Tyler Perry Confirmed In Trek January 2, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Cast , trackback
Not that we needed it, but the Hollywood Reporter has confirmed earlier reports that actor-producer-writer-director Tyler Perry will appear in the new Star Trek film as the head of Starfleet Academy. THR had no other details except to repeat their usual summary of “the film chronicles the early days of the Starship Enterprise crew.”
The Perry story was first reported a few days ago by UGO and confirmed by TrekMovie.com sources. [see related story...includes spoilers]. TrekMovie.com has learned that Paramount was hoping to keep the Perry cameo a secret longer. The film makers have consistently stated that they want to make Star Trek appeal beyond the core Trek base and apparently Perry’s loyal fans are seen as helping in that cause.
More names to come
Perrry’s confirmation brings the total known actors in Star Trek to nineteen (see full list), half of which were learned of after filming started in two months ago. It is unknown how many total roles there are in Star Trek, but as a point of comparison Abrams last film (Mission Impossible III) had 46 credited actors (and a dozen other uncredited). So you can be sure there are more names to come in the coming months. Most will be unknowns, but you never know.
Perry’s next film, Meet the Browns, starring himself and Angela Basset comes out March 21st
Loading ...
Comments»
NumberOne
Tyler Perry has loyal fans?
Seems likely he’ll play a much younger Commodore Stone…
Good Morn-ting………
Yes he does. The Medea movies are good stuff and the plays were sold out MONTHS in advance, Don’t knock it just because you haven’t seen it. Trek needs new fans. JJ is smart for even daring to think like this.
JJ is pulling in some good names…. let’s hope they make it all work
The forthcoming trailer shows a construction crew at work on what is revealed at the end of the trailer to be the Enterprise.
You heard it here first.
So much for journalistic endeavor.
If the teaser really is a construction shot of the Enterprise as rumored (for a long time), then how does that fit in with Capt. Pike? I think Pike was Captain of the E for something like 10 years (not sure if it’s canon though).
Of course, a construction scene could be a flashback. Or it’s not seen in the movie at all but just in the trailer for eye candy….
PS–have only seen clips of Tyler as Medea. That’s some seriously funny stuff. :)
I can’t say I’m a fan of his Medea movies, but he does have a considerable fan base that probably wouldn’t be first in line for a Trek movie otherwise. It’s definitely smart thinking on JJ’s part.
steve…two points
1. the enterprise under construction thing was reported by Anthony like two months ago
2. what does that have to do with Tyler
It should be Steven Perry instead.
The construction seen was the repairing of the bulkhead that had ruptured a week earlier, (Killing six crewman and critically injuring the enterprise’s previous captain) It’s kirk’s first day as captain.
The plan was for kirk to report to a different ship as first officer but pike’s accident changed that.
Or maybe JOE Perry………..
#12
Pike’s Accident did not happen til AFTER Kirk was in command of the Enterprise
Maybe they’re updating Pike’s ship, and not building a new one?
Yes Darth Quixote,Tyler Perry has a loyal African American fan base. Weither its going to bring them to the film is another question since this is just a small role in the film.
You know the construction scene could be a refitting scene instead. I mean did the Enterprise look the same when it was originally built?
The years Pike was Captain,you know there had to be overhauls and refits. So this the perfect loophole for J.J. Abrams to have fun with.
Personally I cannot imagine the “construction of the Enterprise” scene for the teaser being:
1. actually in the movie
2. canon
3. meant to be more than a metaphor.
Not that I think there’d be anything wrong with that. Just saying we probably shouldn’t take the scene so literally, though of course I might be wrong.
If I remember correctly, according to “The Making of Star Trek” by Stephen Whitfield, the Enterprise was constructed ABOVE what is known as the San Franciso Navy Yards. Can anyone confirm my memory? If so, if they do show construction, I hope it is in orbit. I guess they could always use the “it’s a refit” loophole.
#12. toddk – January 2, 2008
The construction seen was the repairing of the bulkhead that had ruptured a week earlier, (Killing six crewman and critically injuring the enterprise’s previous captain) It’s kirk’s first day as captain.
The plan was for kirk to report to a different ship as first officer but pike’s accident changed that.
—–
Do you saw the teaser???
It doesn’t make financial/practical sense to build an entire starship in a weightless cold vacumn of space.I hope Abram’s vision takes that leap beyond the orbital scaffolded re-fit of the enterprise. and shows us some cool concepts of how things are done in the future.
wasnt pikes accident on an old J class with cadets?
as to how th enterprise looks. well kirk got the same 200+ crew with large bridge dome version that pike had. this was supported by dialogue. later of course the bridge dome changed and yes even the crew changed to 430.
sure yes there can be a refit between pike and kirk but maybe not warrent a scene that would be misread as “construction”.
But this a TP thread so when the movie comes out and they ask you to stand in line. all the perry fans on the right and the trek fans on the left.
#2 Darth Quixote — His four movies have made over $200 million in the North American box office and his plays have made over $75 million in ticket & DVD sales. This is despite the lackluster reviews all of his movies have received. So yeah, I would say he has a loyal following. ;)
#2 … … Actually yes! Before I started teaching I worked at a blockbuster. Every time one of his films comes out on DVD… and he has many… a bunch of people show up out of nowhere to rent them. I can’t remember the title personally of his last film but I do recall that it was hard to keep on the shelves. On a side note… saw Sweeney Todd today. It is a bit gore filled (as is to be expected) but awesome. Go see it it you havent already.
Aaron R.
