Lindelof: It’s Not Your Daddy’s Star Trek + Quinto On Chemistry With Pine | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Lindelof: It’s Not Your Daddy’s Star Trek + Quinto On Chemistry With Pine December 21, 2007

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

Hollywood.com has a new overview article on the new Star Trek movie, which includes some quotes from producer Damon Lindelof and others. Lindelof didn’t get into any plot details, but implied that some of the rumors out there may merely be guesswork. We know that Lindelof and co-writer Roberto Orci are the card-carrying Trekkies on the project, but Lindelof feels it is important to have the film appeal beyond just the fans.

We’re making the movie for the fans, but more importantly we’re making it for a whole new generation of fans. We want our wives to come and understand what the hell’s going on. We want our kids to understand what the hell’s going on. It’s not your daddy’s Star Trek.

Lindelof is an accomplished Emmy-winning writer and an avowed Trekkie, but he is actually happy to not be the one to take on the challenge of scripting Star Trek’s big comeback:

It’s very comforting for me to be a producer on this movie, just be involved in the story. I’d be very nervous to actually write that stuff. But you know, no one writes a mind-meld like Kurtzman and Orci, That’s all I’ll say.

…did he say mind meld?

Lindelof said that the it means a lot for the team to have Leonard Nimoy “pass the baton” to Zach Quinto and that the two Spocks were getting along great. So what about two Kirks? Well like Orci has done recently, Lindelof stated that there is still hope:

There are still ongoing talks. We’re pretty much exactly where we were with Comic Con … Look, the reality is Trek was up and running and in existence and iconic before we came so we’ve been basically invited to the party that these guys have been throwing for the last 40 years, so obviously it would be HUGE if Mr. Shatner wanted to be any part of the franchise. It’s a challenge for us, though, because they killed Kirk off … But hey, it’s Trek, anything’s possible, right?

Before anyone jumps the gun on his phrase ‘talks,’ bear in mind he could be referring to the talks internal to the team and Paramount. In October Roberto Orci stated in a comment here on TrekMovie.com that “debate rages within us, too” regarding Shatner being in the film. Plus William Shatner has repeatedly stated he has not seen the script or had any specific talk about a role with the team.

Quinto on DVD extra features and Pine
The new Spock, Zachary Quinto also talked to Hollywood.com and again said how honored he was to be involved in the project. He also said that we can expect the DVD for the movie to show “a definite, quiet, personal moment” when he put the ears on for the first time. Quinto also revealed that he screen-tested with his co-star Chris Pine (Kirk) to ensure they had the right chemistry. Of Pine Quinto said:

Chris is a phenomenal actor. I think he brings an echo of [William] Shatner’s energy, but completely himself. He’s really honoring the roll.

Goto Hollywood.com for the rest of the interview, it also contains quotes of support from TOS cast members Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig, George Takei as well as Rod Roddenberry (son of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry).

Comments

1. Thatguy63 - December 21, 2007

It better be everyones Star Trek or Paramount will be saying: So…..what went wrong and where?

2. Marc - December 21, 2007

First?

3. James Heaney - December 21, 2007

Good interview. Mind-meld sounds like spoilerz, and I wouldn’t get overly optimistic on the Kirk quote, but… you know, my confidence in the Abrams Cabal continues to grow every time they speak.

4. Tim Handrahan - December 21, 2007

Still a ray of hope for Shatner! This film keeps sounding better and better!

5. lostrod - December 21, 2007

Why not be first?

Interesting news here. Wonder if the mind meld comment was a slip?

6. Kroll - December 21, 2007

Mind Meld – OOOOOOHHH! That sounds fun, would that be the first mind meld in a trek film since Undiscovered country?

7. Closettrekker - December 21, 2007

Nice of him to show respect to the past, but regarding the future of Star Trek, he is absolutely right. ST needs a new generation of fans, as evidenced in its recent decline.

As for the Shat, I will be disappointed if his death is reversed(no Kirk Katra, please), or worse, completely ignored.

8. CmdrR - December 21, 2007

Mind meld sounds like an off the cuff joke. And it’s still WAY early. Even if everyone right now wants things one way, they could change many times before the lights go down at the Googleplex.
As for Shat, please see my 20493857098752985725982739324875 preveious remarks on the subject. I’ve dried up.

9. lostrod - December 21, 2007

In retrospect, the mind meld is not really a spoiler. I would be very surprised if they did not work a mind meld in there somewhere.

Other wild speculation on what might be in film:

- Phasers
- People will have their molecules discombobulated and then re-assembled elswhere
- Faster than light travel

I could go on …

10. Kev-1 - December 21, 2007

I’m a big fan of LOST, but to many that show is an incomprehensible enigma. By contrast, most Trek movies had clear themes; ie. stop VGER; stop Khan; rescue Spock; save Earth. I hope they don’t ‘fix” Trek too much.

11. Dave Roberts - December 21, 2007

Oooohhh… he said “mind meld”…

C’mon guys, stop looking for hidden messages where there are none.

12. Mark from Germany - December 21, 2007

Maybe the whole movie IS the mindmeld? The mindmeld as the structure of the movie?

would be interesting I think.

13. ensign joe - December 21, 2007

OK guys and gals.. pick your poison: What happens if Spock mind-melds with __________?

Remember…

14. YUBinit - December 21, 2007

“not your daddy’s… ” there you have it. Fixing something that aint broke and playing it safe. There was never anything wrong with TOS… it’s what was done with the premise. So was it beyond repair? Could their collective so called “creative” minds not create anything more than bastardize what was never broken in the first place? And by the quote they intend on fixing it ANYWAY? OMG this reeks.

15. GaryP - December 21, 2007

My roommate went to New Orleans over the summer to help out in the cleanup effort. The organization she was a part of formed 8 person teams that were responsible for painting and sweeping. Damon Lindelof and his father was in her group. Damon and his dad were apparently painting a design on a school wall that took them all day to do. The next day, someone had painted over it. Damon was PISSED. I would be too I think. She said he was a really nice guy.

16. The Vulcanista - December 21, 2007

#6 Kroll,

If you’re referring to the forced meld between Spock and Valeris towards the end of VI, I hope I *never* see anything like that ever, ever again. I found that incredibly disturbing.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

17. simonkey - December 21, 2007

i cant understand !
all they trying to do is to make us get in mind that the trek we all know will be complete different !they bellieve that in a year we will change our 40 years trek mind !no way.! as for the cast …come on can you thing that schoolboy in the place of kirk fighting with khan????!!!!
thank god i have the original movies and series!

18. star trackie - December 21, 2007

“”so obviously it would be HUGE if Mr. Shatner wanted to be any part of the franchise. It’s a challenge for us, though, because they killed Kirk off … But hey, it’s Trek, anything’s possible, right?”

Hell yes-thats what I’m talkin ’bout! Alternate universe Kirk, post or prior generation Kirk, flashback Kirk, or, hmm…mind meld Kirk?

Like the man said…It’s Trek, anything’s possible!

(Cue the Shat-no-likeys to spin this into why the producers DON’T want Shatner in it and why he, most assuredly..despite the words of yet another producer stating the possibility, won’t be in the movie.)

19. Myrth - December 21, 2007

Great article. Solidifies my hopes for this movie all the more. Trek is in good hands.

20. newkirk - December 21, 2007

as much as we all would love to see shatner in the movie, I want a good story and script and to just have him in there and muck up the movie – NO. but if they did it without sacrificing the story, yeh.. some ways, well kirk in alive in the nexus between the time of the launching of enterprise B and the days of TNG.. so why couldn’t kirk come out of the nexus and appear in the time period earlier than the five year mission. this is before he emerges on Veridan where he dies..possible?

21. Rastaman - December 21, 2007

I would love to see the two Spocks mind-meld. After all, it is the only logical way for Quinto to know for certain that Nimoy is ACTUALLY his older self, not just an impostor or a clone.

That would be a trip! Then the younger Spock would always have a little insight into the crew’s future and might even want to change a few decisions down the road. Could you imagine mind-melding with your future self. CRAZY!!!

22. Vifx Twokay - December 21, 2007

Personally I think Paramount is making its only real blunder by dragging the Shatner question out. Just say definitely yes or definitely no. It’s really looking like a class-A production in every other way.

But this coy will he or won’t he is just lame PR, especially with the continual online and video circus acts being staged by Kirk #1. It’s just pathetic to watch him grovel about it and takes away from all of the other cool stuff about this film. So let’s Shat or get off the pot already folks…

23. Richard Daystrom - December 21, 2007

Regardless of what anyone says, this movie will be different. They will not do exactly TOS, but I don’t think they will stray too far (Dare I say it!) canon. It will be an updated look as it has to be. The movie has to bring in new fans for this series to survive. I would really love for them to jump directly into a TV series after the movie. No one is really a star in this and a series wouldn’t be that big of a deal as no one involved has nothing to lose doing TV.

