Trek, but that wasn’t the extent of the spirit of Trek. He also said it would feature the ‘most action’ of any Trek….which I suppose is an attempt to differentiate Trek XI from previous Trek…another Departure. Big Budget + More Action is supposed to excite me? They mention their ‘hope’ that fans of more recent Trek embrace them…???? With 40 years of Star Trek fans out there, it shouldn’t be necessary for them to ‘hope’.
All the love here for Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman yet no moaning and whining that they mentioned their appreciation for ‘technobabble’ (implied perjorative). I’m surprised no one seems to have picked up on that.
That interview left me sensing a BSG style “reimagining” of Star Trek.
How about a movie with the “Pike” crew - that seemed to be a little “darker” period of Star Trek history.
Hmm….
Interesting interview…
Well, as Anthony and some other folks have noted, we already know it’s not gonna be a BSG-style reboot. Orci and Kurtzman have said so, Abrams has said so, Paramount has said so. And nothing in this new interview suggests any different.
I think it does, though, suggest that, as has also already been noted here, that if one is expecting the new film to look exactly like a 40-year-old TV show, button for button, dial for dial, light for light, one is likely to be disappointed. But even here, it looks like they’re giving a lot of thought to how to “update” without losing the look that’s characterized Trek so well for so long. Will it be identical? No, probably not. Will it be recognizable as the TOS (or pre-TOS?) era? Probably so, and there are lost of ways to accomplish some pretty impressive “modernizations” while still being true to the source material.
Finally, noting MTV’s *interpretations* of what Orci and Kutzman said, well… Their “Open Letter to JJ Abrams” pretty much says that they hate prequels and want a total [*ptui!!*] reboot. Not too unexpected that they might either interpret or outright try to spin what the writers have said toward that viewpoint, even when the writers themselves have said nothing to support it. ;)
For the record, I read the article at MTV before coming here. I did not read Anthony’s interpretation of the interview before adding my previous comment.
I did however note the caveats regarding the word “reimagining” on StarTrek.com’s own synopsis of the interview:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/46176.html
A part of what made me disintrested in the tv show “Enterprise” was how irrelevant the story was to the continuing story of Star Trek. That show half-assed the canon too, and while I’m not a strict canonista, I do like the idea of a continuing, evolving, FORWARD-moving story. “Enterprise” fooled with the canon just enough that it might as well have been called some other show as it was off doing its own thing. So, with this new movie, Trek XI runs the risk of making itself irrelevant to the established storyline. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it is a bit sad that no fresh ideas are being done on TV or film to move Star Trek forward.
My 2 cents…
It sounds like they learned valuable lessons from the popular response to ST: IV and BSG. This will rock hard especially if Jolene Blalock plays SPOCK!
Give it a chance guys! Give it a chance!
Unless Spock starts painting on the walls of his/her quarters and then dives the Delta Flyer into a hurricane… Any writer who did that to a beloved major character would probably not be renewed for the next season.
Oh, and if the producers want to cast Billie Piper as Yeoman Rand, I could deal with that too, and worship the producers as GODS. (deep dark voice)
Can you get Beyonce to play Uhura?
If you make star trek popular with the masses, maybe some of us trekkers will get some before the 22nd century rolls around! ;)
It’s the least you could do for the trekker engineers that keep this country running…
#94
I’ve thought of this too, as I’m sure a lot of people here have. The best answer I can come up with is that, if they hit a grandslam with this one, not only will they get the new audience aboard, but they’ll win over the “original” fans, pretty much off the bat. This way they can still go into other directions in the future and still have, essentially, the street cred that what they make is kosher, without any audience reservations about “authenticity” to deal with, like what ultimately plagued Berman era Trek. The audience has become fractured at best, and going back to the source seems as good a strategy as any to put everything back together. What better way to prove their team is the rightful heir to Trek than to play with the original characters and toys and make them their own for all to see?
Of course, if it really, objectively sucks, it’ll crash, burn, go up in plumes of forboding dark smoke over the landscape, be eternally derided by all, make the baby Jesus cry, and break your mother’s back, all before killing a busload of nuns in a drunken motor accident, of which the resulting lawsuit cleans out Paramount forever and ever until the end of time.
But you gotta take risks, I guess.
As long as they don’t screw with the basic hull structure of the Big E, I’ll keep an open mind. They did that with the Jupiter II in the big screen version of Lost In Space, and as much as the movie was (sadly) an abomination, what they did to the J-II was most offensive.