Why does everyone think that the construction scene cannot be the original building of the Enterprise? We already know that part of the film takes place during Kirk’s time at Starfleet Academy…. wouldn’t that align with the construction of the E? Granted, Kirk was the youngest person to be given command of a starship, but there still must have been at least 10 years between his graduation from SA and his promotion to captain?
perhaps the teaser shows cadet kirk, looking up at the stars… then the camera follows his view and approaches the orbital facility where the enterprise is for refit. that’s my dream about it :P
I’m thrilled to see Tyler Perry in the next movie. He’s a great actor, and I know he’ll do well by Star Trek. I think this is great.
Even though this is a serious role and I know he’ll be good at it, just for fun it’d be great for his character to come out dressed as Madea in the blooper/gag reel for a scene or two. ;)
Actually he’s playing Guinan!
#24
The Enterprise NCC-1701 was commissioned in 2245. April, her first captain, was assigned to her the very same year, meaning her construction had been finished by then. As Kirk was born in 2233 and he began his Starfleet Training in 2250, his being an eyewitness of the E’s actual construction scene would only have been possible if he had visited the site before officially attending SA or if his mummy’s basement had a really powerful telescope.
As regards Perry, he gets my outright ‘whatever’.
I never heard about the guy until last week. Looking at his work on IMDB.com, he basically had to write, direct, produce and play in his own movies because nobody else wanted to – kinda like Woody Allen?
#19 Aggi –
That is not true. Kirk knew nothing about Pike’s accident until the TOS episode ‘The Menagerie’. Kirk was shock and surprised to see Pike in the Wheelchair. In ‘The Menagerie, it was implied that Pike’s accident had only recently happened – and that episode took place probably at least a year or more into Kirk’s Captaincy.
Back on topic…It seems Abrams is going out of his way to hire actors who are “buzzworthy”, at least among a certain ‘niche’ of fans. Quinto and Pegg also fit that category. I’m not saying this is a bad thing — in fact it may be a smart way to create interest among non-Star Trek fans.
oops.
I’m sorry Aggi…I see now that you were responding to #12.
mea culpa.
#18. Yes. That is my recollection as well. I will have to check this evening as I am currently re-reading that old favorite. To all others, if you haven’t read ‘The Making of Star Trek’ by Stephen Whitfield yet, you should. You get to hear straight from the Great Bird himself and not 42 iterations down…sometimes it cracks me up what people think GR was actually saying. I mean, after all, he was trying to make a thoughtful and fun action adventure show first and foremost, not start some quasi-religious movement.
#25 I dig that interpretation as well. Could be cool.
By the way, remember that Kirk’s dad, George, is in the film as well…If they take from the book series, George Kirk was once first officer on the Big E under Robert April in Diane Carey’s Star Trek Final Frontier.
#34. Ugh. That is a prime example of the “law of the small universe” that permeates Trek, Star Wars, and other such multi-media story franchises. Basically, there are very few characters (out of a universe of billions) that you get to know, and it keeps turning out that every one is related or connected to everyone else. Vader is Luke’s father. Leia is Luke’s sister. Yoda is friends with Chewbacca. Archer is intimate with Surak (!!!). And now, Kirk’s father also served on the Enterprise? Repeated coincidental relationships make the whole universe seem impossibly small and uninteresting.
#20. Good point: If you have transporter technology, the simplest thing would be to build nearly everything on earth in module form, then beam the modules to orbit for final assembly.
#2: “Tyler Perry has loyal fans?”
In terms of a loyal, hard-core fan base? Perry probably has more fans like that than any of the “Star Trek” actors. Any of them. It’s just that Perry’s fans aren’t people you know or talk to online.
How much screen time are all these people actually going to get??
I hope they throw April in too, but I hope for a lot of things…
Really, no-one should expect to see our familiar crew on the Enterprise under Kirk’s command in this film. The doesn’t happen for many years after. We might just see it as Pike takes command, with Spock coming on as a crewmember.
That said, maybe the ship-in-drydock sequence will be as the ship is being refit before Pike takes command.
Pike’s accident aboard the J-class cruiser occurs after he hand-picks James Kirk as his successor and Kirk assumes command of the Enterprise. This occurs in 2258, and Pike is promoted to fleet Admiral. In 2260, the Enterprise is dry docked at Starbase 12 in the Gamma 400 system and undergoes a refit. The Enterprise is recommissioned following the refit and Kirk’s five year mission officially begins.
That being said, the trailer could depict the construction of the Enterprise or the refit. The choice of showing the Enterprise in some form of “construction” phase may be Abram’s attempt to echo the theme that the series is being “rebooted” or “reconstructed” or “re-imagined”, if you will.
And wouldn’t it be uber-cool to briefly see Capt. April as he is coming off his service time as captain?
And, as for Tyler Perry: perhaps he’s a Star Trek fan and lobbied for a role? That wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. It’s a smart move by the studio as it probably will bring the attention of non-Star Trek fans. My Wife doesn’t know Robert April from Christopher Pike, but she knows who Tyler Perry is.
It’s nice to see JJ bringing a lot of big mainstream actors to this film. But is this dangerously close to pandering? Of course, that won’t matter if they have good roles that add to the plot and not just window dressing.
I can undersatnd Paramount’s desire for this film to appeal to a broader audience. I hope it works for a solid Trek film.
I thought George Kirk was a security officer on Enterprise in Final Frontier? I read it years ago and don’t remember everything, but it seems to me he was an enlisted man, and in security.