24. Iowagirl - December 21, 2007

#7
- Nice of him to show respect to the past… -

It’s not “nice” of him to show respect to the past; its one of the crucial and inevitable prerequisites for the film’s success. As he said himself, it’s them who have been invited to the party.

#18
Agreed; hope springs eternal.

25. Closettrekker - December 21, 2007

#22-Unfortunately, there are too many who think Star Trek is all about William Shatner. That is, I think, why the producers are reluctant to rule it out completely. You are correct in that it is pathetic to watch his behavior over this movie.

If Bill feels he MUST be a part of any film involving the TOS era crew, then why on Earth would he have agreed to participate in killing off the character in the first place? he certainly did not leave himself any wiggle room. I wish people would stop asking HIM about it, because he makes the situation worse each and every time. My kids have more discipline and self control.
Captain Kirk was as much a hero of mine while growing up as any fictional character could have been. It pains me to watch William Shatner’s dignity wither away by his own hand. For the love of God, please let it go! The very idea that you cannot have Star Trek without William Shatner is preposterous.

With that said, I am thrilled that we will have Star Trek once again, and here’s to hoping it will be there for generations to come…Captain James T. Kirk lives!

26. trekee - December 21, 2007

If it was Trek of old then we would be moaning about lack of originality. I’m expecting gritty plot, new CGI and things to make me look at TOS on a new light by revisiting old story arcs.

I think I may even get it.

It WAS broken, lest we forget. Making movies purely for fans gets you fan movies. Nice enough but not the real deal.

We should be getting a major big budget film that happens to be Trek. I really can’t wait…

27. Who's On First - December 21, 2007

Who gives a damn – it was old the first time over a year ago.

28. nyxtreme - December 21, 2007

HERE’S A GREAT IDEA!!!:

Going to the end of the movie, The Old Spock mind melds with the New Spock about Kirk’s death. Then, in the next scene, we revisit the “Generations” ending that as Kirk was about to fall, Spock appears and catches him!!! Kirk was surprised to see Spock, and Spock tells him candidly, “You should not have been alone.” That would send the entire crowd in a joyous uproar. Remember, in Star Trek, anything is possible.

29. S. John Ross - December 21, 2007

The notion that there’s a mind meld in the film isn’t even notable, really, but the notion that he’d pick it out as an offhand example of something that impresses him in the scriptwriting, is at least enough to arch one eyebrow over …

Looking forward to finding out what’s interesting about it ;)

30. John Trumbull - December 21, 2007

If there actually IS a mind meld of some kind in the film, I just hope the creators remember that prior to “Dagger of the Mind”, Spock was rather secretive about mind melds. I believe he explained to McCoy as something of an intensely personal nature. After it was introduced as a story device, both Spock and the creators of ST became much more casual about it.

Other than that one caveat… Whoo Hoo! Mind meld!

31. Non-belligerancy Confirmed - December 21, 2007

#14
“…fixing something that ain’t broke…”

well now, if anything was ever broken, it’s trek. way broken. screwed. fubar.
raped. pillaged. marginalized. pilfered. abused.
taken for granted. botched.

i don’t think think the film is trying to fix TOS, just the mediocre callously indifferant thing the franchise has become.
big fixing, needed very badly.

32. jonboc - December 21, 2007

#31 ” i don’t think think the film is trying to fix TOS, just the mediocre callously indifferant thing the franchise has become.
big fixing, needed very badly. ”

Yep.

And what’s that? Shatner could still be in the film? Talks possibly underway? This, straight .from the horse’s mouth even.

Just the possibility of that, along with the idea that the producers are more creative, respectful and open minded than many fans warms my little Shat-loving heart.

I think I’ll have some egg nog and watc h last week’s Boston Legal..

33. VOODOO - December 21, 2007

“There are still talks going on”

Very interesting.

34. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 21, 2007

Lindelof saying, “anything’s possible, right?” sounds very positive to me. Consider also that awhile back, Nimoy stated that he’d be off for a few months then return for more filming in March. They can still schedule Shatner for that shooting in the spring. What a wonderful way for he and Leonard to celebrate their birthdays that would be. :)

35. VOODOO - December 21, 2007

Gustavo Leao at Trek web has a story that claims “there are ongoing talks with William Shatner for an appearance in the Star Trek movie”

The plot thickens.

36. FYI: "First" is LAME. - December 21, 2007

The Shatner-in-the-film issue has gotten pretty ridiculous.

Shatner seems to be acting coy about not having been politely asked to be in the film, and the producers seem intent upon dangling the carrot of Shatner-in-the-film until the zero hour.

I’m half expecting to come home from seeing a Shatnerless “Star Trek,” on 12, 25, 2008, and read yet another article about Shatner-in-the-film still being a possibility.

Enough already. Either tell us what’s going on, or tell us that it’s resolved one way or the other.

37. YUBinit - December 21, 2007

#31 Sorry if I wasn’t clear. My meaning is fixing Trek in general but not TOS that aint broke. Trek in general certainly was. So really they are attempting to fix what was done later by mucking around and playing it safe by reinventing someone else’s working concept… but then changing what already worked they in their arrogance can make it better? But it was so good it needs to be done differently?

Sounds like schizophrenia to me. (theirs, not mine!) :)

38. Anthony Pascale - December 21, 2007

VOODOO TrekWeb’s story is just about the Hollywood.com interview. They can interpret it anyway they like, but as I pointed out above it does not mean there are any talks with Shatner about a role. Remember that just a few days ago TrekWeb ran an article proclaiming that it was ‘final’ that shatner was not in the movie…in that case citing Moviehole…which we also had to debunk.

Shatner in his paltalk webchat last week made it clear that there are no talks about a role going on between him and the team…but he has talked to them. He said ‘about what i dont know”

39. Chris Clow - December 21, 2007

There’s very little that I don’t like about everything I’m hearing, and this is no exception. Why can’t NEXT Christmas be four days away?

40. Iowagirl - December 21, 2007

#25
- Captain James T. Kirk lives –

Not according to currently effective canon.

41. star trackie - December 21, 2007

..also, remember Nimoy, on more than one convention appearance after the accouncement of the movie quipped to Shatner, “If I were there, I wouldn’t have let you die.”

Maybe some sly foreshadowing, not unlike Kirk’s line, early on, to Spock in Trek 2; “Aren’t you dead?”

Regardless I really love the producers whole attitude. No sir, this is NOT daddy Berman’s Trek, and Shatner or no Shatner, I’m delighted in their approach.

But yeah…Shat would be the cherry on top.

42. Marvin the Martian - December 21, 2007

“I think he brings an echo of [William] Shatner’s energy, but completely himself. He’s really honoring the roll.”

I hope not. Clearly, the Shat has been honoring rolls for years now, and look how big he’s gotten. :-)

43. DEMODE - December 21, 2007

Shatner + Star Trek = Box Office Gold!!!

I’ve heard some people on here downplay Shatner’s importance. The fact is, all of his TOS films combined made more than the TNG films. Trek 5 was the only film that made less at the box office than was hoped, but over the years through video and DVD it certainly made money.

Look at Rocky… the last movie (Rocky Balboa) did very well at the box office, and was a commercial success. It was a good film with a great script. It also had the Nostalgia factor going for it. Fans had not seen Rocky on the screen in years, and went out in droves to see their hero one last time. Shatner in Star Trek will do the same. Nostalgia will bring in the old fans, and will no doubt attract new fans too. The public loves Shatner.

The movie will be stronger with him in it than without him.

44. VulcanBabe - December 21, 2007

“We’re making the movie for the fans, but more importantly we’re making it for a whole new generation of fans. We want our wives to come and understand what the hell’s going on. We want our kids to understand what the hell’s going on. It’s not your daddy’s Star Trek:”

I don’t like the sound of that…Star Trek IS based on high vocab, confusing words, etc…it’s not meant for little kids to understand!! Don’t turn this into some stupid effects-based Star Wars-like movie, Abrams!

45. CanuckLou - December 21, 2007

Mind Meld – hmmm – Nimoy’s Spock mindmelding with Quinto’s?

46. Captain "I've got a bad feeling about this..." Pike - December 21, 2007

Guess what? If it’s ‘Not you Daddy’s Star Trek” then you’ve lost the engine that’s going to drive people to see your movie. Your “Ya Whatever” teen and his/her buddies do not want to be seen going into a movie names “Star Trek”. It’s just not cool. They might see it with Dad or older brother or nerdy aunt but not on their own. But guess what – you’ve told us it’s not “our” Star Trek.

“We want our wives to come and understand what the hell’s going on.” I think that’s a terrible generalization thats disrespectful to women. I suppose he means our non-Trek fan spouses, but that’s not what he said is it?

Didn’t we have this discuss a year ago when JJA said something similar?

I’ve got to stop reading this stuff. It’s just making me cranky.
Happy Holidays. I’m out of here for awhile.

47. Steven Choate - December 21, 2007

Great to finally be hearing from more of those involved than just Quinto (plus Orci’s limited appearances here). So far everyone is saying things that make me pretty confident that they all understand, and more importantly respect, the source material.

