Interview – Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer |
jump to navigation

Interview – Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer January 19, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview,Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

EXCLUSIVE: The first teaser trailer for Star Trek (showing now with Clovefield) may be the biggest thing to hit Trek in years and has sparked quite a bit of interest and even some controversy. has conducted a ‘post game interview’ with Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci to help sort it all out. Orci talks about JFK, Nimoy, Earth vs. space construction, the new Trek ‘Supreme Court,’ and more….read below. How does it feel to finally see something you have done with Star Trek actually on the big screen:

Roberto Orci: It is both wonderful and terrifying at the same time. There is no going back now. In my review I noted that the trailer seemed to be trying to make the connection from today to the future of Trek…was that the intention?

Roberto Orci: Absolutely. This is us. This is who we are. This is real. This is maybe not so far off in the future as it used to be. In the 60s the cell phone was a fantasy. Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone. It is a different millennium for God’s sake. We are literally a century closer than we were before. You bring up the 60s. The trailer contains voices from the 60s space race, including John F. Kennedy. What was the thinking behind that? And is there some kind of JFK-Kirk link you are trying to make?

Roberto Orci: First of all, it has been written about that Kirk was in a way modeled after JFK. Like being the youngest captain ever, like Kennedy was the youngest President ever. Obviously the space race being kicked off by JFK is very much associated with Star Trek. It was also due to what we just discussed and linking it back to today. If we do indeed have a Federation, I think Kennedy’s words will be inscribed in there someplace. He kicked us off. And on a third level it is a slight nod to Star Trek Enterprise, in that we are not blind to the fact that going back to some of the more historical aspects of Star Trek that haven’t been covered in a while…that that is something that Enterprise tended to do as well. I have to ask…is the trailer actually going to be part of the movie itself?

Roberto Orci: No comment [laughs] Is that a new recording of Nimoy’s voice?

Roberto Orci: Yes. He recorded that on set just between takes. How many takes did it take to get it?

Roberto Orci: Not very many [laughs] Did you guys realize that when you set the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth that it would spark controversy?

Roberto Orci: Of course. So what is your guys logic for setting it on land?

Roberto Orci: Besides the thematic stuff we discussed, which is to connect it to today and make it clear. Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don’t have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don’t ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is
very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating. And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well. Where did that come from?

Roberto Orci: That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well. Did the dedication plaque [which has ‘San Francisco, Calif. written right on it] factor into your thinking?

Roberto Orci: Yes, that is part of where some of the canon, literary and other sources sparks from. But this does seem to fall into one of those canon grey areas where you guys made a call.

Roberto Orci: Exactly Looking at the reaction from this one little thing, are you now thinking about what it will be like for all the other judgment calls you made?

Roberto Orci: Not really. The main judgment call is going to be whether or not the theory of the movie works. And the theory sort of encompasses it…either you buy the movie or you don’t. So we aren’t going to sweat every little detail. We are going to sweat whether or not you buy our interpretation of it. But this is not a surprise. When we were constructing the trailer we knew that many were going to criticize it. We have our eyes wide open I think. But again, of course it is terrifying. I think I said on your site that in those times when canon is fuzzy, then we are ‘The Supreme Court’ right now and the court has to rule one way or the other. So who sits on the court?

Roberto Orci: It is the five of us: me, Alex [Kurtzman], JJ [Abrams], Bryan [Burk], and Damon [Lindelof] Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.

Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51. What is being conveyed by the "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" thing?

Roberto Orci: Both the literal interpretation that we are putting the movie together, but also to convey the idea that this is something that this is something that could be coming soon. It is the idea that The Federation may exist may exist. The idea that the future is not nearly as far off as it was in the 60s. And why isn’t the title "Star Trek" in the trailer prominently?

Roberto Orci: No reason, other than it is our M.O. To make people ask ‘what is it.’ And those who know will say "it’s Star Trek." While we are on end credits, why are Spock’s parents (Ben Cross and Winona Ryder) listed, but Kirk’s parents (Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison) aren’t?

Roberto Orci: I dunno…I guess they must have better agents.? [laughs]

Full Coverage of the Star Trek Trailer:

Review – Star Trek Teaser Trailer [w/TRAILER VIDEO]

First Official Image of the USS Entperprise

Review – “Cloverfield”

…and the conversation continues
Mr. Orci has been kind enough to interact with the community from time to time (and continues to claim he reads every post). So keep track of the talkback below…you never know who might show up….and maybe some of you lurkers and new visitors could join in too.


1. Captainclarkkent - January 19, 2008

yay first comment. There you go people, straight from the horses mouth. It even nods to star trek enterprise. I think we are in safe hands.

2. OR Coast Trekkie - January 19, 2008

A very “logical” approach here…

I like the choice of not putting Star Trek in the trailer. Most of America has a tendancy to automatically tune out anything Trek if they know it is Trek. Perhaps we, as Trekkies, should keep quiet as to what the trailer is about, so more people go to see it, it makes more money, and actually makes Star Trek “cool.”

3. Trekee - January 19, 2008

“either you buy the movie or you don’t. So we aren’t going to sweat every little detail. ”

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh God…..

(/ducks and covers)

Excellent interivew Anthony, and sorry all, but I like the fact that they aren’t 100% beholden to us, remember – they’ve shown more care for the fan base than I think *anyone* else would :-)

#1 – well yes, but what did you actually think?

4. Brady - January 19, 2008

nice. now wait for 900+ posts debating spelling and all other things of manner

5. Paul - January 19, 2008

Oh my, another of those “my cellphone is more advanced than Kirk’s communicator” we got from Braga all the time. :-/ Should I start doubting their competency after all?

Yes, I admit that Kirk’s communicator may look less advanced. But, well, that’s a matter of design, not a matter of function. Is your iPhone able to talk to any other iPhone worldwide, without any satellite or BBSs? Is it able to emit sonic waves strong enough to break thru rock? I guess not.

More advanced look does not mean more advanced functions. On the contrary. Military AP carriers look the same as they did back in sixties, yet they are most advanced vehicles available today.

6. AJ - January 19, 2008

Great stuff. I love the fact you have a “Supreme Court!”

Roberto, the fact that you lurk and contribute here means that, in some way, your contributions to the SC discussions must be tinged by our obsessive/compulsive (and sometimes valid) opinions. It’s a different era, and it feels great to know we have a voice.

7. Mr Phil - January 19, 2008

I’m liking the detail going into the story – sense of scale is superb.
Looking forward to seeing an HD version of the trailer.

8. roberto orci - January 19, 2008


9. Stanky McFibberich - January 19, 2008


Haven’t seen the trailer. I have heard that Nimoy is again doing the “Space, the Final Frontier…” business. As I mentioned in another thread, I didn’t like when he did that in II an III and that they changed some of the words. That should be a Shatner only thing or leave it out.

10. roberto orci - January 19, 2008

5. Forgive me. My comments should not be taken to mean that Kirk’s cell phone will be either more or less advanced than an Iphone.

