Orci & Kurtzman: Trek XI To Be ‘Reimagined’ Starship Adventure Titled ‘Star Trek’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

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.

 

 click here for the full interview.

Comments

1. Light Year Models - March 8, 2007

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.

2. doubleofive - March 8, 2007

Film simply called “Star Trek”.

Sweet.

3. doubleofive - March 8, 2007

“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.

4. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

I think it’s a “reboot” in the same sense Star Trek-The Motion Picture was a re-imagining.

This is good.

5. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

6. trekmaster - March 8, 2007

Maybe they are going to re-imagine Star Trek: The Motion Picture… ;-p

7. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

8. hitch1969© - March 8, 2007

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=

9. big E - March 8, 2007

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.

10. trekmaster - March 8, 2007

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.

11. John N. - March 8, 2007

#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.

12. James - March 8, 2007

Count me as one who is not interested in a re-imagined or rebooted Trek.
I will stick with the ORIGINAL and Best.

13. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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!

14. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

I expect royalties you know for the invention of a new term ;)

15. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

#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.”

16. Al - March 8, 2007

Ready to love it, but not with Damon

17. ozy - March 8, 2007

Rebot of star trek franchise. I’am angry.
I hate reboots
That movie i will not watch.
Trek XI wont be real star trek

18. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

19. CW - March 8, 2007

“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.

20. Stanky McFibberich - March 8, 2007

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.

21. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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?

22. hitch1969© - March 8, 2007

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=

23. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

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)

24. StillKirok - March 8, 2007

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.

25. Lao3D - March 8, 2007

“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.

26. ozy - March 8, 2007

I hate rebot concept. This guys will destroy star trek franchise. That movie wont be tight up whit others star trek series and movies.

27. Don Corleone - March 8, 2007

40 years of history down the toilet?

28. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

No, hopefully only the last 15

29. Anthony Pascale - March 8, 2007

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

30. James - March 8, 2007

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.

31. ozy - March 8, 2007

Rebot down!!!!

Make real prequel Star trek movie ( real new part of star trek canon )

32. Anthony Pascale - March 8, 2007

ozy that is enough…you are just spamming…stop it or be removed

33. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

34. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

35. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

“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.”

36. Captain Pike - March 8, 2007

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!

37. Duane Boda - March 8, 2007

# 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.

38. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

39. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

40. Driver - March 8, 2007

If the movie bombs(I hope not!), it could get rebooted again.. Doh!.. until they get it right.

41. Windsor Bear - March 8, 2007

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.

42. CIC - March 8, 2007

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.

43. Lao3D - March 8, 2007

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.’

44. JoeB - March 8, 2007

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.

45. ozy - March 8, 2007

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.

46. Anthony Pascale - March 8, 2007

star trek xi is not a reboot of canon and repeating that over and over is both silly and spamming/trolling

47. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

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)

48. trekmaster - March 8, 2007

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…

49. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

“There’s no need to” references #45: ” I cant forget 40 years of established star trek canon.”

50. Sam Belil - March 8, 2007

#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.

51. Spirit - March 8, 2007

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.

52. Sean4000 - March 8, 2007

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?

53. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

#52: There will be protest, period. If they were too freaked out by protests, they’d probably have stayed away from this franchise.

54. gary - March 8, 2007

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.

55. Adam Cohen - March 8, 2007

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.

56. Nelson - March 8, 2007

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.

57. JonBuck - March 8, 2007

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.

58. Spirit - March 8, 2007

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.

59. Sean4000 - March 8, 2007

#58. Agreed. So be it.

60. David - March 8, 2007

ok…now i have reason to be nervous…

61. John Pemble - March 8, 2007

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.

62. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

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.

63. TheVamp - March 8, 2007

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.

64. Londo - March 8, 2007

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.

65. CW - March 8, 2007

“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.

66. Mr. Atoz - March 8, 2007

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!

67. Mike - March 8, 2007

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.

68. Luke Montgomery - March 8, 2007

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.

69. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

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

70. laserlover2254 - March 8, 2007

There’s another name for Technobabble… It’s called Bullshit.

71. DEMODE - March 8, 2007

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?

72. laserlover2254 - March 8, 2007

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

73. Craig - March 8, 2007

This is what you get if you arse lick JJ and Co the whole franchise flushed down the crapper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

74. Redshirt - March 8, 2007

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..

75. trekmaster - March 8, 2007

Well, I don’t think that Shatner and Nimoy would have signed if the script wasn’t ok.

76. Mr. Mike - March 8, 2007

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.

77. Michael Appleton - March 8, 2007

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!

78. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

I have to say I’m satisfied with this news.

79. Matt Wright - March 8, 2007

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.

80. Michael Appleton - March 8, 2007

#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!!

81. Matt Wright - March 8, 2007

#80 — LOL, certainly seems to be true of Shatner

82. Anthony Pascale - March 8, 2007

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

83. Plum - March 8, 2007

‘Reimagined’ Starship Adventure Titled ‘Star Trek’

My trekkie dreams have come true. :)

84. trekmaster - March 8, 2007

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!

85. Nelson - March 8, 2007

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!

86. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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.

87. CmdrR - March 8, 2007

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.

88. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

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.

89. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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.

90. TomBot2007 - March 8, 2007

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

91. Chris - March 8, 2007

Star Trek is not about technobabble it is what modern trek drowned itself in because they had no stories.

92. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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.

93. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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.

94. Adam Cohen - March 8, 2007

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.

95. Rick Sternbach - March 8, 2007

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.

96. Xai - March 8, 2007

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

97. Adam Cohen - March 8, 2007

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.

98. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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?!?!?!

99. Adam Cohen - March 8, 2007

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.

100. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

I like Russell T. Davies’ approach to technobabble on “Doctor Who:” You defeat a plastic-controlling alien with “anti-plastic.” :lol:

101. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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).

102. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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.

103. Matt Wright - March 8, 2007

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.

104. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

#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.

105. EvilDrPuma - March 8, 2007

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.

106. Dennis Bailey - March 8, 2007

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.”

107. billg - March 8, 2007

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?

108. Matt Wright - March 8, 2007

#107 and I think that’s what is being done, I believe that they are project consultants, nothing more.

109. Lets hate Paramount - March 8, 2007

I think bottom line is this, if you liked The Island or Transformers you will like the new Star Trek

110. billg - March 8, 2007

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?

111. petitspock - March 8, 2007

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.

112. Canonista - March 8, 2007

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.

113. Axinar - March 8, 2007

How about a movie with the “Pike” crew – that seemed to be a little “darker” period of Star Trek history.

114. Alex Rosenzweig - March 8, 2007

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. ;)

115. Canonista - March 8, 2007

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

116. Adam Cohen - March 8, 2007

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.

117. Baltar, Gaius Baltar - March 8, 2007

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.

118. Baltar, Gaius Baltar - March 8, 2007

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…

119. Gsmarty Pants - March 8, 2007

#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.

120. Viking - March 8, 2007

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.

121. mrregular - March 8, 2007

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!

122. VOODOO - March 8, 2007

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.

123. Chris Roberts - March 8, 2007

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.

124. yo - March 8, 2007

#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 …

125. Driver - March 8, 2007

Name it STAR TREK
PHOENIX

126. T Negative - March 8, 2007

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.

127. Reptileboy - March 8, 2007

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.

128. yo - March 8, 2007

#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.

129. Orbitalic - March 8, 2007

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.

130. Alex - March 8, 2007

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.

131. Gooseneck Viewer - March 8, 2007

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!!!!

132. Walt - March 8, 2007

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!

133. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

“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.

134. Orbitalic - March 8, 2007

#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.

135. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

136. Chris - March 8, 2007

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.

137. Archer - March 8, 2007

“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?!

138. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

139. Chris - March 8, 2007

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?

140. MichaelJohn - March 8, 2007

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

141. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

142. Buckaroohawk - March 8, 2007

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.

143. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

No purple or green mood lights on the sets??? That shit is the last straw, i’m not taking it anymore, BOYCOTT.

144. Reptileboy - March 8, 2007

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.

145. Mysterious Stranger KirkTrekModeler Captain James B. Quirk CC - March 8, 2007

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

146. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

147. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

Josh T. Everything you post I agree with 100%

148. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

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.

149. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

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.

150. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

O.T. what is your profession? Josh T.

151. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

Educational background Psychology and statistics, current career Government.

152. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 8, 2007

So yes i see the ineffectual inner-workings of Bureaucracy first-hand.

153. Kirk Trek Quirk Stranger. - March 8, 2007

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!

154. Stanky McFibberich - March 8, 2007

Red Bridge Railing™
One Turbolift to the Bridge©
No Bathroom ®
Red Bridge Railing™
Shatner™
Red Bridge Railing™

Stanky McFibberich Law©

155. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

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.

156. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

I am a liberal christian.

157. Kirk Trek Quirk Stranger. - March 8, 2007

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.

158. Aaron R - March 8, 2007

lol same person my arse

159. Anthony Pascale - March 8, 2007

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

160. Anthony Pascale - March 8, 2007

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

161. Kirk Trek Quirk Stranger. - March 9, 2007

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.

162. Aaron R - March 9, 2007

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

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.

164. Kirk Trek Quirk Stranger. - March 9, 2007

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©

165. Kirk Trek Quirk Stranger. - March 9, 2007

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. “

166. ChuckAmuck - March 9, 2007

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…

167. Kirk Trek Quirk Stranger. - March 9, 2007

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.

168. ChuckAmuck - March 9, 2007

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 be sarcastic. I failed. I apologize. Of course, now that Kurtzman has made that comment (preceded by a “long pause”), many will see this as definitive evidence that Damon will be case. Obviously, that’s not the case, and until Damon or someone else is cast, that’s all it remains — a rumor.

I agree with you about Paramount. After Nemesis failed, I’m sure Paramount wants to do whats right as badly as we want them to do what’s right. Abrams and his team will do good with this film, I’m sure. I can’t wait for this movie to open.

I’m not sure what show you’re watching, though. Every time I watch CSI: NY, I see dead people. ;) Seriously, though, Greg Kinnear would be a fine choice for McCoy, assuming A.) the character’s even in the film, B.) the character is seen at a point in his late 40s/early 50s, and C.) the actor is willing to do it. Being the star of a hit TV show would take priority, after all. ;)

169. Mysterious Quirk Trek Stranger - March 9, 2007

168. ChuckAmuck – March 9, 2007

C’mon, you can’t see how much Sinise looks like DeForest Kelley?

“My God man…”

:D

170. Korner - March 9, 2007

Nice to hear that Dan Mindel will be director of photography. I like his work on “The Skeleton Key”

171. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 9, 2007

#157
Sure Mysterious Kirk Trek, I can enlighten you on Star Trek, you have but to ask, and since you did, what is it specifically you would care to know?

I’m not going to engage in the Liberal/conservative debate, it get’s tired I’ve been doing it for 7 years now and it seems people are FINALLY beginning to wake up so, that’s neither here nor there, it’s pretty clear your posts and thoughts speak infinately more clearly about where you are coming from than my comments ever could, which is satisfying in a way since it saves me needless work.
But I digress, would you care to know production history, such as what is included in “The making of Star Trek,” or perhaps you would enjoy hearing about extrapolated fan notions on the Trek universe, such as that which is included in any number of Bantam or Pocket books, or perhaps even Gold Key comics, or Marvel, or DC comics?
Would you care to know actors personal anecdotes as far as their long affiliation with Trek, or perhaps you would enjoy hearing production anecdotes such as Herb Solow, Robert Justman, D.C. Fontana, Roddenberry, Coon or even Matt Jefferies perceptions on his inspiration for the Starship Enterprise?
It’s possible you would enjoy hearing about Trek minutiae, or even perhaps Jesco Von Putkamers contribution to Star Trek- The Motion Picture, or even Harold Livingstons anecdotes on writing the screenplay?
Being a former Navy man evidently, perhaps you would enjoy hearing some of the technical specifics about Constitution Class vessels or their contemporaries, or perhaps even alien cruiser designs such is found in the Klingon D-7 class or Romulan Bird of Prey? or even the traded Romulan Stormbirds obtained via technological exchange with the Romulans during their brief treaty with the Klingons circa 2268?
So I ask you pointedly smartass, what is it exactly you wish to be enlightened about?
I will most CERTAINLY be inclined to satiate your curiosity.

172. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 9, 2007

Or perhaps you wish to hear about the variations in the Mego Star Trek line produced in the 70′s? That’s a possibility.
Or perhaps the variations on all AMT produced Trek models, or Galoob figures? Or Mego Star Trek- The Motion Picture 12′ and 4′ inch line introduced to compete with kenners Star Wars figures?
No No, It’s the Southbend electronic U.S.S Enterprise you wish to hear about correct? The one produced in ’79 to commemorate The Motion Picture? Perhaps the Mcdonalds Star Trek meal which launched the Happy meal franchise?

173. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 9, 2007

No? I get it now, you wish for me to tell you about the Taco Bell Search for Spock collectors glasses released in ’84.

or perhaps it’s the simple cultural influence and Trek references that have appeared over the years in other entertainment properties you wish to hear about?

No?

How about the Star Trek silly putty or paintable figurines released in conjunction with Star Trek – The Motion Picture?

No no, being a musician and piano player, let me articulate for you about the various Goldsmith, Horner Trek themes including the keys they are played in. Or even Alexander Courage?

174. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 9, 2007

Let me make it abundantly clear to you pal, and I’ll speak in simple words as to convey the point for all to see, do NOT question or challenge me on anything pertaining to Star Trek. EVER. You will most assuredly get burned.

175. Dom - March 9, 2007

Hi guys! I’m on leave at the mo, so not checking in much.

The writers’ remarks sound like I imagined STXI would be. A new film, going back to basics, that ‘respects’ canon. Effectively, this ***can*** be a reboot, but because it’s a new story that is tied into core Trek mythology, die-hards can easily slot it into the old canon if they choose to.

Star Trek’s strange background, where the second pilot is already a good year into the five year mission and the series starts something like two years in means that there has never been a definitive ‘origin’ story: y’know, a ‘Superman sent away from Krypton’ or ‘Bruce Wayne’s parents get murdered.’

This film can both draw together threads from all the other Treks and launch things in a new direction. It can respect what has gone before, but given all these years of different productions, it has the benefit of hindsight. Indeed, it can be classic Star Trek, only more so.

I’ll be almost 34 by the time this film comes out, so I’m not going to wish the years away. However, the arrival of this film will,hopefully, connect me with watching TOS in my childhood. That’s something I’ll be happy to see. :)

176. ChuckAmuck - March 9, 2007

Mysterious Quirk Trek Stranger@169

As I said, Sinise would make a fine choice for McCoy.

Er, after having rechecked my reply, I realize I mistakenly said Greg Kinnear. I meant Gary Sinise, NOT Greg Kinnear. Sorry for the confusion there; I don’t know why I keep mixing up those two.

So, yes… Sinise would be a good McCoy, assuming all those points I pointed out above.

Greg Kinnear. Blah…

177. Smike van Dyke - March 9, 2007

How can you possibly stay true to the fanbase and reimagine the franchise? A movie that doesn’t take place in the established timeline is aggressively offensive to my feelings. Even if it was any good (writing, characters etc) it would still be no true Star Trek. A deliberate departure from established continuity / canon (and I’m not talking about minor continuity errors or “creative license”) disqualifies the movie as a good Star Trek movie. Full stop.