I think Lindelof is exactly correct in that this movie must be made so that it is acceptable to the fans, all the while doing so in a way that ‘outsiders’ won’t feel as if they’re being brought into the middle of a conversation. It’s got to be accessible to the general audience, something that at least with the movies hasn’t been done since TVH, and Trek in general since TNG.

I don’t know how careful and precise Lindelof is in choosing his words, but I found it interesting that he said it would be huge if Shatner *wanted* to be a part of their movie. This fits in with what I’ve believed all along that the stumbling block is not bringing Shatner into the movie in general but doing so in a way that suits Shatner’s interests (and ego?), without making this movie about *how* Kirk returns.

48. CCBeck - December 21, 2007

a movie acceptable to fans….but draws in a general audience as well….well …that approach worked well for Wrath of Khan…so who knows?

49. jason - December 21, 2007

I honor rolls too, they are delicious.

50. ShawnP - December 21, 2007

If #46 isn’t a case of reading too much into something, I don’t know what is.

51. Roddenberry was a peacenik - December 21, 2007

Hey Anthony I was just curious as to why you deleted my post above. I didn’t know that me saying ‘Glad they’re casting this as an ensemble, don’t have anything to complain about’ was such a controversial statement.

52. Larry - December 21, 2007

I don’t know how Shatner could be put in the movie now…unless they’ve already written scenes for him.

Remember, there’s a strike going on. Who’s going to write in Mr. Shatner? The rumors I’ve seen on TV is that the strike could go atleast until Spring.

53. diabolk - December 21, 2007

If it was my daddy’s Star Trek it would be Flash Gordon.

54. Parker - December 21, 2007

Well, it’s not “your daddy’s Star Trek”.

What is it then — Transformers meets Star Wars meets Star Trek meets Desperate Housewives meets Lost?

If it’s intelligent SF with humor and pathos and drama, it will work.

If it’s a Frankenstein, forget about it.

But I wish them luck.

55. Greg2600 - December 21, 2007

I thought there was a strike? There’s no talking amongst writers! Come on guys, move it! The fact is, anything they write for Shatner is likely not going to be as big a part as Nimoy. If he still accepts that, then I’d just write it in a way that Nimoy’s Spock time traveling causes the resurrection of Kirk, either in this universe or maybe another. That allows him to rejoin Nimoy’s Spock, probably near the end of the movie. If Shatner won’t do it, then he’s out of luck. But that shouldn’t be that far fetched, and he deserves to be offered something.

DEMODE, I liked Rocky 6 ( I refuse to call it anything else), and it did okay at the box office. However, it wasn’t a very good movie, and if you weren’t a Rocky fan, it was even less interesting. They need to do a lot better than that one on this. Also, Trek V didn’t do that well, in a year of many huge movies, but the last two TNG movies were worse. Just domestically, ST V doubled the budget, while Insurrection only made 70 million after spending 58, and Nemesis made 43 million, not close to the 60 million cost.

56. Trek is ideology - December 21, 2007

“not your daddy’s trek’ is a pathetic, stupid, trendy and short-sighted comment and approach to that which IS OURS. We made it everything it was, up until the inception of that horrid enterprise show. Trying to appeal to ‘the general audience’ is basically NOT what Roddenberry had in mind when he created the phenomenon over 40 years ago. The entire point of TREK is to be initiated into it, for it NOT to be accessible, for it NOT to be as easy to get into as any old TV drama.

And it did very well on that premise up until the premiere of enterprise, when they basically tried the ‘accessible to general audiences’ approach and it FAILED MISERABLY! Trek is about THINKING, not just ENTERTAINMENT! Trek is about LEARNING not just ENJOYMENT. Trek is about the challenge of ACCEPTING DIVERSITY not APPEALING TO THE IDIOT MENTALITY. But guess what, the producers and writers of this film are slot machines, pull their arms and watch their eyes roll in the back of their heads, where dollar signs are soon revealed in their stead. Milk the cow boys!

57. Scott - December 21, 2007

#32

Three for three jonboc on agreeing with your statements. I have to say that the fact that they still are debating the Shatner presence gives me a wee bit more confidence in the people behind the story.

One more thing, the statement that “it’s not your daddy’s Star Trek” surprisingly doesn’t phase me in the least. For some odd reason, I never carried the expectation that it would be some qualified but updated carbon etching of the 1960′s. Now, the spirit of what Gene Roddenberry wanted? Yes.., but certainly there has to be a growth in all things, and in this also I’d think.

A Borg Kirk brought up from the grave? Ughhh…..please don’t…:)

58. Sam Belil - December 21, 2007

#56 — You could NOT have said any better. Star Trek was never about “catering ti the masses”!!!!! I have been saying this since this “trekmovie thing” started. I don’t care what kinds of bells and whistles are being put into this film — it’s gotta be about continuity and GREAT story-tellling. Some of the absolute BEST stories (as I have stated many times before) was about great human drama!!!! I’m beginning to get very nervous that this project will be turn out to be a major-dud!!!!! I pray and hope that I’m wrong!

59. trektacular - December 21, 2007

I don’t see your guys problem Trek IV appealed to the masses and it was critically the best one, same with First Contact.
They just need a good story, unfortunately the last Trek movies and TV shows mostly didn’t have one.

60. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 21, 2007

Re: 14. YUBinit – December 21, 2007
“not your daddy’s… ” there you have it. Fixing something that aint broke”

Interesting. IF the mission is to turn Trek into an animal with characterizations one would see on..ugh…modern nighttime TV, or the kind of revisionist spin applied to the new Battlestar Galactica, then Paramount is in for a rude awakening from the same fans who ran screaming from revisionist Enterprise.

If this was a production along the lines of Superman Returns–where it clearly respected original material (the Donner film), but set its own new course, they may be on to something….but i’m sensing a BSG deal here.

61. elmachocombo - December 21, 2007

Spock, when first we meet him, will be a rambuctious young chap. He and Kirk will be full vim and engaged in all sorts of rambuctious tomfoolery. Enter “old” Spock. The elder Vulcan, for reasons still unknown, deems it logical that he must download himself into him…self. Fingers to face. Quinto’s xpression tenses for a few moments. Then relaxed. Eybrows slowly tilt in unison. Quinto’s voice drops an octive. I’m feelin it.

62. steve adams - December 21, 2007

Hey #18,is it Trek or is it Shatner fest.
Sounds like no matter how lame it might be, we just
HAVE to get shatner in this film.
^
I think your sick. And all of you that think Shatner is trek are missing the whole point of Star Trek.
^
Hey shatner-un-dead he’s on Boston Legal. I think thay have a website why don’t you go there?

63. steve623 - December 21, 2007

I hope Quinto gave Pine some butter for that roll he’s honoring.

64. MikeG - December 21, 2007

Like most celebrity-oriented, media-hyped topics, the “Shatner in or out” thing has just gotten out of hand, and as much as it is time to knock it off, we all know it’s gonna go on until the damned movie opens. I hope Shatner winds up in the movie, because no matter what you think of Star Trek, you CANNOT think of Star Trek without thinking about William Shatner as Capt. Kirk (all due respect to Chris Pine). You can’t think about Star Trek without thinking about any of those actors, because THEY are who we related to. It is certainly reasonable to consider the various ethical, moral, and personal issues Trek attempted to deal with, but those thngs alone cannot replace, or overshadow the characters/actors who brought those ideas to the screen. Yet, we cannot simply expect that things will go our way… It seems more likely that Shatner will not be in the film, and if that is how it goes, then that’s how it goes.
(I cannot help but consider the fact that if “older Spock” goes back in time (I’m guessing), to somehow meet his younger self, then he would know about his best friend’s death, and would do something — anything — to forewarn, thus prevent, the death from taking place. I think this would be a reasonable spoiler… If this one doesn’t work, then just keep listening to Mr. Spock saying, “There are always possibilities.”).

65. Plum - December 21, 2007

Shater is smarted than this thread. Really.

66. Plum - December 21, 2007

Shatner. Oopz.

67. steve adams - December 21, 2007

#46 I agree completly…
^
#47, yea I’ve heard that Berman/Braga wanted him in an Enterprise episode but he wanted to control the story and a few million as well. They passed on him and we got the awesome 2 part “in a mirror darkly” episodes.

It obviouse this films going to have some kind of impact we don’t need “Shatner”. Sure Kirk would be great in the film but “Shatner” is a bloated hulk of a man.
Just being in the film without CGI-weightloss would get laughs especally from this “new fanbase”.
Even I would be laughing at his bloated apperience.
Kirk what the Hell, Spock woudnt be able to catch him falling off any bridge.
^
Let’s just worry about Pine and get over Shatner FTLOG!

68. ShawnP - December 21, 2007

OMG, I cringe when people hope that this movie imitates in some way the approach of Superman Returns. That movie blew, despite its attempts at hommage to the original Donner films. But that’s just my opinion.