11. AJ - January 19, 2008

#6: I cannot see the JJ’s new Trek Universe having gizmos which differ greatly from what we’re used to. Whether you talk into a box or a badge, you still need a microphone and a speaker. Communicators as tracking points for ship’s sensors is reality now through GPS. So that will most likely go away in the new film.

Phasers, photorps, transporters, tractor beams, warp and impulse. Hope it all makes it to the new film, because we cannot do it yet.

12. DJT - January 19, 2008

Roberto Orci: “No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.”


Right on.

13. Devon - January 19, 2008

As long as Kirk’s communicator doesn’t use AT&T, he’ll be fine.

14. Anthony Pascale - January 19, 2008

Regarding the \’under construction\’ and no title card. After I wrote my review, upon reflection I have decided that I think this is a bit \’too clever\’

I think JJ was still in Cloverfield mode, but Trek isn\’t Cloverfield. I do worry that some left the trailer wondering what it was.

That being said…yesterday this site had more traffic than any other day in its history, including the day we broke the news on Trek Remastered, the day the movie was greenlit and even Comic-Con. There is a lot of Google keyword traffic going on right now coming to this (and I assume all the trek sites). People are searching for info on Star Trek and this movie.

And if you are one of those new people…then stick around….you just might learn something. And click the Star Trek (2008) tab above to get a quick summary. and click the \”star trek 2008\” category to sort just Star Trek movie news.

And to all our regulars…be nice to the new visitors

15. AJ - January 19, 2008

#13 ATT “Amen To That”

16. jon1701 - January 19, 2008

Rob Orci, I just gotta say:


Collectively, we’ve not been this excited in years. I can almost feel the internet straining under the weight of anticipation.

Keep it up. Everything looks great so far.

17. Mr Phil - January 19, 2008

Question for Mr Orci – what do you think of the leak of the trailer on the internet before the official release?
It does seem impossible these days not to have that – but then, it is extra publicity and creates more buzz…?

18. Kenny Posey - January 19, 2008

Anthony and Roberto…Do you guys ever sleep? Thanks for all you do Anthony and Roberto your input into this site with the fans is a reflection of youu love for the movie..thanks

19. Trekee - January 19, 2008

Emmm, I’d like to point out that due to an apparent flux in the space time continuum my comment at the end of my post which addresses Captainclarkkent isn’t actually aimed at him but at someone from an alternate universe. So no offence intended.

And if my iPhone could communicate with a starship travelling at warp half a solar system away without the use of a repeater inbetween, then I’d let it be a little bulkier and have a gold sieve on top too…

20. AJ - January 19, 2008

Anthony: Good news.

I have noticed many new tags on the site of late, and I can understand that it will be valuable to RO and fellow lurkers to get commentary from the non-obsessed. Good luck!

Also, the trailer made me tear up for sure. For a 43 y.o. fan, it was a TMP “Big E 1st glance” moment.

But a trailer with the Enterprise flying and phasering something might actually get the kids interested. It sounds stupid, but the health of Trek going forward depends on the younger generations. I will go with my kids, but they have to like it!

21. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

17 Mr. Phil

It’s love/hate. I think leaks can hurt a movie. Bryan Burk was saying in sci-fi magazine that you just don’t want people to see things before they’re finished because, or in their intended place, because it can ruin the final product for them I always liken it to sneaking into a chef’s kitchen and then complaining that the dishes are undercooked. But we understand it’s a reality and we have chose to deal with it by being as open as we can about process, while trying to be legitimately less open about content until the right time.

You might be right about the buzz thing, but then I’ve never fully assimilated the lesson of Snakes on a Plane. Nothing is truly predictable, it only seems so in retrospect. Doing what you think is right according to your passion and understanding of what makes something work is all you can do. And hopefully, you surround yourself with as many like minded individuals as possible.

22. Papa Jim - January 19, 2008

I have been a Trek Fan since Day one. I used to watch TOS with my dad when it originally aired. I was involved in the original letter writing campaigns back in the 60’s. I was lucky enough to have met Gene Roddenberry and to see him lecture at Stanford back in 1974.

That being said, I believe this new incarnation of Star Trek could be Gene’s vision of Star Trek come true. Giving it a “Human” element is what it was all about.

23. PaoloM - January 19, 2008

Well said, Mr. Orci. When canon is fuzzy *you* are in charge and *you* define canon. Let’s keep the Trek going on!

24. Allister Gourlay - January 19, 2008

Anthony great job man you must be knackered…
do you have a family life? LOL!

“if my iPhone could communicate with a starship travelling at warp half a solar system away” imagine the roaming charges! Ill need to contact 02 here in the UK!

25. Stef* - January 19, 2008

I don’t know how often I send my “Thank you” from Germany, but it cannot be done often enough. I’m also thankful to be able do do this now because it’s possible.

Thank you Anthony
Thank you Mr. Orci
Thank you all involved, who takes care of Trek AND of the Fans

This awakening “Trek Internet Nation” dearly needs an discussion board to cherish and come together. Comments are one thing and very cherished, but not the same as real discussions in a Moderated Forum with world wide access.

Any Chance that this will come true one day? Perhaps here or on the official page? It’s a loooooong year to come I fear and by now I’m glued here to refresh “trekmovie” every day, every minute I have time.

It’s a wonderful but also amazing time.

*crossing fingers for all who care for Trek*

26. jon1701 - January 19, 2008

Canon smanon.

Episodes of TOS contridicted themselves week to week. They didnt realise every single line of dialogue would be dissected 40 odd years down the line…


27. Adam - January 19, 2008

If this Movie has viral marketing we’ll probably see some web pages such as Cloverfield’s and The Dark Knight’s
We should keep our eyes open for these web pages and post the info here. I havn’t found any yet.

28. PaoloM - January 19, 2008

I feel that this is a true revolution, guys. Trek is coming back to its own roots, when you could enjoy the *stories*. In the following years Trek has gone geeky, wrapped around a cumbersome canon built on stardates, events, starship specifics, technobabble and so on. All this geeky stuff has somewhat buried the Trek philosophy.
Star Trek is not didascalic knowledge of canon, but stories of men and women.

29. Darth Quixote - January 19, 2008


I agree that people tend to tune out anything Trek. I saw Cloverfield tonight and after the trailer the girl behind us says, “Is that Star Trek?” to which her boyfriend replied, “Yeah, Star Trek is gay.” I just turned to him with a fist raised in solidarity and said, “You tell those nerds, brother.” I don’t think he understood I was mocking him.

30. Mr Phil - January 19, 2008

I think the times I’ve enjoyed films the most, are when I’ve seen the least about them before and not been waiting for bits I’d seen in the trailer.
Trouble is, curiosity is a powerful thing, and it’s so easy to get details now – could spoil the enjoyment of the film.
For me, as a fan of primarily the trilogy of films (ST2-4), then “finding” the other series and films, this reincarnation has got me interested in Trek again (after feeling a bit dissapointed at most of the Next Gen films, and Enterprise, especially the theme tune!). Thanks to the supreme court for that!

