Cloverfield Director Talks Star Trek Trailer | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Cloverfield Director Talks Star Trek Trailer December 28, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: 1-18-08/Cloverfield,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Matt Reeves is the director for the JJ Abrams produced monster movie Cloverfield…and one of the few people who has seen the teaser trailer for Star Trek (which debuts with Cloverfield). He certainly is the only one talking about it on the record, saying “it’s a teaser trailer. But still, I was like ‘Wow!’ Just the scope of it, the scale of it, you just look at it and it’s so elegantly done.”

Reeves tells MTV:

I think what [he and his producers] are doing with the trailer is fantastic; this is a great way to reboot the franchise, and get people excited about something new….That’s what excited me about seeing the trailer, was that I thought ‘Well, this does look completely different and new, but while having all the stuff that will make fans of ‘Star Trek’ still feel fulfilled.’

More at MTV.com

Cloverfield clip
If you missed it before, here is a clip from Cloverfield and a message from JJ Abrams. You can ‘grab’ this widget and put it on your site (and in doing so you get entered into a contest with many prizes including a personal screening of Cloverfield for you and all your friends)

Cloverfield and the Star Trek teaser trailer hit theaters on January 18th.

Comments

1. Daniel Broadway - December 28, 2007

Interesting.

2. Tony Whitehead - December 28, 2007

Sounds like the roller coaster is boarding and the ride is just about to start. Hang on!

3. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

Oh boy, he used the “r” word…..let’s watch the madness ensue.

4. Flake - December 28, 2007

Its clear that the look will be completly different to TOS and more like the BSG reboot (but more colourful) which will mean all the diehards will whine and all the newbies and casual people will be well impressed.

Diehards make lots of noise, and we will see and hear the most noise in here.

5. ZoomZoom - December 28, 2007

I’m all for feeling fulfilled!

6. Alex Trekek - December 28, 2007

I’m really excited and nervous at the same time. I don’t like that it feels “completely” new. I’d hate to think that the kid on Christmas morning feeling of going to see a Star Trek movie is all behind me. Hope I get that feeling from the new ones.

7. Scott Xavier - December 28, 2007

I’m down for more trek. Lets see if we can get some decent scripts this time and not hirogen sona or temporal cold wars…

8. Kirk Thatcher - December 28, 2007

The more I hear people involved in this talk the more I realize that this IS going to be a total re-imagination of Star Trek. It sounds like we can pretty much throw out everything we thought we knew about Trek to make room for Abram’s vision.

9. Xai - December 28, 2007

ok, he let the “reboot” word slip… but we’ve been assured by JJ it’s not. No riots

10. Eddy McFadden - December 28, 2007

I’m grateful for New Voyages. At least I can get my real star trek dose from there. I have a feeling they are going to cheese out this movie. Why change something that works so well. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

11. Anthony Lewis - December 28, 2007

The worst thing will be this:

People will watch the teaser and complain about it. Those same people (despite previously seeing trailers that they’ve been whining about) go see the movie, and then continue to complain, as if they were duped into seeing it.

12. Kirk, James T. - December 28, 2007

wow, im getting that tingling feeling – this film will be the film everyone remembers 2008 for! love it :D

13. Alex Rosenzweig - December 28, 2007

A few thoughts…

1] Reboot: Well, we know the matter’s gotten muddied by the fact that people are using the word in different ways. To wit, is it a reboot as in a restart (like a computer), or reboot as in throw out everything that came before (like the show that bears Galactica’s name)? The implication from the people actually involved in the production is that it’s more like the former than the latter.

2] As to what’s “completely different” and what’s not, is it the style of the trailer that looks new and different, the stuff we’re going to be shown in the trailer, or how the trailer presents familiar material? (‘Course, we’re probably gonna have to wait ’til mid-January to find out the answer to that question. ;) )

Best,
Alex

14. Ivory - December 28, 2007

We know this is not a 100% reboot. The action takes place in an alternate universe.

Everything that occured in the Star Trek universe over the last 40 plus years will remain intact.

15. Noleuser - December 28, 2007

How long is this teaser trailer?

16. SuperTrekman - December 28, 2007

I am fine with everything looking new just as long as they dont change any story or canon regarding past and future plots.

17. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - December 28, 2007

a little bit of wee came out

18. section9 - December 28, 2007

Okay, now I know what they are doing.

Anyone familiar with Cowboy Bebop? They’ve got to make the Trek Universe as familiar, gritty, and realistic as that Universe is. They are going to grab the young audience and hold onto it with a hip, bouncy, wagon train to the Stars that isn’t old, tired, and preachy.

Kids will want to go see this movie. You’ll see a lot of Anime influence in the new Trek. JJ knows his audience. Lots of cyborg, nanotech, lots of William Gibson stuff but instead of dystopic future, it will be much more utopic, like we’re used to.

But the problem with Trek was that there was a point at which the series approached Socialist Realism. The Radiant Future became somewhat unbelievable. Nothing gets dirty in Trek. Nobody ever has to do laundry in Trek. Nobody ever has to go to the bathroom. The replicators always work.

It’s not believable. That’s going to change, which is where I think the whole Shirow/Cowboy Bebop/gritty anime influence is going to come in. The characters will be the ones we know, but living adventures that have a Blade Runner feel to them. Don’t be surprised if the music, for instance, has more of a jazzy, bouncy, Kanno feel to it instead of the soaring, orchestral feel to it.

The ship will look similar, too, but the Big E will look a heck of a lot more battle ready.

The movie is aimed at kids 15-25. Just like Cloverfield. It’s not aimed at Baby Boomers.

19. Viking - December 28, 2007

I’ll reserve judgement until Anthony can post the trailer.

20. Alex Rosenzweig - December 28, 2007

#14- We don’t even know for sure that it’s in an alternate universe. That’s never been confirmed (nor, for that matter, denied), and the implication has been that a considerable amount of effort went into keeping things consistent with the extant universe, in terms of story and characters and situations and such.

It’s in production design that we’re likely to see most of the differences, it seems.

21. Alex Rosenzweig - December 28, 2007

#18 – “But the problem with Trek was that there was a point at which the series approached Socialist Realism. The Radiant Future became somewhat unbelievable. Nothing gets dirty in Trek. Nobody ever has to do laundry in Trek. Nobody ever has to go to the bathroom. The replicators always work.”

And that really happened, for the most part, in the TNG era material, especially TNG itself. I think that may be, in no small part, why the decision was made to steer away from TNG and go back more to TOS, which was always a bit more realistic about the optimistic future.

22. section9 - December 28, 2007

I don’t know, somehow I think JJ is going to want to turn Chris Pine’s “Jim Kirk” into the new Clint Eastwood.

And I agree with Alex, the director’s have made great emphasis about keeping with Trek Canon. That being the case, I don’t buy the alternate universe angle.

23. Nathan - December 28, 2007

Huh…I’ll withhold judgement until I see the trailer. But I’ve got to admit I’m pretty hyped about this movie… I can’t wait for more info!

24. S. John Ross - December 28, 2007

I don’t care if it’s a reboot, a reimagining, or whatever, I just care if it’s good.

I want there to be a Trek movie I actually want to go see, because for me it’s _not_ automatic. I’ve only seen about half of the Trek films at the theater (the early half), and there are a couple I _still_ haven’t seen, even on video.

This film already has me more interested (beforehand) than the run-up to any Trek film since maybe STIII or STIV. Difficult to compare, of course, since those were pre-Internet-hype where it was all convention rumors and Starlog articles and whatnot, but I’m kinda jazzed about this movie, for whatever reason. I plan to be there unless I hear something _really_ awful about it.

And if that means a reboot, then baby, bring on the reboot.

25. Jon C - December 28, 2007

How soon can I expect to see the trailer online ?as I’m not inclined to se that movie.Anybody?

26. Diabolik - December 28, 2007

How about this… the PEOPLE and EVENTS stay canon, but the look, and the physical DETAILS are upgraded and made fresh and realistic. I can live with that approach. I am imagining the TV TOS with TMP look and feel; the same yet updated.

Gotta be that way. Otherwise we’re back to the 60s’ TV sensibilities.

27. Myrth - December 28, 2007

#25 Officialy, it will be on the net a day at most behind the release of the film, but most likely the day of the release. Unofficialy, it depends upon the skill and luck of the pirates interested in getting this out early.

28. dennis bailey - December 28, 2007

Actually, other than Kirk getting his shirt ripped occasionally nobody “got dirty, did laundry or went to the bathroom” in TOS either – that’s not something that happened during the TNG era.

For the most part, TOS lacked the time and money to pay attention to authentic little details of visual continuity or that “lived in” feeling. I was ridiculously pleased to see Kirk finally acquire a day’s growth of beard during the events of TWOK – a silly little thing like that was a big deal. :lol:

29. Stanklin T. "Mr. Optimism" McFibberich - December 28, 2007

re: 12
“wow, im getting that tingling feeling – this film will be the film everyone remembers 2008 for! love it ”

I’d hate to think what your feeling would be if any actual evidence of what it will be like were to come out.

30. xizro345 - December 28, 2007

PR Spin. Nothing else. Still waiting for real stuff.

31. Dr. Image - December 28, 2007

#10 Eddy
I’m thankful for New Voyages (and Exeter) too. The purist in me will always have ventures like that to go back to. Classic phasers and communicators, miniskirts (!!), the sets, the look- how can you not love it?

This movie’s gonna be interesting, if anything. I’m hoping the “newness” will be due to JJ showing us an era we haven’t seen yet, namely, a period after ENT and before TOS. That would make many people very happy. There’s ample wiggle room there for new designs, events, etc.

A reboot that is incongruous and ignores and disrespects what has come before? BIG mistake, IMHO.
An alt universe plot? Too confusing to “moviegoers.” Won’t happen.

I understand Phil Tippett is handling the creature chores on Cloverfield, so they WILL be showing the monster(s). Good news, since his bug work on Starship Troopers was so brilliant.
But, can yet another CGI monster ever be REALLY scarey?
I have my doubts.

32. star trackie - December 28, 2007

…”rebooting the franchise” doesn’t absolutely mean rebooting TOS Star Trek. It simply means that they are going a new direction steering things away from the Trek of late that was suffocating the franchise. Although I think we are indded in for some major changes…not just of TOS but the whole look and feel of the last 20 years, I’m cool with it because of the fact that it supposedly does take place in an altered timeline (not alternate universe).

Can’t wait to see the trailer. Cloverfield looks damn good as well.

33. Picard for President - December 28, 2007

Keep a few things in mind. There’s Star Trek’s “universe” and there is the human need for external validation — especially for those who cannot or will not grow old gracefully.