It may still be a good scifi flick. It may even be better than anything B&B had to offer. But I most certainly prefer the worst episode of VOY or ENT over a movie that irrepairably shatters the narrative coherence of the Star Trek universe, no matter how good or creative it might turn out.

Call me narrow-minded and fanboyish, who call themselves crazy fans of Trek are about to obliterate the very fabric of Trek itself. Reimagining, update, reboot? Come on, THIS day is far worse than February, 2, 2005…When ENT was cancelled, there was hope for Star Trek to return. Now, we’ve got a big bang to relaunch the universe.

But wait, there is more: biggest budget, most action of all movies (as if Nemesis didn’t have 55% of its screentime wasted for meaningless action!)…this movie is a bastard, a still-born failure and utter waste of budget. And no, I’m even not considering waiting to see the movie before I judge it. That would be considered fairness and decency.
But I reject being fair or decent towards people who are about to destroy everything I cared for the last 14 years.

Update or reimagine this! *worf firing a big phaser rifle at the Borg*

178. Baltar, Gaius Baltar - March 9, 2007

Goosenecks!?

Someone’s reprogrammed the replicator to produce the naughty cigarettes, haven’t they?

Bring on the miniskirts! Jeri Ryan as Nurse Chapel! C’mon! She’s got medical experience with the Doctor. Hell, cast Richard Picardo as McCoy, he’s a hoot anyways!

Try Tricia Helfer as the Security Chief the Big E never had! She looks nice in a miniskirt or less…

179. Baltar, Gaius Baltar - March 9, 2007

Also, Keeley Hazell walking back and forth with a tricorder in the background wearing the red miniskirt uniform would be just fine too. Thanks!

Try to cameo lots of famous sci-fi actors/actresses in the background on the grounds of Starfleet Academy. Elisabeth Sladen walking down the Academy hallway as a Professor would be uber cool!

And Matt Damon has do the Top Gun elevator scene with the supermodel instructor of his choice. :) Yeah! Nice!

180. Chris Pike - March 9, 2007

142. Buckaroohawk :

Exactly as my interpretation of what to expect from JJ’s version of Trek. Dr Who is a tremendously successful, great example of what can be done with the right approach and a caring for the original, as JJ and Russell T both have. Dr Who also had great hardware production design which was carefully, slightly enhanced with no change to the overall look – a similar approach to TOS Trek would be very effective and successful. Can’t wait!

181. Sam Belil - March 9, 2007

#177-You could NOT have said it any better. I think like most TOS fans originally excited. This “re-imagined” joke has more than taken the wind out of my sails. I do NOT plan on being in any movie theatres on Decembr 25th 2008!!!!!!!!!!!

182. Trekgeezer - March 9, 2007

I’ve been watching Star Trek for 40 years and I wish for once I could see an online discussion between fans that didn’t devolve into the juvenile.

I for one am looking forward to actually hearing something about this movie. These little interviews and snippets mean nothing until the production actually starts, so chill out. I love people who denounce something that doesn’t exist yet. I will wait and see what these guys come up with before making comments either negative or positive..

And as far as Trek canon goes, it has holes in it big enough to drive a Dyson Sphere through.

Please wait until you actually here what the movie will be like before you make negative (or positive) pronouncements about it.

183. Matt - March 9, 2007

Re-boot is the way to go. It’s the only way for Trek to survive.

Look at the comic-books. They are dying because they are riffing on continuity upon continuity. That’s why only adults read them and why readership is dwindling. Trek needs to strip itself down and start again.

We have to accept that Trek isn’t made for just us. It’s made to be mainstream. That’s what Roddenberry, Bennett, Piller, and Meyer intended.The other option is direct-to-DVD movies like Babylon 5 which pander to the fans only. No thanks. I for one don’t want a watered down cheap Trek. that only plays to the hard cores. I want a proper movie made by real film makers. That’s what we have on our hands now and I am delighted.

184. billg - March 9, 2007

#130 is right. Time to move on. Overly strict adherence to what has already been done results in movies that are just long TV episodes with all the characters behaving in absolutely predictable ways. Some fans may like that, but the public just yawns and says “Been there, seen that!”

If you’re going to do a TOS-era film, you need to bring in different actors. (Although Nimoy could play a convincing elder Spock, the notion of Shatner playing anything other than a rotund, long-retired and inactive Kirk strikes me as ridiculous. So, no shipboard drama for those two.)

Once you bring in new actors, all the dynamics change. Characters keep their personalities, but they have to be expressed by different actors. (Don’t look to Doctor Who here. The Doctor gets a new personality at each regeneration. Look,instead, to all the different actors who’ve played James Bond or Sherlock Holmes. Lots of canon, a consistently drawn character, whose traits are portrayed by different actors.)

As for changing the look of TOS-era hardware: Look, those sets were so cheap that I can barely manage to watch the reruns these days. And a lot of the acting had as much cardboard in it as the set. Except for Shatner’s ham, of course. Of course, tech and hardware in the new movie will look different. They’ve got a bigger bidget. You don’t expect them to make cheap ugly sets just to match cheap ugly sets from 40 years ago? Doesn’t mean they’ll redesign the Enterprise.

185. Alex Rosenzweig - March 9, 2007

>Re-boot is the way to go. It’s the only way for Trek to survive.

Actually, that’s the way to kill it, for good and all.

Truthfully, I have no comprehension of how continuity can be any sort of problem for decent writers. It serves far better as a source of ideas and inspiration than as the “straitjacket’ some of its detractors falsely claim it to be. (I’ve edited a Trekverse fanfic series for 20 years, with extremely tight continuity, and I can tell you that it poses NO obstacle to continued invention and creativity!)

Fortunately, despite MTV’s slanted reporting, Abrams and Co. seem to know that, too. Still and all, it’s not unreasonable to expect some upgrade to production design. After all, I don’t think anybody expects plywwod sets lit with grain-of-wheat bulbs on a multi-million dollar feature film, right? :)

But let’s take a look at an actual quote or two from the writers, not what MTV says they’re saying, since the two are rather different…

Kurtzman: “The challenge of the movie is to be 100 percent true to the fanbase but also to bring in a whole new group of people who’ve never seen ‘Trek’ before.”

Sure doesn’t sound like he pl;ans to throw things out that have already been established. ;)

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.”

Again, MTV’s “interpretive” comments notwithstanding, it sure reads like they’re very aware of keeping true to the Classic Trek style, while still upgrading it to play on movie screens four decades later, and he sure sounds ike he’s aware that it’s a challenging task for a designer.

Really, none of the stuff that folks are getting their knickers in a twist about seems to have come from Orci or Kurtzman. It’s MTV claiming what they said, but not providing quotes to support the claim. That said claims not only show MTV’s already stated bias, and contradict what everyone connected with the production has already said, just shows it to be dubious journalism.

It’d be interesting if some (perhaps, for example, this site?) could contact Orci and Kurtzman and/or Abrams, and ask just a couple of simple questions:

1] Is the plotline generally consistent with the Trekverse as it’s known? (Note that we are not asking what the plot is. They wouldn’t tell us, anyway. ;) )

2] Is it reasonable to assume that retaining the basic “look” of Trek, with “upgrades” to reflect advances in filmmaking, set design, and VFX tech since the 1960s, is a general goal of the film’s designers?

No interpreting, as MTV obviously has, just the questions and the answers. Probably would put a lot of sturm und drang to rest, assuming that Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman didn’t spend 20 minutes laughing at the questioner and saying, “Haven’t we already answered that???” >:)

186. billg - March 9, 2007

#185: Agreed. However, some folks seem to think that staying true to canon means never having a character do or say anything he or she hasn’t said or done before.

The truth is you can stay on the continuity path and still be innovative. You just need to make sure the story credibly explains why the character is behaving the way he is. Trek has been doing that for years in one obvious way: The actors got older, by decades. So, the characters they played changed, too, in realistic and credible ways. The TOS bridge crew moved on with their own careers and lives. The writers reassembled the crew for each movie.

A new movie, with established characters, gives writers a chance to depict events we’ve heard the characters talk about, but never seen. It gives writers a chance to put old characters in new and different situations.

If writers don’t do that, if they trot out established characters and bounce them around in formularic ways, then all that happens is that Paramount makes a 2-hour TOS episode with better sets and visuals. That may satisfy a tiny sliver of the population, but I can’t think of a reason anyone else would buy a ticket.

187. spsblue - March 9, 2007

One thing I’ve always tried to do is fit the broadest view possible into the Star Trek Universe, if it is Star trek, be it fan made, book or film I believe there is plenty of room in the multi-verse for it. It is just whether I’ll accept it as part of the timeline I consider to be the main one or not. But that won’t stop me watching it.

188. Chris Malley - March 9, 2007

I am an avid reader, but it is extremely rare that I post, and forgive me if parts don’t make sense, I am in a hurry. One thing that I see inherently in these boards; whether Trekweb, at TrekToday, TrekMovie, or ST.com, is pessimism. Maybe it’s because they were disappointed with Star Trek after TNG, but you must admit both VOY and ENT had its moments. However, I also agree that the writing wasn’t as good. I could list a thousand reasons of what it might be, but I just always found that depressing mood irritating. But now I’m mad. STXI has barely gotten the greenlight, there is a totally new team (B&B are gone, which I believe was a huge requirement for them), and now they are complaining again, after two interviews. What gives?! How can ST ever be revived when the fans tell others two years before the movie comes out that “Oh, by the way, I love ST, but don’t go see the movie coming out in 2008, it will suck!” From a fan to a fan, optimism is a characteristic of Star Trek….learn from the greatest TV franchise in history…please.

189. Jim J - March 9, 2007

Has anyone ever noticed that this site is at it’s worst when someone brings politics into the conversation? Trek is for ALL, in my opinion.

Anyway, on to the story itself…I think that if you read what these men really said, we have something great to look forward to, I think we’ll end up with a hybrid of the classic Enterprise (no bloody A, B, C, or D), Enterprise A, and new and exciting additions and changes (due to our changes and advances in technology). Combine those three things together and the ship COULD be something very exciting to see, with nods to the classic die-hard TOS fans and things that will draw in new fans (and perhaps a younger audience). I think you will see that in all aspects of this film, be it props, characters, the storyline, etc.

Frankly, at times I hear things that kinda frighten me, but then I go back and see that usually it is the “story-writer’s perception” that scared me, not what these men have been quoted as saying. Until I am given a concrete reason to be be worried and upset, I’m not going to be.

Frankly, I think a good guage on where I stand personallyis this: For the first time in MANY years, I am so excited about a new Trek movie that I may just be willing to rearrange my Christmas Day around it. That is HUGE to me, because Christmas is sacred to me in MANY ways.

P.S.-Josh, uhmmm, were you trying to make a point that you know something about Star Trek? LOL Teasing. Actually, you sound a lot like me. I am amazed how some people in here act like they know so much about Trek, but can’t even get their “Trek history facts” correct. It makes me chuckle. Be careful, someone might tell you all about “Dr. Spock” someday. ;-) (one of my biggest pet peeves)

190. billg - March 9, 2007

We need to remember that 99.99 percent of the public doesn’t know that such things as Trek continuity and canon exist. They might notice if Spock turns into Chuckles the Clown, but beyond that, well…

If the movie is good, they’ll buy tickets. They won’t care about rebooting or reimagining or all that.

This movie, whatever else it does, needs to make money. If not, it will be the last Trek movie.

191. Chris Malley - March 9, 2007

Agreed Bill, but it may be 99.97%.

192. Gp - March 9, 2007

I would like to see a 23rd century toilet in this movie.

193. Dennis Bailey - March 9, 2007

#183: “Re-boot is the way to go. It’s the only way for Trek to survive.”

Agreed, as far as movies and television are concerned.

It’s dead as a doornail now. It may or may not get better with a fresh approach, but it can’t get any deader.

194. Sheridan - March 9, 2007

As long as it doesn’t involve DS9 I’m happy.

195. Ted P. - March 9, 2007

An open letter to journalists:

The next time one of you journalists asks THE BIG QUESTION as to whether this is a prequel, re-boot, or something else, please please please provide the ACTUAL ANSWER IN A QUOTE, rather than paraphrasing the answer. The journalists in this case provide quote after quote of mundane details, but when it came to the question on everyone’s mind, they PARAPHRASED Kurtzman ond Orci, rather than providing the quote(s). IMO, this interview confirmed nothing.

-Thank you (end of letter)

BTW, I’m not necessarily against a prequel or a reimagining (whatever that means), but until I read an actual quote from Abrams and Company regarding the setting, premise and story, these things will still be unconfirmed.

196. Alex Rosenzweig - March 9, 2007

Oh, come now, Dennis… :)

I think, for about 5 minutes after “These Are the Voyages” aired, the idea of Trek being “dead” might have been true. And I think that was ’cause most people took those 5 minutes to go “WTF???” at what they’d just seen! ;)

It’s certainly not true now!

Trek’s survival has long since transcended anything as limiting as what’s being made by the studio this week. And Trek has so transcended any particular style or look or set of actions that there’s really only one thing that a production truly needs to be Trek…and that’s to be set in Trek’s world.

It’s a true multimedia phenomenon, with thousands of stories and millions of words having been written…all in one great big fictional world, so big it can encompass all the different ideas that have been thrown out there. And as long as people continue to build on all that, whether via TV, movies, books, games, etc. etc., it will survive just fine. It’s when that building stops that Trek gets into trouble.

And it still appears that Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, et al. understand that, MTV notwithstanding.

Best,
Alex

197. EvilDrPuma - March 9, 2007

Dennis@192: My feelings exactly. I figure that the worst that can happen is that the movie turns out to be undeserving of a direct-to-DVD release, I’m out $25 or so for the last Trek Movie Date Night of my marriage, and Paramount decides to give Trek a good long rest, but by that point it would probably be best. And the earth will still be orbiting the sun, so the big picture can’t be that bad.

On the other hand, it might be that whatever their past work may or may not have been like, these guys love Trek to bits and sincerely want to do right by it. We get a back-to-basics Star Trek roots experience with friendship and loyalty and commentary on the human condition and some good but not-too-dominating action sequences, plus the best that CGI special effects and plasma screens can do for our favorite starship of all time. Maybe they keep the sets and effects and the thing gets recast for a small-screen revival under the same production team. Trek is returned to its former glory, and we’re living high on the hog for another few years. Hey, it COULD happen.

The truth may come out somewhere in between. But right now, in the interview I see summarized here, these guys are at least saying the things I want to hear. So, I’m in until some concrete information becomes available that makes me think otherwise. That information won’t be coming for a little while, though, so we may as well dream.

198. Ted P. - March 9, 2007

One more thing…

It’s obvious that this will be a re-imagining. This movie is being done 40 years after TOS and 15 years after TOS films, and by a totally different creative team. Of course this will be a re-imagining.

That word, however, in no way describes the timeframe, setting, or story of this film. The re-imagining as described in the quotes provided by Orci and Kurtzman to MTV news is so obvious that it hardly counts as news.

199. Dennis Bailey - March 9, 2007

#196: “I figure that the worst that can happen is that the movie turns out to be undeserving of a direct-to-DVD release, I’m out $25 or so for the last Trek Movie Date Night of my marriage, and Paramount decides to give Trek a good long rest, but by that point it would probably be best. And the earth will still be orbiting the sun, so the big picture can’t be that bad.”