If anything, this interview was certainly more reassuring in terms of getting a better read on how the producers and writers are approaching this film, and, at least for me, I like what they have to say. I just don’t understand how people get so bent out of shape over this stuff (e.g., #56), especially based on some interview snippets and a lot of huge gaps in what we know about this movie’s storyline.

69. chazroot - December 21, 2007

Trekker Tip #742: Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

I had a few thoughts regarding the quoted material above.

First, I’m not exactly getting a warm fuzzy feeling with the strategy to dumb down the film so the wives and kids “understand what the hell’s going on.” Sounds like code to make ST XI box office friendly and generate revenue so he can afford to send his kids to a better school and his wife can get her GED.

What a terrible thing to say about your own family.

Star Trek isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Neither were the Dune or Rings trilogies, Vonnegut, Shakespeare, the George R.R. Martin series, Poe, Sherlock Holmes and on and on. Part of what makes some stories so unique and magical is that they do not cater to the masses by distilling everything into black and white or the lowest common denominator.

If that’s what you like, there’s this guy named George Lucas who made a few films you may have heard of… And wasn’t JJ Abrams quoted as saying that Star Wars were the most influential movies of his generation.

Yikes.

Anyone who read the Golden Compass stories and has seen the current film probably understands my fears and what I mean.

I hope JJ doesn’t let us down. His track record with Alias and Lost (where, by the way, he’s blatantly disregarded for his own series’ canon) are nor encouraging.

Bringing Shatner back is no problem. Didn’t Spock die and come back? Even if “Old Kirk” isn’t brought back from the dead, you can get Shatner in the story with an alternate time line/time travel or parallel universe device. This is science fiction, after all.

Quite frankly, Shatner may want to sit this one out if it turns out to be a remake/relaunch like Lost In Space.

Denny Crane

70. steve adams - December 22, 2007

#64, again Mike you assume Spocks going back in time…:

71. steve adams - December 22, 2007

#69 chazroot, I agree with you except when you speak of “shatner”. You mean Kirk right?

72. steve adams - December 22, 2007

Stanky where are you?

73. J.D. Lee - December 22, 2007

Aww, come on guys.. lets not close the door to a new generation.

When I took my nephew to watch transformers in the theater… he had no idea what it was..now he’s a big fan of Transformers ..all he wants for christmas is transformer toys, dvds ..you name it he wants it..he also came to apreciate the classic cartoon…

Star trek should not be a cult..the franchise needs a wider audience to be
successful.

Children, wifes, teenagers, old folks ect..

we all need them!

I say go for it!!

74. TheGreatBird - December 22, 2007

Seriously, this film is gonna be a flippin’ mess. Stanky also realizes this painfully obvious year-in-advance fact, and is therefore out having a life.

75. trektacular - December 22, 2007

69. ‘Shatner should sit this one out’, because of a bad role? You jest.

76. dannyboy1 - December 22, 2007

Hey, Damon, listen!

Kirk is still in the nexus. The thing only creates illusions, for those trapped inside!! Kirk isn’t dead and never has been.

By the way, I love LOST. But regarding Trek, stop jerking us around regarding Kirk. We all know the script is already locked up tight because of the writer’s strike.

77. trektacular - December 22, 2007

Shatner shouldn’t do this role if its gonna be a bad movie.

78. VOODOO - December 22, 2007

What is there to debate amongst themselves?

Shatner as Kirk is not a trivial part of a new Star Trek film. Surely such talented + creative people would have examined the issue from all angels and come to a conclusion a long time ago.

I simply do not believe that they would leave such a major issue on a $150 million dollar project just blow in the wind.

These guys have a plan for the Shatner issue one way or the other.

The plan is one of the following.

1/ They never wanted him + this story that they are “desperately attempting to find a role” offers them plausible deniability when dealing with rapid Kirk/Shatner fans

2/ Shatner has been written into the film in a small but pivotal cameo. Perhaps Spock alters the time line and Kirk survives into the 24th century. In this scenario Shatner is the big ending they don’t want anyone (understandably) to know about.

I also understand that Anthony has connections on this film that have told him that the issue has not yet been decided, but if the second option I proposed is valid why would they tell Anthony or anyone else the truth?

I don’t know if Shatner will be in this film (there is nothing I hate more than conspiracy theories that claim the writers + Shatner are lying) but I am 99% confident that the decision has already been made one way or the other.

79. Iowagirl - December 22, 2007

#73
- Star trek should not be a cult –

Too late.

80. J.D. Lee - December 22, 2007

#79

Never to late ..never to late

to fix it.

81. J.D. Lee - December 22, 2007

too^

82. Doorchime - December 22, 2007

@bashers

Who was it that said: “Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!”?

Well?

83. Sam Belil - December 22, 2007

#79 — Nothing wrong with a cult like Star Trek, and for the most part it’s the”cult” (dating back to ST conventions back in the early 70′s that I proudly attended) that has kept this franchise alive. There is nothing “broken” — like the great Charles Oakley of the NY Knicks stated, “If it ain’t broke, don’t break it”.

84. Dave - December 22, 2007

Remember, even with the strike, they CAN use ANYTHING written in a previous draft. There’s a good chance Kirk’s scenes are on paper just waiting to be used…. or not.

I wish they would end all this speculation. — But the media and yes, the fans are dragging it out.

To misquote T’pao “De plot is de plot, what can be done?”

85. James - December 22, 2007

Amen, #46… I’m gettting sick of this movie already and it’s still a year away. I’m out for a while too…

86. The Lensman - December 22, 2007

56
“to that which IS OURS”

No, it’s not “ours”.

“Trying to appeal to ‘the general audience’ is basically NOT what Roddenberry had in mind when he created the phenomenon over 40 years ago.”

Umm…..yeah it was. Hence the weekly fight scene, the ripped shirt, the hot chick in a sexy outift, the captain getting the girl, the crew laughing at the end, etc, etc, etc. Like pretty much EVERY show in the 60′s when a different mindset (i.e. we want everybody to be able to watch this show) ruled.

TNG also used a format that allowed for people to jump into with ease.

“pull their arms and watch their eyes roll in the back of their heads, where dollar signs are soon revealed in their stead.”

Gene Roddenberry did not create Star Trek to selfishlessly bring some sort of peace gospel to the masses. He did it to make a buck.

“Milk the cows boys”
TMP-TUC, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, Gen-Nem, was “Milking the cows”.
You do realize that all of this, ALL OF IT (yes, the original too) is done to make money? That if it doesn’t generate revenue, then it doesn’t get greenlit? That it is first and foremost a product? People may, and apparently have, attached more meaning to the product, but it’s still product.

“The entire point of TREK is to be initiated into it, for it NOT to be accessible, for it NOT to be as easy to get into as any old TV drama.”

No….that’s not the ENTIRE point of Trek. That’s your flawed perception of Trek. The original show was done in episodic format where the status quo was restored at the end of each episode. Again, weekly fight scene, captain gets the girl, etc, etc. easy to get into.

60′s t.v. was not filled with the kind of niche programing you have today. EVERYTHING was designed to get viewers, it was done in a way to make it as easy as possible for new viewers to jump in.

All you had to know about the original show was the guy in gold was the leader, pointed ears guy was the smart one, the guy called “bones” was the doctor. The scottish guy makes the ship go and fixes things. They’re in a big ship, they travel to different planets and have adventures. That’s it. That’s all you needed to know.

The crew did not have extensive backstories, or have backstories that the viewer had to have knowledge of in order to understand who and why these characters were here in this place. (see B5 or DS9, and zillions of modern shows.) There were no story arcs, almost no recurring guests or characters that required the viewer to have seen a past episode.

Kirk was captain because he was captain, and that’s all you really needed to know. Ditto for the other characters.

You could miss half a season and still be up to speed because it was designed for everybody to be able to watch at any time. That means casual viewers.

So yes, it was designed specifically for people to EASILY jump in.

Enterprise was bad because of bad writers. Period. Not because they tried to make it easy for casual viewers to watch. Ent ran for what….4 seasons? It was far less easy for the casual viewer to jump in for that show than it would’ve been for a comparable number of seasons of TNG.

Ent had more referencing to the larger Trek, not to mention it’s own internal series specific continuity than TNG ever did in a comparable amount of episodes. And TNG was still being done with the “we want viewers to be able to jump in and easily pick things up” mindset.

The point of doing a show is that people will watch it. This idea of arc based, heavy continuity “you miss an ep and your lost” is a very recent thing. The idea of very specific niche shows is a very recent thing. The goal for most of the history of t.v. has been to create shows that people can easily jump into, and get up to speed on.

Not to create some impenetrable fortress of a show that requires so much work to enjoy that most people will simply turn away from it.

87. Iowagirl - December 22, 2007

#80, 83

Sorry, obviously I was a bit cryptic (must be the Orci-syndrome..).

What I meant to say in #79 was that Star Trek already IS a cult and that it’s therefore too late to keep it from becoming one. IMO, it’s vital that Abrams & Co. respect the fact that Star Trek and particularly TOS have such an immense cultic status and that it may be risky if they attach too much importance to making a film for a “whole new generation”.

