Rossi and Nemecek Opine On Star Trek XI |
jump to navigation

Rossi and Nemecek Opine On Star Trek XI April 30, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film),TOS Remastered,Trek Franchise , trackback

In the latest Star Trek Magazine, regular columnists Dave Rossi and Larry Nemecek have Star Trek XI on their mind. Rossi, who has worked on Trek for 15 years including being a producer on Trek Remastered, laments on how even though he works on the Paramount lot he will be ‘on the outside looking in’ for Trek XI. But he looks on the bright side noting that he can again just be a fan. He also dismisses ‘franchise fatigue,’ noting

Star Trek fans want to like Star Trek. If the stories are good, if the characters are compelling, if there’s balanced doses of action, humor, and drama, people will watch. Not surprising then that Paramount chose to go with Star Trek: The Original Series and moreover with Mr. Abrams.

Rossi does acknowledge that the key to Trek XI will be the choice of cast for our intrepid heroes. He notes that Shatner is so tied the the role that it is a monumental task, however feels it "would be deadly to cast someone with the instructions ‘play Shatner playing Kirk.’" He also takes some lessons from TOS-R, saying

Having worked on this Remastered project, I know that the die-hard fans will ultimately pick this new movie apart regardless. It ‘s the nature of the beast. And while the nit-pickers do what they do best, I hope the rest of us will look at this with fresh eyes and a nod towards what Roddenberry was going for: not that Shatner was Kirk and Nimoy was Spock, but a story about heroes thrust into extraordinary adventures, armed only with their humanity (okay, and phasers too) as a guide.

Larry Nemecek, former editor of Star Trek Communicator and writer of Star Trek The Next Generation Companion, sees a ‘pendulum swing’ in the Trek universe and its return to TOS. In his column titled ‘What Goes Around’ Larry notes how in the 90s the TOS era seemed out of date and the TNG era was the new shiny thing, but now things have switched around…

those who had hooted at Star Trek’s original 1960s sensibility and look were instead now guffawing over the "Hyatt Regency in space" look of the comfortably plush Enterprise-D.

Nemecek is not criticizing TNG, and in fact believes that eventually the pendulum will swing back "to where counselors, carpeted walls and other concepts of ST:TNG are not only respected but viewed in all-new ways.



For more pick up Star Trek Magazine (#132  in the UK#5 in the US) on newsstands this week.



1. fatmanbruno - April 30, 2007


2. Jon - April 30, 2007

The problem with trek’s vitality was that it tried to satisfy trekkies by casting the original actors and followed them into retirement .If the film series was designed to satisfy the movie going general public the younger actors would have been re cast.We re dealing with a sophisicated movie going general public these days who ve been through a few actors playing Bond,superman etc.I think the time couldn,t be better to introduce a re-invigorated Trek for the mainstream blockbuster superhero audience.Trek has all the right elements.this time they won’t be tied down to storylines about aging.

3. Xai (let open minds reign) - April 30, 2007

Hopefully first with something to say.

I can’t help but think that Lemecek is correct about the pendulum swing. The time is right for TOS. It is the most widely known because of it’s 40+ years of existance. With the right story and cast, this will revive an old friend in a fresh and fantastic way.

Additionally, the actor playing Kirk has to do it “his way”… no mimmicking, no – bad- im-pressions. I think Abrams will be sensitive to this and will nip it in the bud should it begin.

I know the nit-pick birds will be flying ’round Christmas, 2008. I hope most can watch with an open mind and let the new kids give it their best shot.

4. Xai (let open minds reign) - April 30, 2007

Agreed Jon
Agreed Jon.


5. Anthony Pascale - April 30, 2007

fatman….first = boring

think of something else

6. Crusade2267 - April 30, 2007

What kept Star Trek alive for so many years before TNG was a steady stream of well thought out movies. (No, I don’t count TMP in that.) What we needed wasn’t churning out the alien of the week, it was coming up with a good story. The Wrath of Khan was a good story. The Search for Spock was a decent story. The Voyage Home was a good story. What do we need to keep Star Trek going now? A GOOD STORY!!!

7. Bill K - April 30, 2007

Comfortably plus?…Did you mean plush?

8. Captain Pike - April 30, 2007


Okay, I tend to agree, but I can honestly say I never “drank the KoolAid” and accepted TNG as the end of TOS. Even without Kirk et al I would prefer stories set in the TOS or pre-TOS era. I just prefer scenes like Pike fighting the Kalar on Rigel VII over Picard and company sitting around the meeting table.

9. Kevin - April 30, 2007

Well, my theory as to why now is right for TOS, TOS was grittier and less plush like the above mentioned TNG. TOS was created and aired in the 60’s a time of war, cynicism and prejudice. TNG aired when things were looking up for the world. The Cold War was ending and we seemed to be making strives as a species. Thus the comfortable and cerebral TNG. Now we live in a time of war, cynicism and prejudice again.

As for the “don’t play Shatner playing Kirk” thing, Shatner is Kirk, so I would think that the actor would have to borrow certain mannerisms from Shat. It would just have to be done in a way that isn’t cheesy.