There’s an upside to a reboot. The BSG team has put together some fantastic episodes, stories which dealt with life, death, spirituality and humanity, in the three seasons thus far of its run.
Enterprise and the last two Next Generation films lost me when they stopped dealing with those issues. That’s what made The City on the Edge of Forever and all the other great Trek episodes or films of any generation magnificent. If the Trek XI team makes a film based on that everybody wins.
So if it’s a “reboot” to what makes Trek great, I’m all for it!
I could be wrong but I didn’t come away from reading the source material thinking that this film is a total reboot of the franchise.
I think that the article was referring to the look of the series when they mentioned a “reimaging”
And if they are meeting with Shatner + Nimoy (moviehole.com claims the meeting was to get them appear as Kirk + Spock in small roles) I can’t see why they would bother if including them in a total reboot?
Bottom line is. I think that the jury is still out on exactly what this film is going to be.
I am one who hates the reimaged Galactica,and I was not one who praised Casino Royale.So If this Is a reboot which throws out all history and pulls a Galactica then I will not be seeing this.I have had It with these unimaginative types Instead of creating their own shows take other priporitys and ruin them.
#69 > “fans of TOS in the most classic sense … are now the low minority”
Low minority or not, they still seem to be buying a lot of TOS DVDs:
http://snipurl.com/Trek_DVD_bestsellers
Currently the TOS boxed set is #2 in Amazon’s list of bestselling
Star Trek DVDs, after the movies collection. The TAS set is #3
at the moment. TNG and movie DVDs comprise the rest of the top 20.
DS9 and Enterprise are nowhere in the top 20. Voyager comes in
last, currently starting at #35 in the list.
Do you have any evidence or reference to show that TOS fans
are the “low minority”? I know it is obvious to you, and it just
seems to make sense, but do you have any evidence beyond
your own intuitive sense of the Trek fanbase?
Speaking of Amazon — Jeff Bezos is a lifelong TOS fan. My landlady
is a TOS fan (she will forever keep a “Federation Shuttlecraft” frame
on her license plate). Some of my cow-orkers are TOS fans.
Last week, waiting for a stoplight, I overheard somebody quoting
from a TOS episode. I’m a TOS fan too. I guess there are still a
lot of us out there. Admittedly we are over 40, but that doesn’t mean
we never spend any money on DVDs and movie tickets …
Name it STAR TREK
PHOENIX
I am not a fan of the new BSG. I kind of liked the original because there were about 10 descent episodes. The BSG form 1978 was generally regarded as a “failure”, however the new one seems to be a hit with many poeple. The show was completely re-imagined and “rebooted” with new actors, new technology and horrible camera work.
The original was thrown in the trash because it only lasted ONE season. That’s right, ONE. It carried little credibility with it therefore BSG could be re-invented with only minor quibles form the “hardcore” BSG fans, which constitutes about 5,000 people.
The point is, you can’t do this with Star Trek. Poeple want to see the REAL Star Trek, the one created by Gene Roddenberry. This is why Enterprise failed so miserably, it got further and further away from Roddenberry’s vision of what Star Trek was supposed to be.
Abrams must stick to what worked, which is what Roddenberry created. That’s what the fans want. When you watch Superman you expect a guy in a blue, red and yellow suit and that’s what you get. Why not apply this basic philosophy to Star Trek??? I think Abrams realizes this and will make a Trek movie Roddenberry would appreciate.
The more and more I hear about the movie, the more frightened I become. I want a new Star Trek movie, but one that completely compliments and respect the history of Star Trek, from TOS to ENT. I want the world to rediscover Star Trek and fall in love with again.
However, I just think that Abrams and his friends are making a very isolated movie. His is heavily involved in it, he has friends and former colleagues working on it. My fear is that it will become Abrams Star Trek, and not follow in the tradition of what Roddenberry started.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not one of those rabid Gene followers, who take his work as gospel, but I recognise that his foundations are prevailant in Star Trek and are what guide it. I’m concerned Abrams will be making a bad copy of a Star Trek movie.
There is so much talent associated with Star Trek over the years. With writers, directors, costume designers, technical advisors and so on. Many of whom Star Trek fans respect. Michael Okuda will have my heartfelt thanks for his work on Star Trek until the day I die. Likewise, Herman Zimmerman has produced iconic Star Trek designs, that took the franchise across the decades. Michael Westmore is the most experienced special effects make-up artist in the world, and has produced more memorable alien species than the entire field of TV science fiction put together.