Agreed.

#197: “It’s obvious that this will be a re-imagining. This movie is being done 40 years after TOS and 15 years after TOS films, and by a totally different creative team. Of course this will be a re-imagining.”

Also agreed.

There’s simply no way that this film can satisfy both the folks who are obsessed with Trek continuity (“First contact with the Klingons doesn’t match Picard’s remark!”) and be worth paying money for anyone else to see. That ship has sailed long time ago.

200. WKYanks - March 9, 2007

I like the fact that Orci & Kurtzman are both Star Trek fans. That gives this movie a better chance I think. I also like “Star Trek” as the movie title.

201. Sleeper Agent X - March 9, 2007

Wow. Just look at all this hullabaloo over an interview that doesn’t reveal anything a semi-astute fan couldn’t have guessed on his own.

I’ve posted here before that there was no way this movie was going to keep 1960s tv production values given that the movie needs to bring in the general audience, and it seems to me all the screenwriters have done is confirm that.

I think Anthony’s conclusion is a valid one: all they’re talking about in the interview in regards to the ‘reimagining’ is the look and feel of the Trek universe. Kirk is not going to be played by a tough scrappy woman with a huge chip on her shoulder, in other words, so I think most of us can relax.

The ones who can’t–those of you who were hoping to have everything in this movie look exactly like TOS–had no realistic grounds for those hopes anyway, so really, you have only yourselves to blame if this comes as anything of a shock.

202. Alex Rosenzweig - March 9, 2007

#197…

Yup, absolutely. And it might be a re-boot, too, in the computer sense. To wit, not a change to how everything’s set up, but a restart to get the gunk out of the system and make it run smoother.

After all, when you reboot your computer, you still expect your desktop to look the same, your programs to work the same way (though hopefully running more smoothly), etc.

I have a feelling that “Trek XI” might well be *that* sort of reboot, not the throw-everything-away-and-build-it-from-scratch version. ;)

Best,
Alex

203. EvilDrPuma - March 9, 2007

Alex@201: “And it might be a re-boot, too, in the computer sense. To wit, not a change to how everything’s set up, but a restart to get the gunk out of the system and make it run smoother.”

Just so. And it doesn’t have to jettison all previous continuity to do that, although there are some chunks of previous continuity that I’d just as soon it doesn’t reference. Actually, I think the more self-contained, the better. It’s not like we need to have fifty dialogue references to “Enterprise” episodes, even if there were a picture of NX-01 hanging in Kirk’s quarters.

204. Steve E. - March 9, 2007

It’s worse than you think, I’ve heard murmurs that they want to do a kinda Lord of the Rings in Space meets Pirates of the Carribean. Smeagol is a Tholian in search of Spocks pet sehlat who was comandeered by Bluebeard the Klingon. The action starts on a log cabin on Mars…

205. doubleofive - March 9, 2007

I think its sad that after one interview, there are already people who are saying that they won’t see it at all. I could understand maybe after the first promo picture, the first storyboard leak, or even the first official casting, but one paraphrase a week after the movie is officially announced and people are already writing it off. That’s pitiful. It’s Star Trek. Even if it is a reboot that ignores everything that Trek has become, there is still a chance that it will be good. I’m still hoping that it won’t do that and will fit perfectly with the continuity we already have, but even if it doesn’t, I’m still going to give it a chance.

206. Kev - March 9, 2007

It could be good. I think all the reimagining/reboot stuff is all hype. The Odyssey is thousands? of years old and that’s still a great story. As for Trek looking for a broad audience it has that already; the spinoffs failed because they abandoned what the show was about for the most part. I’m interested in how they change designs; the red touches in doors and trim seem inviolable, as do the uniforms. I mean they can add black accents under the arms or on the sides like workout clothes or some kind of Rudi Gernreich thing but ultimately simpler is better. A fork is a fork is a fork, unless it’s a spork and we know how that one went over. As for futurism, I think much of that will be unuseable for this new TOS Trek; following that they’d be sending robots down prior to beaming away; not very dramatic. But he might get something out of it for future incarnations..

207. Chris Roberts - March 9, 2007

It should be noted Orci,and Kurtzman never actully said a rebot In the article.MTV should not be viewed as a relable source.Untill we hear more we should proceed as If this IS Indeed a prequel with Shatner and Nimoy In post Star Trek VI sequences archoring the story.However If people think they will totally be recreating the 60 sets that won’t be happening.If they are reimaging anything that Is more likely.Also remember Mccoy was not the doctor In the second pilot,now you could get around that by saying he was on the ship but her was serving under Dr Piper but they may just Ignore that entirely,and Sulu when he first appeared was ship’s Physict not helmsman again they could explan that but may just Ignore It.At the same time If the Klingons are In the film they will most likely be the more familar design rather than the 60′s era.I would not see a Galactica type restart but I would accept a prequel even with changes to the look of the sets,and with condidictions to Mccoy and Sulu as long as It can seem to fit Into Trek History.

208. ozy - March 9, 2007

Why some pepole want that star trek become like star wars, Batman begins, James Bond, BG itd..

Star trek is star trek. Star trek is unique.
Star trek is tradicion. 40 years of contiunity, and same canon.

They cant simply reboot, re-imagine ( different name, same thing ) that.
XI must be real prequel.

209. Dennis Bailey - March 9, 2007

#207: “Also remember Mccoy was not the doctor In the second pilot,now you could get around that by saying he was on the ship but her was serving under Dr Piper but they may just Ignore that entirely,and Sulu when he first appeared was ship’s Physict not helmsman again they could explan that but may just Ignore It.At the same time If the Klingons are In the film they will most likely be the more familar design rather than the 60’s era.”

And all of that is enough to drive some people absolutely crazy.

210. Ralph F - March 9, 2007

Writerguys: go and watch FORBIDDEN PLANET again, and see where Roddenberry got his inspiration. See what that story was about, and the interaction of the crew. The guys here can tell you the real Trek stories to draw inspiration from — not necessarily the big ones, but the moments that defined the characters, their relationships.

You have to care about these people — the comment on the human soul is dead on. The interplay between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in AMOK TIME is wonderful.

Kirk and Spock? For me, their relationship was perfectly defined at the end of “Requiem for Methuselah”. Kirk is intensely distraught over the loss of the girl (you’d think he’d get used to it). Sitting in his quarters, asleep (?) at his desk, when Spock walks up and begins a mind meld, and says simply, “Forget…”

That, to me, is STAR TREK.

211. Ralph F - March 9, 2007

Oh, and don’t fark with the Jeffries design of the ENTERPRISE.

Touch my starship, my favorite starship, and I will hunt you down.

:)

212. Ingo Meiser - March 9, 2007

@209:
“Also remember Mccoy was not the doctor In the second pilot,now you could get around that by saying he was on the ship but her was serving under Dr Piper but they may just Ignore that entirely”
For us german fans they fixed that “problem” very easy :-)
They didn’t air TOS in the german tv in the same order (also only the half series with 39 episodes) in the 70′s. And they didn’t sync the episodes exactly:
When dr.Piper enters, he saied that he’s a substitue of Dr. McCoy.
Clever, what?

213. Mysterious Trek Modeler Quirk - March 9, 2007

You know, none of us are going to know if it’s any good, until, after it has hit the screen.

Paramount has a lot riding on this, this is thier biggest franchise (Money Cow). I doubt very seriously they are going to hire prime talent just to make another stinker.

Paramount’s heart may not be in the right place, but they’re looking at the bottom line. I percieve that they will do anything to resurrect thier cash cow, even hire A list actors, directors, etc…..

Speculation aside, I’ll be heading to the theater.

214. Kurt - March 9, 2007

The posts so far have been a microcosm of the problems with society today. Everyone is judging something based on assumptions and hearsay. We need to give this new Trek a chance. There needs to be technological upgrades to the sets, props, etc. I for one want to see a classic Enterprise that doesn’t look like a crappy plastic model but looks like it could be a real spacecraft. I want to see Starfleet uniforms that don’t look like pajamas but like real military uniforms (which by the way is what starfleet is). I want to see a bridge set that looks like real computers and controls not plywood with colored light bulbs. How many of can say watching TOS that we’ve never said to ourselves “I wonder what this would look like with modern special effects?” A chance needs to be taken here or trek will no longer exist except in DVD form.

215. those little fuzzy things - March 9, 2007

I am kind of sick of these money hungry bastards shuffling trek around like their own personal piggy banks. It started with berman and bragas terrible vision in enterprise and is culminating in an attempt to ‘appeal to broader audience’ with a more ‘action’ oriented film.

That is the mark of greed right there. Startrek is not a broad based concept, it is for those who can adapt their taste buds to it, not for conformists of the usual paradigm. Secondly they said that it would have ‘more action’ than any trek film ever has?

How can you have ‘more action’ than startrek II and why do you need more to begin with? If you cannot create a tantalizing story with a cerebral plot that has less to do with action and more to do with asking questions then you’re not a good writer.

The only reason they hired abrams in the first place is because he’s already succesful and is essentially the biggest whore in holeywood right now, pun intended. They should hire a group of die hard extreme futurist trekkies to do it or at least as consultants.

We are the ones who made this ‘franchise’ a franchise and we ought to start getting paid back for it. And I don’t mean paid financially, I mean let us know our god damned input matters. And by the way, if you think trek is about action you’re not a trek fan. Case closed.

216. Jeff Jameson - March 9, 2007

This sounds so freaking perfect. :D

217. Kurt - March 9, 2007

I find it ironic that the people that are complaining most about continuity are TOS fans. I would expect fans of the later incarnations to care more. At risk of being called a heretic I’m going to put this out there. What is the big deal with continuity anyway? Why can’t we have an independent adventure. That’s what TOS was anyway. 79 independent adventures. You didn’t have to see any of the other episodes to understand what was going on. I remember reading several places that that was how it was intended to be.

218. Dennis Bailey - March 9, 2007

#215:

“We are the ones who made this ‘franchise’ a franchise and we ought to start getting paid back for it.”

Right. How many people can you get together for an Internet petition?

219. Kurt - March 9, 2007

There is nothing wrong with a trek action movie. Some are saying that trek II was just an action film but let’s not forget what was at the heart of that movie. Honor, duty, sacrifice, friendship. Some of the most important themes trek is based on.

220. MichaelJohn - March 9, 2007

Anthony P. should rename this site “TrekDebatingWars.com”!

Mike :o

221. Dennis Bailey - March 9, 2007

What they ought to do is to approach this as if it’s the only “Star Trek” movie.

You know, seventy-nine episodes of the original TV series, then…nothing until Abrams and Orci and Kurtzman revived and recast the show as a big budge movie. ;)

222. EvilDrPuma - March 9, 2007

TLFT@215: No, Star Trek is not ABOUT action. It does USE action in its storytelling, though. And, in case your view on the matter is really so narrow, action need not be a synonym for car chases and blowing things up. When Nemesis tried to make a Trek movie about car chases and blowing things up, that was a mistake, not an invalidation of all action.

223. Sleeper Agent X - March 9, 2007

215 – “We are the ones who made this ‘franchise’ a franchise and we ought to start getting paid back for it. ”

Someone sounds taken over by a sense of entitlement here…

You got paid back for it with hours and hours of entertainment (granted, some of it better than others). Unless you actually worked on the franchise in any capacity, like director, actor, writer, set dresser, etc. you’re not entitled to any further compensation.

224. Aaron R - March 9, 2007

All the fuss… Tisk tisk… To resay my position about my view and all the negativity. Read #69 and most definately read number 155 about all the people who are making this TrekWars or whatever it was called. Does anyone have a constructive comment to say about my posts?

Love ya all,
Every day since this new news I get more and more excited…
Oh the drool.
Come on now chant with me…
Abrams, Abrams, Abrams, Abrams…
I love Buckaroos idea of what is coming he is so right.

Aaron R.

225. Digital D - March 9, 2007

When TNG came out, stacks of TOS fans were up in arms about how different it was, and how un-Trek it really was. Some of them came around, some didn’t.

When DS9 came out, the same thing happened. It’s on a station, the lighting is so dark, half the people aren’t even wearing a Starfleet uniform, is this Trek? Some TOS and TNG fans both rejected it, but plenty of people embraced it.

The same happened with Voyager. Some couldn’t take the incessant technobabble, others thought it was a bit more action packed.

When Enterprise came out, in addition to heavily questioning the premise of a Star Trek prequel and favoring all the previously made shows, ALL Trek fans were afraid their precious continuity was about to be ruined. As though a new show could wipe out the old ones already produced!

Even if this new movie was a remake and not part of the continuity, who cares? All everyone wants is more of their favorite Trek show or movie. That’s never going to happen.

Remakes seem to have a bad rep, but there are plenty of good remakes, too. Has anyone seen the original Ocean’s 11? I’ll take the remake any time! It all depends on the creative staff. It’s a coin toss, a crap shoot. You won’t know until you shell out your $10 and go see it.

The only thing about Abrams is, I saw MI:III. It looked like a feature length episode of Alias starting Tom Cruise. It shouldn’t even be called Mission Impossible. The Paramount execs could have saved some money on the licensing if they had called it something different, like, “Crazy Couch Jumping Spy Adventures”.

I can’t be bothered with specifics like who’s going to be the captain, when it takes place, if it’s a remake or not. I really don’t care what the new movie is going to look like, so long as it’s good (meaning a good story), and deserving of the name Star Trek.

There is no one here that can predict how good the movie will be. No matter what name they were to attach to this project: JJ Abrams, Joss Whedon, Bryan Singer, Michael Straczynski, or even a huge Hollywood name, like Spielberg (remember, he’s one of the producers on Transformers), it doesn’t matter the name, you’d have no guarantee of a good Star Trek movie. I mean, who would have thought Nicholas Meyer would have been the right guy to direct two and co-write three of the best Trek movies?

You just gotta sit back and wait!

226. Trevok - March 9, 2007

Lets face it the “True Beleivers” are going to knock the whole idea but as far as I’m concerned things are looking better and better al the time.
LLAP

227. Rick Lucey - March 9, 2007

Interesting comments on this. I am an old school fan of ST and have been on the fence about a prequel. I have heard possible hints of a reboot like with BOND, BATMAN and BSG, which so far I have liked all of them. Maybe it is time. Recasting and trying to fit this new story in canon can be pulled off, but it is so much easier to start with a clean slate to me. I would want them to keep at least 70 to 80% of the look and feel of TOS, if they could. Keep the optimistic/fun/adventure/feel of it all and get going with a good strong story. Starting off fresh though will really free up things and really move things along. We will always have the other TREKS to view and enjoy. I just feel it is time for a 21st century TREK to chart it’s own course.

228. I Don't Care - March 9, 2007

Say what you will, but they “re-imagine” the James Bond, Superman, Batman, etc. franchises every few years. If the only person who can play Dr. McCoy is DeForest Kelley, then someone had best figure out how to clone him, CGI him perfectly, or resurrect him from the dead, because those are the only ways he is coming back to play his role. You want to see Shatner and Nimoy in a movie? Have them sitting on the front porch of Kirk’s house in San Francisco discussing the “good old days” then flashback to the movie with the new actors and sets.

I want Star Trek, set preferably during the original mission. If I can’t get that, they can show the first mission, where everyone gets together, and if they get people who can act, so much the better, but I don’t care about actors, I care about Star Trek. Just get someone in there.