10. Anthony Pascale - April 30, 2007

yes Bill, good catch…that is the problem when your typos are still correctly spelled words and miss the checker!

although the Enterprise D was a bit ‘plus sized’ as well

11. Sleeper Agent X - April 30, 2007

I think Rossi’s words are dead on. The essence of Trek doesn’t lie in nitpicking how closely one actor’s portrayal comes to Shatner’s, but Roddenberry’s desire to tell bold stories against the backdrop of a wondrous universe filled with possibilities. If Abrams and Trek XI get that right, the movie will be a success in my eyes.

12. Ro-Dan - April 30, 2007

I agree with many of you in that the TNG era seemed to be too “plush”. I’ve always enjoyed the more enclosed, nautical feeling of the TOS era. Plus, Trek characters don’t get any better than Kirk or Spock.

13. dil - April 30, 2007

Presentation will be everything–it can’t be TNG, Voy, or Enterprise, but more TOS, but not–I hope Abrams sees this and hope for the best.

14. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 30, 2007

Mistake: to try to recast characters from Star Trek. Mistake: to set the movie in or around that era. No doubt that it is the most interesting of all eras and the characters are the most interesting, but that is largely because of that cast, that design, that music, and the time it was made. It’s all about the style.
This movie may even become popular or even the most popular (by some system of measurement), but it won’t be Star Trek.


15. Kev - April 30, 2007

Yes, if the story is good that’s enough to make it work. Not sure about TNG coming back into vogue, though, and I do like the show. But it left its “New Age” ideas by the wayside toward the end, esp. FC. Great series and very important in TV syndication, though.

16. Jon - April 30, 2007

TNG wasn’t Trek.It was more like an audience suppository to medicate some kind of itch for things trek.(I should have been a writer)

17. Crusade2267 - April 30, 2007


I don’t think Star Trek is about a cast. As with all good things, it is about the charicters. We’re never going to have the old cast in its entirety again. Kelly and Doohan are dead. But the charicters live on. Someone else can bring new life to them. It will be an acting challange, but I’m not willing to say its impossible. Star Trek is not about William Shatner. Star Trek is about Captain Kirk. (Actually, its about a lot of great charicters, but I’m just illustrating a point.)

Oh, and 17th!!!!

18. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 30, 2007

Captain Kirk has been done by William Shatner and only William Shatner for 40+ years. They are inseparable.
To whomever: Invent some new characters and stick them on a different ship if you want to continue with Star Trek. I don’t really care for most of the other series or their characters all that much, but would rather see that come out than some fake version of the classic.


19. Tim - April 30, 2007

3. Xai (let open minds reign) – April 30, 2007 – Fully agree. I look forward to seeing the TOS universe on the big screen, a new fresh look at trek will revitalise an admittedly old franchise. New actors, playing classic characters their own way, will open up all new possibilities for Trek. I love the later series, but for them to live again (which is inevitable) the heart and sole of trek needs to be recharged. Bring on the Classics, bring on the future.

20. Anthony Pascale - April 30, 2007


it is time to move on. They are making the movie and recasting Kirk. If you cannot accept TOS being recast, then stick with your DVDs.

and Shatner only played Kirk for 28 years (Pilot – Generations).

7 out of 10 of the Trek films had Kirk in them. Only one of the remaining 3 was really deemed a success. Para had 3 choices: More TNG era, new era/characters, recast TOS era. From the general public point of view it was clearly the lowest risk choice to make. The general public are not bought into Trek and are less likely to buy into another spin off. Trek fans are already ‘customers’ of the brand and would be more likely. Since non fans trump fans it is a no brainer.

so I suggest you get over it

21. Tim - April 30, 2007

18. Stanklin T. McFibberich –

Renevatio – Rebirth, the fundamentals wont change, it’s not a reboot, it’s just a new story, to inject fresh life in an old franchise. If people want Trek to continue trek itself has to change, you could see the change beggining in ST: ENTERPRISE, more character and situation driven stories than before, a sharper focus on the details, xenophobia groups etc, fleshing out the unexplored of Treks past. This movie can add to that and allow a new generation of shows and movies.

22. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 30, 2007

re:20. Anthony Pascale – April 30, 2007

It is not time to move on. I will decide that. Those are my opinions and even though I realize nothing will come of it, I will state them from time to time.
If you just want a bunch of Star Trek XI yes-men here, I’m not going along with it.
So it’s 28 years instead of 40 or whatever. Same idea. And of course there is the DirectTV commercial. :)
And people (the studio, you, etc.) continually use the reasoning that the non-fans are the target audience. Yeah, it’s a money thing, I completely understand. Why would we, the fans, want to support that? You want them to bastardize the thing for the mainstream?
I don’t. I’d rather have it die than turn into some unrecognizable crap.

And yes…I will continue to watch the originals.

23. VOODOO - April 30, 2007

Well said Anthony.

Everything you said is true.

On the other hand I agree with Stanklin to a point.

I think the happy medium is to bring Shatner + Nimoy back for one more go around.

That would satisfy the old fans (Myself,Stanklin,Still Kirok, all the BBK supporters…etc) + introduce a recast version of TOS.

Anthony: Do you think Shat + Nimoy will be in ST XI as Kirk + Spock? Clearly Abrams is not having these meetings with Shatner + Nimoy because he cares about their input on the characters.

I think he wants them to appear in the film. What is your opinion?

24. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 30, 2007


25. Stanklin T. McFibberich - April 30, 2007

Dang…It was 24th. :)

“On the other hand I agree with Stanklin to a point.”
Well, that’s something. :)

Personally, I hope those guys (Shatner and Nimoy) have the sense to stay out of it.

26. Jeffrey S. Nelson - April 30, 2007

9. Yes, a new actor playing Kirk could play Shatner as Kirk to a point as long as it’s not cheezy. Sounds logical to me. To repeat myself, I don’t see Matt Damon in the role. Hope it’s an unknown actor such as Jesse Lee Soffer (Will Munson on the CBS soap “As the World Turns”…check him out!). Anthony…whattaya think of this casting recommendation?
As for reinventing original series Trek in this new movie to capture this larger mainstream audience, I think at this point in the time space continuum that hard core Trekkers and Trekkies ARE the largest common denominator audience anyway!! So, don’t change things too much!!
Having Shatner and Nimoy on board as older Kirk and Spock bookends at a minimum would be wonderful.

27. Michael Appleton - April 30, 2007

#26 “Having Shatner and Nimoy on board as older Kirk and Spock bookends”.
If they wait much longer to start filming this thing, then Shatner and Nimoy will have passed away, been stuffed, and end up appearing in the film AS bookends! Cripes, let’s get on with the show!! Move it people!

28. Crusade2267 - April 30, 2007

I say we just give it a chance. Theres four spinoffs, so the whole spinoff thing has been done to death. If Shatner and Nimoy want in, fine, let ’em in. If they don’t, fine too. I don’t know if this movie will follow the odd-even pattern or not. It may fall flat on its face. It may be the worst piece of Star Dreck ever. But it may be pretty freakin awesome. Shooting it down because they want to, no, NEED to recast the charicters is dumb. Its all about whether the story is good, the charicters are well written, etc.

William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy’s faces will always come to my mind when I think of Kirk and Spock. But I think the charicters are a lot more durable than the actors at this point. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov will be around for decades to come. The TOS cast has already lost two members.

29. Mark - April 30, 2007


#18 and 22 – S T McF: I’m with you. And if Shatner plays Kirk in any form in XI, it will be 40+ years.

30. Tim - April 30, 2007

Yikes. Star Trek is a topic that can devide so easily! You have those that back and support Enterprise, those that opposed it, those that fight for a return to TOS and those that fight it. I admitt I loved Enterprise, Loved DS9 and TNG and alos I love TOS, all have their strengths and weaknesses. This new movie will be no different I will have strengths and weaknesses.
To kep trek alive a relevent it needs to reach the youth of today, a younger kirk and spock might just do that. As I said in other posts let’s just look to the future and see what Abrams and his team come up with.

31. Anthony Pascale - April 30, 2007

people need to stop being afraid of Trek appealing to the mainstream. I feel like some Trekkies want the franchise to die with them. And that is exactly what will happen soon if there arent more fans brought in. Trek is dying because the fanbase is dying. Like any product they need to introduce it to a new set of consumers. Making Trek competitive is not ‘bastardizing’ it, it is actually the opposite. It is revitalizing it and growing it.

I dont want Trek to continue to spin its wheels delivering the same old comfort food to a shrinking fanbase until it is just another niche product appealing to a couple million or less.

I want Trek to again be able to compete in the global market place as a contemporary vital franchise. I want it to feel modern in its sensibilities and production techniques.

So I welcome all newcomers and rewelcome ‘casual fans’ who walked away from the franchise in recent years. I look forward to seeing Trek be ‘big’ again.

32. Buckaroohawk - April 30, 2007

Stanklin will continue to make his opinion known from time to time…

…over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…

If a Stanklin gripes in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does he still make a sound?


33. Tim - April 30, 2007

31. Anthony Pascale – April 30, 2007 – Well said. Trek does not belong to any one generation of fans, nor does Trek mean only TOS. Trek is one of only a few franchises to evolve meaningfuly into something of a living entity. It has become part of society and culture, and to let it die to satisfy one generation of fans is wrong, it is there for all to enjoy, and to call keeping it alive bastardisation is wrong as well. Besides the great action and SFX’s it touches social nerves highlights things wrong with our own culture, Facism, Homophobia, Racism despotism. It also encourages to question things, makes us want to see what is among the stars. To deny future generations the experience of New Trek, to satisfy those who oppose change is wrong.

34. Florian - April 30, 2007

I loved Shatner as Kirk but I think Shatner is not a good actor. If they cast a good actor I think he can pull it off. I prefere an unknown face so no one identifies the actor with an other roll.

When Sean Connery stoped playing Bond people also said thats not possible Conery is Bond. And now we have so many actors playing Bond and its an accepted fact that the Bond acters change. People even discuse in advance: Who is going to be the next Bond.

Maybe some time in the future people will say: Who is the next kirk or: I liked the 4th Kirk better than the 7th. Or even: Shatner wasen’t the best Kirk. Of course then somone would say: But he’s the original.

So enough hypothetical dialogs. I’m looking forward to Star Trek XI.

35. Tim - April 30, 2007

34. Florian – April 30, 2007 – Ok lets start it. Who do you think will be the next Kirk?

One question – do we have to find the next Janeway?