So why are this people not involved. Why aren’t fans demanding to see these people involved with produced. Why are we not saying to Abrams, we like your work, but tell us why we should trust you with a Star Trek movie. Why are we not worried about Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman writting the movie, when they are responsible some of the most underperforming movies of the past couple of years. I’m not saying they aren’t capable of turning out a great movie, I won’t judge the movie until I see it, but look at the list. The Island, Mission: Impossible III and The Legend of Zorro. And while I don’t have high hopes for their upcoming Transformers movie, I think that their record hardly makes me feel the franchise is in good hands.
I am not someone who wants this movie not to happen. Likewise, I don’t want it to fail. But I feel that fans need to be a bit more vocal with their opinions, good or bad, and let those who are entrusted with the franchise know what true blooded Star Trek fans want.
#93 > “… the last time I watched the first season,
I noticed Spock using the word ‘gravimetric’ in at least two episodes.”
FYI ;-)
the word “gravimetric” is used in 4 TOS episodes, all first season:
Arena, Alternative Factor, Operation Annihilate, and Squire of Gothos.
I have decided right now to not see the movie on December 25th, 2008 because it might snow. That’s just under two years from now.
How smart would that decision be? What are the basic facts I used to make that choice?
The answer is…. I assumed.
Now examine a decision to not see a movie yet to be made based on a couple of interviews and rumor…nothing more.
You assume it will be bad.
Get more facts before trashing the film and promising that you’ll never see it. Don’t assume you know all there is to know. It’s too early to tell.
Quit being scared by a few words… you are supposed to be forward-thinking Trek fans, not nit-picking whiners.
With all due respect and sympathy to those who wanted Trek XI to continue in the same vein of the 1966-2005 franchise, especially those who were frustrated (rightly or wrongly) by Voyager, Enterprise and the last 2-3 films, a reboot/reimagining is personally the only way you’ll ever see me go to see a Trek film again. Trek canon has become so straight-jacketing in the last 10 years or so that you take your life into your hands if you try to tell a different type of story in the established format. (Books and comics are more successful at this because, not being considered canon, no one really cares what they do so they can go to town.)
While the incredibly successful (on virtually every level imaginable) revival of Doctor Who as a continuation and not a reimagining/reboot shows that it IS possible to continue with a series with massive back history, it worked in that instance because Who, thanks to its format, allows for things like alternate timelines and playing fast and furious with established canon, while maintaining constant continuity. Star Trek, OTOH is a more reality-grounded series, and as such it can’t do that. So instead of following the Doctor Who model, Abrams and his team are instead following the model set by Battlestar Galactica’s acclaimed revival and the rebooting of James Bond with Casino Royale, which is possibly the most critically acclaimed Bond film of all time.
So what we’re going to see is a new Star Trek that still follows Roddenberry’s vision, but tells the story again from scratch. And I think that is the only way people will accept new actors playing Kirk and Spock. And for people who have soured on the franchise to come back. And for the new blood the franchise needs to survive to discover that Star Trek is actually good.
So in resposne to Reptileboy, I think we should embrace this change, allow the 1966-2005 franchise to be retired — it had a terrific run and will continue on in novels, comics, and increasingly-popular fan productions — and let a new Star Trek era begin.
I still say “Star TRACK — Starring DOCTOR Spock” would be the more appropriate title for the next film. Either that or “Star Track: The Gooseneck Years”.
Admit it! Touch it! Love it!! Worship it!!! Bow down before it!!!
Worship the Gooseneck!!!!
Spock wakes up, he hears the shower running! He jumps out of bed runs over to the stall. He then pulls back the curtain To find James Kirk still Alive!
“The Fans don’t know what they want,
we know what’s good for them.” - Leonard Nimoy circa 1986
Nimoy owns you, he had it figured out 21 years ago. Read the last 131 posts, you talk about prophetic intuition.
Go Spock, you intuitive bastard you.
#132
I am so tired of people wanting this movie to “fix” Generations. Can’t we just have a straightforward, entertaining Trek movie? If Kirk/Shatner must be in it, can’t he just be pre-Generations? Why do all the jumping through hoops?
Keep it simple… give me good Trek. No more nexus-ribbons or time travels back to San Francisco in a smelly Bird of Prey, or reviving the dead.