To cut a long story short, I completely agree with Sam Belil.

88. sebi - December 22, 2007

just some advice of a Lostie who’s listened to all of DAmon Lindellof’s podcasts: this IS the way he would leak something like a mind meld. In recent podcasts for Lost he’s dropped quite big hints just as nonchalantly as this.

Just saying.

How about Nimoy Spock goes back in time and melds with Quinto Spock? They’d share all experiences, basically “upgrading” Quinto Spock to the Spock we know.

Dare I say that I am getting excited about this movie?

89. Closettrekker - December 22, 2007

#40- We all know he died in Generations. I was referring to the fact that we, as fans, will get to see more Kirk in this film, and hopefully more films/series to come.

90. subatoi - December 22, 2007

Still don’t see why Kirk’s death is a problem. They can do the future part before Generations. Unless they realy need something from the post-Generations period for the plot.

Oh well…

91. Closettrekker - December 22, 2007

#24- Not sure what your beef is. We are in agreement that he should, but let’s be frank. He COULD, if he wanted to, say “To Hell with the past”. What is wrong with saying it is nice of him to begin by acknowledging the original series?
My point was, he is correct that the future of the franchise depends as much on generating a new audience as it does pleasing those like us who grew up on TOS. Let’s be honest–kids are responsible for alot more money spent on movies than we are…

92. Closettrekker - December 22, 2007

#90-This is pure speculation, but I think there is at least a desire for am minor tie-in to 24th Century Star Trek as well. Personally, I wouldn’t care if there was none(although it will be nice to see Nimoy reprise his role). I would be happy if the story began before TOS or immediately after. I think its safe to say, though, that I have no say so…

93. Sam Belil - December 22, 2007

#87-Iowa Girl — THX! And I completely agree with you!
As I have stated I want to be VERY EXCITED about this movie — but the more I hear, the less enthusiastic I become.
Having said that an old boss and mentor once told me “and this too shall pass”. So perhaps if we (unfortunately expect the worst) — we all be surprised and this just might turn out to be a great film!!!

94. Closettrekker - December 22, 2007

#93–What makes you less enthusiastic? I’ll admit (being an old fart) I do not know alot about the new cast, but they seem to have some interesting credits to their name, and the new team seems to be taking this very seriously. Is it just that you do not want to be let down?

95. Closettrekker - December 22, 2007

#90– It is possible that the fact that James Kirk is dead (in the Nimoy-Spock parts, anyway) could be important to the film’s dynamic.

“To absent friends….”

96. Kev-1 - December 22, 2007

They need to stop saying they are changing things; they are changing very little here that isn’t superficial. They are not doing to TOS what Roddenberry did to it when he created TNG. They are adding new young faces to long played roles and new art direction. “Not your daddy’s Trek’ would require much more work and vision, some real risk, and the people posting here and the potential ticket buyers know that. That said, I wish them luck with the movie and happy holidays.

97. Greg2600 - December 22, 2007

To everyone: While I agree JJ’s record on previous shows like Alias are spotty, although Lost is still great. MI:III was gosh aweful. Transformers, well, I have assumed all along (given comments made by Tom DeSanto and Don Murphy) that many of the choices on that film (which it made it hideous for a 23-Year TF Fan like me) were made by Michael Bay and Lorenzo DiBonaventura, and not Orci or Kurtzman. So there’s still a chance the film will stink, but I don’t think it’s fair to bash them now when the film has not even come out. The script could be the best in the world, but if the actors can’t deliver it on it, then forget it. That is my greatest concern, personally, whether I will be able to accept and enjoy a film of characters being played by someone else. I’m sorry, but after 25 years of watching Star Trek, I must expect the characters to act similar to their original counterparts. I know people say Chris Pine cannot do any Shatnerisms, but that’s what I and many others will be kind of looking for.

98. Vulcan Soul - December 22, 2007

People who have called their “freshed and coolest” reincarnation of Star Trek “not your Daddy’s Star Trek”

- Bermaga (“Enterprise”)
- Baird (“Nemesis”)

BEWARE!

99. steve adams - December 22, 2007

Well said #86.
Let’s just hope they get it right..!

100. Iowagirl - December 22, 2007

#91

Just thought that “nice” sounded somewhat patronizing and doesn’t give consideration to the fact that the past in question is the indispensable basic requirement for STXI.

101. chazroot - December 22, 2007

Thank goodness time travel doesn’t exist. Debunking revisionism is work enough, ha ha.

Roddenberry’s initial 1964 Star Trek pitch and pilot, “The Cage,” were clearly NOT created for the masses and rejected by the broadcast networks. His concept of an intelligent, adult science-fiction “Wagon Train to the Stars” met with much resistance.

It was too cerebral. Having a woman as Number 1 was too radical. The Bible Belt wont watch because of the Satanic looking Vulcan guy. And what’s up with the multi-cultural crew, etc… The list of rejection reasons went on and on.

CBS wasn’t interested because already had “adult” sci-fi, referring to Lost in Space.

When the second pilot and series came out in 1966 it was never a ratings winner. The American public and networks were more interested in easier to digest “sci-fi” like (ugh) Lost in Space, The Time Tunnel, Land of the Giants and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

Sure, Gene Roddenberry:

* Was trying to make a buck
* Had an eye for the ladies and dressed them scantily at times
* Wrote some fight scenes
* Occasionally featured Shatner’s waxed chest and back
through a torn shirt or with no shirt
* Liked to have a few drinks
* Enjoyed pushing the limits with the networks

However, he did seem to do it with some integrity for the first two TOS seasons. Roddenberry then stepped down from his role for the third season to protest NBC’s meddling and budget cuts.

Compromising with the Disneyfication of his vision and putting his name on a Cliff Notes version of “McTrek” apparently didn’t appeal to him.

It shouldn’t appeal to us either.

102. Stanky McFibberich - December 22, 2007

I was well aware from the initial announcement that this was not going to be Daddy’s Star Trek.
My daddy only liked the 60s Star Trek. I’m with Dad on that.
Even if I could get past the recasting, everything I’ve read so far indicates that it will be far too different in other ways.
While I am not making the statement “I hope it bombs” it won’t bother me in the least if it does.

103. Sam Belil - December 22, 2007

Hey #94 — My beef has nothing to do with the new cast. Being a HUGE fan since 1966 — when I keep hearing, for example the exterior of the Enterprise will look different (I still have not been given a logical explanation why), uniforms for that time period (assuming it’s a “Cage”/”Where No Man Has Gone Before” time period — it is bothersome to me, especially as it pertains to continuity. The line that this for a “21st century audience ” does not hold water at all, since the original Constitution class vessels kept their look in “Trials & Tribulations” and in “A “Mirror Darkly”. Change for the sake of change will hurt this movie. Again (as I have stated many times before) the Star Trek franchise at is absolute BEST, especially TOS, was not about “bells and whistles”, but great story telling. Again if this is a “Pike Period” piece, then I want goose necks, flak-jackets, lasers, the “Spock haircut” for that period etc. And I do not believe what Abrams and company were thinking about excluding Gary Mitchell from this film. He was Kirk’s best friend way before Spock, how do you logically take him out of this film????????

104. Baron Byng - December 22, 2007

The Lensman (great reference!) up at #86 rather nailed it.

To counter some people that believe that only the most Asperger-like fandom kept the franchise alive through the years – horsepucky. ONE letter-writing campaign got TOS back on the air way back when. But it was years and years of internationally syndicated re-runs that made the show a cultural touchstone and broadly popular, NOT the original three years’ airing on NBC. If you want to give Trek its proper due, it is for bridging the gap between the Flash Gordon / Lost In Space era and more realistic, adult sci-fi.

In the decade between 1967 and Star Wars, science fiction grew up a lot — 2001: A Space Odyssey for one — on TV, we had Space 1999 and Blake’s 7 exploring many more sophisticated, adult and dark themes, in the cinema we had dystopian visions like The Omega Man, Logan’s Run, Soylent Green and THX-1138. (Isn’t it interesting that The Omega Man has just been remade as I Am Legend, and Logan’s Run is being remade by Bryan ‘x-men / Superman’ Singer?) And wasn’t TWOK really great because it was fun, but also adult and dark and sophisticated (Kirk hits middle age, Khan’s consumed by revenge, the Genesis team are mostly horribly slaughtered, Peter Preston, Scotty’s nephew, is killed…)

Rather than get one’s undergarments in a vortex about issues of plot, continuity, canon and such — maybe the real question we have to examine is “what is Trek about.” And from a storytelling perspective, it was about using the perspective of the future to comment on the present.

The present is mired in war, global climate change, a looming financial crisis that threatens to become a new Great Depression, a looming energy crisis, shifting global powers…we desperately want to know how this will all turn out and hope that we make the right choices.