36. Michael Appleton - April 30, 2007

#31 Anthony Pascale “people need to stop being afraid of Trek appealing to the mainstream”
Bravo! In the months of me coming to visit this site, that is one of the most impassioned pleas I’ve heard for starting in again with “new blood”. Anything to revitalize and perpetuate the Trek legend, eh? C’mon Stanky, give it a chance! If Basil Rathbone’s Sherlock Holmes can be improved on(which it was)…, hey,… you never know…..

37. Gary Seven - April 30, 2007

I will always love Shatner and Nimoy the best, but it’s either recast or there will never be any further TOS. I choose to have more TOS, if it’s done well. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

38. Michael Appleton - May 1, 2007

Well, sure…if you’re going to beat him over the head with Emerson! Jeez, talk about killing a fly with an elephant gun!

39. Dom - May 1, 2007

Star Trek was always meant to be mainstream. It was created to get big viewing figures so companies would buy advertising space in the breaks and pay bigger money because more people from more demographics would watch it! At its peak, also TNG got big viewing figures.

It’s a bizarre thing that when a show/film series gets a vocal hardcore following, they drive away the mainstream. In the UK, Doctor Who fans got vocal enough in the 1980s that the content of the show was altered by the then-producer leading to ‘cult’ status and death. The 2000s relaunch is only a mainstream success because it’s shockingly dumbed down and aimed at the OK magazine and Heat magazine readership and their progeny.

Firefly fans (Browncoats) are so vocal that they fooled Universal into buying the movie rights. The fans were so OTT, though, that they helped put the mainstream audience off seeing Serenity in the cinema, because it was given a cult image.

Star Trek has lingered in the cult ghetto, because down the years, the shows and films gradually ceased to be Star Trek shows and films: they became shows and films ***about*** Star Trek. They were intended to give the fans a happy by digging into the minutiae of the Trek, but actually alienated even the fans because when you get into the tiny details, the contradictions and errors previously glossed over become screamingly obvious.

A TOS film, with iconic characters painted in broad strokes, telling a bold story, will work wonderfully because it will be a Star Trek film and not a film requiring Trek 101 to understand it!

40. Josh T. ( There are no SITH in SHAT) Kirk Esquire' - May 1, 2007

Stanky we are in the same boat as far as being TOSesque’ in preference and tastes, but the difference is I see the character of James T. Kirk being even above the almighty Shat. We WANT these characters to be the archetypes that they are, and transcend the generations to become the mythical pop cultural icons that we all know they are.

By all accounts, this film isn’t replacing the Shat as Kirk, but rather inserting a new unexplored chapter in the LIFE of this mythic character.

It would hardly be convient or appropriate to include the Shat in your film if you want audiences to distance themselves from Shat as Kirk, it’s going to constantly be there in our faces, by the fact the Shat is even in the film.
So whatever new actor that is brought to the table will serve the purpose of filling in a gap in the life and chronicles of Kirk.

These characters are transcending the era they were created, as well as he society and culture, they are becoming one with the contemporary pop culture lexicon. and will take their places hopefully along some of the most enduring fictional characters of both book and screen.

Recasting the role of Kirk isn’t a disservice to William Shatner, on the contrary, it is the ultimate compliment, the man has created a character that will surpass his own lifetime.

By being stringently opposed to any new iteration of TOS, in essence any future for that most noble of crews is damned for all eternity to DVDs and 40 year old adventures.

On the contrary, I think there should be all new incarnations of anything and everything pertaining to TOS.

Why not a new animated series? Why not a new film? Why not a new TV series? All centered around Captain James Tiberius Kirk and the indomitable crew of the Starship U.S.S. Enterprise.
Keep the essence of the show the same, fill it with the legendary characters, situations, races, ideas, and let it bloom mightily.

To hell with a 5 year mission, make it a 50 year mission. These characters deserve it.

41. Josh T. ( There are no SITH in SHAT) Kirk Esquire' - May 1, 2007


As true as that is Dom, you have to remember, the mainstream of 2007 isn’t the mainstream of 1966. People today are far more dumb and lacking in attention..

What captivated imaginations then, sadly, would only serve to bore and irk young minds today.

42. Bart - May 1, 2007

Face it, without TNG we wouldn’t even be talking about Star Trek XI right now.

When ST XI would be made for the die-hard fans (as on this site), nitpicking about the nacelle caps, it will fail instantly. You cannot survive on nostalgia. Todays audience doesn’t want a TOS look in the movie.

That’s were TNG succeeded: appeal to a wide audience. Everybody seems to forget that during it’s final seasons it was the most watched series on television! They managed to please both the fans AND a much wider audience. That’s what Trek XI needs.

43. Pr011 - May 1, 2007

#23: I think the happy medium is to bring Shatner + Nimoy back for one more go around.

I honestly believe that we will not see Shatner or Nimoy in the new film. The inclusion of these (admittedly great) actors will be a massive distraction for the audience from the new actors, while also requiring working the plot to include them. To include them would immediately have the audience comparing the old actors to the new ones, distracting the audience from the story and having them focus on the technical production aspects of the film instead – that can kill a film just as fast as poor editing or writing. The ultimate aim of a good film is to immerse the audience into the story and stop them thinking about the background production, at least until they leave the cinema.

I don’t think any producer would make substantial changes to a film just to satisfy what ultimately would be a wish to see the old actors from the hard-core fanbase, especially when the film is to appeal to a wider audience.