Are people forgetting that with the exception of “5 years out there, dealing with unknowns like this one…” you would have never known Star Trek-The Motion Picture was in anyway connected with a television series called Star Trek, it was an entirely self-contained, pocket adventure not dependent or relying on anything before, or anything after, and you know what, for all of it’s lukewarm reception by fans, it by FAR made the most fundage of any Trek film to date, actually, it’s B.O. totals nearing 200 million adjusted for inflation were literally Twice almost three times several of the other films combined.
A modernizing of a concept isn’t a cardinal sin, on the contrary, if you want something to transcend time and be relevant you HAVE to flavor it for every subsequent generation.
Now, if you prefer Trek to be reserved to the National archives and collect dust as a relic of a bygone era, that’s fine, but ultimately elitist and selfish.
Star Trek is an important enough idea and property, at least to me, to be shared and extrapolated on generationally.
Every single fictional literary and film intellectual property that has transcended it’s original time, and become cultural phenomenons, has been to some extent modernized and re-imagined to a modern audience.
Why do you think we know about Frankenstien? Or Sherlock Holmes? Or Dracula? Or Conan The Barbarian CROM!
I’m 33, these properties were WELL before my time. Yet they have been interpreted contemporarily, and the original source material is still there to capture the imagination, but the original hook 8 out of 10 times was NOT the original source.
If it wasn’t for Arnold, John Milius, and James Earl Jones, you people wouldn’t even know who Conan the Barbarian was, I sure as hell wouldn’t, and I’m a fairly literary oriented individual, yet without the film I wouldn’t have glanced twice at one of the much earlier novels.
It’s the same with Star Trek. It shouldn’t be encapsulated into an era and forgotten, it’s entirely too important.
So if kids today growing up need a Matt Damon as a hook, or a spiffy Enterprise, whatever, to be introduced to these wonderful characters and wonderful important concept, that we MAKE it in the future, that humanity doesn’t destroy itself, God dammit let them do it and be proud of it.
At LEAST it’s Captain Kirk , Mister Spock, and the starship Enterprise again, so they have at least gotten that much right.
I think a very fundamental issue is being missed here by a majority of people.
It’s been 40 years, that’s two generations, going on 3. The fact we are sitting here discussing a new Star Trek film, ESPECIALLY with Captain Kirk and Mr Spock and the starship Enterprise, means this creation and idea is now transcending time and becoming a generational myth, akin to the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, whatever. It means Star Trek has evolved beyond the sum of it’s individual parts and the IDEA itself has achieved a timeless quality, hey God dammit, theres a ship in the 23rd century from Earth with a captain named Kirk that goes out and explores things, and he has a friend from the planet Vulcan named Spock, etc etc.
Look at the bigger picture here.
Yo @128, have you tried inverse phasing? (I seem to recall that term a few times)
I hope this is a good movie. I loved the original series. It was really cheesy at times, and full cliches and over acting (mostly by you-know-who). But it was more fun to watch than any of the others. All I want is a fun movie with a good story that isn’t too dark, too earnest or too wierd. How hard is that?
Oh, and I think Matt Damon would be a big mistake.
“I don’t know how you make ‘Star Trek’ without a starship…You have to trek through the stars, so you need a ship for that.”
Did they so called experts ever heard about DS9?!
DS9 didn’t go anywhere ratings wise until it started going somewhere with the Defiant, so yes, in reality you sort of need mobility via spaceship.
One more thing. If they are going to do an early Kirk and Spock movie, will the women have to wear those ridiculous mini-skirts, or will they have uniforms closer to those in the two pilot episodes?
Sadly, the era of TOS has long passed, at least for me…
I know that when this new movie arrives in theaters next year I will be disappointed, even if it’s a great movie. It will be the same feeling I had watching the Star Trek TNG movies from years past. Yes, it’s still Star Trek, but it’s just not the same.
I really want the next movie to bring back the joy and excitment of watching the original series as a kid, but I know that’s being a bit selfish and totally unrealistic.
I know they won’t make a new Star Trek movie just to satisify die hard TOS fans like myself, and even if they did, Doohan and Kelly are gone now and it just wouldn’t be the same without them.
The original series is now part of television history, but I can’t help but wish there were some unreleased and newly discovered TOS episodes that we never saw. Now that would be exciting!
Trek is so much more than TOS now, and the studio has to try to satisfy the desires of all Trek fans, and hopefully bring in new fans at the same time. That won’t be easy, but I hope they can pull it off.