I’d love to see a Panavision version of Jim Kirk’s Star Trek — and I’d love it to be wildly popular and then I’d be an instant hero to the Western world’s youth.

Given the facts of our present civilzation, that ain’t gonna happen. There are structural changes to the brain in the ADD Generation that preclude the sort of thoughtful, deliberate, almost Shakespearean development of a story.

Rather than the judeochristian “matrix” in which the original Trek was created, we live in a post-Christian world where we worship the Holy Self and medical doctors are our high priests.

The enterntainment implications of these great changes are stupendous, as anyone over 40 knows simply by watching what passes for “entertainment” today.

This is a great pity and we will live to regret doing so to our children.

But since that’s the way it is, this movie must pander to it.

I hope there are a few timeless truths embedded in the story and that it have some kind of lesson to it, rather than being a simple two hour cortizone trip.

Yeah, I know. Silly of me to expect “art for the ages” our of Hollywood ;-)

Happy new year, all of you!

34. Alex Rosenzweig - December 28, 2007

#26 – I think that’s probably what’s in the cards.

#28 – Dennis, I agree with you that TOS couldn’t always visually portray that sort of stuff, but they talked about it much more often than did TNG. e.g., Kirk et al. got pretty dirty and scuffed in several TOS episodes (usually after getting in a fight ;) ), there were references to the ship’s laundry, there were mentions of things going on with actual machinery, and so forth. It was little touches like that that made TOS’s world seem more “lived-in” than TNG’s.

(To be fair, I tend to have a fairly strong leaning toward TOS in such comparisons, but as much as I enjoyed parts of TNG, it tended to come off as a bit too “sterile” for my tastes.)

Alex

35. Paul - December 28, 2007

re nuBSG: if new Trek movie uniforms are to classic Trek like young Bill Adama’s uniform in Razor flashback is to classic BSG, it is completely okay for me.

36. Bones Rodriguez - December 28, 2007

Please be awesome, please be awesome, please be awesome.

No, really- Please be awesome, please be awesome, please be awesome.

If there’s any confusion, I am asking that you Please be awesome, please be awesome, please be awesome.

http://CaptainKirksGuideToWomen.com

37. Paul B. - December 28, 2007

I think Abrams and his team have found a way to restart everything while allowing this to fit into the timeline; that is, I think Old Spock is necessary because we know he’s still alive in the TNG era, and Nimoy already said that he’s interested in seeing where his Spock is a dozen years or so since we last saw him, which suggests that Old Spock will be in a post-Nemesis time–the latest we’ve seen, right?

So, the one person–Spock/Nimoy–who has been part of Trek since the first pilot episode, is the key to this movie. Yet it’s going to reboot, look “completely new,” and yet fulfill us and make us happy. How?

Well, Old Spock must be going back to Young Spock somehow, and I think a throwaway line from one of the producers might give a hint of a neat scene. The producer said the writers had a rare knack (or some such words) for writing a mind meld. Well, Old Spock melding with Young Spock would be fascinating…ahem…and a logical way to connect and restart.

Think about Quinto’s deep passion for this character and his interest in avoiding the old episodes, etc. Well, if the two Spocks meld for some reason, then Young Spock would have Old Spock’s entire life’s memories. This would mean that Quinto is playing literally a new Spock: starting with meeting Kirk, but THIS Spock has already lived a lifetime as Kirk’s friend. Think how that would revamp the character to make a new actor interested, while preserving the old character’s continuity!

Maybe Spock becomes the key to Trek continuity and canon. After all, he’s the only character from the pilot to have existed into the TNG era. He spans the Trek epic so far.

Nimoy has said this movie is so big that Trek may never be able to return to the TV screen again. Considering the faithful-but-all-new look we’ve heard about, I wonder if Abrams has been smart and just projected the TMP/movie look back to the TOS era. After all, TMP looked the way it did (new nacelles, etc.) because Trek was on the big screen now and the ship needed to look more realistic. So, this movie is a logical extension of that look back to the TOS era, a retro-TOS look as if the movie costumes and technology had been there since Pike’s days. (After all, TMP is only 2 or 3 years after the 5-year mission/TOS, so the tech shouldn’t be too different.)

Hmmm….if I’m wrong, then I have a cool novel idea to pitch to Pocket Books. You read it here first!!!

38. Iowagirl - December 28, 2007

#8
– It sounds like we can pretty much throw out everything we thought we knew about Trek to make room for Abram’s vision. -

Let’s hope there’s still enough time to run away or to take counteractive measures if they’re coming to carry out that brain wash you’re describing.

39. dennis bailey - December 28, 2007

Not an “alternate” universe so much as an altered one – all Nero’s d***ing around probably results in the alteration of so many details and circumstances that any departure from what’s been established can be justified on that basis.

Not terribly different conceptually from “Enterprise’s” Temporal Cold War, but presumably delivered with more elan.

40. Phil123 - December 28, 2007

#24 “I don’t care if it’s a reboot, a reimagining, or whatever, I just care if it’s good.” Here Here.

#32 “supposedly does take place in an altered timeline (not alternate universe).” surely an altered timeline is an alternate dimention if every desision we make has happened and formed its own timeline, but we don’t have access to them so its another dimention?

41. Will Doe 68 - December 28, 2007

Cloverfield comes out on the 18th,You know someones going to leak the trailer just before that date. And I don’t think this website’s going to available for a day or so afterwards. Going to be wwwwwwwayy too much traffic!

42. Etha Williams - December 28, 2007

Slightly off topic, but speaking of time travel and alternate vs altered universes, has anyone read the Millenium DS9 novel series? I thought it handled this sort of time travel remarkably well, and JJ’s movie is similar, I’d be quite happy.

43. Balock - December 28, 2007

well, I believe that it will have a big budget epic production feel to it. Shamefully, only ST1, ST4, and ST6 (sort of) had that.

i’m also expecting them to mess around with Enterprise exterior (shameful). Hopefully, they throw us alot of mini-skirts to make up for it….

44. Alex Rosenzweig - December 28, 2007

#40 – You have it exactly. Semantical hair-splitting aside, if they alter events to the extent that they can start ignoring what’s previously established, it is de facto an alternate universe.

45. NCC-73515 - December 28, 2007

the 18th is my birthday… the trailer will come out on my 23rd birthday, isn’t that great? :D

46. AJ - December 28, 2007

#8: There are over 700 episodes of Trek pre-JJ, so throwing it all out would be pointless.

Canon-fanatics can take Trek XI like Sybok and his “Vulcan Princess” should they so choose, and ignore it if it is too painful to digest.

47. SPB - December 28, 2007

I HOPE THEY GET A BIG “NAME” TO NARRATE THE TRAILER…

In the tradition of Orson Welles narrating the TMP trailer or Christopher Plummer and TREK VI, I’d love to see (or is that “hear”) a great, recognizable voice narrate the new TREK XI trailer.

First vote: Ian McKellan.

Second (subversive) choice: James Earl Jones.

Or maybe Anthony Hopkins?

48. Diabolik - December 28, 2007

You know what, folks? All this talk of Romulan interference in the timeline, future Spock going bck to young Spock, a new timeline, etc., is just fanboy wanking, as they say. JJ’s goal is to make the new ST immediately accessable to the new/casual viewer, not to make them bring in a scorecard or past movie/episode synopsis guide in order to follow.

People are not going to have to know “Kirk died in Generations” and “Spock is alive on Romulus” and “the Guardian of Forever is a time portal from TOS,” and “this is a different timeline now,” etc. etc. etc.

The general audience, the people they want to make new fans of, will be able to come see it with only a general idea of what ST is, and go away with a new image of it. So, this means we are going to see a straighforward adventure with young Kirk and Spock, and how they began together. Old Spock will be the framing device, who is narrating or setting it up as a flashback.

Forget all this convoluted explanation of “how this is going to be a different timeline” and such. The general public couldn’t follow it or come in on it and follow it.

49. Captain Amazing!! - December 28, 2007

It’s cool with me…and as far as I’m concerned they can throw out the totally meaningless, senseless death of Kirk in Generations. In fact, thanks to Rick Berman and his complete disregard of continuity in the Next Gen movies that he himself oversaw during his run on the Next Gen series, none of them deserve consideration as canon. That’s not to say they aren’t enjoyable in their own way, they should be considered alternate storylines like DC Comics’ Elseworlds or Marvel’s What If? series. The Original Series had it’s considerable share of continuity errors, however they weren’t blatantly done in a careless way just for the sake of a line of dialog or a clever scene as in the Next Gen movies. Scotty’s knowledge of Kirk’s supposed death and his obvious remorse for his “loss” in Generations, Data’s emotion chip in Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection, and Deanna’s supposed first kiss with a bearded Riker are just a few examples. I’m not even going to get into his personally led near destruction of the franchise at least when it comes to Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Thank God someone else is in charge who has a little more respect for the material and obviously has the attention and interest of the powers that be at Paramount. I’m all for a return to the Original Series era. These characters deserve no less.

50. Jeffrey S. Nelson - December 28, 2007

If James Cawley ain’t happy with the changes to the Big E, I ain’t either…

51. CW - December 28, 2007

Hmmm… attracting new fans while striving to satisfy existing fans… [sarcastic]what a concept![/sarcastic]. Would have been nice if the makers of Transformers held that philosophy instead of telling the fans to drop dead, that they didn’t matter.

52. Jeffrey S. Nelson - December 28, 2007

While Nero fiddled, Trek established look burned.

53. CW - December 28, 2007

50-

Lets just take a wait-and-see attitude.

54. Jupiter1701 - December 28, 2007

Rick Berman had similar sentiments before each of his ahem exciting, original movies. (You know, the four movies where there was a countdown at the end and the bad guy gets stopped at the last second just before the good guys get blown up.)

What’s the guy supposed to say: “It totally sucks! I don’t want to do another project for JJ Abrams ever again, so I’m going to tell it like it is.”

Still, I can’t wait and i don’t care if it’s a reboot or not. Batman Begins was a much better movie than the previous couple of Batman movies. Just tell a good story. The hue of the nacelles or the pimple on Kirk’s back matching the originals aren’t that big of a deal to me.

55. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 28, 2007

#33 Picard for President: “Given the facts of our present civilzation, that ain’t gonna happen. There are structural changes to the brain in the ADD Generation that preclude the sort of thoughtful, deliberate, almost Shakespearean development of a story.”

33, haven’t I dealt with you before? I am from your little ADD generation you love mentioning, and I think that you, sir, are an ageist. That sort of prejudicial attitude, claiming without evidence that we young people are somehow fundamentally different from everyone else, is a form of invidious discrimination and demonstrates you to be a horse’s behind. Take it somewhere else. In the meantime, I’m happy in the knowledge that my appreciation for the intricacies of narrative is significantly more refined than yours will likely ever be.