It’s not the same world that the Boomers grew up in. “your daddy’s Trek” — well at this point your GRANDdaddy’s Trek — addressed the issues of detente with the Soviets, race relations, youth culture, drugs, hubris, vanity. The trek of 20 years ago (TNG) went a little bit further and it was also “of its time” — call it the new, diplomatic, culturally sensitive Trek. DS9 was darker and showed more realpolitik — at the same time as the Chechen, Rwandan and Balkan conflicts were raging. The big arc of Enterprise was basically “9/11″.

I agree that Enterprise was “meta-Trek” — it was entertaining but you really only appreciated it IF you knew all of Trek canon. It was a clever show for people “in the know,” but less open to people who weren’t.

In terms of “opening it up so that our kids and [spouses] can understand it,” you really have to remember that to the wider world out there, in the 500-channel universe with lots of pretty decent sci-fi and fantasy to choose from, Trek is just one choice. There are kids out there that have NEVER seen a single Trek episode or movie, and maybe they grew up on Stargate: SG1 and now Atlantis, or Farscape, or (ack) have only ever seen the prequel trilogy of Star Wars films. To them, Trek is an interesting curiosity, but not an object of religious devotion – maybe it’s a dusty relic, the church in the old town that no-one attends anymore but that some tourists and pilgrims visit out of curiosity.

Starting the story at the very beginning of TOS – establishing their characters, motivations, explaining the universe and the setting – what better way to re-tell this story for a new generation?

Who cares, honestly, if the uniforms are this shade of gold or green, if the ship designs are such or so, as long as we get good acting, believable FX and professional CGI, and a great story with crackling dialogue and character development / interplay.

If they honor the spirit of Trek by making the action comment on contemporary times, rather than merely be yet another save-the-universe MacGuffin chase, then THAT will be more satisfying to me.

105. Xai - December 22, 2007

My God… it never changes.
This thread is a microcosm of every post on this site regarding the new movie.
The guy who thinks he’s “first!” and is usually second.

Defenders of the old TOS (three seasons is good enough for me)

TNG, etc bashers/lovers
Shatner “haters”/lovers
The Berman lynching gang
“my Trek’s better than your Trek” group

and my favorite… those that already KNOW this movie will suck, even before it’s shown because..
(a) Shatner ain’t in it
(b) JJ and his group are gonna change it all into Trek 90210
(c) it will violate canon
(d) it’s got a bunch of unknown fake actors

Sorry… you know nothing… just like the rest of us. If you already “know” and hate what’s coming… get off the site and don’t plan on seeing the movie.

Some complain when the producers don’t talk to us and some complain when they do. Which would you prefer?

106. The Ombudsman - December 22, 2007

Well, I for one can’t wait to see ST: XI.

I am very curious to see what they do with it. I have no idea if it’s going to suck or not, but JJ and gang have the misfortune of inheriting an even numbered movie, ha ha.

I agree that one of the strengths of all Star Treks has been their ability to comment on the present day condition from a future perspective. This certainly contributed to the increased fan base that was generated from international syndication of TOS in the seventies.

Grassroots activities of these early fans resulted in the first Star Trek convention. They put up the money for the convention space and promised to pay (out of their own pockets) the expenses of Roddenberry and cast members who attended.

Though portrayed as something of a freak show by the news media of the day, these early fan conventions showed industry execs that resurrecting ST was viable. Otherwise, the ongoing negotiations and many failed attempts to produce a motion picture or new series between 1974 and ST:TMP would never have taken place.

In summary, the Asperger-like devotion to TOS did in fact did keep the franchise afloat… At least for the first ten years or so.

FYI, I Am Legend is an adaptation of the 1954 novel of the same name by Richard Matheson. It is not a remake of 1971′s The Omega Man. The Omega Man was the second film adaptation of the novel. The first movie version was The Last Man on Earth in 1961.

Looks like chazroot (#69 & #101) needed some help with his debunking and fact checking. :)

The Ombudsman

107. Baron Byng - December 23, 2007

Ombudsman, those are great observations.

um, and yes, i was aware of the Matheson / 3rd adaptation angle but i compressed that as it was an aside. Mostly really to say that films are cyclical — like hemlines they seem to follow the economy and zeitgeist of the public.

Not to dismiss the contributions of the old core fanbase – yes, they did keep it alive, and for that they are thanked. I think, however, that strictly catering to the old / existing fanbase is also a self-limiting factor.

Look at the Harry Potter series (films, not books). It helps to have seen the previous ones, but each, up till now, can also stand on its own. As the plot machinery comes in for 6 and 7 I’m sure that will be less true, but all you need to know walking into any current HP film is that there is a boy at a wizard school, he has friends, there is a dark history he’s slowly unravelling, and there is a recurring nemesis. in the meantime, hijinks ensue.

Two more examples and analogies:

Bond series — each film was self-contained but also existed in a kind of increasingly self-referential, campy continuity and things they “had to have” for the fans (gadgets, Q, etc.). Increasingly bloated and ridiculous by the time Die Another Day came out, it took the stripped-down success of the Bourne trilogy to make Eon Productions decide to do a back-to-basics reboot of the series. And it paid off handsomely.

Apple Macs — for years, a computer platform used by a minority. Many of the things that made it unique (custom hardware, the old Mac OS) were also the things holding it back. Apple had to risk alienating their userbase — the core fans that kept the company afloat during its bad years — by scrapping the old Mac OS for something new that wasn’t necessarily backwards-compatible, but the new things (OS X, the iPod and iTunes for both Mac and Windows) paved the way for Intel Macs, the iPhone, and whatever cool new products are coming in 2008. Apple could not have become the wildly profitable company it is today if it had not done that. It would not now have a shot at breaking out of its perpetual ‘minority’ status.

Trek at the moment feels like the old Bond franchise. BSG to me feels like Jason Bourne. No, the new Trek shouldn’t copy BSG (or Alias, or Felicity for that matter), but in the interest of growing the audience for Trek and breaking out of the ‘cult’ box, sizable as it is, a back-to-basics / reboot approach is likely the best one.

108. trektacular - December 23, 2007

TOS has too many needs and requirements, I’m going back to TNG.

109. siridi - December 23, 2007

old spock mind melts with young spock, young spock sees future, stops kirks death on veridian, cue big reveal of william shatner for last shot in new film. maybe?

110. trektacular - December 23, 2007

You old school TOSers make me cringe!

111. Otter - December 23, 2007

Xai nails it in post 105.

I loved TOS. I loved most of the movies. I found something enjoyable in all the other series- including Enterprise. I’ve read novels and fin fiction and even downloaded the homebrewed Trek series on the internet. I’ve been a Trekkie since I was 8.

And you know what? I don’t mind a partial reboot at all and I don’t care if continuity is fractured.

To me, Trek is like a comic book franchise. Superman, Batman, you name it- the origin story gets revisited every decade or so and freshened up a bit. The “essence” of the characters remain- 90s Supe and 40 Supe were more or less the same.

Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy- great characters. But the uniforms and sets of TOS look very dated from a contemporary perspective. Many elements of current technology actually surpass what Roddenberry dreamed up.

Do you guys really want to see the Enterprise crew using 3-inch floppies and hear the ship computer say “working” in that digitized voiced while taking 30 seconds to process a request my Mac could do in 3?

Changing Trek- if done well- will be saving Trek as a living franchise. None of the old versions are lost- the DVDs are there for you. But let the franchise have some fresh air.

112. TJ Trek - December 23, 2007

I think that Star Trek should take the route that James Bond did. Just look at Casino Royale. Yah, it’s Bond no doubt about it. But, it’s diffrent in so many ways, that the Peirce Broznan Bond films were not. Trek may need that kind of change

113. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 23, 2007

Re:111. Otter – December 23, 2007
“Changing Trek- if done well- will be saving Trek as a living franchise. None of the old versions are lost- the DVDs are there for you. But let the franchise have some fresh air. ”

If a true reboot only using TOS as the base, then your “fresh air” is fine, but if the Berman continuity is a factor–which (unfortunately) is the case, then the problems start. This would be no different than a nightmare alternate reality where Batman Begins used continuity from the terrible Burton/Schumacher films. Thankfully, that did not happen.

114. Baron Byng - December 23, 2007

Re: 113 —

Sure, i mean, why not ignore the berman/braga continuity? Like Otter said, the DVDs of that era will be there forever. After 40 years maybe we can consider that universe closed (or a sandbox for people to keep writing novels and doing fan films in), no?

We don’t know anything about the setting of the ‘future’ era that Nimoy-Spock is coming from, or the circumstances that make him come back in time except for the vaguest of notions. so maybe it’s not tied to the continuity that we’re used to, except maybe nominally.