For myself, the best thing to happen to trek in a long time are these newly remastered episodes. This project has been very controversial for some fans, but for me it has really rekinkled my interest in Star Trek again.
As noted earlier in this thread, many younger Star Trek fans find TOS to be an “old farts” show, with crappy special effects and cheap looking sets. I guess that’s not surprising, being the original show was made twenty to thirty years before younger fans were even born!
But for this “old fart,” the original series IS Star Trek, and everything that came after the original show, including the TOS movies, pales in comparison.
Mike :o
Wait, wait, did you just use the words “women”, and “ridiculous mini-skirts” in the same sentence????? As if that’s a bad thing somehow?
Oh Lord, it’s worse than I feared in here.
Since no one else bothered to do it, here are my definitions of the words “reboot,” “remake,” “re-tooling,” and “re-imagining,” with examples of each.
Reboot: Previous franchise history is expelled. Story starts over from Square One. Characters may be added or dropped. Names, races, genders, plotlines will likely all be changed to some degree.
Examples: the new Battlestar Galactica, Casino Royale
Remake: Basic characters and plotlines remain in place, but the plotline will likely take some significantly different paths. Uses earlier franchise history as a “launching point” only.
Examples: Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball. The Wicker Man with Nicholas Cage was a remake of The Wicker Man with Edward Woodward.
Re-Imagining: Similar to a reboot, but more extreme, re-imagining implies that the new creative team intends to use only the name of the original franchise and nothing else. All new characters will be introduced and the plot will be entirely new.
Examples: Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes was a re-imagining of the original POTA film.
Re-Tooling: Characters and concepts remain the same, though new actors may fill familiar roles. Production design is updated, but borrows liberally from previously established concepts. The term “New and Improved” best applies here.
Examples: The James Bond franchise is perhaps the best example of this. The New Doctor Who could also be considered a re-tooling. In Trek, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” is essentially a re-tooling of “The Cage.”
Trek XI will most likely be a “re-tooling.” The production design will use concepts from TOS, but the look and function of things will be updated. For example, the bridge will still be round, with the captain’s chair and helm and navigation facing the main viewscreen. All the station controls and screens will reflect a more modern technology. They may even decide to fix the much-debated “turbo-lift door” problem. The railing surrounding the lower section will be there, but it may not be red (sorry, guys ;-) ). Oh, and the corridors and rooms will have ceilings for a change.
The characters will all remain the same races and genders we’re familiar with. No one will be turning into a woman (or a man) unexpectedly, unless the storyline calls for it :-) .
The unforms will keep their essential design, but they’ll probably go through a slight style update, especially the female unforms. Mini-skirts and go-go boots just won’t cut it nowadays. Expect to see female characters wearing slacks or A-line skirts such as those worn by female officers in today’s military.
The Enterprise will retain all of her wonderful design elements, but a lot more detail will likely be added to give her a sense of scale and function. Nothing overly ornate or improper, but in close shots we’ll see details we’ve never seen before.
The big changes will come in the areas of visual and sound effects, and in set lighting. The visual effects will be totally new, of course. No freeze frames to fire hand phasers and the transporter effect will probably be changed as well. They’ll jettison all but the most memorable sound effects (like the red alert claxon) in favor of new sound design. The lighting on the sets will be more natural and functional. No wild splashes of purple or bright green light on the corridor walls, for instance.
I base these suppositions on current filmmaking techniques and a knowledge of Team Abrams previous TV and film work. Nothing that has been reported about this film so far leads me to believe otherwise. Until we start seeing photos of the film in production, of course, it’s all up in the air, but I beg all of you not to let your wild suppositions get the better of you.
Have faith. Star Trek is on it’s way back.
No purple or green mood lights on the sets??? That shit is the last straw, i’m not taking it anymore, BOYCOTT.
I think it is a lazy and unimaginative writer who finds himself constrained by the continuity of a series. I know Star Trek has had its fair share of problems in regard continuity versus story ideas, but continuity is not the handcuff’s it is portrayed. In many respects, continuity has added to the richness of Star Trek, and provided writers and fans with new ideas and tangents to explore.
To do a Battlestar Galactica style reimagining on Star Trek would be a disaster. Face it, Battlestar Galactica maybe a critical favourite, but amongst viewers, it does not engage. What made it a good choice for Galactica to be remade, was the fact the original had faded heavily from memory, and was only recollected for its supposed campness and being a Star Wars rip off.