“Rather than the judeochristian “matrix” in which the original Trek was created, we live in a post-Christian world where we worship the Holy Self and medical doctors are our high priests.”

Here I agree with you, Picard for President, about the fact that we live in a post-Christian world (this sounds like something out of Walker Percy, an author who writes with a thoughtful, deliberate, almost Shakespearean quality and whom I much enjoy), and that this is dangerous. However, every iteration of Star Trek, Original Series included, has always been about *expanding* secular thought and diminishing that matrix of yours (discounting the exception, “Bread and Circuses”). Your vague assault on modern entertainment notwithstanding–and I don’t disagree with you that Hollywood’s secular values have damaged entertainment since the high old days of Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire picutres–I in no way see how the degradation of Judeo-Christian tenets will have any effect on a franchise that has traditionally been on the forefront of the movement to expunge those tenets from television.

On topic: I’m not going to get involved in another reboot talk, because all the people who are wrong about what it means are going to know it in just over twenty days. I’ve already started recruiting friends to hit Cloverfield with me opening night, and I’m really looking forward to it–not the movie so much as the trailer.

56. Scott Gammans - December 28, 2007

Did someone utter the R word?!

Festival! Festival! FESTIVAL!

LOL

57. YUBinit - December 28, 2007

With a budget as high as this I don’t believe they are targetting any kind of casual viewer. They are trying to nail to the floor every 12 year old to whine for each and every “star trek” action figure, and Taco Bell Sappy Meal Grande with collectors cup.

58. Ryan T. Riddle - December 28, 2007

“28. dennis bailey – December 28, 2007

Actually, other than Kirk getting his shirt ripped occasionally nobody “got dirty, did laundry or went to the bathroom” in TOS either – that’s not something that happened during the TNG era.

For the most part, TOS lacked the time and money to pay attention to authentic little details of visual continuity or that “lived in” feeling. I was ridiculously pleased to see Kirk finally acquire a day’s growth of beard during the events of TWOK – a silly little thing like that was a big deal. :lol:”

True, but the early first season episodes did try to present a “lived-in” future with great attention to detail like double elevator doors, which disappear about five or so episodes in, microtapes left everywhere in the briefing room, people drinking lots and lots of coffee, people mulling about the corridors repairing and working on panels, and a messy rec room with tables of empty coffee cups and stuff. Granted it wasn’t as detailed as nuBSG or even Meyer Trek. Say what you will about Nick Meyer, at least he tried to present a more lived-in Trek universe than was shown to us in TOS and TNG. Everything in TWOK and TUC seemed more “hands on” and used.

59. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

#49

Here, here!!

60. SPB - December 28, 2007

SO WHAT IF JAMES CAWLEY DOESN’T LIKE THE NEW ENTERPRISE…?

What does that mean, exactly? I know he’s said he’s seen it and doesn’t like it, but this is a guy who, for all intents and purposes, it’s SLAVISHLY devoted to the Original Series–his head has been stuck in the 1960′s for the past few years… which means, for all we know, the coloring and lettering could be the only things different.

From what I recall, Cawley never gave a description of the new Enterprise and he didn’t state what exactly was sticking in his craw about it. His opinion shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all. He’s ONE GUY.

Sure, if the new version has bright purple plating with wings and flames painted on, then we can rightfully start whining, but I’ll wait until we all see it ourselves before deciding if I like it or not.

61. simonkey - December 28, 2007

well nothing new just a few words for the chickens to go nuts!!!!keep the ship as we know it and dont play with fire mr jj!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

62. konar - December 28, 2007

#48 — the only problem with the “Spock as bookend” theory is that he is evidently shooting scenes in which he interacts with the new actors, and on the same sets as same. He will be an integral, integrated part of the story.

63. Dave - December 28, 2007

I am looking forward to Star Trek getting a new lease on life with Abrams. I think the die hard fans whinning cost us a great series in Enterprise and almost killed the movies. I am so tired of listening to “die hard” fans piss and moan about little things. Star Trek is great for many reasons including great writing and its ability to take on current social issues. If this new movie allows the fans to experience star trek for its great story’s again I am all for it. Change the uniforms, the ship, and step all over “cannon” but keep the great writing and thought provoking story. Stop the pissing and moaning and support the project. It may not be “your” vision for star trek but it is “a” vision. A vision that almost never happened after the non-support for the last movie and series.

64. ShawnP - December 28, 2007

#63 – I second your sentiments. There’s sooooo much complaining about a movie we know sooooo little about.

And for the record, it’s “Hear, hear” not “Here, here.” :-)

65. Myrth - December 28, 2007

#62 He said he was shooting on the sets and that the other actors were great and he is proud to work with them. Nothing about being in the same scene with them. Also L.N. Spock is in a time period with Holo technology. His comments don’t rule out the bookend idea at all.

66. billg - December 28, 2007

#48: Common sense in a sea of wish fulfillment.

#63: I’m sure Nimoy is interacting with other characters. There’s no requirement that they’re familiar Trek folks.

67. Iowagirl - December 28, 2007

#58, 28

Yes, and moreover, TOS gave us genuine sweat after workouts at McCoy’s, a Captain running half-nakedly about the ship, bloody corners of the mouth on a weekly basis, turkeys for Thanksgiving (well, sort of), a Communications Officer singing and a Half-Vulcan playing the lyre, the hiding places for Saurian Brandy and the Captain‘s medals (always been curious what else he might be hiding there), a Yeoman heating coffee with a phaser, and, most important of all, it gave us the reassurance that the Captain does NOT keep his boots on…

Considering the tight budget and time-frame, I’d still call this a highly authentic and entertaining “lived in” atmosphere with an eye for detail.

68. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 28, 2007

#8 … What’s up? Any plans to release “I Hate You” as a holiday single? What a great punk tune. :)

69. billg - December 28, 2007

Hmmm, that said, if we ponder Abrams’ remark about being curious about what Spock is doing a dozen or so years on…

..we might see Nimoy play a Spock who is not simply the bookend of either side of the movie, but, in a real sense, its protagonist.

Consider: Twelve years on, Spock is still commited to (obsessed with?) his Romulan mission. He discovers an opportunity, via time travel, to alter history to his liking. This either moves him back in time (what most people think) or brings young Kirk, young Spock, et al, forward in time.

If you bring people forward to old Spock’s time, and send them back without any memory of events, then you really haven’t altered the existing Trek timeline. Yes, you’ve played a bit with canon, but it doesn’t make any difference because the only players who will retain any memory of it will be old Spock, who exists well into the future. It allows you to move into sequels without explaining away anything.

70. Plum - December 28, 2007

^^^
100% correct! Well said Iowagirl. :D

71. bugs nixon - December 28, 2007

section9 – i agree with everthing you say, you are spot on.

Except your definition of social realism:

“But the problem with Trek was that there was a point at which the series approached Socialist Realism. The Radiant Future became somewhat unbelievable. Nothing gets dirty in Trek”

trek is the opposite of social realism, it is in fact high concept hollywood – whereas social realism is all about documentary-like, fly-on-the-wall drama – naturalistic, and unrehearsed

have a look at films by ken loach and roberto rossellini.also the dogme 95 movement

apart from that – i think your predictions will be accurate

cheers

72. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 28, 2007

#63 “I think the die hard fans whinning cost us a great series in Enterprise and almost killed the movies.”

Surely you jest. That “great series” and movies died because they were subpar. After the general public lost interest, a few diehards were all they had. We’re getting this new vision because the aforementioned products weren’t good enough.

73. Chain of Command - December 28, 2007

My hopes for this film:

1. I hope it’s a good “ORIGINAL” story.
2. I hope they make it look real (And no, I don’t mind if they update the ship {inside and out}. C’mon people, it’s 2007!).
3. I hope the “big three” and the rest of the cast have the chemistry.
4. I hope there are no whine inducing lines or jokes.
5. I hope the planets have that weird “alien” sound to them ala Talos 4.
6. I hope I walk out the theater feeling like I just saw a movie that is truly STAR TREK.

74. Kirk's Girdle - December 28, 2007

Re #58. Let’s not forget simulated meat loaf shaped like turkeys. Not even REAL meat loaf!

Also, Kirk was often being handed a plate of salad when sitting in the big chair. Apparently, he gave that diet up.

75. CW - December 28, 2007

“I am looking forward to Star Trek getting a new lease on life with Abrams. I think the die hard fans whinning cost us a great series in Enterprise and almost killed the movies.”

ARE YOU FRIGGIN’ NUTS? The writers on strike who want more money are what killed Trek… and it aint the fault of “canonistas” either… heck, if they were listened to, then maybe- just maybe- Trek wouldn’t have died.

It’s the non-canon relativists that seem to want things watered down. It’s teh relativists that are more responsible to the demise of Trek, not the ‘canonistas’.

76. josepepper - December 28, 2007

I say re-boot this bitch

Star Trek needs a new Femoral Artery Bad

If it’s really well done it will be a whole new universe for all of us to explore.

Remember too, the new actors need to make this “their own”, they can only really do that with a significant re-boot

I’m rarin to see that trailer baby!

77. billg - December 28, 2007

#73: If they made a movie with an E that is identical to the one in TOS, people would laugh. Technology has advanced so much in 40 years that any attempt to duplicate the TOS look would be seen, at best, as deliberate campy retro.

78. Myrth - December 28, 2007

#63 Dave I second your post. Enterprise was a great series and never given a fair break because it didn’t look like the 60′s.

79. Kirk, James T. - December 28, 2007

i think that this film is going to be two films in one as Orci has said;

for the trekkies – an alternate universe that touches on cannon but ultimately charts it’s own course within this “alternate” universe.

for the non fans – a reboot and revival with a return to the original and most iconic of Star Trek’s.

this film will rock.

80. J. E. Kirk - December 28, 2007

Ya know all,
I am very excited about this movie. I am excited that Paramount has recognized what we fans have been saying for years… GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SERIES roots and give us what we love. While TNG, VOY, etc., have all been great shows to watch, I have said all along, that I would have preferred more TOS themed shows. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SINCE 1969. All of the concern about a “new look” are frankly, annoying. JJ Abrams and the “Lost” Crew will give Trek a bold new start. Nimoy would not have come out of retirement to do this film if he thought it was a dud. HE believes it’s a great flick. Trust JJ, Trust Leonard, and trust that we’re going to the movies next year for a great ride.

It’s Christmas, so “Believe.”