229. Shaye - March 9, 2007

yeah, have shatner , nimoy back as kirk and spock as cameo’s.

maybe “book-end” in some way…w/the cool new cast….but still in my heart i will love william shatner and leonard nimoy as them till the day i die.

peace out.

Shaye

230. General Trelane, R. - March 9, 2007

Three things in this article have me seriously worried. We’re going for a “Broader audience”, that’s never a good thing when you’re talking about something that has a loyal and cannonically knowledgable fan base (I think that’s why Nemesis tanked, it really wasn’t a Trek movie at all, they could’ve done the same exact movie with the same exact script except for changing the names. It could’ve just as easily been Buck Rogers v. Draconia instead of Picard v Romulus.) Also, I’ve always thought that a good synonym for “Reimagining” is “Ruining”, i.e. Wild Wild West, Planet of the Apes, Lost In Space (Yes, I’m one of those guys that hates the new BSG). And the third word of woe is “Matt Damon”. Not only is he terribly un-Shatner like, he’s 5 years older than Shatner was during the original TOS run. Don’t they have the ability to give us a digitally rejuvenated Shatner & Nimoy? That DirectTV spot didn’t look bad. It looks like the real Star Trek is gone forever. I’m totally disenchanted with the new movie after reading this.

231. Sam Belil - March 9, 2007

After reading many of the above entries (and I say this RESPECTFULLY!!!!) Get off the Batman, James Bond, Superman comparisons already — in the case of Star Trek (pardon the pun) — it is futile make those comparisons. For 40+ years we have known ONLY Shatner and Nimoy etc. as the main characters — as well as the “personalities” of the main characters. I MOST certainly welcome new actors playing the key roles, however they MUST PLAY it true to the original characterizations, because that it what drove the success of TOS — great characters and story telling (especially in season #1, when James Kirk was not as “campy” as in seasons #2 and #3. #230 you hit the NAIL ON THE BUTTON, Matt Damon could NOT be more un-Shatner like. The new actors MUST play it close to the originals for this film to be successul. Star Trek is a franchise unlike any of the aforementioned — including James Bond (and I’m a HUGE BOND FAN!!!!). Abrams and company do this right or don’t do this at all!!!!!

232. ozy - March 9, 2007

225- TNG, DS9, VOYAGER, are real sequel of TOS set up in the different time period ( and Enterprise was a prequel ), you cant compare that whit reboot or reimagine.

Contiunity is very imoprtant thing. I simply cant watch any tv show or movie whit errors in contiunity

233. Victor Hugo Carballo - March 9, 2007

“Star Trek” ultimate sounds like laziness. Why can´t they simply continue the adventures of Picard on the Enterprise E or F.. or Riker on the Titan on a “Big starship adventure”, and not rape Trek history and movie history? The ships don´t need to be “updated” and all, just give us a nice story !

234. Dennis Bailey - March 9, 2007

#233: ” Why can´t they simply continue the adventures of Picard on the Enterprise E or F.. or Riker on the Titan on a “Big starship adventure”

Because that would be lazy, and there’s no reason to believe that they’d make any money doing so.

235. EvilDrPuma - March 9, 2007

Sam Belil @231: I disagree. If the cast is limited to slavish impersonations of Shatner or Nimoy, I guarantee you two things. First, this movie will bomb, because it will seem like a parody of itself and its source. Second, it will DESERVE to bomb, because it really WILL BE a parody of itself and its source. I won’t like this movie if the script or the direction fails to give us characters we can recognize as having the basic personalities, motivations, and values we’ve come to expect from the TOS crew, but I refuse to demand that the actors ape Shatner, Nimoy, or other established performers. If they have to do that, the cast will hate this project, and it will show, and then the audience will hate it too. And if I were a betting man, I’d put my money down that you’d be here in two years griping about it, too.

236. EvilDrPuma - March 9, 2007

Victor @233: I can only speak for myself on this, but however much I may like TNG, I think it and the 24th century in general are just played out. I want a “roots experience,” and neither Picard nor Riker is going to be able to give me that.

237. Dennis Bailey - March 9, 2007

#235: “If the cast is limited to slavish impersonations of Shatner or Nimoy, I guarantee you two things. First, this movie will bomb, because it will seem like a parody of itself and its source. Second, it will DESERVE to bomb, because it really WILL BE a parody of itself and its source. I won’t like this movie if the script or the direction fails to give us characters we can recognize as having the basic personalities, motivations, and values we’ve come to expect from the TOS crew, but I refuse to demand that the actors ape Shatner, Nimoy, or other established performers.”

I completely agree.

238. Greg - March 9, 2007

All that matters is they must travel back in time to the JFK assassination. ;)

239. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 9, 2007

#232

“TNG, DS9, VOYAGER, are real sequel of TOS set up in the different time period ( and Enterprise was a prequel ), you cant compare that whit reboot or reimagine.

Contiunity is very imoprtant thing. I simply cant watch any tv show or movie whit errors in contiunity ”

::Cough Cough:: exsqueeze me???

You are making continuity an issue yet you can bring up the other series, that regularly shit on canon and continuity?

Wow.

240. Trevok - March 9, 2007

A problem is, when people think of a re-boot, re-imagining, up-date, whatever, they think of BSG with females playing male roles and the whole thing. From what I read of this article they said nothing to suggest this sort of extreme makeover. They talked about doing an updated movie. I imediatly think more on the lines of the new eps of Doctor Who. The show is still basicly the same but it has been updated. The Tardis is still a Police Call Box the interia has been updated, but that also happened in the original eps.
If they do this with Trek I’ll be happy. And lets face it, if they get it wrong and the movie sucks, it’ll hardly be the first time that has happened. But I’m not worried, I have the feeling XI is going to be great. Mind you it is an odd numbered film.
I must say I hope the name sticks “Star Trek” I love it.

241. Orbitalic - March 9, 2007

#238 Greg,
Red Dwarf already did that.
_________________________________________________

What a mix in this thread. New posters coming out of the cyber-woodwork. Wow. Very entertaining.
I’d like to flash-forward to late 2008 and look at this site when all is known and the guessing is over.

Then the tedious post mortem exam of every pit of dialogue, FX and direction can begin. You know…. just like this thread, but we actually have real information to talk about instead of just bad guesses.

242. Orbitalic - March 9, 2007

#215
I really doubt that JJ would appreciate being called a whore.
And you want all of us to have input on the creative stuff for the next film…look at the comments. Only a few of us agree on any one thing.
Ha!

243. Michael Appleton - March 9, 2007

#238 Greg “they must travel back in time to the JFK assassination”.
I’m curious, is that because Roddenberry had that idea once, or is this your own take on that premise? Please elaborate!

244. ChuckAmuck - March 9, 2007

Smike van Dyke@177: You are of course aware that Trek XI won’t be a “reboot” or “reimagining” in the sense of the word that most people are afraid of… Trust me, no one’s destroying anything.

Baltar@178: It’s Robert Picardo, not Richard.

Sam Belil@181: Your choice. Your loss.

Trekgeezer@182: Thank you. Unfortunately, as long as we allow juveniles to comment here (not that anything could be done about it), then juvenile comments are guaranteed.

ozy@208: I agree. Good thing Trek XI’s not a “reboot” ;)

Digital D@225: Thank you. I agree, except for the part about canon; the film should appreciate what has been established, but at the same time, should not allow it to stifle the storytelling. I kinda disagree on the M:I III comment, too. I just really liked that movie. :)

Sam Balil@231: I agree, Star Trek CANNOT be compared to those other movie franchises. They’re not even comparable, so it’s practically impossible to compare them, yet people try to do it anyway. As for the acting in the next film, I agree EvilDrPuma (235) above — the performances should not be mere impersonations. Whoever plays Kirk, etc. should do so in their own way while still paying respect to the past character. Adapting a few mannerisms is one thing, but all-out impersonations would be a mistake.

To those persistently complaining about Trek XI being a “reboot”: it’s not, at least not the terrible “have a woman play an originally male role, give Kirk a new middle name, set it in a different century” type of reboot people seem to be fearing. It has been repeatedly stated since the film was announced back in April that the film will stay true to what has passed, but will update the universe to draw in new fans as well as old. Orci and Kurtzman have said nothing new referring to it as a “reimagining”; they’ve been saying that all along, just not using that precise term. So just stop with any and all complaints related to that part of the report. That seems to be the only thing being discussed here, yet it was only one of the things discussed in the interview — and it’s not even news! So I think it’s safe to say that you can move on to other things that you actually should be worried about.

Ok, I’m done…

245. Larry Nemecek - March 9, 2007

Two things:

The suits in Paramount 9and CBS) business, sales, distribution, promotion, marketing, licensing, etc, are NEVER going to tlet this get out of the gate with just the “Star Trek” title. Sure, let JJ have the clout to make the movie–but this is where they would lkely weigh in. Just too much confusion with the original series in the catalog, etc. And likely not ST XI: either–either the TNG format, or a stand-alone but obvious title.

246. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 9, 2007

I can see the advanced teaser trailer now-

::Cue deep grumbling movie preview voice::

For 40 years, fans have celebrated the exploits ….

::fade in from black:: (cue a starfleet delta shield)

relished in the adventures…..

(camera slowly zooming out from delta shield on uniform to reveal….)

shared in the imagination….

(A grinning widely Matt Damon)

“Kirk….James T. Kirk, Captain of the Enterprise.”

witnessed the voyages, of the Starship Enterprise.

( We see Matt Damon perform a two legged flying drop kick towards the camera.)

Now, you are invited, to disregard 40 years of history….

(An uppercut, then double axe handle chop at the camera)

Sacrifice, established canon…..

(The camera shakes violently , Damon raises his hands to the air palms up, his face shocked, mouth agape)

Toss a middle finger to the concept of continuity…..

“You….don’t understand…..we……come in peace.”

(closeup on main bridge viewscreen, a distorted, red, swollen image begins slowly materializing)

and boldly go, where raped childhoods have gone before….

(The Shat’s bulbous, bloated, swollen visage appears glaring heavily on the viewscreen)

“You!!!” Damon cries

“Well who’d you expect chum? John Luck Pic-kurd?”

(Massive explosion on screen)

STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR TREEEEEEEEEEEEEK

Subtitles appear:

In space, no one can hear fans get raped, thankfully

Christmas 2008

May the Shat be with you.

247. Michael Appleton - March 9, 2007

Or, if by chance it’s great, it’ll be more like, “In space no one can hear you CREAM!”.

248. ChuckAmuck - March 9, 2007

Larry Nemecek@244: You might be right… but given the amount of freedom the studio’s been giving Abrams and his team and given the direction the film is supposedly going… something tells me they’re going to accept the title. Of course, I’m not in the studio business, so there may be factors I’m not taking into account… but, at the moment, I really don’t they will reject the title. If they don’t, though, no worries: Abrams and the gang have a lot of time to come up with a title (Star Trek: Frontiers, perhaps?).

249. ChuckAmuck - March 9, 2007

Michael Appleton@246: Very lovely. ;)

True, too. :P

250. Anthony Pascale - March 9, 2007

as I noted, the decision hasn’t been made, but I wouldnt count ‘Star Trek’ out just yet. Many TV to film adaptations have the same name as the tv show…including Paramount’s ‘Mission: Impossible’

personally I like just Star Trek as it signifies a back to basics approach as well as a different kind of film. My second choice would be no Trek in the name at all.

I just feel that anything ‘with a colon’ as the writers say is too much of the old trek movies and everything about the promotion of this film…right down to the name…has to say ‘new direction’

251. Josh T. (The flaming tits of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - March 10, 2007

There’s the magic solution Anthony, truly, you just nailed it.

Star Trek : New Direction

;)

252. Michael Appleton - March 10, 2007

Personally, I feel that anyone who insists on a colon in the title is being rather anal! (cue laughter)….heh, heh, heh….

253. Trevok - March 10, 2007

I find it a little hard to believe I’m about to write what I’m about to write.
I read the posts and all I can think is what a bunch of spoiled brates. People complaining about a Trek film before they even have any real idea of what it is going to be about.
I come from a time and place where as a SF fan I was concidered to be something on a par with a criminal or lunatic. You don’t want to have anything to do with him he likes that sci fi rubbish.
Fans today are spoiled for choice, it wasn’t that long ago that you could go for years at a time with no SF shows on TV here. Now atleast if you have PayTV where there is usually some SF on or you can watch Videos or DVDs. It wasn’t that long ago niether of those options or pay was avaliable. We were at the mercy of what free-to-air broadcasters deemed worth showing.
The point is to me it is bizzare that people would actually complain about the chance to see a new Trek film. Has it really come to this? Are people so spoild for choice they would rather the film not be made, if it doesn’t fit into their slanted world view?
Maybe it’s me, maybe I’m just a silly old goat. Maybe my time has past. Maybe the knockers are right. Maybe Paramount should give up the whole idea of making any new Trek.
But as long as I have any say I’ll shout it loud and shout it long. Give me more TREK!!!
Thankyou for you time, the preaching is over, go back to knocking the whole idea of a new Trek movie.
Live Long and Prosper.

254. Lets hate Paramount - March 10, 2007

All I know is classic Trek 1-3 and Next Gen 1-3 is the best, and no way in Hell will they ever be topped! Get used to it folks, if you haven’t already.

255. Sam Belil - March 10, 2007

Evil Dr. Puma and Chuck Amuk #235 and #244, thanks for your comments. However, I never said the new actors should impersonate the original characters. What I did say was they need to play it close to the true original characterizations. When I think impersonate I think of John Belushi and Chevy Chase doing their famous Star Trek parody 30 years ago on Saturday night live. If you go back to season 1 of TOS (which was by far the best) it was great drama and story telling. Kirk was more serious and passionate, you can see his pain when suffering losses (Gary Mitchell, Edith Keeler etc). Whoever place Kirk must be able to show it in a similar manner. Believe it or not whoever these young actors are (if there talented enough) can play a true dramatic role without parodizing the original characters. For those people who say change is needed to “grab younger and newer audiences — my answer to that (having been a TOS fan for some 40 years). These are the facts, either you love Star Trek or you don’t, there is no gray area. I have never met a “Casual” Star Trek fan. If 40 years ago a non-fan OR Star Trek “hater” did not like Star Trek — I can guarantee that a non-fan/Star Trek hater will not find the new movie appealing. I can also guarantee if the “powers that be” add elements into Star Trek XI to appeal to a ” newer and younger audience”, this movie will then surely BOMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

256. Adam Cohen - March 10, 2007

As a skeptic of this project, let me try to articulate this point of view as clearly and rationally as possible:

TOS has nearly 25 years of continuous storytelling (via live-action TV, animated TV and motion pictures). That’s a significant portion of material at work. If you want to, add on top of that ancillary entertainment in the form of novels and comics, which supplemented the shows and movies throughout. And therefore, for 40 years, the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. have carried a very specific meaning for fans. Sean Connery, by comparison, was James Bond in only a handful of films spanning several years. They change Batman actors like bed sheets. Chris Reeve as Superman was in only 4 films as well. And one thing that differentiates Star Trek’s characters from those I mention here is that those characters pre-existed before any actors took on the role. In Star Trek, the actors helped create and articulate those characters with their own unique talent. So, as a basis for what I’m going to say next, this is a foundation for my skepticism (not hate, rage or inflexible hostility towards the new movie- I harbor none of these attitudes).