But on another matter, and I know it’s been said a million times, but a little voiceover from the Shat would bring a smile to the fans watching the film, and you just know, he’s by the phone waiting for the call…

31. Trekee - January 19, 2008

@21 – RO: I think the lesson on Snakes on a Plane is that you still have to make a good movie, and that the best bit can’t the the one line that the ‘fans’ voted for :-)

Following their model, if you made the film using all the requests that came from here, you’d have a cast of a hundreds, every character ever mentioned would have a cameo and it would all be about resurrecting Kirk from the Nexus.

Following Anthony’s comment about traffic, I think the word-of-mouth buildup that you are doing here and elswhere leading up to this teaser has made the last few days all the more delicious as we finally get to see just enough of the old/new girl to have us wanting more but we got a huge big bang when the teaser hit. No doubt there will be more as the proper trailers come along.

I can’t wait to see the trailer in non-blurovision…. :-D

32. Shameless Fanboy - January 19, 2008

I like what I see so far!

The trailer actually really reminds me of a time I visited a real shipyard on the River Clyde near Glasgow in Scotland. (The history of which inspired Gene Roddenberry to make the Engineer a Scot). Guys crawling all around this huge thing they were building; welders fixing things, scaffodling everywhere; overwhleming sense of presence coming from the big metal craft they were building. Very atmospheric place and the trailer I think really captures that.

Really hope we get to see the E “launch” and ascend from the ground too!

33. bugs a la nixon - January 19, 2008

canon could eventually kill trek


34. Chris Pike - January 19, 2008


Yes, that’s always been my thoughts whenever the Iphone vs communicator comparison was raised. Trek’s communicator could link from here to the moon without relays and massive infrastructure as a single discreet device, and communicate instantly. I think we’re a few years away from that!

35. Ali - January 19, 2008

Dear Mr Orci,
I found your comments on the future intriguing, as the thing which surprised me most about the trailer was the use of JFK’s voice. Trek has always been a source of optimism about the future, a lost optimism it has often seemed in recent years. I wonder, are you seeking to put that optimism and faith in a better future back into the collective consciousness? It seems to me to matter now more than ever, given the current fears about climate change, etc.

36. Devon - January 19, 2008

I was watching Bruce Greenwood give an interview from the Cloverfield to IESB (Roberto is of course there.. hoodie and all ;) and Bruce seemed very much like an authoritive figure, especially around the other actors. Not giving them orders in that sense, but how he handled and everything. But I think he would be the perfect part for a Captain in any Star Trek, glad he found a place as Pike.

37. Dab - January 19, 2008

I saw Cloverfield here in Toronto last night, and of course, the Trek teaser was a main reason for me going. I loved the trailer – was exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for. However, there didn’t seem to be a huge reaction from the audience. A few excited murmurs (me and my group included there), no sarcastic comments from the “anti-Trekkies” – just general quiet. I guess, during these days where every audience seems to have a few jokers who will always try to make a sarcastic comment during films, that is a good thing. No one tried to make fun of the teaser.

On a more positive note, I did get the general feeling that everyone knew it was Star Trek. No one seemed to be wondering what it was, or asking their seat neighbors what they had just seen. Which I guess is a good thing – means Trek is still recognizable, even to the 20-something vapid morons who seemed to be filling this particular theater on this particular night. LOL

Mr. Orci, please pass this on to the whole team – GREAT JOB. In one manner, you have stoked the fires nicely for us seasoned Trek movie fans. And on the other, it seems you have at least piqued the interest of a new generation. Looking forward to the next teaser. ;)

38. Devon - January 19, 2008

#34 – Yes, but does the communicator allow you watch such GREAT quality videos such as that kid screaming “Leave Britney Alone” on such a terrific carrier such as AT&T? Not at all.

However, debates over Iphones vs. communicators are non-canon therefore I will be boycotting this movie.

39. AJ - January 19, 2008

#31: I just imagined your 2nd paragraph…sending every ST character and ship after one of the worst plot devices ever conceived for Trek. The fleet is led by Sybok and Lazarus.

40. SPB - January 19, 2008


…that a second teaser, or part of the first full trailer, will feature footage of the Enterprise being ASSEMBLED in Earth orbit. Not only would it make sense in keeping with the “Under Construction” asthetic of the first teaser, but would help appease those (few) fans who somehow felt personally “stung” that they were denied the image of a TMP-esque drydock sequence.

Something you’d care to comment on, Mr. Orci, or maybe we’ll just get a :) out of you?

41. Adam - January 19, 2008

“ Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.
Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51. ”

Why wouldn’t he be able to tell us it is San Francisco?… Unless it is not?

42. AJ - January 19, 2008

The 2nd trailer has to say more about the universe of NEWTREK, and show some flesh and blood characters in action without any nostalgia.

Trekkers have been assuaged by the teaser, and now it’s time to turn it up a notch IMHO.

43. PaoloM - January 19, 2008

I guess I am not the only one to have tried … :-)

44. SPB - January 19, 2008

#14 Anthony-

My own take is that leaving the title “STAR TREK” out of the teaser, this early in the game, is to make non-fans more curious, in an effort to keep them more open-minded and get their butts in the seats for Christmas week in December.

Whether we like to admit it or not, TREK will ALWAYS have that “geek stigma,” and there is a good section of the movie-going public who probably couldn’t be dragged to a TREK film. I would hope that the teaser is enough for more open-minded non-fans to say to themselves, “Was that what I think that was?” And once the buzz starts to build full-force and the general public realizes that TREK XI is a ground zero reboot featuring a young Kirk and Spock, then maybe, just MAYBE, their curiousity will get the best of them and they’ll think, “Sure, I’ll kill two hours to see that on a Saturday night.”

I still have serious doubts that we’ll be looking at BATMAN BEGINS or TRANSFORMERS numbers for TREK XI, but I’m also firmly in the “cautiously optimistic” crowd that thinks it’s possible for the new film to do TMP, KHAN or VOYAGE HOME-type business. We shall see.

45. nyxtreme - January 19, 2008

28# “Star Trek is not didascalic knowledge of canon, but stories of men and women.”

I agree with you. Star Trek IS about the HUMAN adventure, OUR adventure! And that fact that the Supreme Court is balancing our passions (we being strict constructionists by literally following canon), with reality, is truly a sign that they are respecting our views.

As for the JFK sound bite, I like it. Hopefully, instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war, we can truly invest and focus on what really matters…space, the final frontier.

46. Mütze - January 19, 2008

“Star Trek” may not have been in the trailer typographically, but it sure was in the trailer musically.

47. Adam Grima (from Sydney) - January 19, 2008

Question for Roberto Oci:

You mentioned that seeing your work with Star Trek on the big screen is, “both wonderful and terrifying…there is no going back now.”

Have you ver ha ay doubts that your work quld no tbe well received, given the clear abundance of talent within the team. Or does that merely contribute to your trepidation (if any)?