81. Kirk, James T. - December 28, 2007

to number 63, your spot on! all i want is a good story/movie

82. Anthony Pascale - December 28, 2007

when i wrote the above story I was in a hurry and so I didn’t mention what I usually mention when some one from Hollywood uses the ‘r’ word. In the biz it merely means ‘get going again’ or ‘breathe new life into’ from a business perspective. There is plenty of evidence that Star Trek is not a ‘reboot’ in the continuity universe sense. A simple example is the fact that the film makers are on the record regarding why putting Shatner into the movie isnt easy….because they do not want to violate the canon of his death. If the film were really a ‘lets chuck the canon’ reboot why would they care?

Periodically over the next year the word reboot will be written about this film by others in the media and in the industry. I hope people will not all set their hair on fire every time time that happens.

But to the broader point…if you approach the film entirely through the prism of ‘what is different’ and will get bogged down and upset over every little thing that doesn’t match “The Cage”…well then you may miss out on enjoying a movie while you sweat the small stuff.

83. Alex Rosenzweig - December 28, 2007

#77 – “#73: If they made a movie with an E that is identical to the one in TOS, people would laugh.”

Well, if they made it identical to a 1960s TV show model, yes, people would. But if they took that same design and brought it up to 2007 VFX capabilities, e.g., with visible details that we always knew had to be there, like thruster packs and weapons mounts and such, maybe added some glowing flux chillers a la TMP, and gave us stuff like that glowing convecting plasma sink in the forward nacelle domes, it’d be just fine. :)

#76 – Reboot? No, thanks. If that’s the best they can do, they should give back the $130+ million and not do a Star Trek at all.

#79 – I dunno. I think that what the non-fans will see is a straight-up origin story (“Star Trek Zero”, as was previously described), and what the fans will see is all these layers of reference and tip-o’-the-hat stuff that the non-fans wouldn’t recognize at all. But that’s based on what we’ve been told so far, which maybe isn’t the whole story.

Best,
Alex

84. section9 - December 28, 2007

#71-bugs

You misunderstood Socialist Realism as I was using it. “Socialist Realism” was the school of fraudulent art practiced by official Soviet propaganda artists throughout the 1930′s and through the period of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. It is characterized by stylized and heroic visions of the Worker and of course, Stalin. Everything is perfect and clean.

I have to go to dinner. I’ll discuss this later.

85. Michael Hall - December 28, 2007

Amazing to me how so many posters can have such definitive opinions regarding a movie whose plot and production designs are, at this date, so little-known.

86. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

#63

ENT was just bad television, rehashed Trek and met its well-deserved fate. The only positive thing I ever enjoyed out of ENT was “In A Mirror, Darkly”, which was superb in quality. Unfortunately, that was about it.

#64

Thanks for the correction.

87. Daniel Broadway - December 28, 2007

#82 – Anthony

Have you been privileged enough to see the new Enterprise?

Just curious, and if you have, what are your thoughts on it?

88. OneBuckFilms - December 28, 2007

I’d like to address some of what I’ve been reading:

1. “Alternate Timeline”

I don’t think we’ll be getting this. I think we’re simply going to get more details re: the beginning of the original Star Trek.

I also believe that things will be updated in some subtle ways to shed the 60s cheese, while remaining faithful to the core of Star Trek.

This is the only real way to make it work.

2. Redesign of the Enterprise

I don’t think the Enterprise is going to be all that different from what we saw in the Original Series.

It might be lit and presented differently, but it’s probably going to be the same design.

3. Style

It may not have the same style as the original series in terms of lighting and mood, but it might in design and theme.

It’ll be new and exciting visually, perhaps fast paced, but if they remain true to cannon as stated in repeated interviews, it’ll be the same ship, crew and uniforms as the original series.

4. Score

I speculate that the score will be pretty new, but with a tip of the hat to the Original Series.

I can almost guarantee that we’ll here Alexander Courage’s fanfare.

Perhaps “In a Mirror, Darkly” from Enterprise would be the ideal way to go in terms of visual style and presentation, but the score needs to stand out, and stay away from the Next Generation Dennis McCarthy sound that permeates later incarnations of Trek.

89. Lostrod - December 28, 2007

The frustrating thing about this movie to me is the original teaser poster. It gave me the impression that the style of the movie would be true to the TOS style.

The current teaser poster looks awful to me. They kept the TOS font, but the stark black and white looks cheap.

I’m hopeful, but cautious based on everything I’ve seen and heard so far.

90. Meh - December 28, 2007

JJ can’t re-boot it unless he wants to cause planet wide unrest, widespread rioting and a planet wide Civil War. :)

91. Chris Roberts - December 28, 2007

As long as most of Cannon Is preserved,and the Characters are true then there Is a lot to be excited about.I for one can tolerate changing of sets,Costumes,and Visuals as long as It seems part of Star Trek we know and not Galactica Reimaged like.However I don’t think we have to worry.While the media still calls It a reboot. Remember what the film makers have said.

92. Trekdude - December 28, 2007

I can only see one person narrate the trailer Bill of course ;)

93. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

#88

I, for one, am very excited to hear what the soundtrack will sound like. I amm a big fan of Michael Giancchino’s (sp?) work on Alias, Lost and some war video games that I can’t recall at this very moment. He also did the music for the Incredibles. His versatility and ability to do good music should be a great thing for this film.

And I am almost 100% sure that we will hear homages to Alexander Courage.

94. Woulfe - December 28, 2007

Star Trek Zero ?

Okay….

Repeat after me….. “There is no reboot, There is no reboot”

Hollywood will call it that, but it’s not that, okay ?

- W -
* There is no reboot *

95. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 28, 2007

I still say Paramont should scrap a good portion of the marketing
budget and give it to the Caw-man, let him direct the real deal with a real budget and then sell it direct to DVD. Millions sold, EASY!

Help me OBI-CAWLEY-KENOBIE!
Your our only hope.

Looks like my Lost-on-Space analogy is right on target.

96. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

^

This alarmist tye of mentality is what is going to plague the movie.

Star Trek’s worst enemy is it’s own fans. Segmented, and in some cases, pig-headed in their stubborness.

I’m a huge admirer of Cawley and what’s done with New Voyages. Very nostalgic and amazing in what they have been able to achieve with writers such as DC Fontana, David Gerold and with some very special TOS actors to boot.

But it’s time for the next step, and I for one am looking forward to what this movie has to offer.

You really have nothing to base your Lost in Space analogy, yet.

97. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 28, 2007

96. MiamiTrek

Alarmist?

I REALLY liked the Lost in Space movie.
Liked the actors, special effects, cinematography and story (even with the time travel elements in the plot.

I am just saying that there is obviosly a GREAT LOVE for ST-TOS.
Why should that vast market be denied for the sake of a reboot?
Why?

Help me OBI-CAWLEY-KENOBIE!
Your still our only hope for a true TOS vision.

Yeah, EXETER TOO!

98. Kev-1 - December 28, 2007

If the timeline changes and the appearance of everything changes it is a reboot, even if they say it isn’t because we’re only seeing the result of the changes– which supercede TOS. Either way, TOS is toast. Why does killing Kirk change how uniforms and ships look? As they told Shatner when he wanted to wrestle the tiger, KIrk is great, but not that great.

99. the king in shreds and tatters - December 28, 2007

how much of what is being reported on this site just marketing spam?

100. Xai - December 28, 2007

33. Picard for President – December 28, 2007

You are kidding…right?

“Keep a few things in mind. There’s Star Trek’s “universe” and there is the human need for external validation — especially for those who cannot or will not grow old gracefully.

I’d love to see a Panavision version of Jim Kirk’s Star Trek — and I’d love it to be wildly popular and then I’d be an instant hero to the Western world’s youth.

Given the facts of our present civilzation, that ain’t gonna happen. There are structural changes to the brain in the ADD Generation that preclude the sort of thoughtful, deliberate, almost Shakespearean development of a story.

Rather than the judeochristian “matrix” in which the original Trek was created, we live in a post-Christian world where we worship the Holy Self and medical doctors are our high priests.

The enterntainment implications of these great changes are stupendous, as anyone over 40 knows simply by watching what passes for “entertainment” today.

This is a great pity and we will live to regret doing so to our children.

But since that’s the way it is, this movie must pander to it.

I hope there are a few timeless truths embedded in the story and that it have some kind of lesson to it, rather than being a simple two hour cortizone trip.

Yeah, I know. Silly of me to expect “art for the ages” our of Hollywood ”

It’s your opinion… but….. Huh? You’ve made a ton of broad assumptions about people, society and what this movie may or may not be.
Our kids are 24 and 22 and nephews are from 9 to 21, and none of them have your claimed “structural changes to the brain in the ADD Generation”.
Can you get your point about TREK across without being insulting?

101. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

#97

“I am just saying that there is obviosly a GREAT LOVE for ST-TOS.
Why should that vast market be denied for the sake of a reboot?
Why?”

Because that vast market of yours is not enough to justify making a film to keep TOS purists happy. Star Trek is and always has been a business. Whether you like it or not, movies are not made just to keep a certain segment of fandom happy, it’s to make money. To draw is any many viewers possible.

Star Trek’s current incarnations have failed in that respect, and new life and new blood was needed.

102. Xai, gold shirts, two nacelles and a saucer. - December 28, 2007

I think you will see a Trek as true to TOS as it can be with added depth in characters, situations and technology.
IMO, the uniforms will be close to the original, with a few embellishments and the same for Enterprise. Her silhouette is an emblem of TOS and while we’ll see more detail, her basic form will stay close to the original. Time will tell.

103. Edge - December 28, 2007

I hope this ends up on youtube before the end of that week.

104. NZorak - December 28, 2007

There is so much ground to cover with the original series that it isn’t even funny. My guess is that Leonard Nimoy is being brought in from the post-Nemesis Trek, looking back on his time with Kirk and the Enterprise. I’m going to hazard a guess that the reason he’s doing this (and the reason you can refer to him as a “bookends” character) is because the Romulans are about to gank him. I mean come on, it isn’t as though Nimoy will be alive long enough to keep reprising the role of Spock, so maybe it’s time he tends to his character’s fate. It would make sense for him to go to his doom in some fashion that is a success for the cause of unification between the Vulcans and the Romulans. I find it likely that this Nero character takes charge of Romoulus in the post-Shinzon TNG era, and I’d be willing to bet that he was a Romulan ship captain during Kirk’s era – there’s your tie-in to TOS without the need of time travel of any sort.

Second, assuming that they’re using Spock as a means to re-introducing the original characters with a new cast, this movie isn’t nearly as important as the future movies in the franchise because they will be concerned only with the TOS timeline. Now, I’m a published writer, so I’m just going to say what I would do as a writer if I were handed the keys to Trek, as well as a successful reboot movie that encourages Paramount to fund more of these.