Now, I’ve read a lot of comments here saying that a “re-imagining” is essential to revive the franchise. The old format is too stifling- canon is counterproductive to creativity. The only way to grow an audience for Star Trek is to start fresh. Okay, then why are we going back to the Original crew to “start fresh?” This is my biggest concern with the new movie. I’m worried that it will fail in both of its two main objectives- 1) it says it will be a fresh start but it is going to a 40 year-old set of characters to accomplish this goal and 2) it is attempting to tap into the existing fanbase’s nostalgia but in the process it risks defiling that sentimental connection to the old crew by “re-imagining” them. From arm’s length (having no knowledge about the specific plot or the actual design aspects) I have doubts about this approach. If they wanted a truly “fresh” start, why didn’t they just do a story set beyond the 24th Century? Heck, you’d be completely free of canon there, especially if you had it set so far into the future that “Trek’s history” was a distant memory, like how nobody in Die Hard sat around talking about Ancient Egypt to something like that. And to hook in the old fans, I think the fresh concept alone would get most of us in the door- for us this would be a new chapter in Trek’s history. I worry that the re-imagining concept is a product of convenient writing and studio marketing. I suppose the question I’m asking is “do we need to see a new version of TOS?” For myself, the answer is no.

I’m not saying the Abrams concept is screwed up or destined to fail. I’m not saying I hate what they’re doing. I’m only saying that I’ve got concerns. Yes, it’s too early to judge, I’ve been saying as much from the start. But concerns are valid if they’re supported by some thoughtful explanation. I hope I’ve provided as much to this debate.

257. Driver - March 10, 2007

This won’t be “McTrek”. You can’t “Get it your way”. The menu will be set in stone. You either take what they offer or leave the restaurant. It’s always taken more than a few viewings for me to completely appreciate a ST film. Yes, I like them all. Chances are, the new film will go by so fast, and there are so many thoughts that go through your mind, it will take multiple viewings to digest it.

258. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

Anthony@250: I agree; as I’ve been saying, just leaving it as Star Trek shows what type of Trek movie this is going to be. I won’t be too happy if they leave Star Trek out of the title, though, although I can certainly live with that decision if it’s made.

Trevok@253: I agree with you wholeheartedly. I find the whole practice of trouncing a film before it even opens — before it even starts getting made — to be idiotic. There’s no real point in it.

Lets hate Paramount@254: We don’t get used to opinions. And by “classic Trek 1-3 and Next Gen 1-3″, do you mean Star Trek I-III and Generations-Insurrection, or TOS Seasons 1-3 and TNG Seasons 1-3? I’m assuming you meant the latter… in which case, I can say that I’m surprised to read someone say this. Not about the original Trek seasons, that I can completely understand; but , generally, the first two seasons of TNG (the first, in particular) are considered among the worst seasons in the franchise, and most found that the series improved in subsequent seasons (same with the following spin-offs). So, if that’s the case, then there is certainly nothing to get used to. Even if you meant the films, though, as I said, that’s just an opinion; whenever someone says something is the “best” or the “worst”, that’s all it ever is: an opinion. That’s not something anyone else can get used to; just you. So I’m not sure what you were trying to prove there…

Sam Belil@255: Agreed, the actors should bare some similarity to the characters in look and action, but they should not let it constrict them to the point where it becomes obvious that they are trying to fill in another actor’s shoes… if that makes sense. As for the movie bombing if it tries to appeal to a newer, younger audience — that depends on how they try to appeal to them. In any case, it’s not worth speculating whether or not it will flop — if it does, it does; if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. There’s no way to tell for sure no matter what anyone says. If it flops, then we can start speculating as to why, but only after (and if) it flops. Given the amount of buzz surrounding this film before it’s even started production (a lot more than Nemesis ever got, as I recall) yet also taking into account recent failures (Nemesis), there’s just no way to tell, so there’s no real point in trying, IMO.

By the way, a friend of mine wants me to bring this up: Johnny Depp as Captain Kirk! Make it happen!

Now that I said that… please don’t. :D No offense to Mr. Depp — I’m a huge fan — but Kirk he is not. ;)

I’m done. Photon torpedoes, away.

259. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

Adam Cohen@256: Without going into a rant, lemme just say that it is great to finally see some reasonable skepticism here and not just all-out hatred and juvenile outcries. I applaud you, sir. I also believe — as a believe in the project — that your concerns are valid (IMO, at least), and it is, indeed, a very risky project. Let’s just hope, however, that when the film is released there will have been no cause for concern ;)

Driver@257: Can I get fries with that? :P

260. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

PS: As an addition to the last message I posted, I do realize there have been a few “sane”, reasonable comments left on this thread (including other comments by Cohen), but they seem to be extremely outnumbered by unthoughtful, immature rants and cries. So it’s always good to see another, more mature post.

That is all.

*heads off at Ludicrous speed*

261. Stanky McFibberich - March 10, 2007

#256

You make some good points. Especially:

“…And one thing that differentiates Star Trek’s characters from those I mention here is that those (other) characters pre-existed before any actors took on the role. In Star Trek, the actors helped create and articulate those characters with their own unique talent…”

This has been my main contention all along. Thank you for articulating it so well.

———————

On an unrelated note, the smart-aleck in me must say:

“Star Trek: We’ve Got a Red Bridge Railing”

“Star Trek: Beyond the Red Door”

“Star Trek: Unsuccessful Plastic Surgery”

“Star Trek: That Ain’t Nimoy!”

“Star Trek: That Ain’t….Shatner!”

“Star Trek: Where IS the Red Bridge Railing?”

“Star Trek: Please Go See This Just Because it Has ‘Star Trek’ in the Title”

“Star Trek: Who Is Responsible For This?”

262. Threevok - March 10, 2007

I am one of those Trekkers who demands adherance to canon….
There has been talk the film will deal with Kirk and Sock at Star Fleet, then perhaps thier first adventure on the Enterprise. I hope the film won’t ignore the fact that Kirk served on the USS Republic and USS Farragut before serving on the Enterprise. Plus I always thought when Spock was serving with Capt Pike on the Enterprise- Kirk was still at Starfleet…

Well, if anything this film could finally determine if there was a Robert April- Some Trekkers I know think that Christopher pike should be written out of the Star trek history- and Kirk should be made Enterprise’s first captian- the justification being so much time travel has happened, perhaps such reflects alterations in the timeline…
God i hope not…

263. Jay - March 10, 2007

For me, i hate seeing prequals, they did it with bond and lots of people just didnt get it, he was blonde and just becoming a 007, i was expecting bond 21 to be about him dying and handing over to an estranged son or something!

Superman Returns was wicked!! but even that wasnt a prequal!!

Enterprise blew… from the very moment i heard the theme tune i knew it was gunna suck, let alone the fact that Bakula was gunna be captain… geez! Enterprise for me sucked mainly because it looked newer than TOS, which of course cant really be helped however, the hand phasers look better, the uniforms look better and even Enterprise itself looks better than the Stargazer and that was several hundred years later!!

is this “re-imagining” gonna effect all of this again?? will they be tempted to make all the ships look new and “ooo shiney” to wow the new cast of fans?? from the teaser poster it appears that the Uniforms may be the same, would be cool if they used the same uniform style as seen in TAS with the episode with Robert April
http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Robert_April

i just really hope that they respect the canon and the authentic look that attracted me to Trek, if Klingons, for example are in this one, can they look like proper old skool Klingons please???

I trust these guys, as they are fans to deliver something good and i am welcoming and looking forward to seeing the trailer… i just hope they dont change too much as they will lose the real true fans of Trek

264. Threevok - March 10, 2007

sorry, it’s spock, not sock…my ‘p’ key doesnt always work….

Some have asserted that the Star Trek franchise needs a total back to the drawing board ‘reboot’ to survive…That is an AWFUL idea..One might as well admit they are not a fan of Star trek…

How about this alternative- bring in people who can actually write good stories? It seems in recent years the best Star Trek tales I have come across were written by fans……

Perhaps lessons could be drawn from the revival of the Doctor Who program- They still adhere to thier canon that stretches back to 1963, and have not ‘rebooted’ its history, and Doctor Who is now one of the most popoluar shows in Britian- (and in the top 5 of best sci fi tv shows ever made)
Don’t rewite Star Trek history- bring in better writers with better imaginations….Some of the writers who worked on DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were…awfull…..
Don’t blame poor scripts on Star Trek’s early history..TOS was fine just as it was- it doesn’t need to be reinvented…
Want a good film? Bring back Kirk- The ‘Bring back Kirk’ website presented a fascinating trailer that prooves that kirk and Spock are still very viable and useful characters, even in thier old age (but played by Shatner and Nimoy—-nobody else!!!!)

265. Threevok - March 10, 2007

Then again for those who argue that younger actors could never play Kirk or Spock- look at thge Star wars franchise…a younger actor played Obi Wan kanobi, and very effectively…..

Will Christopher Pike or Robert april be represented in this film?

And regarding prequels- I always though the tv series ‘Enterprise’ (with Scott Bakula) was supposed to be ‘the’ prequel…Too bad they forgot all about the war with the Romulans- which should have been underway at that time…SOOO much time wasted with that Temporal War nonsense…
Enterprise was a series that had so much potential- much of it wasted…But seeing the Constitution class USS Defiant again was nice- a nice sequel to The Tholian Web…

266. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

Threevok@262 & Jay@263: I don’t think either of you have to worry about the film adhering to canon; the filmmakers have already stated repeatedly they will respect canon. That said, though, don’t expect to see things exactly as they were seen in the original series. In other words, designs will be updated to look much more futuristic than they did in the 60s (an obvious necessity), although the overall look of things (i.e. uniforms and starships) should remain about the same. Basically, don’t expect anything looking like manmade models but don’t expect designs to be drastically different, either, assuming the film or any part of the film takes place in the era of the original series.

267. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

Threevok@265: There have been rumors that Pike might be featured in the film. Haven’t heard anything about April, though, to my knowledge.

FYI, there was never any canon evidence that the Earth-Romulan War took place in the 2150s; Spock stated the war ended around a century prior to “Balance of Terror”. That was it. The Star Trek Chronology speculates that the war took place between 2156 and 2160, but that info has never been divulged on-screen. In other words, Enterprise adhered to canon in that respect.

The closest we have come to a canon date for the Romulan Wars, aside from dialogue in “Balance of Terror”, is an illegible graphic seen in “In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II”, which actually consists of entries from an out-dated version of the Chronology. Because the date was not clearly seen on-screen and because it was included in an easily dismissed, mistake-ridden production graphic, there has essentially been no canon date set for the wars.

268. Threevok - March 10, 2007

Okay, so the events of the earth/Romulan war may have been years after the events of the series ‘Enterprise’- that would explain why there was no mention of the war in Enterprise….

BTW, has anyone seen that online ‘Bring Back Kirk trailer? (at Brinkbackkirk.com or on YouTube?)
That trailer in my mind would be the perfect Star trek movie- of course with Deforest kelly and James Doohan dead, Scotty and McCoy couldnt be involved..

269. Threevok - March 10, 2007

When exactly did (or will) the Eugenics war take place? Kahn claimed he left earth in 1996, yet when some of the crew of the USS Voyager traveled back in time & arrived on earth that same year- there was no mention whatsoever of Kahn, or the war itself…

270. Quatlo (formerly known here as Greg) - March 10, 2007

Reply to #241 – Orbitalic

Who or what is Red Dwarf?

Reply to #243 – Michael Appleton

That WAS a nod to GR’s reported obsession with doing a JFK time travel trek film.

My own take is it sounds like JJ has a good appreciation for history in the appreciation of the best writing of Rod Serling and the TOS works of the Genes and others who contributed to the best of TOS and the whole deal that followed. I think JJ’s gang have a good shot at pulling off something interesting and entertaining using cult icons and wish them well.

271. Doug - March 10, 2007

re posts 171, 172, 173, 174 – lighten up man. you seem to pick a fight with someone every other thread.

onto more important matters. Johnny Depp as Capt’n Kirk is a very interesting idea. I’m not sold on Brody as Spock. I love him as an actor, but the nose is extremely pronounced… It might get in the way of vulcan mind meld ;)

Other actors to consider if we’re going with big names:

Tobey Maguire
Leonardo diCaprio (too short?)
Christian Bale

Well… I guess we’ll see what happens eh?

Doug

272. jonboc - March 10, 2007

I liked DiCaprio better than Damon in The Departed, he seems to have more of the Kirk-like charm, but I doubt he would do it.
And I agree, this movie needs to be a remake or re-imagined Trek…if Shatner and NImoy are not going to be in this thing, they need to forget everything after Star Trek..the movies, the series…then use the template set by Star Trek in 1966, adhere to it and make a new big budget blockbuster called simply “Star Trek” . It’s time to wipe the slate clean and focus on 1966, and I think that is exactly what the writers mean. They aren’t worrying themselves with all the spin-offs or the movies. And they don’t have to, all they need to worry about are those 79 episodes. If they adhere to the basic canon..Kirk will be like Kirk of the show…Spock will be like the Spock of the show, The Enterprise will have phasers, transporters etc….basic Trek 101, then write those characters like they interacted in the series, and put together an imaginative plot filled with excitement, danger and fun….then they will have succeeded.

Star Trek needs to feel like Star Trek, it needs to resemble Star Trek…not TMP, not Wrath of Khan, not Nemesis, DS9 or TNG. Those days are over. Kaput. Fini. This is truly a new beginning for Star Trek…but with JJ at the helm we can pretty much bet the rent that, while it may look a little different, it will be made, very much in the spirit of classic Star Trek (with a touch of Twilight Zone thrown in). If anyone else came in and started re-imagining things I’d be worried, But Abrahms knows his TOS. Abrahms LOVES his TOS. Exciting times ahead….for me anyway lol

273. tuvix25 - March 10, 2007

It seems like to me that a “reboot” wouldn’t really be out of the way for Star Trek.

I was raised on TOS (I’m 33) and when TNG came out I was upset. Com-on… a bald captain!? Troi was pretty cheesy at first too. Then TNG did some revamping when more money pored in and it took off. To this day, TNG is my favorite, by far, and Picard is probably my all-time favorite character. And Troi… very MILF-like in the later years! Then came DS9 and VOY. I think every trek series had good, bad, and ugly scripts, but I watched them all (and still do) because it is Star Trek. For instance, I still watch TOS, not because I like the 60′s decor, but because I love the characters and the concept of trek and the connections in the histrionics.

In one way or another, trek history has always been up for grabs anyway because of the time dilations in multiple episodes. Who’s to say that this new movie isn’t the history of one of the quantum states that might have emerged in TNG episode “Parallels” or a possible timeline created due to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy’s journey through the portal in the episode “The City on the Edge of Forever” or from countless alternative decisions made by any character in any other such episode? As long as a movie with Star Trek in its title is somehow connected to Star Trek as we know it, and pays homage to Rodenberry in some way (is based on his idea), and is not about a pig and a spider… we should be okay.

If we are honest, there is no way to keep the histrionics in the exact time-line or space-time-continuum. Time related episodes are partly to blame, and the fact that there is more than one person involved in the development and evolution of the franchise (reality check). How could anyone keep track of it all? What is the “right” time-line anyway?