Keep up the great work. Congratulations on all you have accomplished so far – creating anything with this franchise must cleary be the most heavily scrutinised work one could ever undertake,

48. Adam Grima (from Sydney) - January 19, 2008

sorry for the typing errors:

Question for Roberto Oci:

You mentioned that seeing your work with Star Trek on the big screen is, “both wonderful and terrifying…there is no going back now.”

Have you ever had any doubts that your work would no tbe well received, given the clear abundance of talent within the team. Or does that merely contribute to your trepidation (if any)?

Keep up the great work. Congratulations on all you have accomplished so far – creating anything with this franchise must cleary be the most heavily scrutinised work one could ever undertake.

49. Son of V'ger - January 19, 2008

Without William Shatner as James T. Kirk there is NO human adventure to continue, only JJ Abrams farce! Spock reciting Kirk’s “Space, the final frontier..” was a slap at Shatner, and to us!

50. Tanner Waterbury - January 19, 2008

If you are the REAL Mr Orci, roberto, then there is a question trekmovie forgot to ask: Why are you using Gabe Koerner’s ship? Please dont play the “No comment” game, cause we all know ita the Koerner design, the question im wondering is, why choose that design and did you guys edited it in some way (Dont reveal too much though!)

51. Ralph - January 19, 2008

I saw Cloverfield last night. Star Trek was the last preview. When it came on, the place fell silent. After it was over, you could hear a few people whisper. The theater was full of mostly young adults.

52. Gene - January 19, 2008

Dear Mr. Roberto Orci:

I think that everyone is happy that you guys are trying to resurrect the Star Trek franchise. If you have read all the postings on these sites, you know how emotional everyone is on the fate of this movie.

I watched Star Trek: “The Undiscovered Country” commentary with Nicholas Meyer and screenwriter Denny Martin Flinn. It was amazing listening to the struggles they both had doing new things and still being true to the cannon. So, you and your fellow writer, director, ect, carry a heavy load indeed.

Flinn had said he wanted to write a scene where the old crew handed the reigns of the Enterprise to the new crew. Then he was informed that there was over 70 years between the crews…so that was abandoned.

I state the above not just to say I respect the task at hand, but really feel (from reading the posts on all these sites) that the fans would love to see both Shatner and Nimoy hand Star Trek to the new blood which will keep the franchise going.

I honestly, know you guys are limited in any changes, due to the writer’s strike. But I really want this movie to do well. And given the fact that the franchise has been maintained through fan loyalty, having him in the movie just been means greater positive interest. Moreover, for the new people Abrams wants to bring to Trek…they either didn’t see his death in “Generations”…or really don’t care. But they do know who Shatner is. Love him or hate him, they know him.

As for those who say bringing Shatner back is impossible…never doubt a writer. Nimoy was done with Star Trek after Star Trek II. I saw that movie when it came out…could not believe it. How could they do this!! Then….magically (via director deal for Nimoy and more money)….he is resurrected via his DNA and the rebirth of a planet. Ummm, impossible??? Its Sci Fi…… people.

A writer can do anything I am a lawyer…I wish I could do that in court. .lol.

Thanks Mr. Orci.


53. section9 - January 19, 2008

Not only do I believe that this will surpass Batman Begins and easily surpass Transformers, but ST will become the most anticipated movie of the year.

It’s all in the marketing, which will be virally done like “Cloverfield” was done. People want optimism and hope in these times, and Hollywood simply doesn’t give them that anymore. I think JJ has told Paramount that there’s a vehicle out there to tap into some of what people are looking for.

Remember why Star Wars worked in 1977? There’s a reason the JFK soundtracks were used.

54. AJ - January 19, 2008

52: Spock’s resurrection resulted from a changed ending to TWOK (“Remember”), which was based on test audiences who found his death too depressing, and they re-shot an “out” to cast doubt on the permanence of his demise.

55. Jon - January 19, 2008

Thanks for the interview guys, always a pleasure to hear from Roberto, I get more and more excited by the potential of this movie by the day. As what you might call a ‘latent’ fan of the franchise of late, I get a real feeling of renewal from what’s being made and it’s so strangely gratifying to see my friends who ain’t so up on Star Trek getting interested in this movie. It seems absolutely the right way to go.

Fans and non-fans alike can instantly identify the original series characters, the enterprise, and I think this might, just might, help Trek to hit it on a little more mainstream. I just want to see a consistent story, a great foundation laid and most of all, I’d be really happy if there wasn’t any deus ex machina.

I’m really not a fan of time travel, I think it was overused in Star Trek and certainly isn’t ‘where no one has gone before’ anymore… but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, I just hope it’s convincing, not contrived.

Keep it coming, I love what we’ve heard from you so far.

56. Marian Ciobanu - January 19, 2008

STAR TREK was a great sci -fi saga…not a fantasic one…if they want to revitalize the canon…then they should be trully sci-fi fans order to understand better what we {sci-fi fans} expect to see in the next movie.
One of the greatest trek movie was “FIRST CONTACT” wich is considered the most non-trekie movie ..made for sci-fi fans..even non-trekie fans..ds-9 was too the most non trekie part of star trek shows…and was great..if we disregard the fact that introduced others the fact that bajorans..and other species look different…..

57. Viking - January 19, 2008

Roberto, you just keep on taking liberties with those ‘gray’ areas.You guys are now in charge of fleshing out the backstory and filling in the cracks, for better or worse. And from what I’ve seen so far, you sumbitches have a better handle on it than a lot of our resident curmudgeons are willing to give you credit for. (And those warp nacelles are a wet dream come true. ;-) )

Keep the faith, my brother.

58. SPB - January 19, 2008

#53 –

“Remember why Star Wars worked in 1977? There’s a reason the JFK soundtracks were used.”

Not sure what you’re getting at with this statement. I understand the reasoning behind using JFK in the teaser, but what’s this got to do with STAR WARS in 1977?

59. ety3 - January 19, 2008

#14 –

After seeing “Enterprise” written across that structure, after hearing the words, “Space, the final frontier,” after hearing that music and that sound effect, and after seeing that symbol … if one doesn’t realize it’s about “Star Trek,” then one is a moron.

I take that back. One is a cultural ignoramus.

60. GraniteTrek - January 19, 2008

Roberto, thanks for joining us. I posted on the New Voyages forums yesterday that if the Enterprise can handle all the things that get thrown at it in space, a little jaunt up from the yards to orbit shouldn’t be a problem – besides, didn’t it survive a little atmospheric trip in TOS’s “Tomorrow Is Yesterday”? And having said all that, while it’s great that you guys are paying attention to all the details (if not sweating them too much), the focus on the story is coming first. That’s what, to me, was missing in a lot of the films that didn’t do well. I think what will really make or break the film is the writing, and the chemistry between the actors, especially Chris Pine and Zach Quinto.

61. j - January 19, 2008

“Literally a century closer”?

Um, not quite.