And why would it be bad to recast new actors anyway? The only way Trek will survive is by evolving to include new audiences and ideas. If not, I fear, the franchise will slowly go under as the fan-base it lives off decreases in size too.

44. trektacular - May 1, 2007

The only way this movie will work if its a re imagining of TOS, otherwise its going to look dopey.

45. jonboc - May 1, 2007

I wil be first in line to see and hopefully enjoy this movie. But I can’t escape the fact that Bill, Leonard and DeForest, and their personalities and how they play off each other is WHY I love Star Trek. Sure, I love the ships and original stories, but that’s alll gravy. The real joy is watching these guys act, that, along with great dialog, is what provides the little moments that bring me back again and again.

But I will see it, and am completely open to a new cast tackling the roles and I wish them sucess, but it won’t be easy.

46. Jon - May 1, 2007

42 um .Don’t you mean without TOS ,we wouldn’t even be talking about TNG?

47. JB - May 1, 2007

I agree with Anthony about creating a new generation of Trek fans. That’s why I introduced TOS on DVD to my kids a couple years ago, and they’re hooked. I get asked nearly every night whether they can watch TOS after dinner. It’s fun to watch the appeal blossom all over again on multiple levels. And I suspect they may have a harder time adapting to a recast Capt. Kirk than I will.

48. Stanklin T. McFibberich - May 1, 2007

re: 31 Anthony Pascale
“I want Trek to again be able to compete in the global market place as a contemporary vital franchise. I want it to feel modern in its sensibilities and production techniques.”

THAT is the equation!!

Production techniques as in shaky cameras, no lighting, and rap music blaring over dialogue? That seems to be the norm.
Modern sensibilities? Those two words do not go together.

But these do.
Powderrrrrred ToooaasttMaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!

49. CmdrR. - May 1, 2007

Listen to your own opening, for crying out loud. “To Boldly Go…”
I love TNG for many episodes. But, the first season was a guide of “To Blandly Go…” Is it really an adventure when you bring your mommy along? (In the form of a ship’s counselor.) One of the feelings that came through on TOS and the better TOS-era movies was that of traveling in a ship that was both awesome and woefully inadequate in a dangerous universe. We are going to the stars. We are gonna get our butts handed to us by foes natural and alien. We are going to keep going… Boldly. (Or if they really do recast Shatner as Kirk… baldly.)

50. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 1, 2007

Jon is right as usual(ly)!!!!

Next Gen era of Trek was a mighty flash in the pan, but a flash in the pan none the less. If it made you happy and it entertained you then God bless. But this site is about Star Trek!!! No prefix or suffix need apply.

51. James B., Mysterious Stranger, Quirk Trek Modeler - May 1, 2007

“Having worked on this Remastered project, I know that the die-hard fans will ultimately pick this new movie apart regardless. It ’s the nature of the beast.”

Amen brother. I’m begining to wonder if the nit pickers do anything else, or is it their sole position in life to tear down what someone else does and run it under a microscope and beat a subject to death, and once it’s dead, continue beating out of sheer anger and angst at not having the ability to create anything, but trouble?

The endless nitpicking and formulating hypothosis to rationalize a 40 yr old fictional craft and it’s inner workings just make me laugh at the total and utter waste of time. The unbelievable futility of such nonsense boggles the mind.

No matter how good a thing is, the nitpickers will find a way to reduce it to fecal waste and in the process, offend the very people who are creating the thing they want.

I’ve experienced this personnally and can only imagine how the ones behind the camera must feel, as droves of anal rententive Trek fans rip their work to shreds.

Being a Trek producer must be one of the strangest jobs on the planet.

I can’t wait to see what J. J. and company come up with.

52. CmdrR. - May 1, 2007

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I am not anal retentive! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

53. Michael Appleton - May 1, 2007

Would the opposite of “anal retentive” mean that one craps all over everything? Just asking….

54. James B., Mysterious Stranger, Quirk Trek Modeler - May 1, 2007

I’m thinking that the opposite of anal rententive is confident and secure, creative and audacious. :)

55. Jon - May 1, 2007

Lord Garth.I only want to hear from you once you’ve retrieved the oracle of virtue from the belly of the sloth queen! But ,ahem yes,I can’t argue your point in post 49.(that’s why your the annointed one of Izor).

56. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 1, 2007

Jon … Please send me a ship’s counciler and flute playing captain who can’t throw a punch. I have lost the ability to make split decisions during a crisis and shall need to discuss with them every step of the way (ad nauseum) in the most technically jargon filled manner, what the Sloth Queen may be feeling or if our presense may offend her or if we might accidentally creat a tachyion flux wave or whatever, on my quest to reclaim the Oracle.

57. Anthony Pascale - May 1, 2007

by the way I added a poll related to this topic of discussion

and Stanklin…I see no need to debate ‘straw man’ arguments. Feel free to debate what I wrote.

bottom line is that Paramount are taking a risk to make Trek a mainstream competitive franchise. This has potential downsides of course and there is no guarantee of success, but I applaud them for trying. I find it sad that so many Trekkies think they should just throw in the towel.

58. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 1, 2007

Anthony I don’t understand the fear of trying to make Star Trek a mainstream entity. Star Trek has been a mainstream entity. There was a large portion of time in the 70’s that Star Trek was a full blown Phenonoma and if not for Star Wars coming along when it did we would have been blessed with Kirk Phase II. In the 80’s the first four Star Trek films were each bonafied block busters (Our own resident science officer and beloved contributer, Adam Cohen, ran the box office and adjusted them to todays ticket prices and each of the films would qualify as full blown blockbusters)

Star Trek (no pre or suffix) has always had mass appeal . I am so excited that the geniuses behing Lost are pegged to bring our beloved franchise back!!!!!! What risk????? We are getting a full blown uber blockbuster with some of hollywood’s hottest creative minds and a bonified A-list director/producer whose is a fan to boot!!!! Because of this movie and Paramount’s renewed push we have Remastered Trek!!! So many positive wonderful things!!!! Risk is our business, our hero is all about bold moves and rushing in where angels fear to tread. He leads the landing party !!!! Enjoy for Christ’s sake!!

59. Driver - May 1, 2007

In about 14 months, Paramount will debut the trailer, and it will rock. And we will download it and make screensavers and avatars and Halloween costumes and Bobble Heads, and Kirk and Spock Rock T-Shirts.
Life is better with Star Trek.

60. El_Nastro - May 1, 2007

I hope they completely betray all the established technical concepts that don’t mean anything anyway.

I want to see people HATE this movie because the ship’s “linear-phase-inducing-polarity-reversing-deflector-buffer-grid utensil” is in the wrong place.
I want fans up-in-arms because the Enterprises’ radar-dish is referred to as a “radar-dish” and not the “navigational deflector”.
I want a scene where Kirk and Spock are flying up an elevator tube in jetboots all the way up to Deck 500!
I want to see a scene in which Kirk says “Damage report!”, and is NOT told that the “secondary plasma conduit is experiencing phase-pulse bursts of tachyonic matrix mega-particles. If we shunt the flow to phase inducers, reverse the polarity and divert power from the Heisenberg Compensators to the Hawking Discombobulator, we can stabliize the Duotronic Frombotzer!”

61. jonboc - May 1, 2007

I have to agree with Lord Garth. Star Trek…THE STar Trek, has always been mainstream. That was one of it’s great strengths. Yes, the “trekkies” liked it, but so did my Grandmother…although she snarled at the guy with the devil ears. So did my uncle and my 6th grade teacher. Back in the 70’s a lot of people really enjoyed watching the show and none of them wore uniforms or could give you the combination to Kirk’s safe. To them it was just a fun adventure show. That is the enviable position that modern Trek, in implementing the “new” formula, has lost. Hopefully JJ can put the fun back into Trek , bring outsiders in and show them that the bland Trek of the past 20 years is gone.

62. Jeffrey S. Nelson - May 1, 2007

26. My point is that I think we ARE the mainstream audience!
Look at the success of the Spider-Man franchise: same costume as the original and attention to source material! Just a few story changes like Mary Jane taking a dive off the bridge rather than Gwen Stacy. And the Green Goblin’s ridiculous metal mask.
So, I think modern sensibilities are sensitive to the original source material here! The mainstream audience wants blue, red, and gold tunics…black pants and boots…an Enterprise that’s not radically changed…soundtrack music that isn’t rap…and actors that capture the spirit and heart of Kirk and Spock…and if Kirk happens to look and sound a bit like Shatner, so much the better!

63. El_Nastro - May 1, 2007

Addendum to previous post: The point

Star Trek has gotten so far up it’s own a#$ with techno-mumbo-jumbo that a complete and total purge of ALL 40 years worth of fake “trecknology” can only be good for the story.

64. Jon - May 1, 2007

trek should aim to be a mainstream sucess.It failed to as a network TV show in the 60’s.Trek’s sucess will be in it’s mainstream appeal.

65. Stanklin T. McFibberich - May 1, 2007

62. Jeffrey S. Nelson

As is often the case, you make a lot of sense. You are more accepting of things than I, but I agree with much of what you say.

66. Stanklin T. McFibberich - May 1, 2007

re:57 Anthony Pascale

“and Stanklin…I see no need to debate ’straw man’ arguments. Feel free to debate what I wrote. ”

No debate needed. I was not implying that YOU personally are in favor of shaky cameras, no lighting, and rap. It was more of a question. I just see that as the common denominator in a large number of “modern” productions.

I just have a certain idea of what Star Trek should look and sound like and anything outside of that bothers me.

67. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 1, 2007

64… Jon meister!!! When Trek went off the air in the late 60’s the networks didn’t skew the ratings to target audience demographics. They found out after the show was canceled that Star Trek’s audience was actually one of the biggest hits with what we now know as the number one target demographic that the Networks sell their souls to the devil to garner. The 18 – 40something disposable income audience. So in retrospect when Trek originally aired it was also very mainstram.

And Jon I have claimed the oracle, All the galaxy rejoice.

68. CmdrR. - May 1, 2007

60 – I want a scene where Kirk and Spock are flying up an elevator tube in jetboots all the way up to Deck 500!

They made that movie. Or I should say, Shatner made that movie. I think he based it in part on “Dark Star.”

Personally, I just want to see a movie where if they must debate what they’re doing, they’re shooting or humping aliens at the same time.

Boldly, I say! Don’t tell me the captain of a starship can’t beam down into the middle of the action on the planet of Amazon nymphos. Don’t tell me they should “talk it out” with the Romulans when they can ‘make em all glow, let God sort em out.’