36 Neal.Thank You.I’ve often wondered(Toomuch time on my hands?)how they would build a starship.Ralph Mc Quarrie,the conceptual artist from the original Star Wars,was hired to do some work for Star Trek ;the Motion Picture.His depiction of the Enterprise refit was in a docking bay of a hollowed out asteriod.I assumed with artificial atmosphere and gravity.But an organization the size of starfleet would have to have some real practical state of the art complex to build and re-fit their fleet.The vacumn of space as depicted in ST;TMP with some scaffolding around a ship ,just doesn’t strike me as a believable starship construction site.Minor repair or minor refit maybe.I’d like to see a better thought out vision that’s not reliant on ST;TMP
#44: and in Best Destiny – George Kirk was tactical officer under Robert April’s command on the Enterprise
#29 I highly doubt that JJ is going to stick with the Captain April time line introduced in the animated series. Its just more baggage that is not needed with very few people even knowing that perticular point. My guess is, as #24 stated, that we see the construction of the Enterprise while Kirk is at the academy. Possibly “serving” on it late in his academy career due to plot circumstances and then leaving it at the end of the film with a promise to return to the ship that he has fallen in love with.
#3 Harry Ballz – January 2, 2008
From a canon perspective, it would be unlikely that he could play a younger Commodore Stone. Kirk’s graduation from the Academy was years before ‘Court Martial’, and it’s unlikely that Stone would have been stuck as a Commodore without being promoted to the Admiralty for that long. Even if we accept that he could have been in a promotion rut, Mr Perry would be too young to play a flag officer (or, at least, he looks too young).
Then, if he were playing a Commander Stone or Captain Stone, he couldn’t really be the head of the Academy, who would be a flag officer (ideally, a Rear Admiral).
Of course, if this is reboot territory, then yeah, I say bring on Stone!
As for the ship itself, I doubt that it’ll be a ‘canon’ scene from the film (and I mean within the film’s continuity – the canonicity of the film itself within the Trek whole is still in doubt). Just something to get non-Trekkies interested.
It’s JJ’s shrewd business sense kicking in. By putting Tyler Perry in the film, he ensures it will run back to back with itself on TBS Superstation non-stop from 2012-2020.
Very Funny.
There is no such thing as “canon” The TOS universe is a jumble of mixed up dates, names, configurations, events, terms, etc… They were flying by the seat of their pants back then. This whole canon thing started evolving in the TNG era, when guidelines were written down, and even then it changed as the show progressed. Canon is really not very important The only thing that matters is if the story, and the acting is good.
#47 :”I highly doubt that JJ is going to stick with the Captain April time line introduced in the animated series. Its just more baggage that is not needed with very few people even knowing that perticular point.”
You’re probably right.
thanks for the refresher people, I forgot the details of the menagerie and made up the possible senario, talk about a canon killer! as far as a trailer?
I have seen what everyone else has seen here…
#50 You are very correct in your analysis. TOS had so many inconsistancies, you just had to take them each as stand alone stories most of the time. If you read through the content at mempry-alpha.org (a great site by the way) you will see just how hard fans try and rectify and excuse away the very large and blatent TOS inconsistancies and continuity errors, but truth is truth, and the truth is they could have given a flying fig about consistancy when they were producing those shows. To hold JJ Abrams and crew to a “continuity” that did not even exist back then, would only serve to lessen the quality of the product.
#33,
I am also currently re-reading The Making of Star Trek! I haven’t read it since I was a kid and I’m amazed at what an interesting book it is.
Also, I agree wholeheartedly with you about what Gene actually said versus most people’s ideas about what they think he meant.
He was a TV guy trying to make a TV show with a very tight budget and a very picky network (and censors)….luckily, he had some very talented people working for him!
#53-
No, they didn’t care about continuity when they were producing the shows- 40 YEARS AGO, but now it’s quite a different ballgame.
Ignoring all of the set-down histories that exist in people’s minds would be a tragic mistake for JJ to make. And what would lessen the quality of the product? Not respect for what had come before, but BAD WRITING- a thing that Trek has had too much of lately.
The primary element that killed Trek was not “burnout.” It was a bunch of lazy, arrogant writers headed by lazy, arrogant intelligence-insulting producers.
Let’s hope that JJ & co. are none of the above.
In theory, you could show the E under contruction if you show Kirk looking on at the construction as a very young boy. I’m not certain about the canon here, but one could argue that Kirk’s mom and/or dad actually helped construct the E. That would be an interesting bit of new history if JJ goes that way.
Was it stated somewhere that we’re going to see any of the characters, other than the Enterprise, in the teaser trailer? I envision the trailer being a short, montage of panning close-ups of the Enterprise – so close-up that at first you won’t be able to distinguish what you’re looking at. You’ll just know it’s something under construction, and there will be a music bed underneath. The music builds to a crescendo as the cameras pan over the hull and the words USS ENTERPRISE and then the camera fades to black, and the words, “Christmas, 2008″ materialize (Transport) onto the black field.
From a marketing point of view putting Perry in the movie is genius. If anything the movie will receive more attention.
I have not seen his movies and I don’t think that I care to, but I really admire a guy who is like 6″7′ and lived in his Geo Metro while trying to breakthrough in Atlanta.
#53
To be fair, imo, the concern about lack of 100% consistency within TOS is heightened as a result of the fact that the eps ended-up being repeated over and over again — more so than might have been expected given a 3-season ‘run’ (versus, what I recall, was the general rule that a series needed a five-year production run to be a good candidate for being ’stripped’ and syndicated on the secondary market.) for the series.
Not to mention the challenge of producing an technically-complex television series at that point in time, with screenwriting that didn’t fall into the “Lost in Space” or “Voyage” “Silver Time-Traveller Creature from Planet X” silliness after one season (or so).
I also suspect that TOS might have also attracted an audience that was more detail-oriented (***ahem***) than the average viewer of something contemporary like — say, Bonanza, or Gunsmoke, or I Love Lucy.