To some degree, ST:ENT essentially rewrote everything we have ever known about trek from Kirk’s time and beyond due some of the decisions made (or not made) with the whole Jeffries time thing. Not that ST:ENT was a triumph (one problem in my mind, too many gray/drab colors), but there is no reason why that wasn’t a valid story line in the trek universe.

For the most part, I think the main idea Rodenberry was going for has been maintained throughout the franchise and, I’m guessing it will in any subsequent renditions. Star Trek is among Rodenberry’s greatest gifts to the rest of us—let’s just enjoy it! It is a vision of the future of man’s quest for knowledge and adventure. It’s a vision of our social accomplishments and brings hope that one day we will all put aside our differences and combine our efforts to know the universe (straying from my point).

My point is that Star Trek is always redefining itself anyway and there is no way to make everyone’s ideal Star Trek possible at any given time. Of course, the best thing for the franchise would be to capture the biggest possible audience—both recapturing old fans and captivating new ones. After all, the money is what is going to keep the franchise alive (reality check again). Maybe these guys will have something and maybe they wont… that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

Despite my disappointments in recent trek, I am happy to see additions on film along with the other mediums. Besides, I’m not writing the story, nor do I have the time to do so. I am just looking forward to being entertained and immersed in the Star Trek fantasy/dream once again.

I am kind of taken back by all of the negativity here. You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover… especially when the book hasn’t been written yet!

274. tuvix25 - March 10, 2007

Borat would make a good first officer! ;-)

275. Threevok - March 10, 2007

A question for all of you- what happened that caused the Star Trek franchise to peter out? One theory- I have read comments from some writers who suggested Star trek canon is so rigid and unflexible, it creates the problem of unimaginative scripts, and in effect strangled itself by limiting what could be done. There are *some* points there- but I blame the fault on some lackluster scripts.

The Star trek tv series that should have followed Voyager was ‘Star trek-Excelsior’, starring George takei. The Voyager episode where Tuvok flashbacked to his service on the Excelsior was, some argued, a ‘pilot’ episode for a series about Sulu’s ship.
That series would have been MUCH better than ‘Enterprise’.

Also- i don’t mind the technobabble, but some stories the technobabble was so thick, it bacame a parody of itself…..
People should remember what star trek was originally about- they were on a mission of explore strange new worlds, seek out new civilizations-and boldly go where no man has gone before.
The idea was not about living on a space station, or fighting some innane temporal cold war, or battling with the Obsidian order, or running home with your tail between your legs because you got lost in the Delta quadrant…..
STTNG had the formula right, but there were a few things they could have donbe without- such as ‘Q’, the Ferengi, or their ridiculous one piece spandex uniforms…
I think another Star trek tv series could work- but set it back in the time of TOS. Why not a series about the Enterprise NCC-1701 , straight from her maiden voayge, captained by Robert April, who had a young Christopher Pike as his number 1?

276. ozy - March 10, 2007

239- I disagree that TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT shit on canon and contiunity. They have some errors, ( TOS have some errors to ). But they are esencely same series. Definitly same canon.

277. Orbitalic - March 10, 2007

#270
Quatlo,
Red Dwarf is a BBC Science Fiction comedy that I watch on PBS regularly in in Iowa.
Red Dwarf is their ship.

278. Threevok - March 10, 2007

I think STTNG, DS9 and ENT were all loyal to canon and continuity- i just meant that some the series, particularly Ds9 and Voyager totally abandoned Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Voyager had some great episodes- but one would think any ship with warp drive had the risk of of breaking down, and being stranded in the dead of space, years away from the nearest starbase..It must have been common, or at the very least there should have been protocalls to deal with that situtation. .Plus having the benifit of a Holodeck ensured they hardly suffered. The best episode from Voyager was ‘Equinox’, because the way the Equinox crew crumbled , wheras Voyager’s crew maintined discipline was far more believable..

279. Threevok - March 10, 2007

What did you all think of the finalie of “Enterprise”?It was interesting how it tied it into the STTNG episode ‘Pegasus’

280. Bilbobaggins - March 10, 2007

I’d cast Will Weaton as Kirk, Tony Todd as Spock…

281. Adam Cohen - March 10, 2007

#275 Threevok:

What caused Star Trek to peter out? Two things come to mind:

1) The market was oversaturated with Trek. In the span of 15 years you had 4 tv series and several movies. The show lost its novelty. If Voyager and Enterprise were never made, I predict that the demand for the Trek movies would have been higher and even notwithstanding the lack of quality that went into TNG’s last two films, they would have been more lucrative regardless.

2) Quality diminished over time. I think fans lost their trust in the creative forces behind Trek. For every decent episode of Voyager or Enterprise there were several snoozers inbetween. And don’t get me started on the post-TOS movies. I will say that killing off Kirk was a lowpoint in the series. It really took the joy out of the show for me to see one of fiction’s greatest hero’s get such a pointless death.

So too much quantity and a significant drop in quality- that’s why I think Trek petered out.

(PS Thanks to ChuckAmuck and Stanky for your comments).

282. Threevok - March 10, 2007

Killing Kirk- Like Killing Spock and Data were horrible ideas- At least they brought Spock back…
But Spock and Data’s deaths were at least acts of self sacrifice- wheras Kirk fell off a bridge. WTF?

I say bring back Kirk- There has to be a way it could be done- Perhaps Picard only plucked Kirk’s “echo’ from the Nexus, and the real kirk is still there…The “Bring Back Kirk” trailer I’ve seen online has a great idea on how to bring Kirk back..
Whose idea was it to kill off Data? At least we have B-4 with Data’s downloaded memories, but B-4′s a retard…
Why not reassemble Lore, and download Data/B-4′s memories into Lore- perhaps Data’s sense of right and wrong would kick in, and Lore would be less apt to have psychotic episodes..

283. Dennis Bailey - March 10, 2007

“Star Trek: If At First You Don’t Succeed…”

“Respecting canon” doesn’t mean the same thing to a creative writer or producer that it does to the most exacting of trekkies. It can’t.

Everything will look different. The music will be different. People won’t talk in the same way. Klingons, if any, will be different.

The ship will certainly be different. Some people count the windows on the neck of the TOS-R Enterprise and get upset when they don’t think they match the 11-foot model. And the most obsessive of fans won’t be satisfied that canon has been “respected” simply because someone mentions at some point that Kirk took over the ship from Christopher Pike.

So yeah, some people are going to be very offended by this movie. C’est la guerre.

284. Dennis Bailey - March 10, 2007

Oh, and a series about Sulu captaining the Excelsior would have tanked faster than “AfterMASH.”

285. Lets hate Paramount - March 10, 2007

l wish someone could get a hold of the alternate competing script to ‘Generations’, by Maurice Hurley where Kirk showed to help Picard via a hologram.
I also wish Hurley had stayed on the show, TNG got way blanded down after he left

286. Dennis Bailey - March 10, 2007

Aside from creating the Borg, Hurley was not a positive force on that series. I was glad when he, uh, left.

287. Threevok - March 10, 2007

284- I think you’re dead wrong- a series about Capt Sulu on the Excelsior would have done very well- first off you have as its star one of the original TOS memebers, and you open the door to the possibility other TOS members could pop in- such a series i have full confidence would have stood miles above the ill concieved ‘Enterprise’

288. ozy - March 10, 2007

227- Voyager was great tv show. Loyal to canon and contiunity. Voyager was more similar to Tos than other trek series. Voyager explore strange new worlds and civilization ( like Tos )

289. Threevok - March 10, 2007

why redesign any aspect of the original Enterprise? If writers can produce a quality script, they wont have to hide behind the need to change established Star Trek canon. I really wish the powers that be would look to the Trekker community for insight on stories- becuse some of the most amazing Star trek stories were created by fans- be it the crew that created Starship Exeter or New Voyages.
If there is a radical reboot and redesign- we should simply acknolege the rebooted Trek as an alternate timeline…I debated wth one Trekekr who insisted Christopher pike should be negated from Star trek canon, and Kirk should be established as Enterprise’s first and only captain,a position he attained after graduating from Starfleet. Thats one hellava promotion- going from a green Starfleet graduate to commanding a starship…

290. Threevok - March 10, 2007

I wonder if they will use a Star trek episode as the basis of the story- perhaps a retelling of ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before”?

The first Star Trek movie was just a retelling of the story of the Nomad robotic creater-Nomad and V’ger were more or less the same….
When they were facing off with V’ger,. i never could figure out why Kirk never said ‘you know, this V’ger thing thing reminds of that damn Nomad probe’

Star trek 2 was a direct sequel to ‘Space Seed’
That makes me wonder- could they tap into past episodes as a template for ideas? How about ‘Spock’s Brain’?

291. Adam Cohen - March 10, 2007

#288 ozy

I hear you about Voyager being similar to TOS in some ways but here’s what I didn’t like about the series:

Despite the fact that the ship was off into the true unknown, the whole series was about “getting home.” Of course, that’s what normally would happen in some ship was cast adrift far from its point of origin, but wouldn’t it have been compelling if the crew (or some portion of it at least) wanted to go “out there” and explore outward? My fantasy wish for that show would have been that the crew pulled together and said “Ya know what- we’re not getting home for 80 years, let’s accept that fact and take the risk of exploring beyond the known boundaries of our space!” And here’s the beauty of that mission- while being courageous in the face of a very frightening set of circumstances, they would find new technology at the end of the series that would not only allow them to go home much faster, but would allow the Federation to expand beyond the galaxy- thus setting up the next stage of Starfleet’s mission to explore strange new worlds, etc. Starships would have new warp drives, Starfleet would be renewed in its mission and Star Trek would be revitalized. That would have been awesome.

Instead, the show played it very safe. It tried to act at times like the ship’s return to the Alpha quadrant was inevitable. It took the tension out of their predicament. And not to mention, aliens in the Delta quadrant were not terribly interesting. And the Borg stuff was definitely convenient writing… and overused. Aside from their “out of style” uniforms, Voyager didn’t distinguish itself as a show on the edge of the known galaxy. It wasn’t a terrible show, but it wasn’t awe inspiring as its concept promised.

292. Threevok - March 10, 2007

oops. i lost a sentense there..I meant to write Nomad and V’ger were more or less the same thing…

293. Threevok - March 10, 2007

291- I totally agree with what you said about Voyager- well, to thier credit they explored worlds that happned to be on thier path towards earth….
As I mentioned before- you would think with all these ships having warp drive, many of them would break down and be stuck in the middle of nowhere- years from the nearest starbase- Voyager acted is if they were the only ones to go through this..
The most interesting episode on Voyager was ‘Equinox’- the Equinox was another starfleet ship trapped in the delta quadrant, but unlike Voyager- they tossed the prime directive, and were even grinding up local lifeforms to power thier engines…janeway tried to hunt them down for this..can’t say I blamed the Equinox crew…The Equinox was destroyed, and her surviving crew joined the Voyager crew.
Voyager had holdecks- so her crew was hardly suffering….
And once they were able to contact the federation through some wormhole, they were no longer presumed lost- and the point of the show was moot…….I did like the episode where they were able to conact a Romulan scientist- but he was in the past…

294. Dennis Bailey - March 10, 2007

287: ” I think you’re dead wrong- a series about Capt Sulu on the Excelsior would have done very well- first off you have as its star one of the original TOS memebers,”

So what? Not many people would have cared about that, and Takei’s anything but an acting heavyweight. He and the other folks they rounded up for that “Voyager” episode were dull as dishwater.

“Star Trek Enterprise” lasted, oh, about three and a half years longer than “Excelsior” could have after everyone but the rabid tuned out – and deservedly so.

295. Threevok - March 10, 2007

294- Truth be told- none of the Star trek actors are heavyweight actors, not Shatner, nor Nimoy…I think there are many Trekkers who are not just fixated on Kirk and Spock. There IS a following for Sulu, Chekov, Uhura and Scotty. Why else would hardcore Trekkers be thrilled about George Takei and Walter Koenig’s appearances on the fan produced ‘New Voyages’?
Well, if you disliked the Flashback episode of Voyager (where Takei appeared as Capt Sulu), presumably ‘Star trek- The Undiscovered Country’ was not your favorite Star trek movie- as a scene from that film was recreated for that Voyager episode. Sulu even had Janice Rand on his crew, another TOS member- I’m convinced a series about the Excelsior would have shined…Granted, there are some people who loathe TOS, and prefer STTNG- to each their own…but I know I’m right..; )

296. Dennis Bailey - March 10, 2007

#295: “There IS a following for Sulu, Chekov, Uhura and Scotty. Why else would hardcore Trekkers be thrilled about George Takei and Walter Koenig’s appearances on the fan produced ‘New Voyages’?”

Dick Miller has a following, and no one ever offered him a television series. The “followings” of Trek actors are nowhere near big enough to keep a show on the air for a month.. Numbers matter, which is why – despite the fantasies of a few of the participants – the studio never considered the “Captain Sulu” series for a minute.

297. Quatlo (formerly known as Greg) - March 10, 2007

Regarding canon, continuity and such, as a 51 year old who was a fan from the start back in `66 at age 11, I want to be entertained and see new ideas and ideals. Give me an intelligent story based on the premise of the characters that were as important as Spidey, Sgt. Rock and Sgt. Saunders in my youth. Nitpicking isn’t important in entertainment, just keep it faithful to the original – a great story will allow (most of) us to accept or ignore the necessary upgrades and changes within the premise.

I don’t think the full potential of a TOS or any version of trek film has ever been tapped. Though there have been good moments, there have been a lot of misfires and squandered opportunities for various reasons. I feel there is a great deal of uncharted ground for JJ’s gang to explore with this material.

I’m sure all of us can easily imagine scenes we’d like to see; with me it would involve the Big E exterior ala TMP but better, or a kick hiney opening credit and first ten minutes. And much more.

JJ and the gang have a shot at getting on film some of what we’d all love to see after so many wasted years. Indications are they have the right attitude to handle it.

As for a title, the signs at the movie theaters always just say ‘Star Trek’ anyway.

My 002.5843 quatloos

CHEERS.

298. Threevok - March 10, 2007

one addition- I think the reason some people are getting emotional here- is because Star trek is very important to them- and the idea of a reboot- of undoing 40 years of established Star Trek canon- is offensive.
Before Doctor Who came back on the air, rumors were abound that the Doctor Who series would be ‘rebooted- and diehard Whovians were livid. Whovians are just like Trekkers- they are sci fi fans who demand adherance to established canon. Luckily the revived Doctor Who series IS loyal to established Doctor who canon.Lets hope the next star trek film will be loyal to Star trek canon.
Some people dismiss any emotional reactions to changes within Star trek as immature- but remember- for many, the show is more than just entertainment- its sacred- for some people, its the same with music- It could be the Beatles, Mozart , the Grateful Dead or Johnny Cash – they are far more than simple forms of public entertanment. Mess with the sound, hardcore fans get irate….I think any Star Trek film that comes out should at the very least respect what has come before- and a total reboot would not be respecting the past…For me, Star trek is sacred- and I will hope for the best- but will be watching this film unfold with a certain degree of nervousness…

299. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

Threevok@269: Janeway and crew traveled to 1996 Los Angeles. There was no evidence that America was affected by the Eugenics Wars (not directly, anyway). All references to the Eugenics Wars place it in Asia and te Middle East and parts of the world around there.

300. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

Threevok@298: I don’t think you have anything to worry about. As stated several times above, Trek XI won’t be a reboot.