Star Trek, baby! Kirk’s Star Trek!

69. Trevok - May 1, 2007

Good on you Anthony, I totally agree with your coments.
I have a dream. I see XI as a success followed by a spin-off series on CBS.

70. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 1, 2007

It is my greatest hope that the chairs in the ready room be pink and plush so that when they are in combat or being threatened that they are comfortable while spending endless critical moments discussing it with a ship’s theropist who is after all an unqualified expert in Combat and diplomatic chess games. and that the new Kirk never beam down to the planet to face danger head on, that he sit back and sip tea . That he be more or less asexual, never casting a knowning grin at a beautiful crewmember who hands him his report pad because everyone knows that romance is also politically correct and belongs in the holodeck.. I hope that the Klingons are not menacing but are buried in unessicarry make up and instead of being a formidable Ottoman-Communist Block villians that they be instead a reinvented Noble Native American / Viking amalgam. and that every ship they serve aboard is a bird of prey because we have not scene enough of it. I hope they totally redesign the Enterprise and add lots of neon so it looks like a cross between a bulbous x-mas ornament and a beer sign. Also they need to make sure that there are thousands of overly large portholes!!! And finally Scotty better not ever drink real alcohol because it is politically incorrect to do so and might add flavor to his character. Scotty must be bland and better explain in endless make believe techno -ese just exactly what is wrong with the engines. Oh yeah we need to convert one of the rec decks to a preschool because any Federation Flagship worth a salt better have plenty of children running around especially when patroling the Romulan Neutral zone!!!

Lord Garth Hath spoken

71. Prince Detox of the guardian planet solace( hidden behind the black nebula) - May 1, 2007

67 .Ah the oracle!You ve reclaimed the oracle of virtue!! Now quickly,before it’s too late.Return it to Izor and the spell put on the people of Izor will be broken at last, freeing them from the clutches of the phantom zombies of the black nebula which obstructs Izor from the guardian planet Solace.You will have regained your crown as Lord Garth of Izor and restored harmony with Izor and the guardian planet Solace freeing them from the shadow of the black nebula!

72. c. swanny - May 1, 2007

As I read through these posts, I am continually amazed by how polarized fans are between TOS and TNG. I feel like an outsider since I loved both equally. Yes, TOS came con queso and TNG (and it’s ilk) was enamored of the ready room sometimes, but they were both fun. Sometimes, as has been stated here before in probably more eloquent terms, die-hards can be real sticks-in-the-mud. Just have an open mind. Try to enjoy and embrace what Star Trek you get. I came from an era when once Star Trek went off the air, that was it. It took a little while for the reruns to kick in. Until then, nada.

I say, “Go J.J. do it right and you will go down with the fans as having saved Star Trek from it’s own misdirection.” But good or bad, I’ll be there watching and smiling to myself because I get to CONTINUE watching.

73. Anthony Pascale - May 1, 2007

c swanny

i love TNG too, and DS9. VOY not so much and the last two seasons of ENT were pretty good.

my support for this film isnt because I am a ‘TOS rules’ kind of guy and want more TOS or dont want more TNG. What I support is bringing in a new team with fresh ideas. I think that Abrams and his boys could probably make a good TNG movie or DS9 movie. But I believe that the choice of TOS has the best chance of getting a mainstream audience (as they obviously do).

It is important I think for Trek fans to let go of ‘their trek’ and open their minds up to the idea that Trek can be more than what they imagine. Maybe Trek can be something new they never though of and still be good.

one this is for sure…more and more of the same just wont work in the modern marketplace

74. THEETrekMaster - May 1, 2007

Doesn’t Nemacek “opine” right on these here boards? LOL

75. Jeffrey S. Nelson - May 1, 2007

62. Thanks, Stanky! I always enjoy reading your posts and agree most of the time!

64. Regarding original series not being a hit, demographics implemented after series cancellation have often been cited by Roddenberry and crew as showing that the series WAS a hit. And syndication run success and its success with the new remastered run is supportive of that. Not to mention the entire franchise even being in existence.

76. THEETrekMaster - May 1, 2007

Hey! I just thought of something (I know, amazing, huh?)…

Since Nemecek “opines” on these boards and I “opine” on these here boards…does that mean I might get to “opine” in an article as well? I mean, I should! Why not? I pretty much exited the womb watching Trek. I know Trek like I know the back of my hand!

Seems reasonable to me. ..but then that’s just my “opine”-ion.


77. Michael Appleton - May 1, 2007

I hear the new film is going to show kirk and Spock in their first adventure together, fighting a race of lesbian dinosaurs known as the Lickalottapuss! This has box-office smash written all over it!!

78. THEETrekMaster - May 1, 2007

#77 BWAHAHAHAAHAHA!!! Now, that’s funny!!!

79. FlyingTigress - May 2, 2007


I was going to add something to that list strictly as a joke, but am going to resist to avoid accusations of hijacking the thread and provoking some here.


Fortunately, you don’t even suggest opinions about ST:VOY (referred to as “Chicktrek” on at least one post) or the score from ST:ENT.


Star Trek: Brokeback Canyon?

80. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 2, 2007

See every one is laughing and having FUN!!!!! That’s what it’s all about .
I believe JJ and his crew understand this , if they target the fun aspect first, everything else will fall into place!!!