I’d set movie #2 during what would have been season 4 of the series, acknowledges the events of the first three seasons of TOS. While the movie would deal specifically with whatever story they have on tap, it would suggest other adventures, which could be developed into a possible TV series that would run alongside the movies and fill in the gaps of the five year mission. Movie #3 would then be the final mission of the original five year mission. We’re talking big finish here that would tie up some elements from the first two movies, or maybe even deal with some subject matter from TOS. Assuming that the studio gods are still happy with New Trek and want to see more stuff, I would then start covering the lost era of TOS. I would specifically avoid the era covered by the first six movies since careers change, characters die, etc. But hey, no big deal there since they would have about 20 years before the actors they’re casting now are at an age where they would need to worry about that. I would not change characters or events, but uniforms, sets, and the ship itself would NOT look retro 60′s.

That’s my prediction of the future of Trek, and I’m sticking to it.

105. Ryan T. Riddle - December 28, 2007

Hey as long as the movie has a captain named Kirk, a Vulcan named Spock and a cranky doctor named Bones all on a ship called Enterprise, and a well-written story, then I’m there.

106. Dennis Bailey - December 28, 2007

MTV also reported the following:

“As if that doesn’t make us jealous enough, Reeves revealed that he has also seen entire, completed scenes from the assembled dailies. “I’ve seen little bits of the movie too, and I feel that way as well,” the director said. “He’s doing an amazing job; it’s very exciting. It’s not your grandfather’s ‘Star Trek,’ that’s for sure.”

107. shuttlepod10 - December 28, 2007

So when does Battlestar Trek come out?

108. section9 - December 28, 2007

#104-Nzorak-No, no TV. That’s not where this is headed. This is Paramount’s answer to Lucasfilm/FOX’s “Star Wars” empire (no pun intended).

Now here this, Trekkies! Star Trek is intended to be the Star Wars of the early 21st Century. This production is that big.

This is why they took it out of the hands of the TNG people who were killing the franchise (although I too, like many of you, appreciated what they were trying to do with “Enterprise”-it was too little, too late, by the time Trip bought the farm, the franchise was on its last legs).

This will be a huge, monster hit if they are doing what I think they are doing. If my hunch is correct, they know their audience (the Cloverleaf Crowd, right?). It’s global, remember?

They are NOT MAKING IT FOR THE BASE TREKKIES. We folks provide the legitimacy and authenticity to the new effort, and pass the torch on to the new generation of kids who will go to the new films and buy the new merchandise tie-ins, ESPECIALLY THE VIDEO GAME AND THE “COMMUNICATOR CELL PHONE”. JJ and Orci will make a Star Trek that is cool for the Hip Hop age, but that is adherent to Canon.

Again, as I posted above, you will notice the differences in the musical score, which I predict right now will tip the hat to Yoko Kanno’s work from “Cowboy Bebop”. I also suspect you’ll see a lot of Anime/Chinese influence: there will also be a huge “Blade Runner” influence felt in the film, imho. It won’t be overt, but you will see these influences in the look and feel of the film, and the music. A lot grittier, more realistic Federation world, filled with real criminals, real heartache, and real loss.

Cityscapes on planets won’t look like the clean matte paintings we remember from the TOS in the Sixties. Nope, you’ll see the crew walking through these William Gibson dystopias, trying to bring law and order to a chaotic universe. Notice the political parallel with our own time? Just as TOS reflected the America of the New Frontier and the Great Society, this Trek will be a Mirror on the America of the Bin Laden War and the War in Iraq, with all the uncertainties that go with those two campaigns.

You can’t separate Trek from it’s culture, no matter how hard you try. Redoing this movie as a TOS series was a brilliant stroke.

109. star trackie - December 28, 2007

106-”it’s very exciting. It’s not your grandfather’s ‘Star Trek,’ that’s for sure.” ”

..I don’t know, some of my grandfather’s home movies were every bit as shakey as Mission Impossible 3.

110. shuttlepod10 - December 28, 2007

People who want old Trek should just stay home and watch the DVDs and fan films.

111. trektacular - December 28, 2007

I think a grittier look for Trek is really needed, I loved what Nick Meyer did in Trek VI, giving Kirk stubble and metallic look to the consoles, not to mention the scratches on the panels, my god the scratches.

112. NZorak - December 28, 2007

#108
You might be right about the look and feel of the thing, and that would be perfectly fine with me. What you need to remember is that they have repeatedly said that they will stay consistent with canon. While they may incorporate more recent science fiction elements and retcon this thing to hell and back, it will still be the same characters and same premise that we already are familiar with. They’ve already told us as much.

Sure, this thing will be huge and it will be epic, and again, I’m thrilled to see Trek aspire to such things again. Ultimately though, but recasting with the young actors they picked, they’re likely aiming at filling in some blanks in the continuity here, or at the very least, aiming at a period where they have room to play.

As for bringing order to the universe – that might be true, but in order to do so they’ll have to remain faithful to the Prime Directive. Mirroring the “War on Terror” would be pretty lame, frankly, and as liberal as Hollywood is, the only way I could see it working is if they’re taking aim at it and showing it for the huge mistake that it is.

TV? I wouldn’t rule it out since Trek has traditionally been primarily a TV show in the past, Abrams is huge on TV, and he’s likely to try and provide a job for himself if he is able.

113. richpit - December 28, 2007

I didn’t read this whole thread…but I just needed to say this: Star Trek needed a reboot. Like it or not, die-hard fan or not, the franchise was in dire need of a reboot.

I still have high hopes for this movie and (hopefully) the future of Trek on TV.

114. The Realist - December 28, 2007

I love Trek, TNG was the Trek I grew up with, Captain Picard is my captain, just as Kirk was my fathers. I loved ENT, DS9 and I liked VOY and I loved TNG. But that era of the franchise is over. I just rewatched some ENT episodes from Season 4 and I have to say they are some of the best Trek Episodes ever. Now – I got Battlestar Galactica Season 3 for Christmas, so I rewatched season 2 and just finished 3, you know what? BSG beats any Trek hands down for story telling, humanity, and truly reflecting the world in which we live, the closest Trek can come is Season 4 of Enterprise. My nephew remarked that while Trek is cool and fun, BSG is far more real. Alot of people are going to hate this but if Trek is to survive it has to take a leaf out of BSG’s book, no more clean crisp sets, make them looked lived in, used, make our hero’s flawed, heck make them human (if they are human), give the world a Trek that is raw, that holds nothing back, give the world a Trek movie/show with Treks heart and etho’s and BSG’s edge.

115. The Realist - December 28, 2007

Oh and give us a Trek with NO Wesley Crusher! Damn know it all kid!

116. section9 - December 28, 2007

#112- Precisely my point. The Prime Directive was an indirect, and rather subtle criticism of interventionism by the United States overseas by Gene Roddenberry. The fact that it came about during Vietnam made it seem less subtle to the audience than Roddenberry probably intended. The PD would be used the same way to critique the war in Iraq, for example, not to cheerlead Federation interventionism.

The last thing that Star Trek is is Starship Troopers, although it would be a hoot to see them work in the Mobile Infantry.

117. section9 - December 28, 2007

No 115-Speaking of someone who should be sent to fight the Bugs on Planet P, where the hell is Wesley Crusher, anyway?

Wesley Crusher was emblematic of why TNG was destined to kill the franchise. Somehow, this squeaky clean, super-smart kid running the Navigation Array didn’t pass the smell test.

But they had to have a Cute Kid in the series. Made me want to reach for my revolver, it did.

118. NZorak - December 28, 2007

It’s really a shame Wesley was such an annoying character, given that Will Wheaton turned out to be a really cool guy in real life. Apparently even he hates what Wesley became during his time on the show.

119. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

#117,

I was 13 when TNG premiered, and I absolutely hated Weasley….er, Wesley Crusher. He was so unnecessary, even if he was somehow an extension of Gene Roddenberry himself.

#114

I recall reading an interview years ago with Ron Moore when he talked about how he had envisioned Voyager being more gritty and an opportunity to take away that squeaky clean image from Trek, especially with Voyager due to their circumstances being disconnected from the Federation. Protocol would be more lax, uniforms and such, the ship would look more worn and have a more realistic feel to it based on the premise of a bunch of humans being lost in a distant part of the galaxy.

But instead of taking what made DS9 what I believed to be compelling television at the time, and improving upon it. They reverted to a TNG format and then made even more bland. I enjoyed Voyager, but ultimately felt that it just didn’t reach its potential. Voyager was the show that I was disappointed with the most.

I didn’t even bother with ENT. I watched the first season and it wasn’t enough to keep my attention. Although I think they made some episodes in their last season that seemed like they were trying, it was too little, too late.

And I would revise your statement to say: “BSG beats any MODERN Trek hands down for story telling, humanity, and truly reflecting the world in which we live.” Classic Trek is unsurpassed and comparing it to current BSG is unfair due to television being a completely different creature back in the 60′s to what it is now.

120. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

This, my friends, is your great grandfather’s Trek.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Y39gHihP74

121. Desertrat - December 28, 2007

#50
“If James Cawley ain’t happy with the changes to the Big E, I ain’t either…”

Does Elvis McFrankenkirk wipe your a$$ for you as well??

122. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 28, 2007

The new BSG is great if your into self loathing. ; (

123. IcebreakerX - December 28, 2007

#100 – Actually, there are significant scientific studies that have seen that kids who grew up in the 90s and 00s have significantly different brain structures compared to those who grew up in earlier decades. This is signified by things such as kids who are able to concurrently watch movies, IM with their friends, call their girlfriend about where to go for dinner next tuesday, update their Facebook, read news and write their biology reports at 3 AM in the morning. No, I’m not making this up (Fun reading linked where my regular link is).

124. J.D. Lee - December 28, 2007

“He’s doing an amazing job; it’s very exciting. It’s not your grandfather’s ‘Star Trek,’ that’s for sure.”

grandfather’s star trek?

*snif snif* but but..We’re not ThAT old…are we?

:*(

Im still very excited!

125. MiamiTrek - December 28, 2007

#121…

Totallly unnecessary.

#122

WTF?!

126. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 28, 2007

125. MiamiTrek

C’mon. You have to admit. BSG is a pretty miserable show to watch.
Who on that show really enjoys life? It can be pretty depressing.
But it is very well produced and with great vusual FX. Just a downer.

It’s my bet that they are ALL cross circuted Cylons. Which will make it interesting once they reach Earth

But that’s why I like TREK. It’s positive message and view of the future.
Trek always made me wonder (happily.)

127. Buckaroohawk - December 28, 2007

TrekMadeMeWonder (#126),

I’m NEVER miserable watching the new BSG. It’s far and away in the top three best shows on TV (when it’s actually on, that is. This waiting for the final season is making me crazy!).