#50, 53
When you’re talking about the blatant inconsistencies of TOS, you are probably primarily talking about the references TOS makes to events that occured before the Five-Year Mission, e.g. Capt. Pike’s accident. TOS is quite vague about those things as they affect a period it does not cover. Regarding actual TOS events, characters, and storytelling, I think TOS has always been quite continuous and congruent given that it was the first major show of its kind; a design which was sustained through the films.
Granted, there were inconsistencies like they’re part of every show, but I think Roddenberry always set great value on the coherence of his creation, even to the point of trivia, as his memos and background investigation demonstrate. In doing so, he and everybody involved in the making of TOS established a legend. This wouldn’t have been possible without basing a canon as to storytelling and with respect to the characters. You cannot tell a good story if the public cannot identify with the characters and the lore you’re giving them. TOS must have had a quite profound canon so that strong characters like the ones embedded in our minds could accrue from it, and to give Abrams & Co. such a hard time now.
And I think if fans discuss the putative inconsistencies, it’s not to excuse them away – it’s because there are varied and special interpretations of references, conversations, and events; and because after 40 years there are still so many occurrences that people like us consider worth discussing.
#60
I will never agree that there is a “canon” to Trek. It is fiction. One of the best of all time to be sure. I have been a fan of all things Trek for 40 of my 48 years, and can hold my own with any fan out there.
Since it is fiction there is a LOT of leeway in any of the stories that are told. Yes you are right – this fan base is far more detail oriented than most, but this movie will NEVER succeed if only this fanbase attends it’s showings. If it doesn’t appeal to the masses then you will have a long wait for another movie, or series.
Many changes have been made to the TOS universe over the years, Never mid the original tv show -just look at the changes throughout the 6 TOS movies.
Change can be good people. I don’t wallow in the rigid thinking that many “purists” seem to have. Remember – Star Trek is about progressive thinking. Change can be good. Embrace it (Most of you eventually will) In a few years down the road you will be waiting for a new Trek movie, and referencing Trek 11 as “canon”. You’ll see.
I can’t wait for the changes – bring them on.
#20, #36 – I don’t believe orbital construction to be a disadvantage to building the Enterprise on Earth, then launching the Enterprise into orbit.
- The Enterprise is far to large and massive to be efficiently lauched into orbit.
- Replication can be performed as easily in orbit as on a planet.
- Replication or Transporter techniques are energy intensive, and it is unlikely that a Transporter mechanism could be reasonably constructed large enough for the task.
By building in orbit, the mass of the Enterprise is far less of an issue during construction and/or replication.
A Warp Nacelle in orbit weighs nothing. On earth, it would be extremely heavy.
I truly think that the Enterprise under construction scenes are for the teaser trailer only.
It is a metaphor for the fact that Abrams’ Star Trek Film is “Under Construction”. This will not be part of the film, in my opinion.
We will see no people (except maybe some tiny CGI shipbuilders in spacesuits), and we will see no Captain April.
Well said #61. #60, When i refer to the inconsistancies of TOS, I am more refering to the many cases of distance, time, place, terminology, capability of the available technology, and established principles inconsistancies that has always plagued Star Trek of any era. For goodness sake the Rigle system has 12 planets that may or may not be in the a** end of space. :) The fans come along and we get a theory that there are two Rigel systems? Heck, the whole theory about Transporters and the holodeck and replicators revolve around the fact that life can only be moved but not created by these systems because of quantum states in living tissue, but then they might or might not be able to replicate organs? or make a second Riker? These are just two out of many many examples. I know, I have been working my way through all the series on DVD for the last year now. I can point to an inconsistancy almost every episode. I am as detail oriented as any other fan. I love detail, but if i was going to apply detail oriented thinking to Star Trek i would have droped out along time ago because the “canon” of Star Trek is so riddled with holes its might as well be a net. JJ and company will change things to make a good story that is relevant to todays audiance. Will he be 100% consistant with the past? how could he? Does he use lithium or dilithium? Can the Enterprise really go millions of light years away? Should the gobular blasts that come from various parts of the ship be phasers or photon torpedos? Were the Vulcans ever conqured or not? The list goes on and on. So my question to all thoes that are so willing to spear the new movie on the harpoon of ‘canon’ is which should they use? Which term, place, look, device, principle is right to respect? Or should they accept that these are mistakes that can not be corrected, and instead of respecting the details, respect the spirit of the material? I vote for the later.
#63 Are you the Creator – the “Kirk” ?
#64 I think there is a distinction between what you are referring to, which is the minutiae of Star Trek, and messing with “canon” i.e. Spock’s character is changed to a female or Vulcans are not a logical species. I think fans and, to an extent, people on the periphery of Star Trek who are familiar with its iconic elements, will have a problem if Abrams changes fundamental story points which represent the fundamentals of Star Trek. I don’t have a problem if Kirk sleeps with a woman to get her to reprogram the KM simulator or whether he reprograms it himself. I would, however, hesitate if Abrams radically changed the design of the Enterprise, made Spock a woman, etc.
#66 That is exactly what i am talking about when i say respecting the spirt. I have no doubt that the major points of the universe will be kept, but there are many vocal people that take it further and wish for every detail, date, crew roster, and gum drop button to be kept as it was in the original because its all ‘canon’ It is this wish that i think is unreasonable and would kill the production if adheared to.
#64
Well said.
as a BIG fan of TOS, i know we need continuity and im all for that but lets not get too caught up in this canon thing. i mean for example, chekov did not appear in space seed episode but khan made reference to remebering him in the wrath of khan. it didnt really make any difference at all. it was a great movie and really entertaining.
theres a saying here in Britain re the papers and journalism dont let the truth get in the way of a good story!!
cheers
Greg
wiltshire UK
As for Mr. Perry, I don’t know his work, so I have no comment.