301. ChuckAmuck - March 10, 2007

Threevok@299: Sorry, had to post that last message in a rush. As I was gonna say, I agree; I think the one franchise that comes closest to equaling Star Trek in both continuity and fan obsessiveness is Doctor Who. (Star Wars probably comes closest if you include the books and games, which I won’t for the sake of this discussion :P). As I said above, though, Abrams and his team state that they have every intention of remaining true to what has come before.

As for “messing with the sound” — the greatest of singers and musicians have to make changes to the sound of their music in order to stay in the business; the best of them do so while remaining true to their roots and respecting their fans. Star Trek must also make (and have made) such changes from time to time to keep with the times, both successfully and unsuccessfully. Whether or not the next Trek movie will be a success, one thing is for sure: based on what happened with Nemesis and Enterprise, it is certain that some kind of change was needed. It was time to hand over the reins to someone else — for the “band” to be placed under new management. Okay, so I suck at allegories, so sue me. :P Just remember, “young minds, fresh ideas”… or some such.

That doesn’t mean a change in canon, though, so now worries. ;)

302. tuvix25 - March 10, 2007

Correction #273 – Daniels time thing (not Jeffries)

303. ChuckAmuck - March 11, 2007

tuvix25@273: You raise some good points. For all we know, some parts of Star Trek did take place in a parallel universe or alternate timeline; that would certainly explain some of the apparent contradictions that have crept in over the past 40 years. I personally maintain that it all takes place in one universe (and have attempted to “rectify” so-called continuity errors to fit in with said universe), but certainly anything is possible.

And you’re right, Trek is always redefining itself and everyone has their own personal vision as to how it should be defined. Unfortunately, if they don’t agree with what is done in a film or episode, they whine and cry and curse like they had been betrayed, like their wishes weren’t met. Star Trek has to appeal to millions of people, not just one person’s perceptions of what it should be.

I think that made sense…

304. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - March 11, 2007

I can’t believe people are deciding whether this movie is “for them” already, before there is a script, and before anything concrete is really laid down (except for the director, writers, and producers, and even those can change).

That having been said, the look of the interior and exterior of the ship should be only “re-imagined” to the extent that they have a modern, high-quality appearance to them, but certainly not redesigned.

But seriously, some of the purists on this message board seem to want to forget that cinema has advanced quite a bit in the last thirty years. Take lighting, for example. TOS era or not, I want to see the Enterprise properly and credibly illuminated, not like in the original TV show.

As to the script, as long as they don’t invoke Midichlorians to explain Kirk’s mojo, I’ll be okay….

305. Doug - March 11, 2007

Funny, a lot of ideas i’ve been wanting to write about have already been touched on, but i’m going to ramble for a change…

Canon and continuity are problematic. As a longtime fan of comic books I can tell you the importance of continuity to me. (i hate the word canon). Unless it’s a story element where Peter Parker is possessed or something, he is never going to casually tell Aunt May to F^@k off. If a writer did this, it would fly in the face of everything you’ve ever read about the character, and your investment as a reader is diminished, and the character becomes undefined and less significant. Likewise, he can’t just suddenly turn invisible and say he always had that power. It doesn’t work.

Storytellers create a universe within which to operate. For readers to become engaged in that universe it has to have a set of rules within which to operate. Those rules form the foundation of believability for the reader. The rules include the science of the Universe, and the characters and their backgrounds.

I just watched The Prestige last night (semi spoiler warning). This movie was excellent to a point. But for me, It broke the universe rule and lessened the stories of the main characters. Set in the real world, the movie takes a relatively cheap sci-fi end, which was cheesy and predictable, and absolutely flys in the face of the universe this movie is meant to exist in.

Midichlorians is nearly another great example. Although it didn’t actually contradict anything, it was a smack down revelation which in my book seemed wholly unnecessary, and again diminished the story.

We don’t need to adhere strictly to canon, but writers should at the very least not make radical changes when it doesn’t serve a major story point to do so. Use character names from the past, there is no reason not too. Maybe McCoy was on extended shore leave during the first couple episodes of regular Trek. If you can play with the ideas, and maintain plausible believability, you’ll be fine.

More than anything I want a great movie with great action and attention to character and plot. It is more difficult, to be sure, to stick to canon, but it doesn’t impede good storytelling with some creative thinking. It respects the fans who’ve invested years into the product, and it respects the writers who’ve come before.

So let’s stop counting windows and turbo lifts, and debating the color of railing. The railing might have been painted once or twice over the span of several 5 year missions, and focus on the real exciting opportunity this movie is for non-discriminating Trek fans.

Doug

306. Londo - March 11, 2007

I’ve just read through all the comments on here, and I can’t help but think that if Star Trek XI is to be a success, the first thing it has to do is piss off the so-called “fans”.

Because the fans of Star Trek really really annoy me. They are chronically nostalgic, anal-retentive about the smallest of things, and extremely conservative about any new material. They whine and complain when anything new and different is tried, and when they are listened to they whine and complain about Star Trek being formulaic. They are their own worst enemy.

I mean, it’s ridiculous. Barely any information has been released at all, and already people are proclaiming that they won’t see this movie. Already they are making like Nostradamus with their predictions that it will suck (Why? Because it will.) Already they are going on about raped childhoods, which is the most ridiculously overblown and melodramatic thing I have heard in a long time indeed.

What do you actually want? From what I’ve seen, the general consensus of these “fans” is they want Star Trek to “move forward”. Forward into the 25th century, with lots of new technologies and technobabble. Nothing new and innovative about the show’s core, of course: they want it to be exactly like the good old days of TNG. Well, guess what? You already got something like that. It was called “Voyager”. You want to try to make another formulaic TNG copy? Push that ball of dung up the hill a bit more? You do know what happens to copies of copies, don’t you?Moving forward doesn’t solve a thing. The only thing it will do is make damn sure that almost nobody will watch it.

It’s true, isn’t it: fans really don’t know what they need. If Star Trek were left to the Trekkies it would be gone within a year.

So I’m glad that they’re deciding to retool it. I’m glad they’re not going to duplicate everything, down to the last bright red door, wobbly pastel-coloured wall and inappropriate miniskirt. I’m glad they’re not just churning out a new mix’n'match set of characters and a new ship with lots of lights and whooshy noises. I’m glad they’re going back to the basis of Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise. I’m glad that they are going to take the plunge and recast the characters. I am glad that they are willing to piss off the fans.

Because from what I’ve read – not just in the comments here, but all over the internet – Star Trek would be better off without them.

307. Adam Cohen - March 11, 2007

Londo

I think what some of us are concerned about is that rehashing a 40 year-old beloved show in a re-imagined format is not exactly “moving forward” as you say.

I agree that some people are jumping to conclusions about this movie, it is too early to say whether this will be a good show or not. However, making blanket statements about the fans of Star Trek is equally not helpful to rational discourse. :)

308. tuvix25 - March 11, 2007

#306 It’s true, isn’t it: fans really don’t know what they need. If Star Trek were left to the Trekkies it would be gone within a year.

Sadly, I think there is some truth to your statement. It is ironic that Star Trek is all about an “evolved sensibility”, yet all the fans gripe and whine so. Rodenberry predicts that we all learn to get along and work together to rid ourselves of things like famine and war etc., but the fans are quick to argue angrily about trivial issues—jumping to conclusions and it goes round and round. It’s an interesting observation.

309. tuvix25 - March 11, 2007

I have to admit, I was kind of upset at first with the thought of a “re-imagination” of my beloved Star Trek. I am not usually in favor of such films.

Like the Hulk for instance, while it was probably closer to what Stan Lee originally had in mind (more like a comic book), I was disappointed that they strayed so far away from the Bixby series. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for up-to-date cinematics—I even sort of liked the new movie, but it wasn’t what I was looking for. Though I’m sure it was just right for other Hulk fans. Again, you can’t please everyone. There was some entertainment value in it for me.

So anyway, it was a little unsettling for me when I heard they are going to retool Star Trek—at first. However, like I said earlier, Star Trek is always redefining itself anyway. As long as they stay in the same realm and don’t get too contradictive or totally undermining of all previous Star Trek, it should be fine as long as it is a good story.

Besides, there really are some things that they need to rethink. In reality, we have technologies today that were considered futuristic in Kirk’s time (like ion propulsion) and other technologies that weren’t even conceived, let alone considered in the original Star Trek universe. Some things are being developed right now that would make one think that Kirk’s time would be much more advanced with. For instance, the colored wooden blocks they used for data storage are far surpassed today with flash drives that fit inside a wrist watch or a credit card. There are even data storage cards that you can find in Wal-Mart today that are smaller than my thumbnail. Heck, they used those blocks on Star Trek like we used to use the 5 ¼ floppy disks.

And then there are technologies that we are no where near—like the transporters that we likely will not have yet by Kirk’s time. I hate to be pessimistic (not usually my style), but ST:ENT is way more advanced than we will be at that time… unless we actually meet the Vulcan’s sometime soon. ;-) Among the biggest hurdles would be warp drive, interstellar communication, transporters, and gravimetric plating—not that we shouldn’t keep having fun imagining them in Star Trek. In fact, we could go even further with some things and even some new things not considered in Star Trek. For example, we will likely develop personal cloaking technology by then (that is underway right now for the military). We may even have holodecks by then (or something very close).

310. tuvix25 - March 11, 2007

I personally would like to see a movie put out that has the ideals and hope of Star Trek but that was a realistic vision of our future in space. There are too many space movies that depict grim views of our future in space. The movie Contact was so close until the end when it got weird. I want to see some of the visions of our futurists put into film. Moon and Mars bases and Io exploration and what the implications might really be if we discover an Earth-like planet or even one with intelligent life.

311. Doug Stone - March 11, 2007

I would like to say this, anthony dont remove this, Freedom of speech is what I have. so here it goes.
I am going to not see this movie. This movie is not what gene had in mind, we do not go backwards to something that us current trekfans care about. If you hurt us we will not go see it. Please do us all a favor and stop this project. Also stop censoring your comments on here. Your being biased and thats like being racist.

312. Londo - March 11, 2007

#307

From what Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman are saying, they seem to be doing the exact opposite to what Star Trek usually does: rather than making another carbon copy with some things mixed and matched around and some new super technologies, they’re going back to the centre of Star Trek and doing it in a different way.

By the way, when I say “fans” I mean a particular type of fan. The type of fan that insists that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet*, and that the NCC-1701 was the first starship ever named Enterprise**, and criticised the NX-01′s design for being too much like the Akira-class if you turn it upside-down and look at it from a particular angle and squint***. Maybe I should have said “fanboys” and “fangirls” instead – that tends to be more specific to what I meant.

* Even though in one episode of TOS a ship entirely crewed by Vulcans was mentioned
** Even though this is flat-out contradicted by TMP: remember the picture of the ring ship?
*** This is the most anal-retentive thing I’ve come across. I mean, how long was the Akira-class on-screen in all of Star Trek? Twenty seconds altogether? Most of the time in the background?

313. Jay - March 11, 2007

bringbackkirk.com is really wicked and the trailer is a piece of genius!!

BRING BACK KIRK BITCHES!!

314. ozy - March 11, 2007

306- I disagree. Reboot is going to the cyrcle, not foword.

291- Voyager have many interesting aliens. It’s normal that crew wants to get home.

315. Xai (with shields up) - March 11, 2007

#311 Doug Stone.
In my opinion, yours is among the most ignorant comments on this thread. At least in the top five.

First, Anthony will speak for himself and this site, but I believe he is very liberal in regard to allowing people to express themselves. I read the site regularly and don’t see much censorship. What are you basing this comment on.. past experience? You Troll or Spam or call someone a nasty?

Second. Regarding Gene R. I won’t pretend to know what he had in mind and that thought process is long gone to us. The “moving forward” thought has come up before and his words could have been easily taken in the wrong context. I’ll allow for misunderstanding if you will, but keep in mind that Gene’s gone and someone else runs the store now.

Third. Don’t pretend to speak for all fans. You and I and the man in the moon can only speak for ourselves. I love Trek, others do as well. But if the mere thought that something may change, major or minor, challenges you to the degree that it hurts you, please remember that it’s ONLY a movie. And that leads me to…

Fourth. The project likely won’t stop now. They are committed. And I look forward to seeing their efforts because I like Trek and this IS another way of moving forward.

You said “I am going to not see this movie. This movie is not what gene had in mind…” How the hell do you even know what the movie is about? Advance copy of the script? JJ and the writers stop by your place for a beer? How can anyone make a decision on viewing a movie 22 months from now based on the little information given that is credible?

Doug, 99.9% of those that visit this site like Trek in some form. If you feel the need to stay away from this movie, no one here will force you to go. You should be very happy… ignorance is bliss I am told.
You DO, however owe this site and Anthony an apology… “biased and thats like being racist”….my a**.
Your entire post is below…

“I would like to say this, anthony dont remove this, Freedom of speech is what I have. so here it goes.
I am going to not see this movie. This movie is not what gene had in mind, we do not go backwards to something that us current trekfans care about. If you hurt us we will not go see it. Please do us all a favor and stop this project. Also stop censoring your comments on here. Your being biased and thats like being racist.”

316. Doug - March 11, 2007

re 311 & 315

Want to iterate that there are multiple Doug’s out there. I don’t want to be confused with the poster from 311, which in nooooo way reflects my opinion.

Doug

317. Xai (with shields up) - March 11, 2007

#316 Doug

I knew there were multiple Dougs and that why I noted his entire name.

Good to meet you Doug.

318. ChuckAmuck - March 11, 2007

Doug Stone@311: As one of the biggest Trek fans I know, I am not at all injured by the concept of this film. In addition, most of the fans here seem to be looking forward to it and willing to give it a chance. There goes your theory that it’s hurting the fans.

Also, you must remember … nobody knows what Gene would be doing now were he still alive. “This movie is not what Gene had in mind” — I’m assuming this is based on Gene’s goals that Star Trek always be looking forward… well, last I checked, the 23rd century is still a long way off. Basically, if it’s still set in OUR future, then it is looking forward.

“Please do us all a favor and stop this project.” Given the overwhelming support from fans and from the studio, not only is that not going to happen but it wouldn’t be doing all of us a favor… just you and those few who agree with you.

As for the deletion of messages… I doubt Anthony would do such a thing without a good reason. Were they ridiculous or off-topic? In other words, were they attempting to turn this forum into something it’s not? Were they offensive in any way… or just plain idiotic? It was likely one of these reasons that messages were deleted. Obviously if your message was deleted, you did a bit more than just express dislike for the project.

319. ChuckAmuck - March 11, 2007

Xai@315: I’m in full agreement. I believe an apology from Mr. Stone is in order. as I said in my last post, if his comments have been deleted in the past, it is likely for similarly absurd remarks and insults. If Anthony felt a few comments had to be deleted, you can bet there was a good reason for it.

Doug@316: The thought never crossed my mind. :)

320. Doug - March 12, 2007

re 319, 317… good to be recognized, thanks! -d

321. Bob - March 12, 2007

318 Go to startrek.com to see fan opinion because this place is cencored to show a positive light much like this post will be

322. Doug - March 12, 2007

re 321…

I work in publishing, and there is a fine line between editing and censoring. Granted this is a blog and there is a difference, but I do appreciate that 1) it’s the hosts perogative (sp?) and 2) that he might save me from having to filter through another 10 post 50 paragraph rant on the comparisons between Nascar and Star Trek.