You’re correct that it shows people at an extremely low point, and none of the characters is really “enjoying life” as you say, but listen to Apollo’s empassioned speech at the end of Baltar’s trial and then tell me that same speech couldn’t have been recited by James T. Kirk. That hopefulness, that sense of wonder is there, but the characters have to fight for it tooth and claw. That’s damn compelling drama, and Trek could do a lot worse than emulating that particular aspect of BSG.

128. the king in shreds and tatters - December 28, 2007

I think one-eyed alcoholics, guilt-ridden old men, abuse survivors and delusional self-absorbed schizophrenics being able to continue to function after an apocalypse is an incredibly positive message about the future.

Especially these days.

129. JT Boomer - December 28, 2007

Really,
Everyone needs to relax. I loved Battlestar Galactica, but the new one is light years better. The writing is relevant and believable while still in many instances paying homage to the original. Razor was unbelievable! I love Star Trek but after watching what was labeled Star Trek (Voyager, DSN) and all of the TNG movies except First Contact this franchise is in DESPERATE need of a new direction or it will be lost! Its time to look forward and embrace a new story that might just remind us of why we fell in love with Star Trek in the first place.

130. John_Pemble - December 28, 2007

& cut out by Ant again. Get over it man, it’s just a word. R – Word and C- Word.

131. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 28, 2007

127. Buckaroohawk

You know I hardly ever miss an episode of BSG. And indeed, no other science fiction tv series has presented such realistic characterizations. But the despair angle has been played perhaps too heavily for my taste.

Question.

Is it possible to have an optomistic Star Trek series set 300 yarns in the future, without it being boring?

All of us here, obviously enjoyed the message that Star Trek has presented.

#112 & #116 brought up the Prime Directive. Just one more bit of genius that the Great Bird established early on. The PD was a very logical and powerful concept. JUST ONE OF OF THE MANY creative concepts that really projected the series ahead of its time. Maybey if the PD was more generally known, understood and accepted in our time, then there would be a whole lot less misery and dispair now throughout the world.

I believe that ST has always been a REAL and positive influence on our culture. Let’s keep it that way.

I think we have all read that ST ’08 is going to be “Grittier?” Lets all just hope, by the end of this new movie, that “grit” is shown to be the dust that has been laying atop the Prime Directive and other important TOS ideals that have been long forgotten.

132. Chris M - December 29, 2007

I saw a trailer for Cloverfield the other day and it looks pretty good. Wasn’t sure whether I was going to see it or not however the Star Trek trailer is too good o refuse!

133. Green-blooded-bastard - December 29, 2007

I have a suspicion that we’ll all be pleasantly surprised. The people involved in the making of the movie simply can’t please everyone. There are so many fans of Star Trek, and so many different perspectives of the same shows and movies, that even amongst fans, there will always be disagreements. The best they can do for us is create an entertaining piece of media that will hopefully appeal to the widest demographic while attempting to please even the most scrutinizing hardcore fan. Not an easy task, but if everyone who goes to see it goes with an open mind and an understanding that with time, things change, I’m sure that everyone will at the very least appreciate their efforts to not just create an entertaining movie involving the characters we all have come to know and love, but give a timeless classic a well deserved new lease on life in the form of fresh faces and new stories to attract a whole new generation of Star Trek fans. I for one am looking forward to seeing what they do with the franchise. All we can do is hope JJ Abrams and company understand that Star Trek is iconic in nature and has been with so many people for so many years. We literally are depending on them to do the “right thing”, but I think they will. I have faith.

134. trekee - December 29, 2007

TMP was pretty epic in scale… vast effects, lavish shots of the new Enterprise and a fairly serious reboot in uniforms and technology. Even the Klingons had new foreheads!! What was THAT about???

Then there was that Next Gen thing. Families on ships, Klingons being nice and a Captain that wasn’t even American. Gosh!

Time for another change then. I’m not in the least worried about ripping up established canon now. Come on, how many times have they said they are being true to it and on this site?

It will look different, how different will probably be the main sticking point and the debates will probably be along the lines of “loved the new see through skirts, hated the new quadruple warp engines, and what was with the handles on the bridge doors??!”

Only a few more weeks until we know…. great isn’t it?

135. USS Valiant - December 29, 2007

#108
I always felt that DS9 did a great job of delivering a more gritty and realistic version of Star Trek. In many ways it pushed the boundaries and it was very compelling to watch ,especially in the later seasons. It is too bad that people gave up on it so quickly, too many fans seemed to dismiss it because it wasn’t exactly like TNG. If it was being made today I bet it would be huge success, story arcs are all the rage on tv these days.

Anyway heres to hoping the new movie is good!

136. toddk - December 29, 2007

old galactica was cool..even by todays standards..I cared about the characters and the ship, I even cared about the bumbling baltar..and always hated the evil cylons..seems that alot of these re-treads and newer shows seem to forget that. or how to achieve it.

I will also say that Buck roger in the 70\’s was alot like enterprise in the fact that it was at least something sci-fi to watch. but I can\’t stand either show more than 20 minutes..except for the buck rogers title that was truely the best part, in a mirror darkly showed me what enterprise could have been, as a matter of fact, if the mirrior universe stayed that way to the end of the series

137. trektacular - December 29, 2007

Its only gritty if there are actual scratches, and dings on the panels, not to mention switches, instead of touch screens.

138. NZorak - December 29, 2007

#137

So you’ve got a ship that would cost billions of today’s dollars and you don’t think they would be able to afford touch screens?

What I want to know is in this perfectly clean universe they created with the Next Generation and following series, why do we never once see a janitor cleaning up the messes? We see plenty of bridge shaking, console explosions (they really should have designed those things better), shape shifting, mutations, and other emissions of bodily fluids, so why in the worlds isn’t Lenny the janitor on the scene cleaning up afterwards? Sure, they have a barber (seen cutting hair for the one man on the ship who really doesn’t need hair cuts), but where’s the cleanup crew?

If you really want gritty, show the messes, and either show the guys cleaning up the joint, or show how the condition of the ship’s interior gradually deteriorates into a chaos of stains and junk everywhere in this idyllic universe where nobody needs choose janitorial for their career.

139. trektacular - December 29, 2007

What did I do to offend you NZorak?

140. trekee - December 29, 2007

@Janitors

You know that they are there, it’s not a reality TV show where you get to sit through 24 hours of drudgery, it’s a drama where you assume these things happen but they shouldn’t be important because the rest of the show should be so compelling that you really don’t care.

If you’re sitting thinking “where are the janitors and why are those buttons still shiny” then the show has lost you and you should go and watch Big Brother where the True Value of Housework is still lovingly portrayed.

Grittiness doesn’t need to equate to Dust Mites, you are perhaps thinking too literally about it.

They did a series with Vending Machine Technicians in Space before. It was called Red Dwarf, but it wasn’t really the same genre as Star Trek or BSG….. ;-)

141. trekee - December 29, 2007

Hey, who switched on itallics????

(Hits thread with a hammer)

142. David P - December 29, 2007

how can they reboot without the Shat?

143. Iowagirl - December 29, 2007

#142

Re-boot, re-imagination or whatever – they certainly can’t bring about anything re-asonable without him.

144. Cheve - December 29, 2007

#138

The answer, in the episode of TNG where they pick up a lot of farmers and place them in a cargo bay.

Riker tells the farmer lady to stop cleaning because “The ship will eventually clean itself”

So, sorry, no janitors because there arent any.

145. Cheve - December 29, 2007

Oh, and about WCs and etc. The rooms in the ships are modular. Everything is kept inside the walls. You can see big panels on the bathroom’s furniture with little red numbered buttons.

You press a button and the WC comes out.

146. Paul B. - December 29, 2007

Why do they even need bathrooms/water closets at all? They have transporter technology! Just hit the right button and beam the waste right out of your body.

THAT’S why we never see toilets! (Hey, it makes sense…just say, “Computer, flush!” and the system scans your body for all forms of waste and removes them.)

Hmm…maybe I’ll use that in some non-ST writing…hmm…

147. ZoomZoom - December 29, 2007

#143 it may be reasonable- but we’ll always be left with that ‘what if’ feeling.

148. Multirek - December 29, 2007

In 10 years, we’ll get a movie explaining why the costumes, faces, sets and ships from ST 2008 movie had slight differences. Some story about time travel and alternate dimensions to satisfy the needs of canon and bring order for those who needed to know why some klingons have head ridges and some don’t. ;)

149. Multirek - December 29, 2007

#146

Health purists would be against that. ;)

150. Cheve - December 29, 2007

#142

Oh, please!

Please, really!

This movie is about them when they where young! I supose you agree that Shatner can’t play a young Kirk anymore!

The plot of this movie has got old Spock after Kirk died! Vulcans live hundreds of years, so, if you want, imagine that Kirk never died in Gnerations, but please accept that a Vulcan looking like he is eighty years old may have three hundred years, and therefore, Kirk must surely be dead of old age a hundred years ago in the time he comes from.

So, old Kirk is dead and we already have a time traveler, narrator or whatever in a future where Kirk is dead. It even would be more logical to have Chekov Sulu or Uhura.

Please, accept that there is no coherent narrative way or reason to show Shatner in this movie but in a short memory or something similar, and it would be ridiculous to have Shatner on set one day to shoot one scene about a memory. It would be more reasonable to use the memory of a scene we know (“I will and will allways be your friend” for instance) So, again, no reason for Shatner.

He is my favourite Star Trek actor, but good movies aren’t made with business decisions, they are done with story decisions. Busines decisions produced Nemesis.

And he is kept blank about the new movie because he isn’t famous for keeping his mouth shut. We discovered that the new movie had young Kirk from his mouth the day after he met JJ.

If the writers strike ends and they find a way to put him in the story, they will, but right now they couldn’t even if they found a way, because we know that they didn’t have a scene for that before the strike and now, if the movie comes out with a Shatner scene, it would mean that they wrote while in strike and would be thrown away from the writers guild, not being allowed to write a move ever again.

So, please, lets leave that behind, at least for this movie.

If Shatner is so desperate to play Kirk again, I’m sure James Crawley would very much welcome him, but it doens’t make sense in this movie.

151. bugs nixon - December 29, 2007

section 9 – i see. my bad.

152. Iowagirl - December 29, 2007

#150
- Please, accept that there is no coherent narrative way or reason to show Shatner in this movie… –

I know, you were answering 142 and I will refrain from stating all those arguments that contradict your above pretension as they have been stated numerous times before and this is not the right thread to do it again. But, please, let me just say one thing: You just contradicted the presently effective statement made by Orci + Lindelof saying that it is difficult to have Shatner in due to Generations’ canon but not impossible and that there are still talks going on. Therefore, I suggest you put off conclusions on the script until a final decision on this matter has been made.