Regarding the construction of Enterprise..
1. Why not show it? Remember we are likely seeing multiple time periods in the movie. It doesn’t have to be during Kirk’s early adulthood.
2. I always felt she was too big to be built anywhere but in space, but maybe primary sections could be built planetside and tractored to orbit by small tugs.
#20,36,45,62,70: Cool thread on how to bulld the E. #36 mentioned building modules and then beaming them into orbit; #62 points out that this is energy-intensive. We’ve also mentioned TMP-style orbital drydock, inside-an-asteroid, and tractoring pieces from ground to orbit.
Here’s another idea: remember the enormous interior bay of the space station in ST3? The E and the Excelsior could’ve been joined by a dozen more starships. What if they could pressurize that interior space?
Another idea: pressurizing is not needed if the whole thing is built by robots! Nearly all cars today are built by bots. That brings us back to the TMP drydock!
#70
The book “A Flag Full of Stars”, iirc, mentioned the outfitting/refitting (post-TOS, pre-TMP) of the primary hull on the ground — and using the impulse engines to get it into orbit.
#71
That’s a whole-buncha atmosphere to move from the hanger bay to another storage space :)
#71 SPOILER ALERT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Got your photo of the robot work crew right here — on their shift change..
http://www.davidbuckley.net/DB/HistoryMakers/hdlstorm.jpg
;)
#61 Krik Semaj – January 3, 2008
“Embrace it (Most of you eventually will) In a few years down the road you will be waiting for a new Trek movie, and referencing Trek 11 as “canon”. You’ll see.”
Nope. It will be a new canon. A second ‘timeline’ if you will. There will be new fans for that. Hell, I might be one of them. But I won’t just embrace it because it has ‘Star Trek’ written on the poster and the film will not be referenced as part of the original canon if it clearly isn’t :)
Anthony,
I love the site!
Unless I’m missing an article, a big piece of Trek Movie news slipped by right under everyone’s nose. Are you familiar with Randy Pausch? He’s the creator of the Alice Program which teaches kids how to program and use virtual reality. Well, he has terminal pancreatic cancer and is presumed to only have a few months to live. He’s made the media rounds as of late for giving ‘The Last Lecture’ at Carnegie Mellon. If you watch it, you will realize that he is an AMAZING human being!
Anyway, he is a HUGE Trek fan, and JJ Abrams ended up contacting last month and offered him a small cameo in the new movie if Randy’s health was good enough. Randy accepted the role and shot a scene. He even has a line in the movie where he says, “Captain, we have visual!”
If you want to learn about Randy’s situation, go here:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/
If you want to learn about the Trek news, go here:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/news/index.html
The post on that page is between Nov. 29 and Dec. 1.
I think this piece of news is Trek Worthy. I think this community will really feel good about this story once they read about Randy’s situation.
re: 61
“this movie will NEVER succeed if only this fanbase attends it’s showings. If it doesn’t appeal to the masses then you will have a long wait for another movie, or series.”
So, in essence, this movie has to suck in order for them to make more…
I don’t really follow your logic there, Stanky. Are you suggesting that a mass-market entertainment can’t be good and popular at the same time?
37 – I realize he has fans. It was a joke. He reminds me of Dane Cook. Everybody says he’s funny and I can’t figure out why.
Why the sudden controversy over where the Enterprise was built?
It was built in space…what’s the problemo?
#50, I say canon is important! Therefore, it is!
LOL!! Redjac! Redjac!! Redjac!!!!
CANON?! CANON?! WHAT IS CANON?!!
I’ve been a Star Trek fan for 34 years ( I am 39′… ish ) and I am willing to play fast and loose with “canon” as long as it is a good movie. I remember the time when I was really looking forward to ST: TMP in 1979. Hopefully this movie will end the “dry spell” that Trek has been in over the past 8 or so years.
Mr. Abrams. Take us out!
#54. Refer to page 171 on the history of the Enterprise as documented in Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry’s book.
#35. Yes, I agree it was a ’small universe’ but, there is also the issue of these characters standing for more than just people. First, if there was no limit to the amount of characters in a work of art like a book or a movie, then you would have characters coming and going and no way of making a story that a reader or audience would care to follow. That might work in a mini-series, but you have to keep the core characters down to a manageable level or it just becomes a big confusing mess.
I am open to critique if you can give me an example of something like you describe that works well. I think back to trying to read Homer’s “The Illiad” and totally missing it when all the people kept coming in and off the metaphorical stage.
I believe it’s sometimes best to KISS ‘keep it simple, stupid’. Thoughts, anyone?
#75. Thanks for the info. I love the fact that the bridge will have buttons. I love me some buttons on my 23rd century ships!
Fantastic gesture on the part of JJ. Regardless of what he does to Trek, Mr. Abrahms is a class act.
With all due respect Tony (and since you asked the question), I agree with the poster who finds such devices as Kirk’s father having also served on the Enterprise as being ridiculously contrived fanboy wanking and lazy storytelling. One of the best moments in “The Wrath of Khan” (a film that, for all its good points, had its fair share of silliness) was when Tyrell protested to Khan that he’d “never even met Admiral Kirk,” the kind of real-life grounding that the fantasy in Trek so desperately needed.
Of course, Nick Meyer can be a fantastic teller of yarns, while Diane Carey is, to be charitable, an absolutely dreadful writer.
I hope Randy is in good health when the movie comes out and is able to enjoy it with his friends and family (and fans!)