Black Nebula be damned Lord Garth hath decided to invest the Izor peoples treasury in Quatlunes!!

81. Jon - May 2, 2007

No wonder why they kicked you off Izor.

82. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 2, 2007

I wager 20,000 Quatlunes that the Bulls beat the Pistons in the NBA playoffs

83. Anthony Pascale - May 2, 2007

THE Trek Master

well as soon as your thoughts appear in Star Trek Magazine along with Nemecek and Rossi (and mine btw), then we can talk

yes Larry does post here sometimes, I told both he and Dave Rossi about this post. I guess they didn’t have anything else to say and none of you impressed them enough to comment ;)

84. Jon - May 2, 2007

40,000 quatlunes that the bulls will have to be destroyed.

85. Larry Nemecek - May 2, 2007

50,000 quatloos!

(that’s the right spelling, guys! :-D )

Can I opine here?
Seriously, I spent 10 years in the 90s defending TOS to the newer fans who could only see visual effects and plywood walls. I’ll always do that for TOS, but TNG is not a flash in the pan, either–it’s been far too inspiring for that. ANd it WAS Gene’s baby, too. (And it wound up with its share of “action” and romance as well, if that’s your sole barometer.) All the series have their plusses and minuses–in the end, general and comparable worth can be measured lots of ways, and can be subject to revisiting and reflection every so many years. In the”post 9/11 world,” DS9 is especially ripe for that. But they are all still books on the shelf of Star Trek to me.

86. Stanky McFibberich - May 2, 2007

How about me? Could I do a preview and/or review of Star Trek XI ?

:) :) :)

87. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 2, 2007

50,000 Quatlunes that Rasheed Wallace pulls a hamstring

88. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - May 2, 2007

8000 Quatlunes and a bottle of Saurian Brandy that Stanky gets to review Way to Eden

89. Stanklin T. McFibberich - May 2, 2007

35.6 thousand quaatluus that Star Trek XI will not have red bridge railings.

90. THEETrekMaster: Phase II - May 2, 2007

#83, I’ve done more than you know…LOL

91. Scop - May 2, 2007

While the issue of casting is important, the real issue–the critical issue–is the script. If the same people who wrote TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise get hold of this, it will be Kirk, Spock, and McCoy sitting around a table solving whatever conflict they face through “understanding.”

Far more important than who plays Kirk will be whether the writers and director have enough testosterone to be true to the original series. Political correctness has already taken its toll turning a vibrant epic into bland curiosity. That is why the spinoffs seem like a bowl of pablum.

92. Litenbug - May 2, 2007

#90 Scop
First, That’s your opinion, not fact.
Second, if you followed the news, you’d know who HAS written the script and who HAS taken the director’s chair.

You are either uninformed, which can be remedied by reading this site, or just needing to complain… which?

93. Scop - May 3, 2007

#92 Litenbug

In answer to your question, it’s the former. I have taken your advice, however, and read through some of the material on the site.

I’m pleased that Paramount has handed over the reins to a new creative brain trust. Hope springs eternal. Based on previous films, I have little doubt that Abrams and team will be able to come up with a high-intensity action script. But Hollywood is overflowing with the same and, in spite of the explosions, plot twists, and special effects … they’re yawners.

Whether or not the new team can fold in the iconic, complex characters in a satisfying way without emasculating them–or have the courage to challenge the intellect … well, that’s what distinguishes a masterpiece from a boiler-plate soporific.

Question: What is it you need from this film? How will you know if it’s dynamite or a dud?

94. Litenbug - May 3, 2007

#93 Scop.
Thanks for listening to the advice.
I need a true Star Trek adventure. I want to feel the love, humor, awe and wonder again. I want to find myself sitting on the edge of my seat and not recalling when I got there. I want old friends to “live” again. (Not referring to Generations..) I want the good guys to win but nearly die trying to save or do what’s right.

I don’t expect A mission Impossible ep impersonating as Trek here. Abrams can do action, but I believe he knows TOS … and knows better than mess too much with a proven formula.

95. Cervantes - May 5, 2007

Just a thought… but the bigger the smash that this upcoming TOS-era Movie is, then bigger the chance of an eventual Star Trek:The Original Series REMASTERED PROJECT MARK II… featuring even MORE enhancements and improvements over and above what CBS-Digital have been able to give us at present! For that possibility ALONE, I welcome this movie. :D

96. Michael Appleton - May 6, 2007

#95 “even MORE enhancements and improvements”.
What??!! Why do we have to wait for THAT?? Tell those lazy indifferent bastards at Paramount to spend the money and get the DEFINITIVE version to us NOW, as in YESTERDAY!! Sheeit, were these people BORN stupid?

97. Scop - May 7, 2007

#94 Litenburg

I like your list.

In addition, I would add: a difficult moral dilemma (I’m talking Dostoevsky rather than Punky Brewster difficult). I want something that challenges the mind and creates enduring discussions about issues rather than vapid conversation about special effects.

I’m looking for interplay between the characters that advances already complex relationships and reveals insight that makes the viewer say, “of course that happened. That explains a lot.”

What will be unconscionable is if they sacrifice Star Trek to their own political shibboleths, political correctness, or if they emasculate Kirk creating a feminized version of one of the truly great heroic characters. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.