Star Trek has a inbuilt audience awareness. It may not be at the same heights as before, but it was stellar only a decade ago. And most people have watched Star Trek in some form or another. So to change is so rapidly would only cause the ire of fans, and bewilder the majority of fans. And like Galactica, the remake would only appeal to those fans who are tired with the original.
Well I am not. And I think the majority of fans, both vocal and silent wish to see a continuation of the Star Trek saga that both respects and enhances the franchise.
The weight being placed behind the movie by Paramount is to be welcomed, although if Star Trek had been given better budgets in the past, it would not have to rely so heavily on brand recognition and die hard fans going to the cinema a number of times.
I think I am begining to understand the feelings of those TOS fans back when TNG was about to come on air. It was a new crew, untested and unknown. Some embraced it, others shunned it. Some continue to do so to this day, happy to believe that Star Trek IS only The Original Series. I used to think this was slightly stupid, however, being a fan of all of what Star Trek has been the past 40 years, yes I am concerned, as they were, that this new Star Trek is a step in the wrong direction.
Some fans may want a Star Trek show like BSG. Why? Is BSG not good enough on its own! Why should Star Trek follow another show, one that in the space of its third season has lost large groups of viewers, and which has failed to ignite with the mass audience despite its high profile presence.
Star Trek may no longer be king of the scifi pile, but it shouldn’t try to be something it is not, simply so fans and viewers can have the smug sense that this show is the coolest, grittiest, best show on TV.
Being an “Old School” Trek fan, I can say that I’m excited, but don’t really believe any of the hype. We’re more than a year out from seeing this movie and that doesn’t include delays, set-backs, etc. ParaBorg could drop this like a hot potato at any time.
Aside from the fact that there is no official casting, or anything else tangible, for that matter, to sink my teeth into…. I’m really looking forward to this movie. The mere fact that the killer B’s will have nothing to do with it, is a major plus. Also, looking at who is involved, gives me some sense of relief. It could not possibly be worse than Nemesis, or Enterprise, or Insurrection, but then again, I’ve said that before.
I love the fact that they are going to appeal to a broader audiance. I’ve been saying that was neccesary for over a year. “Get away from “Social Utopian” BS and make a movie that the masses can love and that the ole school fans can love. Stay away from the left wing, fringe element and you’ll do OK. Start preaching, like TNG did and you’ll lose box office.
And before the liberals start having hissey fits… You know I’m right. I’ve predicted several things over the last few years. Did you ever think I might know something you don’t?
Trust me, this movie is going to work and the results will astound you. This will be the best Trek movie, since TWOK, if it stays on track.
http://www.compositecreationsltd.com/index.html
Oh Lord here we go again.
I hate to burst your bubble but, the very IDEA of STar Trek is liberal, because it is about VERY NON-conservative things like acceptance, love, tolerance, patience, understanding, etc etc.
People hinge on to the militaristic qualities of Star Trek as some sort of allegory of conservatism when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
Captain Kirk didn’t go around launching pre-emptive wars on third world planets to rob them of their natural resources and occupy their worlds under the pretense of federation democracy.
We saw that episode, and it was called “Mirror, Mirror”, and they were the BAD guys when they did that remember??.
Look I like the spaceships and battles and Kirks fights too just like the next guy, but only fictionally, not in the real world.
Kirk never started fights or gladly went into battle, he finished fights, and if you notice carefully, mourned every single solitary soul lost under his command, he took it personally. Kirk didn’t send you to fight or die, he went WITH you.
That’s inspired leadership.
Josh T. Everything you post I agree with 100%
Buckaroohawk where did you get your definitions and examples from? You most certainly nailed everything on the head. I myself can not wait to see all those advancements you speak of implemented. I would like to see some minor computer sounds implemented on the bridge like in Enterprise. If you listen carefully classic sounds are there when they press buttons.
Thanks Aaron R, I just know a little bit about Star Trek and history that’s all. No, actually, I know quite a bit, no sense being modest.
But more importantly, I know all about causation, correlation, and especially when correlation does NOT equal causation.
O.T. what is your profession? Josh T.
Educational background Psychology and statistics, current career Government.
So yes i see the ineffectual inner-workings of Bureaucracy first-hand.
JOSH T.
Where do you get your idea that acceptance, tolerance, love and patience are feeling that only liberals feel? That’s awfully close minded of such a liberal thinker.
Todays “Liberals” are the biggest haters on the planet. They hate Consevatives, Christians, Morals, Rules, Laws, the rule of law, each other, etc….etc…etc…..