62. [ST XI] Wie soll das "neue" alte Design in Star Trek XI aussehen? - Seite 37 - SciFi-Forum - January 19, 2008

[…] Zitat von Winter[Raven] Warum wird die ENT nicht im Weltraum gebaut? Sieht so aus wrde das Schiff auf dem Boden konstruiert… Interview – Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer | Hier gibt Orci nun ein Statement zum Teaser. Darum besttigt er genau das, was hier schon vermutet wurde, dass nmlich ein Teil hier und der Rest dort gebaut wird. P.S.: Das passt eher im Teaser-Thread… __________________ Garak:"Die Wahrheit ist normalerweise nur eine Entschuldigung fr einen Mangel an Fantasie." […]

63. Star Trek XI Teaser ist da! - Seite 4 - SciFi-Forum - January 19, 2008

[…] Interview – Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer | Hier gibt Orci ein Statement zum Teaser. Darin werden die Vermutungen, die hier angestellt wurden, dass ein Teil auf der Erde, der andere im Orbit gebaut wird besttigt. Soweit ich das jedenfalls mit meinen Englischkenntnissen verstanden habe… __________________ Garak:"Die Wahrheit ist normalerweise nur eine Entschuldigung fr einen Mangel an Fantasie." […]

64. Jim - January 19, 2008

“The main judgment call is going to be whether or not the theory of the movie works. And the theory sort of encompasses it…either you buy the movie or you don’t.”

Good – then why not let me know what the theory is before I waste $9 on a theory that turns out to be a POS, because the little I’ve heard so far is a less than compelling plot. We’re getting a lot of “trust me” here, but not a lot upon which to build that trust.

As to the technology issue that keeps coming back in the form of the “my cell phone beats Kirk’s communicator” comment, the BEST ST stories, of any version or vintage are those where the technology is a macguffin – the technology is just “thrown away”. Here’s a minor illustration – I didn’t need five minutes of technobabble to know how ship’s power was tranferred to the cannon (note – not CANON) that #1 and her away team used to try free Pike from the Talosian’s. All the story required was that she have one big-*ss gun to do the job.

One of the best things about TOS is that they didn’t spend hours trying to convince me that faster-than-light travel or the conversion of matter to energy and back again was possible – TOS STARTED with the assumption that it was, and that’s all the viewer needed to know. TOS said – look, it’s the 23rd century, we figured that out already, don’t worry about it and Heisenberg compensators be damned!

It all comes down to story telling. One of the reasons that TNG had problems with story telling when Roddenberry had an active role in production is that Gene believed the people of the TNG era had worked out all social problems and as such, there was little, if any, interpersonal conflict. (Why do you think there was a psychologist sharing power on the bridge?) The problem is that the driving force of any narrative is some kind of conflict, and as a result, many of the stories developed under his tenure during that time were somewhat dry unless an outside presence, not of the level of sophistication of Gene’s Federation, were introduced. And the best stories were those driven by the character of the Big Three.

Like someone once said in this forum, the best Star Trek movie made in years was really not a Star Trek movie at all but “Master and Commander”. I could not more wholeheartedly agree. The new movie will utlimately rise or fall not because of the degree of its adherence to ST canon, but how well it tells an ST story.

65. Daren Doc - January 19, 2008

I hate to be a stickler for REAL historical facts… but… to be completely accurate, Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest president ever. Not JFK, as is widely assumed.

Back to fantasy arguments now.

66. Jon C - January 19, 2008

I like the way they tried to convey the Eisenhower era spirit of ‘can do’ optimism that was evident in Star Trek’s bright outlook.Perhaps there will be a enthusiastic message to today’s entitlement generation about making that happen.

67. Larry - January 19, 2008

The Star Trek trailer is phenomenal…incredilby well done. One of the things that was always lacking in Star Trek is a connection to the past…namely, us. While various encarnations of Trek made trips back to the late 20th – early 21st century, it just didn’t feel like they were walking around in our backyards and therefore made Trek feel so distant.

Just hearing the old NASA recordings incorporated with the construction of the Enterprise, it begins that bridge between us and Trek’s time. Which really has to be the way to intice the general populace to come out and see this picture.

While not a reboot in the sense of Batman, it does have that feel. Because even Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (which that trailer too is awesome) have the same skeleton as the previous films and Batman history, just fleshed out differently by kind of ignoring the previous films.

Star Trek, while not ignoring its past, is being redone…maybe and probably like the creators wish it could have been done 40 years ago. The technology just wasn’t there to make it like this. And now it is.

The bottom line of this trailer and hopefully this movie is the going away from it thinking, “you know, humanity could really do all that if we wanted to”. The ability to make Star Trek more believable and more within our realm of ability as a people could help its success when it’s released in December.

I tell you, it’s setting up to be an epic year for films, and I’m extremely excited that Star Trek is among those films heavily anticipated.

68. Thats 2 Goofy - January 19, 2008

The people that are creating Star Trek (as is) have equally embrace as well as disassociate from it. I mean….why embrace the obvious? That gets old very quick and as a result people can say…Oh Yeah or Whatever and thats something that this producers must do.
Its almost like the chessy lines or looks that we’ve seen in past movies when a certain character is introduced. One example:
Remember when Worf first came aboard the Enterprise in First Contact?
Commander Decker said: You remember how to so and so…?
And then he said something about the the ship (can’t recall name?) as being small and Worf looked irked and said: Small?
I mean…couldn’t they have had more meaningful lines? You just know that sometime and somewhere a character will say something thats so
obvious about each other or a situation and its suppose to be funny but it just falls totally FLAT! Thats just overkill and poor writing. No Good!

69. Jim - January 19, 2008

#65 – buy that man a scotch – he is absolutely correct – JFK was the youngest ELECTED president – TR was VP to the assasinated William McKinley.

70. Jacques Chirac - January 19, 2008

Dear Mr. Orci,

1. In trailer you only hints an American spase supess? What about Russians, European Space Agency, International Space Station, Chinese…? Yuri Gagarin; Valentina Tereshkova, etc. Can we expect that kind of hints in ST XI?

2. It’s a longshot but I’ll ask anway: Should we see DS9-Frist Contact-Insurrection-Nemesis” type of uniforms in 24th century segement of movie?