Me too, #85. I was aware of Mr. Pausch and his situation, and never would have connected it to Trek in a million years. Thanks for the heads-up, GaryP. Mr. Abrams is indeed a class act, whether he ultimately succeeds with Trek or not.
If “canon” that some hold to includes unaltered ships and sets down to the last 60’s detail, they are in for a disappointment.
If the “canon” some hold to includes established character and history, though, they will probably happy.
#84. That’s cool. Everybody’s got their own opinion and I respect yours. Thanks for chiming in.
Until recently, I was a long time lurker on this website, which by the way, Anthony, is absolutely awesome! It’s the caliber of conversation threads that you police in here that keeps me coming back all the time. This year in Trek looks to be a great one as Christmas Day counts down. Where else can folks from all over the world get an opportunity to talk to Leonard Nimoy, Mr. Orci, et al?
#75 – Thanks so much for bringing that story to light!
Cannon isn’t important huh?
If that’s the case maybe will see the Borg in this next film, maybe even the Travelle will show up?
Nah screw cannon right?
^
Tyler Perry, yeah it dosnt matter to me….
I’m hoping they also violate cannon and equip the Enterprise with a cloaking device.
I mean if were throwing cannon out let’s go big time!
Maybe even flaming nacelles. It would bring in the American Chopper crowd. :-)
^
(In my last post)
I meant “The Traveller”. You know Wesleys friend from another dimension….:)
^
He didn’t care about cannon ether I believe…
I don’t see Tyler Perrys fanbase being the repeat viewing type…..
But seriously the guys got talent!
^
Also….
I heard a rumor that the title of the new film will in fact be:
^
Star Trek 11, Cannon Fodder….
^
And Spolers (alert)
^
^
^
^
^
^
Its all a holodeck adventure being watched by Riker and Troi….
^
We’ll maybe that will be the French cut.
Ah I coundnt resist taking a stab at them.
re: 77
“Are you suggesting that a mass-market entertainment can’t be good and popular at the same time?”
I’m saying that what is considered good by today’s mass-market is rarely what I consider to be good.
My only question is, does he play in drag or not?
I am actually kinda shocked trhat Tyler even agreed to do this movie. I mean star trek….?!@#$ That’s as far from what he’s done as Lethal Weapon is from Hostel, or Saw. But, I do think he should do well with it.
He is a pretty damn good actor,
In best Whoopi Goldberg ‘He’s so sassy’
john cho? Simon Pegg? Tyler Perry? This is the making of an ultimate cult comedy classic.
First off, I just wanted to say that I skipped over most of the comments on this article… As I know it would take me quite a while to get through them and I’m rather tired.
Anyway, I’m glad to see so many somewhat big Hollywood actor’s names attached to ST11. I think it will only help with the box office draw.
Now, in cases such as super hero flicks… They try to cast a rather unknown(Brandon Routh as Superman for example). So, you don’t get taken out of the movie(Lets say, Robert Redford as Superman…). And you can get away with doing this since these superheros are so popular on their own anyway.
Well, in Star Trek’s case, of course most non Trek fans have heard of the names Kirk, Spock, and Scotty. But as we all know, it is difficult to get non Trekkers into the theater… But if they hear names like Simon Pegg, Tyler Perry, Zachary Quinto, and John Cho… Who’ve all had theatrical success recently, albeit some in cult form such as Shaun of the Dead and White Castle…They’ll think, wow, this Star Trek thing must be kind of a big deal if all these people are wanting to be in it… Especially since they were doing so well with their own projects. So, since these actors have taken the time to star in Star Trek The Movie, the potential audience might be more poised to give this movie a shot.
At least, that is my opinion.
re:98
“But if they hear names like Simon Pegg, Tyler Perry, Zachary Quinto, and John Cho…”
Never heard of any of them until their names popped up here.
The can cast the most well-known or the least-known actors and it makes no difference to me.
How about casting Bailey as the Academy know-it-all?
I have not posted anything for a few days now — busy with work. I could care less if its Tyler Perry, Steve Tyler, Perry Mason etc. etc. This franchise was never about so called “A-list Star Power” — it has always been about great story telling. Again ST (in all of its incarnations) was never about attracting the masses. You can bring Lawrence Oliver back from the dead — and guess what; all the bells and whistles, all the changes and new designs (new look ship) etc. will NOT make this film successful. It has to be a GREAT story — with some continuity to the TOS series. Happy, Healthy, Safe, Peaceful NEW YEAR!!!
#74 Yes it will. You will see.
#76 Do you live in a dreamworld? A lot of GREAT Trek films were made, and a LOT of bad ones were too. The great ones attracted large audiences, and that was why Paramount ordered more. If the new one sucks as you seem to think it will then you won’t get any more for a while. What is so hard to understand? I for one think it will be very good, and hopefully will gross enough to warrant another installment. You can hope it fails because it doesn’t fit your view of what Trek is supposed to be. by the way – what is the “correct” version of Star Trek? It has had so many changes that I don’t see how you can pin down a correct version. Life is like that as well – always evolving.
Think about it.
I know the fanbase here is very rabid, and I too am a hardcore fan, but most of the general public doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Star Trek. It isn’t relevent to them. If you don’t believe me, then ask 10-20 co-workers or random people what they know of the new movie. My guess is that 95 percent won’t een know there is one in the works.
#101 Krik Semaj
DITTO
I was about to reply to #99 and #101, but you sorta beat me too it.
Any movie is about bringing in large audiences. To not try would be a bad business decision. You’re right, the general public doesn’t give a hoot about Star Trek. Hence why JJ and Co. are trying to get the general public’s attention… Like what I mentioned before about casting people such as Simon Pegg, Tyler Perry, John Cho, and Zachary Quinto.