My God man. The lefties hate Billary, because she votes for the war and they hate the cross, yet stand up for pedophiles. Liberals kill me. I have the best belly laughs when Bill O Reilly pins one down and they sputter and stutter and stamer and cannot answer the simplest of questions.
Trek is liberal? Go back and watch “The way to Eden.”
Roddenberry was a Cap and a man of war, he served in the AirCore. Kirk was a womanizer and all the little girlie trek fans try to come up with some weird Slash crap abput him and Spock. What a Joke.
Let’s get real, the liberal and left of center that Trek got, the more it lost viewers. Trek liberal. Indeed.
Accepting and multicultural….Maybe, but liberal, in todays sense… No!
Red Bridge Railing™
One Turbolift to the Bridge©
No Bathroom ®
Red Bridge Railing™
Shatner™
Red Bridge Railing™
Stanky McFibberich Law©
Josh you seem very well spoken and very well educated. I am a teacher and I don’t watch my spelling as closely as you! BTW all the negative in here about trek xi is painful but you know I think the bottom line is that if done correctly they will bring in a lot of fans with this new film and I will be right there with them. If a small minority is unhappy so be it. I will no longer waste my energies rattling heads with people online trying to explain things to people who just plain refuse to understand. You know the saying you can’t teach an old dog new tricks it is true of humans sometimes as well. It is sad because what Star Trek stands for is the human capacity for change and that good things can happen. Not that they always do but they can. People tend to get to caught up in the rhetoric of there own past and illusions of what once was to be able to embrace the possibility that this new movie has the serious potential of being something beautiful. As Q said in my all time fav line: “If you can’t take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It’s not safe out here. It’s wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it’s not for the timid.” … You know sometimes you have to get your hands dirty a little bit in life to get something good to happen and I think this is an example. Some fans will hate the new film and oh well. If it does what is needed and draws in new fans that is all that matters in the long run because in 40 yrs the fans from 40 years ago will be dead and it is the generation of today that needs to connect with the entity that in its entirety is Star Trek. I will not debate with people on this new movie any more if at all possible for one reason and one reason only… A few years ago I rescued an 8 year old beagle (my fav dog) from the pound and loved it very much. I sat there with it on the floor for two weeks using food and every other thing I could conjure trying to teach it to shake hands/paws however you view it. You know after to weeks of nothing I gave up and came to understand the meaning of “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”. Sadly, as an educator I have even seen this with a few of my students in the middle school level. The people who are continuously being negative towards change in this site are like my beloved beagle Trip (yes all my pets have trek related names my dog now is Q my cat Moogie) anyway the people are like my beloved beagle Trip they will not change there ways for anything and I have lost the capacity to sustain debating with them. I like these people like I liked my dog but there is no need to continue the debacle.
Best,
Aaron Ringewold
Writer/Director
Stage and Film
P.S. I am not saying you are dogs or trying to blatantly insult.
I am a liberal christian.
Josh T,
I laught that you think you know so much about Trek. I’ve been watching it for fourty years. Tell me some more, about how much you know.
LOL. Govt. Figures. Anyone who works for the Govt. can’t get a job any where else. I had a GS 12 rating when I got out of the service and that thought of working with a bunch of sillyvillians made me sick. Govt workers are worse than union employees. Believe me, that did not help your case.
If you are trying to impress, you are not.
I’ve worked in varied fields and have been an instructor myself. Had to get out of it. Didn’t pay enough and was full of beaurocrats.
Trek Liberal HA! Starfleet was a martial and military branch of an effective version of the UN, note I say Effective.
I’m guessing you and Arron are the same person.
lol same person my arse
Kirk Trek
this is not a political forum, stop trying to turn it into one, stop attacking other posters and stop making accusations of spoofing
…
let me make this clearer for you all…stop derailing things with personal attacks and poltical bs…stay on topic and not personal or take it somewhere else
AHHHHH the ole delete button.
Yes, well, I’m looking forward to Trek XI and the more I hear, lately, the better it sounds. I think it’s great they are going to appeal to the masses, as well as take care of canon. Something the other series and eps should have done.
Anthony I am sorry I did not intend for anything to be a personal attack. As I stated in my post I think it better from this point on to give my oppinion of your sites (which has been my homepage for two weeks) news and not get trapped in needless debates. I love when you guys get me this news before anyone else your site is awesome. I know this is off topic and you can delete it if you want I just wanted to give a apology.