115. Xai - December 23, 2007

We don’t know if this is a reboot, a soft reboot or just filling in some TOS period adventures.
Part of Trek’s allure to it’s fans is continuity. At least it is to me. It’s an ever-growing universe of five series and ten movies. I don’t agree with every action taken, but that reflects real life. The hero DID die as a hero, saving two Enterprises, two crews and potentially millions (billions) of people. He cheated death in saving the B and teamed with a future captain to stop the bad guy. Not bad for a movie that’s considered by some to be poor. Many of you won’t agree, but I think one more movie revival cheapens his efforts as a character. Bond, Superman, Batman… on their best day save the world. Enterprise captains save planets, universes and whole timelines. Sometimes the universe wins. For there to be drama, sometimes death’s sting must be potent and lasting.

116. Iowagirl - December 23, 2007

#115

You’re stating some good points here which are worth considering.

IMO, the events in Generations imply that Kirk was fully aware that his death might be the required sacrifice – he‘s always been. Should he come back in STXI and it’s done in a reasonable and coherent way, he will still have saved the ships and the people in Generations. Finding a meaningful explanation for his return won’t make any difference as to the actual events leading to him saving the people and loosing his life. Hence, a possible return would by no means cheapen his then death, his sacrifice, or Generations’ statement – it would rather be in line with continuity, as STXI is about to open up a new chapter without erasing the old ones. At least, this is what Abrams, Orci et. al. keep telling us.

You say that sometimes the universe wins. This is most certainly true so long as it doesn’t concern Kirk. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not closing my eyes to reality, but Kirk as a character has been established as someone who doesn’t believe in no-win-scenarios, he’s the one finding a way out of any situation, however desperate it may be. Sacrificing himself doubtlessly is completely in line with his personality, but an unforeseen bluff in due time, shown as an element of surprise, may be even more congruent with the continuity of this character. Furthermore, such a course of action would give the new public a more consistent image of the character as well as a higher and more positive degree of identification with young Kirk’s development as it would be shown a life without an already known limitation.

117. Iowagirl - December 23, 2007

LOSING his life…

118. Baron Byng - December 23, 2007

Injecting a moment of realism here: to all the people who “need” Shatner to be in this film — you do realize he’s 76 years old, right? I mean he’s a very sharp, funny and active 76-year-old who still has a great acting career, but nowadays when I look at him I see Denny Crane or the guy from the World of Warcraft ads, not Captain Kirk.

and well, Kirk’s death in Generations is a big (if sad) piece of Trek canon. If we’re going to wilfully undo that out of sentimental reasons, what next?

Nimoy’s equally aged but then again he’s playing an aged Spock from the future. His role may essentially be a big cameo; I expect Quinto to do the bulk of the Spock role in this film and redefine it for …wait for it…the next generation.

Who knows. nowadays they can do a lot with CGI — remember the de-aged Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in X3? Then Shatner could basically just provide voice talent.

young minds, new ideas. :)

119. VOODOO - December 23, 2007

118

Who cares how old he is?

People don’t stay 35 years old forever?

120. VOODOO - December 23, 2007

I didn’t mean to put in a question mark.

If I had a dollar for every mistake I made on this board I’d be very rich.

121. Baron Byng - December 23, 2007

Voodoo —

Well, as Luke Skywalker once said, “*I* care!”

No, they don’t stay the same age forever. Aging is part of the Trek universe (TWOK) as is going into retirement (Generations) and death (ditto). Thing is, usually, when people die, they stay deaded. (sic).

I mean really. When things outlast their moment, then (as someone said upthread) they begin to strain their own dignity, and that of the greater entity (the franchise). It then becomes ripe for parody — remember that Simpsons one? “Again, mit the Klingons! oy!”

Even if this time-travel angle turns out to be true, I seriously doubt Spock would meddle with history to bring Kirk back in the 24th century, because that would change future historical events (if we’re going to count canon stuff, then the 26th-century war against the Sphere Builders, the 27th-30th century Temporal Cold War, and the various 29th century Captain Braxton timeline events are all then potentially thrown into jeopardy).

How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life. In the here and now, I think people have to let the idea of “kirk comes back” fade away. Even if he came back, then what? Would he basically be the Mr. Shirovsky of Star Trek: FAME, dispensing sage advice to young Starfleet hoofers? Or do you expect to see an 80-year-old man get into a girdle and engage in *fisticuffs* against cgi aliens?

It’s a reboot, folks. Nimoy-as-Spock is probably the only concession to Old Trek. For the good of the franchise, people, let these actors go!

122. trektacular - December 24, 2007

They won’t let it go Baron, we’ve got 365 days left of this >sigh

123. Iowagirl - December 24, 2007

#121
No, it’s not a reboot. This has been confirmed before by Abrams, Orci et. al.

If old Spock is meant as a mere “concession” this film is but a nonsensical effort a priori and Nimoy wouldn’t be so positive about it.

As for parody – parody is part of Star Trek since it has become such a great part of cultural heritage. You can only parody things that are embodied in people’s thinking well enough to make them understand the parody. So parody is not so much an indicator for weak dignity, but the reverse is true.

Spock has already done time travel in order to change future events, in bringing whales from the past and thus saving the otherwise doomed universe. Who knows, Kirk’s return might just as well be vital for the positive outcome of future events. As I said some posts earlier, if they let come Kirk back, they will do it in a reasonable way. Thing is, if people want to see the usual things, they don’t watch Star Trek.

And if Kirk came back, I have no doubts he would find a way to be engaged in something meaningful while being married to the High Priestess of the World-He-Just-Saved. He’s a creative mind.

#122
At last, we’ve found something we can agree on with no doubt.

124. Hekate - December 24, 2007

We can let the old actors go – but we can’t let go of the characters they played, and it sounds to me like the ‘it’s not your daddy’s Star Trek’ crowd are going to deliver us something that contains characters that ARE NOT the ones we love from TOS.

And incidentally, for many of us, TOS isn’t our daddy’s Trek – it’s OURS, and some of these smart-arse whippersnapper writers need to remember that!

125. dalek - December 24, 2007

#121 I care too. I care about the character of James T Kirk. Age is irrelevant. The majority of visitors to this website wanted to see Shatner back as Kirk in a poll a few weeks back and only the minority said they didn’t want hiim back at all (check the poll history). So more than just a few people posting comments believe he can pull it off.

As for timeline changes. Amazing you should cite Braxton from Voyager. Voyager crew changed the timeline so many times when they lost a comrade, Timeless, End Game anyone? The temporal cold war was never meant to happen. Enterprise was an alternate timeline. Generations in which Kirk dies was an alternate timeline (the proper timeline the TNG crew sans picard snuffed out). Braga himself admitted the events of First Contact changed the timeline permanently.

There is no such thing as one original constant Trek timeline any more. Who’s to say that Spock saving Kirk wasn’t always destined to happen anyway? At least it would help restore the timeline that was meant to be. As for Spock and rules, you are talking about a guy who risked his career and life breaking the unbreakable Starfleet directive not to return to Talos IV to save Captain Pike and had no problem changing the timeline in Star Trek IV by bringing back someone back from 20th century earth.

126. FinalDuty - December 24, 2007

“Not your daddy’s Star Trek.”
–Translation:
If it’s old, it’s automatically bad.

No one will ever come close to repeating Roddenberry’s genius. He had a knack of creating awesome characters that we came to know and love. No amount of directing or writing or special effects can overcome the lack of that. The only chance this movie has is to stop copping an attitude of “reinvention” (which was Berman’s downfall) and embrace the old characters as they were originally envisioned.

Every new ST movie & show that comes out makes me miss the Great Bird all the more. It’s like trying to recreate Shakepeare.

127. Victor Hugo - December 24, 2007

“It’s not your daddy’s

This stupid catch phrase was annoying enough in the comic book world, every time they would “remake” “update” “refocus” something.

Please don´t use it again. :P It doesn´t bode particularly well.

128. Sebastian - December 25, 2007

There are many things to look forward to in the new film. Some intriguing casting choices, and a nice, full budget. There are also a few warning signs; the writing team behind ‘Transformers’, for one. That movie was an example of everything WRONG with the current cinema. With some truly atrocious dialogue. After actually seeing this billion dollar toy commercial, I became concerned about the future of the Trek franchise. And frankly, JJ Abrams doesn’t exactly inspire me, either. ‘Lost’ is just that. And I don’t think ‘MI :3′ was anything more than a servicable actioner. However, occasionally, people in this industry rise to the challenge and exceed expections. Here’s hoping they do. I only ask two things; make it a good film (screw ‘canon’; the old series frequently did and it’s beloved to this day) and surprise me! Good luck and Happy Holidays!

129. Xai - December 25, 2007

too many reading too much into few words. It’s all opinion. Someone finds something wrong with everything the producers or writer say..no wonder we hear little.

… and NO, we aren’t owed an explaination on anything.

130. Trek is ideology - December 25, 2007

Itis stupid to compare a film franchise with a computer company, as each aims to convey a much different message. For the computer company your basic base will consist of those interested in user-friendly hardware/software and the interaction between the two. This has more to do with utility and functionality than with any specific message. With startrek you’re dealing with a humanitarian message which gave it its specific identity. You’re using illogic to basically state that it needs a new identity to bring in a broader audience. If this is the logic why not just create something entirely new that has nothing to do with trek, that has its own specific identity?