I’m sorry Stanky if you haven’t heard of these people before. I’ve only actually seen one of them act. That being Simon Pegg when he did Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. From what I’ve read, he’s been popping up in newer movies here and there such as MI:III. I’ve never seen Tyler Perry’s Madea plays or movies. They aren’t really the kind of thing I go for, but since they gained so much popularity, even I learned who Tyler Perry was. Same goes for John Cho and Zachary Quinto. I never saw John Cho in Harold and Kumar or anything else for that matter. But I knew who played Harold and Kumar. And Zach, I haven’t seen one episode of Hereos, but that show is hyped quite a bit. Kinda like people knowing who William Shatner is without having seen an episode of Star Trek or Boston Legal.
So, to more directly answer #100. Star Trek is about bringing in larger audiences… And Star Trek began to lose it’s audience during Voyager and all but completely lost them during Enterprise. So, with the stigmata Star Trek has in the general public, we need these A-listers to help convey to people that Star Trek is cool. And with this huge budget at stake, we need those butts in those theater seats come next year! Paramount is giving Star Trek one last chance. After Enterpise was cancelled, I thought it was done for good. So, if this doesn’t attract that larger audience… I think you get the idea.
Our favorite franchise will live or die by this movie. I suggest we get behind it as much as we can. Even the naysayers that cringe at the sound of the word prequel. Remember, this movie is letting everyone know what Star Trek is all about. By telling it from the Real beginning.
Not to beat a dead horse, but, on the issue of “canon” versus “non-canon”: is the most likely scenario that we will be presented with a Battlestar-Galacticafication of Star Trek? For instance, in the new BG, the Galactica is essentially the same design as the original, albeit re-imagined as a grittier, more military looking vessel? The Cylons as we knew them, in essence, are present but they have been re-imagined in human form so that it fits the storyline? The over-all look of BG was changed so that its societal contrivances mirrored our society (i.e replacing the “futuristic” costuming with characters in suits and ties carrying briefcases, etc.)?
from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Perry’s name isn’t yet listed on IMDB.com as a cast member, but when he’s added, he’ll join a group that includes Eric Bana, Winona Ryder and Leonard Nimoy, who’s perhaps best known for his turn opposite William Shatner in a 1983 “T.J. Hooker” episode. Nimoy also played Spock in a variety of shows and films related to “Star Trek.”
I thought the “construction of the Enterprise” trailer for STXI was thought up by someone on these boards, like “Oh, I bet they’ll show the construction of the Enterprise in the trailer,” or “Wouldn’t it be cool if”…etc. Has anyone actually confirmed this?
#103: Your question raises a good point: Will JJ actually make a “Trek-like” statement on the state of our society today? Or is it cool Romulan time travel with solid action and Happy Meal toys?
If he does make a statement, then he must mirror our current society somehow. Perhaps it’s the end of a militaristic age and the beginning of exploration via the 5-year mission program. Perhaps a mirror of the changes the US is going through now. Problem is, liberal secular humanism won’t get the red-staters to the cinema.
Wow, I didn’t know Nimoy was in Star Trek. That’s so cool, but as everyone knows, he will always be remembered for his TJ Hooker appearance.
I’ve been up too long. Here I am talking about Simon Pegg, Zachary Quinto, John Cho, and Tyler Perry…. I’m I completely forgot about Winona Ryder and Eric Bana… along with that lady from House! I need some sleep.
#104
LOL! I saw that too!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
I’m jonesing for some new news! Someone must have seen the trailer by now…
There may well be an element of stunt casting in this one, I don’t know any of his work but opinion here does suggest he’ll be, emm, ‘playing against type’ (unless of course the Head of Starfleet Academy does actually happen to have a more progressive dress code than we were perhaps expecting).
If he brings more backsides to the auditoriums though, and can actually act without hamming it up (no, wait… that’s an established Trek style, ignore me there) then what’s not to like, but I agree the cast could still be a little more representative of the entire world’s populace. It’s the United Earth fleet at that time isn’t it? Not just NASA ;-)
#103 #105 – if JJ does go all Trek Lite or worse, Enterprise Season 3 (9/11 terrorist cabal allegory in space) on us, I’ll be more upset than if he makes them all wear silver jump suits of puts a third necelle on the Big E.
I don’t mind about messing with canon regarding dates or eye colouring. However Trek is at it’s core an elightened utopian vision of the future where people try to be the best they can, wars are a last resort and you don’t use photon torpedoes to terrorise people into giving up their dilithium rights.
I many respects it’s the one thing that has to be right or else it won’t be Trek, it’ll be something else entirely.
Trek was always about wrapping liberal secular humanism inside a wrapper of fist fights, exotic aliens, beautiful women and space battles. It should draw the ‘red-staters’ in with promises of a testesterone rush then mug their subconsiousness while they’re watching Kirk whup the bad guys.
The head of the Academy is a guy in a dress? Not a problem as long as he’s a good guy in a dress.
#101, 102
The general public not being too interested in ST films indeed held true for all ST films and still most of them could attract a public that was large enough to achieve sustained success. It‘s interesting that out of the 3 films that scored worst – Insurrection, Final Frontier, and Nemesis – 2 were TNG films which means people kept at it through the TOS films (STV being the exception), but lost interest after FC. Thus, box office decline occurred right when comparatively more general viewers than in the earlier years went to see ST movies.