In contract, my post 143 was meant as my view on the film’s reason itself with respect to its possible meaning/contribution to the ST universe; sorry, if I didn’t make that clear enough.

153. Iowagirl - December 29, 2007

sorry, typo: In contrast….

154. Cheve - December 29, 2007

#152

I also said that

“If the writers strike ends and they find a way to put him in the story, they will, but right now they couldn’t even if they found a way, because we know that they didn’t have a scene for that before the strike and now, if the movie comes out with a Shatner scene, it would mean that they wrote while in strike and would be thrown away from the writers guild, not being allowed to write a move ever again.”

Which I belive i very much in sinthony with Orci & Lindelof.
If you have any other argument against my “pretension” please do tell them to me, because I havent readed anything prooving me wrong.

155. Cervantes ( I know engineers...they love to change things... ) - December 29, 2007

“…this does look completely different and new…”
Ah well, that’s finally it then. Move along TOS fans, not much in the way of the classic series to see here, barring some familiar character names…

I think I would have rathered a COMPLETELY new ‘Star Trek’ crew at the helm of this, if it’s just been an excuse to over-redesign every element of previous production design, as seems to be the case with every comment from those in the know…but I STILL hope to enjoy it.

156. Flake - December 29, 2007

If someone says Shatner again ill reboot em where the sun doesn’t shine.

Get over it!

157. raulpetersen - December 29, 2007

156.

shatner!

158. jonboc - December 29, 2007

^^
Shatner…guess I’m not over it!

…and 126- “C’mon. You have to admit. BSG is a pretty miserable show to watch. Who on that show really enjoys life? It can be pretty depressing.
But it is very well produced and with great vusual FX. Just a downer.”

I gotta agree with that. Jeez Louise STar Trek (the original series) was FUN. The characters are LIKEABLE. These are some of the ingredients to the show that has made it a classic not to mention legendary. It was adventurous and it was escapism. If you want “real” and you want “gritty” go visit an emergency room for your kicks but please leave it out of TOS Trek.

The characters are real enough, the situations are wild, creatively unfamiliar and dangerous. Don’t drag BSG soap opera style drearyness and “realism” into a TOS themed movie. It just doesn’t belong there..if you want to make Star Trek. If you want to make something entirely different and then call it Star Trek, well, that’s another story..

159. Chris Pike - December 29, 2007

146 I like the idea of beaming your poo out like that. It would have to be molecule accurate and be able to adjust to body movements otherwise there would be perforation of the intestinal wall. I bet McCoy wouldn’t go to the lav like that. Very clean though.

160. 1701 over Gotham City - December 29, 2007

If this is in any way a “reimagining” like BSG, then it’s tanked already, to me at least.
Can you imagine the outrage if somebody did that to Star Wars?

If everybody wants “grit” and “realism” and all the other negative aspects of modern tv sci-fi… then stay at home and watch it on TV. I wan tthe positive visions that launched Trek to begin with. and I want it done in blue, red, and gold-green onboard the Enterprise!!!

161. Mr Snuffleupacus - December 29, 2007

If that’s true that Cawley saw the new Enterprise design and didn’t like it — then that’s got me concerned. I trust the man’s taste in Trek.

I still reserve my own judgement on it, but the fact Cawley didn’t like it is NOT a good sign…if true.

162. Cervantes - December 29, 2007

#73 Chain of Command

Love your idea of any ‘alien’ planet having the wierd ‘sound’ to it, ala ‘Talos 4′… That was one of the sound effects that really made the TOS series so ‘otherworldly’ to me as a youngster. :)

I wonder how closely the new ‘Bridge’ will mirror the fantastic ‘electronic hum’ of the original series…

163. cw - December 29, 2007

#136- “old galactica was cool..even by todays standards..I cared about the characters and the ship, I even cared about the bumbling baltar..and always hated the evil cylons..seems that alot of these re-treads and newer shows seem to forget that. or how to achieve it.”

That’s because today’s “mainstream / progressive” that seems to populat Hollyweird doesn’t believe in universal good or evil any more. They think everyone and everything is relative. They think that anyhng positive or hopefull is naive and unrealistic, and to them realism has to be darker and grittier. That’s why just about every character they write has a skeleton in their closet and they strive to give us something to hate about the charaters, instead ofsomething to lve about them. Besides that, every relationship has to be stained, and every family disfunctional.

It makes you wonder how miserable of lives that the progressive activist Hollywood writer lives or have lived, seeing how much darkness they like to project.

164. Iowagirl - December 29, 2007

#154
Accepted for this statement of yours.

However, the quote of yours which I originally was referring to is “there is no coherent narrative way or reason to show Shatner in this movie“. This IS a contradiction to the Orci/Lindelof statement and a presumption with respect to the actual script, as it implies that we already KNOW that it wouldn‘t be coherent storytelling to show Shatner in the movie. But the reverse might just as well be true.

I am not intending to prove you or me wrong or right; I’m just talking about that particular contradiction which makes your statement, as I understand it, a pretension.

#156
Shatner!

As for me, I’m cat-eyed by now…

165. JB - December 29, 2007

What he meant was, “retoob”, not reboot.

Relax everybody.

166. Closettrekker - December 29, 2007

#86–I completely disagree with your assessment of the quality of the ENT series. I am a diehard TOS fan (and a milder fan of the TNG-era spinoffs), and I quite enjoyed it–that is, once I got to see it. It seemed to me to be a very realistic portrayal of the way things would have been in that period of Earth’s first significant ventures into the unknown. I loved the “mood” of the show, as things most assuredly would have had to be bumpy before becoming as utopian as we knew the TOS era to be. I appreciated the uncertainty and frontier-like approach to space exploration that we (in the early 21st Century) could easily identify with. Were there subpar episodes? Definitely, but no more than were made in the 60′s. The portrayal of the Vulcans as less than what we knew them to be later on was just as understandable. I don’t think canon was violated at all, at least no more so than TOS seemed to contradict itself from time to time. What killed the series was the network it was broadcast on, as well as its time slot. I bought the DVD sets as soon as they were available, and have watched and rewatched to my own repeated enjoyment. I think, with time, ENT will endure as a worthy incarnation of the Star Trek universe in an exciting time period. It was old fart TOSer’s like us who did not give it enough opprotunity to stand on its own as the wonderful product it was. Bad Star Trek, to me, was STV, Nemisis, Insurrection, and to some extent, Generations. I’m not even much of a fan of STVI, although it is not nearly as bad as some of the others. The new movie will reach a massive audience, therefore it is an opprotunity for the Star Trek franchise to attract younger blood, as well as to “apologize” and to make up for a lack of “Trek” in the last two TNG-era series and the last handful of films. I give Abrams my full support, and hope that he succeeds in bringing all audiences, new and old, …where no man has gone before…

167. Dr. Image - December 29, 2007

Bad Star Trek, to me, was Voyager and Enterprise.
Why?
Badly written and B O R I N G with irritating characters.
But to each his own, as they say.

168. Danya Romulus - December 29, 2007

Is anyone else a little surprised that there is no official stand-alone website for the movie yet? Especially considering Abrams’ love of viral marketing. I thought he would have been all over doing something like this for the run-up to the trailer being released:

http://atasteforthetheatrical.com/

I guess there’d be a question of what the address would be… I know startrekmovie.com redirects here, how about trading that one to Paramount in exchange for some set access, Anthony? :-)

169. Closettrekker - December 29, 2007

#67–If there was a real shortcoming to the ENT series, I would agree that it was in the writing of the characters. This is one of the reasons I feel that the new film’s approach is dead on in turning to Star Trek’s beloved TOS characters.

No Star Trek “spinoff” has ever approached the quality of TOS in regards to its wonderful characters. This is why I do not share the obsessive concern over technological detail and the fear that this new film will somehow be awful if the sets do not look like the 1960′s version. It is a feature film, not a TV series, and the quality of the special effects and “gadgets” should reflect that–as well as the day and age we live in. It is the philosophy, the characters, and the storytelling that really matter to me. That is what will make it Star Trek.

170. Craig - December 29, 2007

Anthony, do you think this site or other Trek sites will get the Trek Movie trailer before Jan. 18th? Or will Trek sites post it on or after the 18th?

171. Closettrekker - December 29, 2007

I meant #167, sorry.

172. NZorak - December 29, 2007

#169

I loved TOS before there was a Next Gen, but I have to vehemently disagree that none of the characters from the later series are as wonderful as the originals. Most of the best characters from any Trek series were on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

At least that’s my opinion. I find the statement of fact that the original characters are the most wonderful characters ever incredibly irritating. I also think Shatner’s time on Trek is long since over, so in his own words, he really needs to get a life.

Enterprise was a fine series. Not the best, not the worst. The effects and set designs were far and away superior to any other Trek series, the stories ranged from fairly lame to downright awesome, but then that’s true for all Trek series. The only one of the shows I consider truly vile is Voyager.

173. trektacular - December 29, 2007

The characters in TOS were more endearing, mostly because of the specific actors playing the roles. They thought they were doing fine acting but in reality were not. That endeared them to us.

174. Xai - December 29, 2007

166. Closettrekker – December 29, 2007
—- Applause!—

#173 trektacular

yes, TOS characters are endearing, but recall we’ve had them around for 40 years… a twenty year headstart on the younger sister series. i think in all things we recall the good and become nostalgic and gloss over the bad.

175. ShawnP - December 29, 2007

#172 – “The only one of the shows I consider truly vile is Voyager.”

Haha. Please tell us what you really think.

176. Closettrekker - December 29, 2007

#173–I think that was particularly true of Bill Shatner’s work. Some of what made him lovable is exactly what makes him a “jackass”. By now, though, it has become tiresome to me.

3172–I have to consider your opinion as valuable as my own, but I just never felt the magic I got, and still get, from the TOS characters. The TNG cast was not bad but still wanting, and I can find little to complain about with DS9 (the TNG characters involved were the right choices). I agree that VOY was awful. ENT (and I am in the minority), I found to be the best (storywise) of the spinoffs, but lacking in great characters (they had some moments–particularly with Trip and with Lt. Reed).

177. NZorak - December 29, 2007

I agree that the characters in Enterprise were less endearing to me on the whole than the ones from TOS and TNG. I think they all had their moments, but most of them fluctuated from being too bland on one end (Malcolm – sorry – , Mayweather, and Phlox) to being a bit unbelievable on the other end (Toshi and her mad language skills). I think Archer, Tripp, and T’Pol found that middle ground that made them work for me, but their chemistry was never like that of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy or Picard, Riker, Data. I still find the show more enjoyable than DS9 and Voyager. It is my third favorite Trek show and its a shame it couldn’t have been saved. Even its worst season wasn’t that bad.