71. Christian Gomez - January 19, 2008

This is going to be big. I saw the Star Trek trailer with Cloverfield and I gotta’ say I can not wait for Christmas. This will not be the same Star Trek that we are use to it will be bold, innovative, unique, and original; It will be different. I don’t want it to be 100% accurate in accordance to the original 79 otherwise it would just be another same old Star Trek movie. Can you image seeing the DS9 episode “Trials and Tribulations” or ENT “In a Mirror Darkly” in theaters? It would look too cheesy. If Star Trek is live it must adapt, as 7 of 9 would say. Bill Gates is coming out with a new touch screen table computer that is more advanced than any computer ever seen in Star Trek. Cell phones and gadgets like the Iphone, Ipod, Blu-Ray/ HD-DVDs, the USAF’s PHaSR weapon, and speculation of cloaking technology in or real world is making Star Trek look like a joke. Almost everything about every Star Trek is startling to look old and antique. Do you really think that in the 23rd or 24th century that society, spaceships, and technology will be just like in all 5 Star Trek series. “Star Trek Enterprise” is what J.J. Abram’s Star Trek wanted to be but was not, just as the 1998 American Godzilla wanted to be what Cloverfield was but wasn’t. Cloverfield raised the bar on sci-fi/ horror monster films like Godzilla, King Kong, and Gamera. I bet that the new Star Trek will also raise the bar for space-based sci-fi. I think this new Trek could blow away Star Wars as the most popular sci-fi among everyday people. In the spirit of pioneers like John Glen I say God Speed J.J. Abrams and Roberto Orci

72. Cervantes - January 19, 2008

Now that the excitement of the ‘teaser’ trailer is upon us, I wonder how the main ‘theatrical’ trailer will be structured, and what it will or won’t reveal…

What I WOULD like to see at the end of it would be something along the lines of briefly silent starscape, before we hear an ever-increasing loud rumble of power… with an eventual orange glow rising upwards, finally revealing a huge ‘nacelle cap’ coming towards us, then S L O W L Y veering off, revealing the ‘Enterprise’ PARTIALLY again as it crosses our viewpoint into the black void…

Bring on that next trailer!

73. Gene - January 19, 2008

Thanks, AJ # 54.

I did not know that scene was changed at the end of TWOK due to the testing audience.

I was going to just post #52, but had one additional point as to Mr. Shatner. He has made the point when asked about his death in Generations…that anything can happen…its Sci Fi. I think that JJ Abrams recently said that bring him back is “tricky.” Well, when it means box office…it can be done.

Again, Nimoy’s return in Star Trek III. Moreover, the producers of “Generations” wanted to jump start the new franchise so badly….they had Shatner transported over 70 years (another generation) in that silly nexus to be in the movie.

So, I think given Shatner (and the fans) knowledge of time travel and death in the Trek cannon. Not being able to bring someone back as being “tricky” seems like an excuse and may be why Shatner is disappointed and could possibly alienate many fans.

Moreover, Nimoy was asked on one talk show about his ressurrection in Star Trek III as to Shatner not being in the new movie. He could only joke, Kirk has been dead longer:-)

I think, Mr. Orci you can bring on new fans and still maintain those who have love Trek for years. Just remember…those actors made those parts. Nimoy has been Spock, Shatner… Kirk. You are asking fans to accept new people. Thats asking a lot…so, please understand the “emotion” might be warranted..just a little.

Its Sci Fi people:-)…never any logic to it.


74. Andrew - January 19, 2008

Well after seeing all the attention William Shatner is getting lately, and sudden appearences he’s making…..and the super secretive production of the new film, I’m a firm believer that Bill is involved with the movie.
I don’t care what people say, including anything that comes from the production crew…..I smell a rat, and I think we’re all going to be pleasantly surprised this Christmas!
Thanks to Mr. Orci for taking the time to answer our questions! We value your responses!

75. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 19, 2008

#65 Daren

You beat me to the pedantic point. But now that you mentioned it…Roosevelt was the youngest President, period, because he rose to the Presidency when McKinley was assassinated. Kennedy was the youngest man ELECTED President. But focusing on seemingly trivial points is what we are all about here!

76. cugel the clever - January 19, 2008

Mr Orci –

Can comment on the reason for showing welders doing manual work in the trailer? I think it was a great image, but the “reality” of 23rd century construction is that welding and fitting would probably be done by robotic devices in order to achieve the necessary speed and precision.

Overall, I loved the look of the trailer – it struck just the right note of epic scale, mystery, and atmosphere.

Star Trek is in good hands.

77. Mary Jane - January 19, 2008


Hey Gene, the old generation actually did pass on the torch to the next, in the film “Generations”, even twice: to Enterprise-B and -D (from Kirk to Harriman and Picard). Moreover, Scotty appeared in TNG, as well as Spock. Even the Enterprise-C was connected to the -D in TNG in some wicked way, so there was always a connection and presence of legacy.

As for bringing Kirk back: it’s definitely possible, but it would be hard to explain in the context of a film. He (like Guinan) was in the Nexus, which is basically a zone, in which time is not linear. So the idea that only a “shadow” remains behind if someone leaves the Nexus, is illogical, because this has attributes of a linear concept of time. Canon really sucks here. Because of non-linearity Kirk is still there in the Nexus, as a real person, not (only) as a shadow. You could actually see the Nexus as something like a huge, eternal non-linear “pattern buffer”, which can produce countless entities of the same person, as in the transporter accident in TNG “Second Chances” (the two Rikers), provided that you apply the right physical “alterations”. And I honestly believe that was the whole idea behind the Nexus-concept: Kirk may have “died” fighting Soran, but actually he’s still enjoying “eternal life” at the same time. So he’s not really dead, he’s still there, waiting to be brought back from the “afterlife”. ;-)

And btw, since the Nexus itself touches more or less the religious (i.e. irrational) sphere, one need not be too pragmatic about it. Hell, they even brought Ripley back, which was far more of a stretch.

78. Ali - January 19, 2008

65 Youngest elected = real president.

79. Cervantes - January 19, 2008

By the way Anthony, I see Bill Hunt at gave you and this site a mention today when he wrote about his ‘Cloverfield’ screening…

80. Captain Dunsel - January 19, 2008

Personally, I love the fact they did not use the title in the trailer. After all, how many people over the age of eight are not at least somewhat familiar with the famous line “Space…the final frontier”? And as Roberto said, somewhere around them in the theater someone will say “It’s Star Trek.”

I love it that they are assuming a little intelligence on the part of the audience. A refreshing change from so much of the drivel that Holllywood trowels out these days. After all, the very best TOS and TNG episodes had the same thing going for them.

Congratulations, Mr. Orci. I now feel teased! And I feel that my faith in you folks is on the path to being justified.

81. AJ - January 19, 2008

Future Spock tells Quinto Spock “don’t let Jim Kirk board the Enterprise B.” And instead of rescuing that ship and being blown into the nexus, he and Spock are in a Starbucks on Vulcan drinking cappucino and playing 3D chess. Done.

82. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 19, 2008

#78 You’re Silly. If you are not elected, you’re not real? Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t a real President? Truman? Both Johnsons? Ford? Tyler? Arthur?
Let’s get back to the serious matters at hand; gravity wells, and the nature of assembling starships…

83. Captain Amazing!! - January 19, 2008

Rob, I gotta say and please tell the rest of the guys, that trailer literally brought tears to my eyes. Nothing Trek has had that effect since sitting in a theater in 1979 and watching as we and Kirk see the Enterprise full on for the first time. Thanks for that moment. So far everything I’ve seen and heard regarding the new film has been spot on perfect in bringing my favorite show to the 21st century. The various spin-off shows were okay and fun at times, but nothing beats the original series. I have every bit of confidence you guys are going to pull this off. I’m with you 100%.

Can I buy my tickets now?

84. Adam Cohen - January 19, 2008

Hi Mr. Orci,

Question- why didn’t you record Chris Pine saying “Space, the final frontier”? Or at least play Shatner’s recording from TOS? Just curious.