Doug

323. Montreal Paul - March 12, 2007

I, for one, WILL go see the movie and reserve judgement until AFTER I have seen it. I am 40 and have been a fan ever since I can remember … I remember watching TOS on an old black & white TV. I buy the books and enjoyed all the series (even Enterprise) and movies (yes, even ST:V and Nemesis), some more than others.

How can you honestly say.. without knowing much about this movie… that you and everyone else should boycott it. That’s YOUR opinion. If you are so sure that you hate this movie already and that you are not going to see it … let me ask you this… WHY are you even posting here? Why do you both frustrating yourself by reading anything that has to do with the new movie?

324. Craig - March 12, 2007

I was excited when I first heard the News that Star Trek was going to get a new movie but then we got all this talk about another prequel, Big name stars, Recasting Kirk & Spock, Action Film, TOS orientated(I can\’t help that I grew up with TNG & VOY) followed up with the “Reimagining” statement.

These news items put me off so if it turns out to be a Reboot which it will be if there is a recast the whole of 40 years of Star Trek lore is lost, all your favorite characters that you loved or loved to hate are open to reinterpretation.

323 you say you\’ll go see it whatever people say but aren\’t you guilty of prejudging the film too? I hope like the Peter Cushing Dr Who Movies this movie can exist in it\’s own bubble world and let our Universe that we love continue to grow and expand in series and movies separate to this project but my greatest fear is that it\’ll be successful and our universe will be anialated. The best way I can see to support our Universe\’s continuity is to completly boycott this film like I did The Italian Job.

325. ChuckAmuck - March 12, 2007

Bob@321: Given the bashing Trek XI’s concept has received in this blog, trust me, it ain’t censored towards either a negative or positive light. As far as I can tell, comments that were deleted from this blog were both ignorant and irrelevant. If this blog were to be censored to only show a “positive light”, there would probably only be about 150 entries instead of the 323 (now 324) currently listed.

Oh, and I’ve seen some of the so-called “fan” opinions at the StarTrek.com message boards. A lot of those aren’t fans, they’re close-minded fools who claim to be Star Trek fans yet, like some folks on here, act against Gene Roddenberry’s vision as actually presented in Star Trek. Those are called pseudo-fans; they don’t post opinions, they post nonsense. All they have to do is say “I’m not too crazy about this film’s concept” and maybe list reasons why in a rational, mature manner; instead, they rant and rave, proclaiming the movie will suck, stating their one opinion as everybody’s opinion, curse out Paramount and the producers and demand their deaths, threaten to hurt them should they cross paths, etc. Those are not opinions, it’s just stupidity.

I found this one regarding censorship at TrekMovie.com particularly entertaining.
They apparently don’t bother reading the blogs, just posting to ‘em and wondering where their comments went. Apparently the guy kept sending irritating posts so Anthony set it up to where following posts were deleted. Maybe if he hadn’t been irritating people, he wouldn’t have been blocked. In any case, I can see little difference between the blogs here and the message boards there, except that there are apparently more people complaining over nothing over there.

Oh, and to Montreal Paul@323: Amen, brother. Amen.

326. Doug Stone - March 12, 2007

xai, please realize that this movie is the death of trek. and theres a thread on st.com that says the same thing I am saying. why censor people and make false hype for a movie we dont care about.

327. Anthony Pascale - March 12, 2007

wow I am a racist

some regular readers here know this site has spam software running on it and it does most of the policing because I dont have time.

when someone posts over and over it sometimes flags them as a spammer.

I do however ‘flag’ some people as spammers or trolls manually when I see them use multiple names or hate speech. But really I dont have time to bother reading every post, and ususally only take action when some one notifies me of a problem.

by the way I cant believe this thing has gone over 300…that might be some kind of record and the amazing thing is that people are focusing on one word ‘reimagining’ which wasnt even said by the actual writers.

by the way Chuck Amuck,
you do know that one of my pet peeves is people claiming that some fans arent fans. All Trek fans are fans, some may be wrong, but they are all fans. No one can claim to the ‘real fans’ yes there are many trek fans who are having trouble saying goodbye to TNG or too concerned over canon, but they are still fans. I hope over time they will come around and learn to embrace change, if not they have more hours of material than any other franchise and should be thankful.

328. Anthony Pascale - March 12, 2007

so if people want to continue to obsess over a word that was never actually said by the writers and take it out of context of everything said before….knock yourselves out. Alternatively here are the things I think were actually learned from the interview:

1. Trek XI will have a significantly larger budget than Nemesis, likely the biggest Trek budget ever
2. Trek XI target audience and ‘economic model’ is aimed at non Trek fans and Trek fans, breaking tradition of recent films
3. Writers prefer simple ‘star trek’ as name (although it is not yet approved)
4. Cinematographer will be MI3′s Daniel Mindel
5. Prod. Designer will be Scott Chambliss (reported before but not confirmed)
6. The film will be a ‘starship adventure’ (presumably putting to rest a film primarily set at an academy location)
7. Film will have a focus on action
8. Trek technology terminology (technobabble) will still be used
9. Writers are fans of Matt Damon and happy to see him as Kirk
10. The film will try and recapture the TOS spirit of being about ‘the human soul’ and relationships

329. Xai - March 12, 2007

#326 Doug Stone.
I think Anthony just expressed himself all he needed to a few posts up.
Frankly, if you don’t care about this movie…why are you here? If this site promotes all you say along with censorship, why even come here?
And…
If there’s a thread on startrek.com that says so… that must make it so..right?…. Newsflash buddy.Don’t believe everything you read.

You owe Anthony an apology… grow a pair and do it now. I am very glad we won’t be seeing you at the theater. Will you be the one carrying the protest sign?

Your complete post as below…

X

xai, please realize that this movie is the death of trek. and theres a thread on st.com that says the same thing I am saying. why censor people and make false hype for a movie we dont care about.

330. Xai (with shields up) - March 12, 2007

#321 Bob.
Are you and Doug Stone siamese twins? I’ll repeat and type more slowly this time.
If you dislike the site, why are you here?
If you think you dislike the film, even before they shoot it or the script is known, don’t go see it.

#324 Craig.
First, please try spell check to help communicate better.
Second. Why be closed-minded? All I see is assumuptions that this movie will change Trek beyond recognition. “Your” universe will still exist after this movie is made. And face it. “your” Trek universe says there are always possibilities…I agree with that. Perhaps it’s possible for you to try a taste of this new/old Trek. You might like it. If not, you and Doug Stone and Bob can get together in the basement for a film festival sometime.

331. Alex Rosenzweig - March 12, 2007

Catching up… :)

#234: To be fair, there’s also no reason to believe they wouldn’t, at least in the case of Titan. same-ol’, same-ol’ TNG might not be so optimal a choice, but something new, something people couldn’t just watch for free on TV, that might have a much better chance.

#235: Agreed. If the characters are written consistently with how we’ve come to know them, new actors adding their own personal style to the portrayals should be no problem. And if the characters aren’t consistent, it won’t matter what the actors do, ’cause the project will have already gone well on the way to failure.

#253: Well, I won’t speak for anybody else, but I am very much looking forward to seeing a new Star Trek film. But my hope is for a *Star Trek* film, not a *Something else wearing a Star Trek mask* film.

#262: One of the things that makes keeping the proposed film–assuming that what we’re hearing about the premise is correct, of course–consistent with existing continuity is that there are so few actual datapoints about the time period (maybe 5 or 6 discreet facts at moost?) that it’s very, very easy to do a lot of original storytelling without contradicting anything. I could be wrong, but I think that’s what Abrams and Co. are figuring, MTV”s “Interpretations” of the comments notwithstanding.

#266: I think that’s very likely what’s going to happen. It’ll look and likely feel a lot more like a TOS episode than any of the featuyre films have, but bigger, vastly more epic, and of course redesigned a bit to reflect a sensibility of 40 years later…thiugh they do seem to be making an effort not to abandon the original design ideas.

#275: I would have LOVED to have seen “ST: Excelsior”. “Enterprise” wasn’t a bad choice, but there were a lot of ways to have made “Excelsior” work, and possibly work better than ENT, as a reflection of our modern world. (And, sorry, Dennis, I really can’t agree that the show would have tanked that fast, assuming it was done well. That qualifier, of course, is key. ;) )

#283: I think things will look different, but not unrecognizably or over-radically so. Ironically, Dennis, I look at a number of your own projects as possible hints to how the iconic elements like the ship and some sets could be portrayed for a feature without disrespecting the original designs, which–especially for the Enterprise herself–both “In a Mirror, Darkly” and Trek Remastered have shown is every bit as beautiful with modern effects as she was in the 1960s. That design still holds up magnificently. Detail her up a bit more for the 60-foot screen, and…oh, my… :D

#312: Yup, there is a level of obsessiveness that can become counterproductive. I like to describe it as the fans who will be upset if the buttons on the helm console aren’t exactly the same as in TOS. ;) Now, that level of continuity isn’t going to be there, and probably shouldn’t. Not to mention all the folks who will whine because new material in the next film contradicts–not what’s previously established on film, ’cause we’ve already established there isn’t much!–but their own personal ideas of what *should be* happening. Most of the anti-”Enterprise” whining, when it came to continuity allegations, fell into that category. That’s the sort of overdoing it that should be taken with a grain of salt.

#328: Good summation, Anthony! I asked this over on the Sy Boards earlier, and I suppose I can ask it here, too: Is there any statement, interview, offhand comment, or anything else directly from someone involved in the production that supports the claim that the next film will not stick with at least the broad continuity of the Trekverse, as repeated interviews and statements have asserted? I’ve seen nothing, and I still suspect that MTV deliberately used words like “reimagined” to either grind their own axe or just see if they can set folks off. (If the latter, it seems to have worked. ;) )

Best,
Alex

332. ChuckAmuck - March 13, 2007

Anthony@327: Okay, maybe saying they were not fans was a bit much. I was tired and angry; all this nonsense of censorship and people going overboard about a movie that hasn’t even begun production yet got me riled up. I believe you have told me about this pet peeve of your’s before. I greatly apologize for my comments above; it will not happen again.

Anthony@328: Good summation, indeed. Some of those (i.e. being a Starship-based adventure possibly putting an end to the Academy rumor) I hadn’t even thought of. I think I’ll use some of those in the Memory Alpha article. ;)

Anyways, again, sorry about the anger message. I just wish people would get some sense, though. :(

——

R.I.P.
Richard Jeni
1957-2007

333. ChuckAmuck - March 13, 2007

PS: The previous message was in regards to my comments in message #325, specifically my statements that many of the people at the StarTrek.com message boards were not fans. Basically, the entirety of the middle paragraph in that message is what I apologize for. Just so ya know.

334. FS3D - April 25, 2007

Man, this is so controvertial. People are so divided over how this movie should be taken that no matter what the writer/director/executive producers do with the new film, it’s bound to bomb with some people.

The original Star Trek was made in the 1960′s. I find it laughable that much of the so-called “canon” in TOS has already been superceded by science fact. For instance, TOS referenced the Eugenics Wars as happening in the 1990′s (Space Seed) and sleeper ships being sent out in the 2010′s, some of this of which had to be glossed over or ignored for shows like Voyager and Enterprise (after all, both shows were made in the last 15 years, and the final Enterprise episode first aired in 2005, of course we’ve had no Eugenics Wars, our genetic engineering capabilities are far from the level where we could even create a super-cell, much less a super-human, and I doubt very much that NASA will ever commission a sleeper ship to explore any nearby systems – they’ll wait until we find a way to break the light barrier).

We have to face it. If anyone tries to stick with established canon so religiously the show will become something of a joke with younger people because there’s no way they can suspend disbelief for elements of a show that is so out of date (I mean, come on… that TOS Bridge design they recreated for “In A Mirror, Darkly” did not in any way, shape, or form, convince me that the Defiant was technologically advanced compared to the NX-01, and that’s only the look of the ship (I’m not even touching on some elements of Earth History as portrayed by Trek that are out of date by today’s standards).

The show HAS to change. I know there is a loyal fan base out there who will hand my ass back to me in a hat for what I’m saying, but I personally am all FOR change. If things stay the same or if they try to conform to a canon that was established before the world evolved the way it is today, then they run the very real risk of becoming stagnant very quickly. I personally would hate to see the gaudy coloured pipework and paint schemes used on the TOS Enterprise (It might have been appropriate for a 60′s audience… But not now) and we’re surrounded by technology that makes the TOS Enterprise look a little old hat (flat-panel displays are the norm for most PC’s these days, and OLED displays have already been developed allowing for flexible displays that you can bend and roll up etc – imagine an animated newspaper for instance – and this new technological level we’re at now needs to be superceded by a show that is set in the future even if *some* elements need to be retained in order to establish that this IS Trek).

There was also a lot of heated debate as to how the Enterprise should look in Star Trek XI. Change it, is my opinion. Matt Jefferies did a great job in the 60s with his version, and it had stood up well for many years, but this is 2007, and the “Enhanced” episodes of TOS look something of a joke to me because of how closely they are trying to keep the look of the original, dated effects and set designs. The re-design of the Enterprise for the Motion Picture in the 70s was a step in the right direction, and I imagine it wasn’t anywhere near as hotly denounced as any of today’s ideas are being (I mean, come on, there are people here saying that if the ship doesn’t look like the TOS era ship, then it’s WRONG? Like I said, if it DOES look like the TOS era ship, including wooden/plastic/matte surface properties etc, it will look really bad and unrealistic – spacecraft are usually constructed out of metal and ceramics today, and I imagine you’re very unlikely to have a spacecraft made from wood with a matte paint job in the 22nd or 23rd century). Keeping the shape of the original in terms of the design flow is advisable because it’s a signature of the show, but if people propose that the ship has more details, does something different to the Aztec Patterns on the hull, and adds stuff like Escape Pods and phaser strips to the outer hull a-la Enterprise-D, E and Voyager, then what’s the problem? The NX Class Enterprise looked more modern in my mind than the TOS Era Enterprise did, exterior and interior, which in a chronology where the events of TOS took place after ENT, seems a bit weird to me, and needs to be addressed in order to have that suspension of disbelief restored for me again.

Having said that, while I feel the show could use updated visuals and a re-think of the methodology used in the set and spacecraft designs, I feel this is less the case for the core story elements of the show (aside from superceded events like the Eugenics Wars and the departure of the Botany Bay in 2018). I still like the fact that the show broke ground in terms of attitudes toward women and people of differing ethnic origins (I remember Roddenberry’s choice of a female Executive Officer in the pilot for Star Trek, even though he had to change that later at the request of the studios, and I thought that given people’s attitudes at the time, this was a brave and new direction he was taking). Sure, there were a lot of 50′s and 60′s attitudes to how the show was presented, which in itself could use some updating (although this has been happening in any case with shows such as TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT), but the show had always been more about presenting a human perspective when dealing with extra-terrestrial issues than it was about coining jargon and technical terms.

Times change. Our entertainment needs to change with the times. If this requires a re-imagining of how the TOS universe looks, then so be it, even if it upsets a few die-hards who are living in the past.

335. Billy Pyo - April 21, 2011

I absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your post’s to be what precisely I’m looking for. Do you offer guest writers to write content to suit your needs? I wouldn’t mind composing a post or elaborating on a lot of the subjects you write related to here. Again, awesome site!

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