Aaron
Drop the politics. I don’t care who’s side you’re on. Here it comes across as nothing but trolling, especially when it comes out of nowhere in the middle of a thread like this. The rest of us respect this rule. Why can’t you?
I’ll never understand.
How about a green bridge railing, like “The Cage?”
Red Bridge Railing™
One Turbolift to the Bridge©
No Bathroom ®
Red Bridge Railing™
Shatner™
Red Bridge Railing™
Stanky McFibberich Law©
I wouldn’t mind being edited, if it was fair and balanced, but it seems like every other trek site. The liberal comments stay and the conservative comments get deleted.
“163. Gsmarty Pants - March 9, 2007
Drop the politics. I don’t care who’s side you’re on. Here it comes across as nothing but trolling, especially when it comes out of nowhere in the middle of a thread like this. The rest of us respect this rule. Why can’t you?
I’ll never understand. “
A reimagining is exactly what the franchise needs. Not a reboot (which, for some odd reason, everyone thinks that’s what was stated or implied when it wasn’t), but a new, innovative look to the universe that will revitalize and practically reinvent the franchise while staying true to what has past. It’s a difficult task and I can’t wait to see how Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and the gang pull it off.
As Anthony said above, people are focusing to much on the word “reimagining” and have blown it way out of proportion. While it may have been a poor choice of words given that terms association with R. D. Moore’s Battlestar Galactica, nothing in the interview or in the original report even suggested a reboot (in the “reset button” sense of the word).
Of course, reports from news services other than trekmovie.com certainly didn’t help matters. To quote IGN, “…MTV has managed to confirm today what many fans have expected (and hoped for): that the new film will be a reboot of the franchise rather than simply a prequel…” Not only did they get the Trek XI story wrong, they also mistakenly implied that most Trek fans want a complete reboot. Does anyone know why IGN continues to deliver news? They seem to be wrong about 95% of the time. With them and other news sources reporting false info like that, it’s no wonder Trek fans jumped to conclusions. If someone, somewhere reports something regarding Trek XI, I suggest coming here first to confirm it before taking it as “fact”.
Anyway, enough about that. How about Dan Lindel as cinematographer? Not a surprising choice, give his association with Abrams on M:I III, but he’s a good pick. I liked his work on Enemy of the State, Domino, and, of course, M:I III. $20 says Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey are assigned as film editors. :D April Webster will probably be the casting director, and Colleen Atwood costume designer. That would pretty much take care of the main behind-the-scenes folk, and they would be fine choices, in my opinion. Again, obvious … but fine.
As for the film being more action-oriented and starship-based — isn’t that what they said about Nemesis? :P Seriously, though, if Abrams says there’s more action, I’m inclined to believe it. Still, we’ll wait and see, I suppose.
I see the Matt Damon thing is still persisting. Kurtzman kinda-sorta has my attitude. I wouldn’t call my self “the hugest” Damon fan (is “hugest” even a word?), nor would I call him being cast as Kirk “great” — not until I’ve actually seen the performance, anyway. As I stated before, I’m all for lesser known actors in the roles… but whatever floats J.J.’s boat. :)
And then, of course, there’s the possible (and likely) title: if this film is titled simply as Star Trek, that would be so frickin’ awesome. It would cause some article naming issues at Memory Alpha (actually, it’s already caused some problems), but that can be easily dealt with. If the title remains Star Trek, it will serve as a great testament to the direction this is going as a Trek film.
Okay, I’m done with my rant. Carry on…
Let’s see, the Damon thing has been in the air since before the August/September conventions. I was in Vegas at the 40th and it was mentioned there. That’s quite awhile to be just a rumor. I think they are just playing it close to the vest.
Frankly, a Sinise, Damon, Brody movie would do wonders at the box office.
Paramount can no longer just pander to us fans. Having said that, I’m very much looking forward to this movie. I’ve heard a few things from inside HW that make me just quiver with anticipation. Of course none of it is verified, yet, but it is very intriguing.
I really believe Paramount is trying to do it right. The fact is, there have been many online polls, over the last year and someof them are started by insiders. Paramount is trying to appeal to the fans and to a broader audiance.
I have no problem with that.
With the right writing and direction, it can’t loose.
Every time I watch CSY NY, I see Dr. McCoy. Trust me.
Kirk Trek@167
I was aware of the Damon rumors (and yes, they’re still just rumors) and how long they have existed; I was trying to