85. Jupiter1701 - January 19, 2008

Hello Mr. Orci,

All this debate about the Enterprise being bult on Earth vs. space is just a diversion from the real burning question that keeps most Star Trek fans up at night:

When Kirk goes to the grocery store, does he choose paper or plastic?

Hopefully you can clear that one up for us. Personally I think paper fits in better with canon, but there are some who claim to have read in a book that it’s plastic. My reasoning is that a tribble would be more apt to suffocate in a plastic bag, so Kirk would be more sensitive to such matters.

heh heh heh

86. Biodredd - January 19, 2008

I didn’t mind that the title never appeared in the trailer. As for geeks vs non-geeks recognizing the film, I went with a groups of six to see Cloverfield. Three knew Trek and three didn’t and everyone was really excited when the name of the ship and the hull number came into view. As was mentioned earlier, Trek is not just a geek thing, its a part of our culture now. Its as recognizable to the average joe on the street in the same way that everyone knows what a “car” is.

I expect with a teaser being released a year early, the next big film coming out to get the tag trailer treatment will be Indiana Jones in May, and then one more during Thanksgiving. Films with this big of a lead time usually release three previews to keep folks interested.

Looking forward to this one more and more.

87. dalek - January 19, 2008

Two questions Mr Orci, hope you are well:

1) When are you planning to release a trailer with actual actor footage from the film?
2) After JJ’s interview yesterday is the Shatner thing closed and ended now, or still open?

Oh and if you do get Shatner in this I definitely will kiss your boot at the London premiere.

88. Allan Cook - January 19, 2008

The more I read from Mr. Orci the less confident I am that Trek has been passed into good hands after all. This is very disheartening.

89. Crusty McCoy - January 19, 2008

Roberto Orci,

Please answer one of the following questions:

Is the Shatner question dead in the water or is there still debate?

Do Romulans and time travel play an important role in the film?

Is Nimoy used for framing device or does he interact somehow with new cast?

What is your shoe size?

*Loved the trailer — looking forward to what you guys come up with!

90. Linda Violet - January 19, 2008

I enjoyed the trailer, but I am very upset that Mr Shatner has been excluded from this film. It just won’t feel right to see Mr Nimoy without Mr Shatner.

Mr Orci, isn’t there anyway that Mr Shatner can be included even if in a cameo?

Could Kirk’s ultimate fate at least be left open a bit?

Thanks for listening.

91. Scott Gammans - January 19, 2008

84 – I’m guessing it’s because either (a) 99% of the viewing audience wouldn’t instantly recognize Chris Pine’s voice, or (b) all indications are that this is a very Spock-centric movie. Take you pick…

92. CanuckLou - January 19, 2008

Hey Anthony and Roberto – thanks for doing the interview for us! Still hard to get my head around the fact we fans are able to communicate like this with the creative forces behind the next Star Trek project!

Anthony I don’t think they are being too coy with the teaser. Hearing Nimoy’s voice and seeing the Enterprise name are more than enough to make the Star Trek connection without coming right out and stating it. Damn clever if you ask me. Loved the use of the original transporter sound effect!

Roberto, you guys go with the window dressing canon issues! Its the story that counts!!! A reminder – please don’t let the characters Trek babble their way out of a tough spot! BTW – Will there be an in-joke shot of the unseen till now Enterprise washroom facilities? ;)

93. m aspill - January 19, 2008

people should stop moanin at the guys for trying to make a fresh movie let them take licence to make the movie they want to, at least they are trying to move forward (in the past) with the franchise. i hope it works and they have the chance to expand trek cannon and the franchise. this is the chance we have bin waiting for, a fresh take on a (stalling since rod) sci fi epic wich has so much scope just give them a chance. lets all remember that there are bad episodes and films in our ST world but we still love them as fans because they are ST !!

94. ? - January 19, 2008

When will the web site be fully functional?

95. robin alexander - January 19, 2008

in the poll:

what does “Can I buy my ticket now?” mean?
“It was bloody fantastic!” or “I havent seen it yet”

96. Stanky McFibberich - January 19, 2008

I have now seen the trailer. As I suspected, it really doesn’t show much or really leave you wanting more. I imagine the members of the general public that have seen it have pretty much forgotten it by now.
Again, I do not like the Nimoy narration. Shatner is the only one who should be allowed to do that narrative.

97. Mary Jane - January 19, 2008


Ditto. Absolutely. :)

98. Bill Turner - January 19, 2008

I can’t wait to see this movie.
I’d like to have Kirk in the movie too but he’s dead. I don’t want them to spend ten minutes of the new movie explaining how come he’s not dead anymore. With the writer’s strike they can’t change the script so even if they figured out a way they can’t do anything about it.

99. Tom - January 19, 2008

My 2 cents:

The construction of the Enterprise is just for the teaser, it’s not really an tegral part of the film. when we see it in the film it will be fully assembled and crewed an in the middle of Pike’s 5+ year mission.

Remember the director of Cloverfield said in an terview quoted here that he never heard of anybody making special footage of this amount of detail for a trailer.

SPOLIER: Also, the lower navigation dome looked to be TMP era. Is this designa a hybrid or a design only for the trailer and not for the actual film?

My guess we’l start seeing trailers for the film toward the end of the summer blockbuster season. That’s uaully when the markerting for Christmas action films (e.g. I am Legend).

100. Bill Turner - January 19, 2008

To Jupiter1701 – In response to your question “When Kirk goes to the grocery store, does he choose paper or plastic?”

Neither. He uses a food replicator.

101. neal - January 19, 2008

On connecting the present to Trek-future, and how we are now *closer* to that future. There is a dark underbelly to that notion. According to Trek lore, before that fabulous glossy future of Kirk’s era could arise, there was first a horrendous world conflict that decimated civilization. And only slowly and haltingly this civilization reboot itself into something better. The closer WE all are to that future, the closer each of us personally is to a armageddon.

102. Ancient Fan - January 19, 2008

Thanks for the interview and being open for attack and resisting the urge for fight or flight!

It’s hard not to confuse excitement and anxiety – sort of when you get the invitation to your 40th reunion. Looking forward to it and scared it won’t meet your fantasy. But then again, for those of us who’ve watched Trek come and go for four decades plus, I can’t tell you how many anticipatory fantasies have been shattered. And still enjoyed every single movie, every single show! So I’ll interpret the feeling as excitement.

103. joe daniels - January 19, 2008

I just hope all of us super-fans realize how lucky we are. This franchise was dead 3 years ago. The last 2 movies flopped, Enterprise was underwelming. The fact that paramount is willing to invest 150million into this film when Nemises only pulled in a return of 45 million after 5 weeks in theatres is amazing. The highest grossing star trek movie of all time was The Voyage Home, and even then it only just barely made 100 million domestically.
So talk this new movie down people, go right ahead…All this complaining, I just don’t understand.
This is it! They did what we’ve been asking! Fans have always said, well if they just had more time, money, talent, top notch writers, those films would have been huge.
Theve given star trek a budget 3 times what its ever been, a shooting schedule more then twice as long as Nemisis, and 6 months for post production! The’ve basically said, we’ve given this franchise all the tools it needs to be Huge. If this movie fails……Star Trek Fails.