178. Dennis Bailey - December 29, 2007

TOS, TNG and “Enterprise” were the Trek shows that I liked; I prefer the “Enterprise” characters to those on TNG for the most part.

179. Captain Robert April - December 29, 2007

Lessee….one movie throwing out several hundred hours of episodes and movies?

Not gonna happen.

If this one doesn’t work, it’s the one that’ll be chucked from the party, not the stuff that’s already been done.

180. RTC - December 29, 2007

#124, yeah, ‘fraid we are … but at least being a grandpa is about the greatest thing in the world! :)

181. NZorak - December 29, 2007

#179

If it doesn’t work, Trek itself will more than likely be chucked – with the exception of the novels and any other tie-in merchandise that can bring in marginal returns.

182. MiamiTrek - December 29, 2007

#166

See, and that is what truly is the best thing in Trek, in all incarnations. There is a Trek for all tastes. Perhaps one day I will sit back and try and watch ENT. Maybe I had my expectations set too high. Who knows.

But during the run of the show, I just couldn’t watch the show. I blame most of that on Scott Bakula. I really thought he was going to be something more, and in my opinion he fell flat. In fact, I kept hoping they would just kill him off and make Trip captain.

What did I like about ENT? I liked the pilot, I liked the promise that the show reflected, but in was over by episode 4, for me that is. I liked T’Pol, I think that Jolene did an outstanding job as a Vulcan and got alot of flack for her jumpsuit that was reminiscent of 7 of 9. I absolutely loved Trip, easily the best character and the most reminiscent of TOS.

It was a pretty show, with neat effects, but ultimately it wasn’t enough to hold my attention or make me believe that it was worthy of the name Star Trek.

But again, to my original point, I think that the diversity in our tastes as fans is complemented in the diversity of the shows that were put out since TNG premiered.

Everyone will hold on to their true vision of what Trek should be, and once again we stand at a very exciting time because we are once again going to see a new vision of Star Trek. One that will hopefully look back on TOS with respect and love and introduce this wonderful story and characters to a whole new breed of fans.

I believe that Star Trek will indeed get a new lease on life for at least the next 20 years.

183. Viking - December 29, 2007

Props to #83, Alex. That nutshells it. I’d imagine the Big E will still have the saucer/lower hull/nacelle config where they’re supposed to be, but with 21st century tech and a nine-figure budget to supplement it. I’m seriously hoping the trailer gives me a major boner. I mean, we ARE fuggin’ with the Holy Grail here. The velour jammies and go-go boots are expendable, ala the new BSG, but let’s not drift too far afield.

‘Course, the old BSG uniforms kinda kicked ass, too. ;-)

184. Dennis Bailey - December 29, 2007

#179: “If this one doesn’t work, it’s the one that’ll be chucked from the party, not the stuff that’s already been done.”

And if they make money from this, the studio’s not going to count the hours of the old stuff – nor will they much care *who* is paying them the money for the new. :)

185. Rastaman - December 29, 2007

“scope”, “scale”, and “elegance” …

If those same adjectives of the teaser trailer are associated with the film itself than I will be one happy camper.

Sounds like good news to me!

186. NZorak - December 29, 2007

The one thing that is for certain is that Star Trek 2008 will be better thav Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem. Talk about taking a big old crap all over your audience.

187. Harry Ballz - December 29, 2007

I just flew in from Cancun and, boy, are my arms tired!! I haven’t been near a computer for a week! What’s happenin’??

How many interviews has Quinto given since I’ve been gone? Twelve?? :)

188. Stanklin T. "Mr. Optimism" McFibberich - December 29, 2007

re: 184
“And if they make money from this, the studio’s not going to count the hours of the old stuff – nor will they much care *who* is paying them the money for the new.”

Yes, let’s hope this makes a boatload of money so they can make more non-Star Trek Star Trek

189. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 29, 2007

I bet 100 Quatloos that the Enterprise will be three times larger
than it appeared in ST TOS.

190. Harry Ballz - December 29, 2007

#188 Stanky “let’s hope this makes a boatload of money”

Ah, yes, let’s hope they make a “boatload of money” off a ship that bears little resemblance to the original “never lose you” E………………oh, the humanity!!

191. Stanklin T. "Mr. Optimism" McFibberich - December 29, 2007

I guess I don’t understand people who will pay money to go see a movie just so they can see a trailer that likely won’t show anything anyway…

192. Harry Ballz - December 29, 2007

in the old days you could walk out of a movie after 10 minutes and say you were unhappy thus requesting a refund…..and they would provide it…..if that’s still the case then why not go to Cloverfield, watch the Trek promo and then walk out as soon as Cloverield begins citing that very same reason………might send a message to JJ………..don’t make jerky Blair Witch rip-offs, give us TREK!!!

193. Elrond L. - December 29, 2007

For what it’s worth, I was already planning to see Cloverfield . . . the ST trailer has become the “mega icing” on the proverbial cake.

194. S. John Ross - December 29, 2007

As long as we’re just discussing our opinions of various Trek incarnations, I may as well add mine to the wobbly pile of off-topic love :)

TOS: Pure and total love, even for the crappy eps. Love for the crew, love for the vibe, love for the sets and the ships and the costumes and … just love, love, love.
TAS: Reasonably pure and considerable love, especially for the best eps.
TNG: More love for the crew than for the actual show, but overall a fair bit of affection. There are large chunks of the crew that I love every bit as much as the TOS crew, and Picard is god.
DS9: Never saw much of it, but what little I’ve seen I liked. Felt less Trek in the traditional sense, but felt like good SF TV regardless. Loved the Tribble ep. I think it’s fair to say that I _respect_ DS9.
VOY: Not my cuppa. I didn’t like the frequent tendency to produce a technobabble threat with a technobabble twist compounded by a technobabble complication followed by a breathless last-minute technobabble solution. A real workout for the actors, to be sure, to pretend to care so much about nothing at all, but too much of a workout for me, too. Plus, I never really warmed to most of the crew and some of them actually bugged me. Like a ship with a half-dozen Wesley Crushers at once.
ENT: Saw virtually none of it, so no strong opinion. I like, obviously, that they refrenced my book in the last season, but I just literally never saw enough ENT to have an opinion one way or another (I know, as a fan online, that such trivial details shouldn’t STOP me from having an opinion, but I’m old fashioned).

Films: I accept and appreciate 1 (but have no desire to watch it again). I love 2. I’m sorta okay with 3 (but have little desire to watch it again). I like 4 in a goofy way (’cause I could watch it with non-Trek-fans and everybody had fun). After that I felt it was something of a downhill. In my own daydream version of the Trek universe, nothing after 2 counts as “real” to me. Spock gave his life and that’s that. No take-backs.

195. Darth Quixote - December 29, 2007

For me, I’d rather they redesign everything than try to push an “alternate dimension” on us. If they take that way out, it’s like telling you that the entire movie didn’t really happen. It’s like with the last Xmen. The scene with Xavier at the end just erased everything that happened. Every emotion you feel when he dies is cheapened by this one little scene. I’d rather they have the cajones to just roll with their reboot than try a sci-fi solution to continuity. I hope they make a story that fits with canon without needing to be explained. I feel it’s like this: It’s not really necessary to explain the Klingons bumpy heads, we all know it was budget and technology. Why do we need explanations to every little detail? That kind of thinking ruined one of the best franchises in history. *cough*midichlorians*cough*

196. arwag - December 30, 2007

Time to throw out cannon. Just make a great movie. If that means minor changes in the way things unfold….fine.

197. Alex Rosenzweig - December 30, 2007

#196 – The two are far from mutually exclusive. The quicker TPTB figure that out (assuming they haven’t, actually, and all indications still seem to be that they have), the better off they’ll be.

As Roberto has said before, there are lots of gaps in which they can play in ways we won’t necessarily expect, but that doesn’t necessarily break continuity.

Now I’m not going to worry about whether Chekov’s control panel has two gauges or three, or any stuff like that, but the overall flow of things had best be preserved. Still and all, I expect it will be.

198. Harry Ballz - December 30, 2007

If Chekhov’s control panel has the wrong number of gauges on it, I will STORM out of the theatre!! M’yeah!! :)

199. MiamiTrek - December 30, 2007

Ha, that reminds me of someone a few months back who was bitc….err, complaining that if they did anything to the color scheme of the bridge, ie. the red railing, that he would just hate it completely.

RED RAILING
RED RAILING
RED RAILING

200. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 30, 2007

#174 “yes, TOS characters are endearing, but recall we’ve had them around for 40 years… a twenty year headstart on the younger sister series. i think in all things we recall the good and become nostalgic and gloss over the bad.”

There isn’t much bad to consider. TOS has held up for 40 years because the characters were magnetic, not the other way around. Nick Meyer said it best when discussing the cast: “The extra-terrestrial quality known as charm, which these people possess in abundance.”

201. Xai - December 30, 2007

200. Shatner_Fan_2000 – December 30, 2007

My comment did not say the characters were not good. But not even this group of actors was at their best every episode. Lots of reruns help gloss that over in viewers minds. The eps and characters become old friends… marginal performances and writing are forgiven. Even “Spocks Brain” and the like.

202. Harry Ballz - December 30, 2007

Charm and magnetism are ATTRACTIVE qualities!

Funny, if you transmogrify the two words together, you get CHARISMA!! :)

203. Alex Rosenzweig - December 30, 2007

199 – ‘Course, depending on when we see the Enterprise in the film, if we’re seeing it closer to the time of “The Cage”, and we follow canonical Trek carefully, to include the red railing might in fact be a contradiction and therefore incorrect.

[grin, duck, run like hell...] :)

Best,
Alex

204. Harry Ballz - December 30, 2007

I like my beer cold and my bridge railings RED!! :)

205. The Realist - December 30, 2007

119. MiamiTrek – December 28, 2007

“And I would revise your statement to say: “BSG beats any MODERN Trek hands down for story telling, humanity, and truly reflecting the world in which we live.” Classic Trek is unsurpassed and comparing it to current BSG is unfair due to television being a completely different creature back in the 60’s to what it is now.” No offence but read what I posted! “BSG beats any MODERN Trek” clearly I was not comparing it to Classic Trek. I am not going to revise mt statement as you assertation that I compared 60′s tv to modern tv is incorrect.

206. MiamiTrek - December 30, 2007

Check your original post, my friend, #114. I was the one that inserted the word modern in caps when I quoted you, modifying your original statement.

My assertation was correct based on how you wrote you original comment, I merely took the libery of modifying it for you.

207. Ralph - December 31, 2007

Cloverfield looks like a Godzilla type of movie. There may be a couple giant beasts and one of them ends up fighting the other to save the little people of New York.

208. Harry Ballz - December 31, 2007

Reports on AICN say this movie is AMAZINGLY scary…..

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