So, if you and others say that this movie needs to aim at a wider public in order to revive the franchise, this sort of contradicts the figures. At the end of the 70s it was mainly the hardcore fanbase that was keeping the franchise alive and being the reason for Paramount to give ST a second chance with TMP, and still TMP scored third best of all ST films. During the 80s, the films could sustain their success and manage to top it with STIV, although ST still didn’t have a huge general public claim. Granted, STIV did appeal to a quite large-scale audience, but it achieved that target with its topical subject, not by revamping anything established and well-known.
IMO, giving us a Star Trek distortion only to make people watch ST who have never watched ST before, and casting countless actors who will then hopefully bait their fanbase as additional viewers is a sum that doesn’t work out and won’t hide actual shortcomings accounting for a possible artistic and/or box office failure.
@ Krik Semaj
As to the “correct version” of Star Trek, you are right, there have been many changes. However, STXI will be dealing with TOS. And there is only one TOS, no different versions thereof. Hence, this one is the correct and authentic one. This isn’t to say that wise evolvement isn’t possible, but when dealing with construction you should carefully consider the blueprint.
“Problem is, liberal secular humanism won’t get the red-staters to the cinema.”
Ordinarily I’d be tempted to agree with this–but the fact is, it did, in 1986.
#101
Don’t wear out your fingers trying to convince ol’ Stanky. He’s already convinced himself that Star Trek will be a loser no matter what.
Maybe he is a former network honcho from 1960’s NBC.
Mr. Perry will bring his usual flair to his role and will be a great addition to the film cinematically and business-wise. JJ keeps on making smart choices. And the casting of Randy for a bit part is extremely cool.
#102 “paramounts giving US another chance? Got to be kidding me…
No were giving paramount another chance. They wrecked the franchise with Enterprise not US.
It will be the fans that make this film succeed Abrhams is just a contract worker on this project.
^
#103. That’s one thing that sucks about Galactica. The Cylons are human looking. What a guilt trip… Others see them as a lifeform to be nurtured.
I’m with the Pegasus Cap (blow em all away!).
:)
I hope that all this Stunt casting does not Kobayashi Maru the opening.
I still am hoping that young Spock does not narc out Kirk.
One thing about some of the casting choices is that by having that actor in the movie, the age range that typifies their fans will see the movie as cooler, since “if _____ is in it, and likes it, it must be good!” So a new section of people are added to it that come along with them as fans of that actor. And many of their fans may come to see it just cause their fave actor is in it, and then become a Trek fan after.
So, it’s a good idea.
112: 1986 was 22 years ago. In the pre-Internet GWB age, I do not think we were as galvanized here in the USA as we were then. All you need is an e-mail from a mega-church to all paid followers, or an unfavorable review on one of their websites, and it’s banned. Of course, as someone said above, package the liberal secular humanism into a good Trek action story, and they get the message without realizing it, assuming there IS a message.
One thing that would would make it difficult for the US “religious right” to boycott this flick, is the diversity of races, and (back on topic), the success they can achieve in a world of improved equality among them.
I just hope that it has a message. ST4 had a great story with a premise no one in our pre-Internet world really thought about on a daily basis. JJ could go for the straight “IDIC” of Star Trek, in that a group of individuals from vastly different backgrounds can form a team (LOST), but he has to go 21st century topical as well to make it True Trek.
*sigh*
Has CBS Digital quit putting out with regard to the early images from new remastered episodes and previews?
All this “non-news” on here is killin me! I come here for the advance goodies…
#111-Iowa Girl — your comments were pure genious, right on-target. At its peak this franchise was never about catering to the masses — and that has been a fact for the past 40+ years. It’s been frustrating for me to read (with all due respect to everyone out there) — that this movie “needs this/needs that to attract a wider audience. NOT TRUE!!! If that’s the case (I’m being sarcastic here) — lets just re-cast the whole movie:
Johnny Depp-Young Kirk
Adrian Brody-Young Spock
Harrison Ford-Old Spock
George Clooney-Captain Pike (he did real “great” job as Batman, didn’t he?)
Pam Anderson-Yeoman Rand
Rosario Dawson OR Beyonce-Uhrua
Bono-Scotty
Angelina Jolie-#1
Jet Li-Sulu
Jack Nicholson-Dr. Boyce
Carmen Electra-Orion Slave Girl
Denzel Wahsington-Commodore Stone
etc. etc. etc. etc.
Re: 35. Neal – January 3, 2008
#34. Ugh. That is a prime example of the “law of the small universe” that permeates Trek, Star Wars, and other such multi-media story franchises. Basically, there are very few characters (out of a universe of billions) that you get to know, and it keeps turning out that every one is related or connected to everyone else. Vader is Luke’s father. Leia is Luke’s sister. Yoda is friends with Chewbacca. Archer is intimate with Surak (!!!). And now, Kirk’s father also served on the Enterprise? Repeated coincidental relationships make the whole universe seem impossibly small and uninteresting.”
Agreed. Its too soap-opera in nature and begs the audience to buy THAT many coincidental relations. Get a new idea. Introduce new characters, but enough with the close relations crap.
Re: 37. Dennis Bailey – January 3, 2008
#2: “Tyler Perry has loyal fans?”
“It’s just that Perry’s fans aren’t people you know or talk to online.”
Post of the day…and one that is SO needed on many a message board.
Hi there,
Attention Trekkies! This month’s Details magazine features, William Shatner, aka Captain Kirk, in its Wise Guy interview:
Captain Kirk opens up about his video blog, being homeless and why he’s not in the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek.
It’s a great interview for your readers to know about, film buffs and devoted Star Trek fans alike. Details cover art is available upon request. If you would like to post on this interview, please be sure to direct your readers to the content on the Details site at http://men.style.com/details/features/landing?id=content_6267. Thanks and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Best,
Laura