Why try to force startrek to have multiple personality disorder? Startrek has dealt with a plethora of themes, but all through the same identity, all through the same focus, the same aim, which was essentially a humanitarian portrayal of the human race, something you don’t see in more ‘action’ oriented shows like that battlestar whatever it’s called. My point is, if the cow needs an organ doner so you can continue to milk it, maybe it’s time for a completely new cow!

131. Ronbo - December 25, 2007

I love the Shat, but hasn’t anyone noticed that the guy has aged since Generations? The fan boys (and girls) complain about canon – which is a Trekkish word for continuity in storytelling – and then they want a Kirk who is visibly older than the one that died to appear in the flick.

Ironically, the only way to do that would be to hit *some* kind of reset button – the worst plot device in sci fi, and done to death in Voyager.

Shatner gave a lot to Trek, including a heroic death scene. He’s done. Stop warming over 40 year old re-runs and give the new cast a chance to breathe new life in to new voyages to new civilizations, to boldly go…

Whoops, sorry folks, got a little carried away there!

132. Ronbo - December 25, 2007

Couple of reality checks:

1. Films need to appeal to mass audiences. Not simply existing fans. Most Trek fans are an older demographic who don’t even go to theaters much, they wait for PPV/DVD/cable. So you *have* to appeal beyond the fan base. Nothing wrong with that, it might make for a decent movie, unlike an unwatchable bomb (Nemesis) or a poor parody of a TOS episode (Final Frontier).

2. These complaints remind me of the stuff we heard before the new BSG came out (Stardoe, anyone?). The most controversial casting decision (Sackoff) turned out to be the most fascinating character and actor, and the whole show rocked the ratings and the critics.

So gee, would that be such a terrible thing? A year and a couple of weeks from now we may look at a Shatner cameo as about as important as (not) getting Dirk Benedict in to a new BSG episode. A whole slew of new fans, critical acclaim as an adult portrayal of contemporary issues, like the new BSG and in line with the finest moments of TOS (Trek, not BSG, obviously).

Some fans here seem to want more of the “shoot a phaser, crash a shuttle, transport at the last second” stuff that made Voyager such a yawn. No thanks, let the new crew give us their take on the premise, without chaining them down to finding a way to work in a 70 year old actor whose character was killed off a decade ago.

133. Xai - December 25, 2007

125. dalek – December 24, 2007
“The majority of visitors to this website wanted to see Shatner back as Kirk in a poll a few weeks back and only the minority said they didn’t want hiim back at all (check the poll history). So more than just a few people posting comments believe he can pull it off.

Which poll? There are 3 that are similar and the numbers are all over the board.

Is casting Shatner a requirement for you to see the new ‘Star Trek’?

Yes (22%)
No (78%)
Total Votes: 334

The best I saw for shatner was 1/3 yes, 1/3 maybe, 1/3 didn’t want or didn’t care.

134. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 26, 2007

132. Ronbo – December 25, 2007
Couple of reality checks:

1. Films need to appeal to mass audiences. Not simply existing fans. Most Trek fans are an older demographic who don’t even go to theaters much, they wait for PPV/DVD/cable. So you *have* to appeal beyond the fan base. Nothing wrong with that, it might make for a decent movie, unlike an unwatchable bomb (Nemesis) or a poor parody of a TOS episode (Final Frontier).”

Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe. Every film franchise cannot be Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The lust for career advancement and profits blinds many to this fact, and may spell doom if NewTrek appears to be more Lost than Trek.

135. Jim - December 26, 2007

“It’s not your daddy’s Star Trek.”

Well this is disappointing. Usually I don’t get too worked up about this kind of stuff but enough is enough. Am I the only one who finds Lindelhof’s comment pompous, arrogant and condescending all at the same time? I’m sure as hell not going to listen to that kind of crap from some guy who was soiling his nappies while I was writing letters first to NBC, then to Paramount, to SAVE “Star Trek”. And now this wannabe wants to dine at MY table?

I’m glad they want to make a profitable film and enrich the studio by widening the fan base (read mass appeal). But guess what? Brittany Spears has mass appeal too, and you won’t find her shizzle in my CD collection.

Comments like Lindelhof’s scare the crap out of me. Orson Welles once said that “a film studio was the biggest train set a boy ever had”. Comments like Lindelhof’s make it sound like the train set has been given over to some wise ass frat boy…

136. Orbitalic - December 26, 2007

135. Jim – December 26, 2007

Jim, Not berating you… just observing..
He’s just talking. Don’t linger on every word and don’t assume the worst. He, Orci, JJ and other have been relatively quiet and they have fans upset when they don’t speak. Now when they say a little…(with practically no information)… people are mad again.
What did you want him to say? “This will be identical to your Daddy’s Trek”? We know that isn’t gonna happen and be sucessful.

137. Dennis Bailey - December 26, 2007

#134:”Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe. Every film franchise cannot be Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The lust for career advancement and profits blinds many to this fact, and may spell doom if NewTrek appears to be more Lost than Trek.”

Not catering to casual moviegoers obviates any reason for producing a new Trek movie at all. There’s simply not enough cash to be made from what’s left of the Trek fan base to make another film worth the investment.

Some Trek fans cling to the belief that there are many millions of “ex-Trek-viewers” that will rematerialize if a Trek movie is made that’s to the tastes of the hard-core remaining fan base, but that’s entirely faith – there is no evidence of it.

138. Orbitalic - December 26, 2007

When someone truly has something substancial to complain about regarding the direction or “guts” of this film, please speak up. Complaining about these comments is just a waste.

Happy Festivus.
Happy New Year.

139. Anthony Pascale - December 26, 2007

some context:
It is important to note that Lindelof is a huge Trekkie. He and Roberto Orci are considered the biggest Trek geeks on the movie. He loves Trek as much as any of us. Lindelof also happens to be the guy who co-created Lost and made sci-fi genre cool again for TV.

Lindelof wants to make trek appeal beyond hardcores (like himself) because he loves Star Trek and wants it to be big again. He knows that you cant do the same ol same ol to make that happen.

It is hard for some of us who have stuck with trek to acknowledge that it is not in good shape right now and it needs some re-vitalization…but it does.

140. Jim - December 26, 2007

Orbitalic and Anthony -

Thanks for the context and the reality check.
Nuff said for now.

141. Closettrekker - December 26, 2007

#103–I agree on the Gary Mitchell thing, although is was never clear that they were “best” friends, only that they knew each other fairly well at the Academy. For that matter, Finney could be a bit player as well, if we are to see a pre-command era Jim Kirk.

Not to compare apples and oranges, but how many X-Men fans really complained that the movie failed to include men in yellow spandex? I won’t complain about anything outside of character continuity. Star Trek’s essence was never about it’s cheap props, models, and cell phone looking communicators. It was about the social evolution of mankind within Mr. Roddenberry’s vision. It’s magic was in the cohesiveness and genuine affection amongst a crew that was the very definition of diverse. Combine all of that with some good, old-fashioned fistfights, scantily clad females of varied species, and some blatant political statements–and you have yourself some Star Trek!

142. Orbitalic - December 26, 2007

#140 Jim
You are welcome and thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended.

143. Gary Mitchell in the house aka COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 26, 2007

Re: 137. Dennis Bailey – December 26, 2007
#134:”Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe. Every film franchise cannot be Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The lust for career advancement and profits blinds many to this fact, and may spell doom if NewTrek appears to be more Lost than Trek.”

“Not catering to casual moviegoers obviates any reason for producing a new Trek movie at all. There’s simply not enough cash to be made from what’s left of the Trek fan base to make another film worth the investment. ”

Dennis, I did post “Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe.”

“Too far” being the point. If–for example–the PTB tried to specifically reach the kind of people who almost exclusively watch “I Love New York”, “America’s Next Top Model” and similar reality TV, or cling to every entertainment show talking about Paris and Britney, the PTB would be making a mistake. More than ever, we live in a world of incredible cultural differences, which modern Trek–no matter the new dressing (ex. the blatant “T&A” of Jeri Ryan & Jolene Blalock in catsuits, etc.) still failed to capture enough interest to keep the franchise alive..and even if some care to watch the occasional sci-fi and/or fantasy film, they usually prefer it in the vein of the Star Wars Prequels, or Pirates films, where its long on flash, short on real story. That is the mind one faces if attempting to go too “wide” in reaching for new audiences–even with the most familiar/popular Trek characters of all.

144. Blaise - January 4, 2008

This guys full of it and himself and the movies going to suck no matter what they do. All of you backing it are not true trek fans. If paramount took the time they could have revitilised the show but they didn’t and we got Enterprise. This movie will bomb and it will be 20 years before we see a good Star Trek series again.

have a nice day

145. Anthony Pascale - January 4, 2008

blaise,
for your first two posts on this site you get a warning for flaming and trolling

there is nothing that bugs me more than those who believe they are the arbiter of who is and is not a fan

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