So before you all decide your gonna with hold your 10 bucks unless the entire script is emailed to you so you can go over it with a fine tooth come with your star trek encyclopedia in hand, please realize this franchise will die in 2008 without your support.

Your all worried about JJ killing star trek, If I were all of you, Id look in the mirror

104. Captain Hackett - January 19, 2008

Anthony, Thanks for a great interview with Roberto!

Forgive me for moving away from this article, Karl Urban gave another interview and here’s the link:

105. cinemadeus - January 19, 2008

Good teaser. That style reminds me of some Rammstein (you know: the german rock band…) video clip.

Can’ t wait to see it in HD on monday as well as I can’t wait to direct STAR TREK XIV (theater and film student ;-) )

106. cinemadeus - January 19, 2008


It’s the San Francisco Bay AREA, isn’t it? Just because of the mist in the background… ;-)

107. u - January 19, 2008

AS a die-hard TOS trekker I say I have NO PROBLEM with the Enterprise being constructed on Earth. I don’t even know why it’s an issue since it was never established in any book or movie EXACTLY where it was constructed except for the dedication plaque on the bridge which said “San Francisco”. Good job guys! Keep up the great work!!!!

108. John from Cincinnati - January 19, 2008

One thing that has been established in canon is that Pike was not the first captain of NCC-1701. That honor goes to Robert April. I hope they don’t blow that important fact!

109. Ian Watson - January 19, 2008

Just wanted to say my (pedantic) piece.

While I’m sure Mr. Orci’s iPhone has far more bells and whistles than the communicators from the Original Series, those communicators do what they do – communicate – far better than the iPhone.

In one part of the city, my cell gets a full five bars. In another part of the city, it gets no reception at all. I can stand outside a friend’s house and not be able to call them.

TOS communicators, on the other hand, can call a starship in orbit. I’m not sure if there are any examples of them going beyond that, but they certainly weren’t limited to orbit by the time of TNG.

I don’t think we’ll be seeing iPhones that communicate via subspace channels anytime soon. (:

110. robin alexander - January 19, 2008


the most intelligent post I read thus far about the movie

111. Beck - January 19, 2008

I’m a chronic lurker and I just wanted to throw my two bits in here – I’m so excited about this movie I can’t keep my mouth shut any longer. I’m in agreement with post #103… this constant bickering over insignificant details could end the franchise.

I couldn’t care less if the ship was built in orbit or on earth. I don’t care about techno babble or stardates. If this movie stays true to what made me love the original trek from the first time I saw it, I’ll be thrilled. Thoughtful stories, characters I really care about, and an optimism that says WE in the real world could have such a future. Mr. Orci, I’m glad you guys have decided not to sweat the details, and don’t let the fanatical canon worshippers kill Trek, please!

112. ISSJim - January 19, 2008

Looks great ! But I think we’re sweating Shatner too much. This “reboot” is too big for a single film, maybe they are only planning a cameo at the end of this one to whip up excitment for the second film. The Kirk / Spock story is to big for one movie . I mean christ! They are Breaking the hobbit into two movies and you can’t tell me the world of star trek isn’t exspansive enough to tell a larger story. I see very good things for the future of this francise!

113. c0mBaTkArL - January 19, 2008


Well said, Joe. I’m getting weary of the childish sniping. No one could have put that any better.

Mr. Orci, I was delighted to hear the familiar transporter beam whine at the end of your trailer, a sound as familiar to fans as the bridge ambiance or communicator chitter, yet one that has been superseded in the recent past throughout various TV spin-offs. While a lot of talk has been made over cast and ship design, what about sound design? Can we expect the beloved TOS era sound effects to grace our ears again?

114. trekman - January 19, 2008

amen to #103

115. Sebastian - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci, if you are on this board, all I can say is…you definitely “get it.” The synthesis of JFK’s early space-age optimism and classic Trek speak to a seemingly by-gone age. Maybe through the efforts of the writers, artists and craftsmen behind this new Trek, some of that optimism can translate into our current cynical, downbeat era! And how we need it right now! Those images of Enterprise under construction (I don’t care where; could be down my street for all I know! So what!) were both beautiful and intriguing. And it got the ol’ adrenaline going, too! As I posted once before, I am not a Transformers fan, but I don’t think that’s what you’re shooting for here, anyway. Interweaving the JFK/ Space Race bits into your trailer shows me that you and your writing partner have given much thought into what really make STAR TREK work; on a more primal level. I, for one, cannot wait! Thanks in advance for the lovely Christmas gift!

116. Gorn Fishing - January 19, 2008

So – here’s a question – if this movie does really well is will “re-start” the franchise.

But does that mean we’ll ever see a post-Voyager TV show? I think that’s what most of us want, right? To continue the story?

I’m definitely psyched to see the early years of TOS as presented in this new movie – and maybe in its sequels – but if the franchise really takes off again, what are the chances of a new series?

117. Kenny S - January 19, 2008

Enterprise is a STARSHIP for crying out loud. The main parts should be constructed on Earth but assembled in space. Period.

The reasons of this are just too many, and shows that these guys dont care about portraying the future as it should be.

First of all the shape of the enterprise is not aerodynamic, everything about its design shows that its made for space, a vacum, and not air. Of course we have seen in TOS that it did enter the Earths atmosphere for a while, and I can accept that it can withstand this IF YOU HAVE TO…

This was one of the reasons why we had the transporters guys.. if the enterprise could just come in an atmosphere all the time, then how many stories does this break? Think of it… the Enterprise could just swoop in and search for people and locate them better than in orbit.

And then even for the EFFECT of giving it a MAGESTIC feeling it would be great to see the parts being one by one moved into place in free gravity, and then see the whole ship together…

This is BAD IMAGINEERING (imagination + Engineering). They still have time to CHANGE this… and they should do it NOW before its too late…

These writers HAVE to give extreme care to details.. if they cant handle all the details, they should hire some more people that will fill in with that.. but they must remember..

this is NOT a simple movie.. this is the VISUALIZATION of the future…

What does NASA say about making a STARSHIP? From what I have read on carl sagans book COSMOS the huge starships that would be able to travel to the stars would be assembled in space.

Why dont they ask the experts… I am sure that they would go for space assembly.

118. Trekkie - January 19, 2008

I don’t know any reason why a starfleet ship couldn’t be build on the ground.

1. argument against it: costs too much energy to bring it in orbit?
Are u kidding? Only one second warping the space around a ship probably costs more energy than bringing thousand ships into the orbit.
A physic professor, who’s star trek fan, once explained how much energy something like warp would cost if it were technically possible – believe me very much.

2. when it can sustain the pressures of warp it also can sustain starting and landing on a 1g planet, no problem

=> so nothing speaks against it, both is possible space building and griund building and both as efficient as the other

119. cbspock - January 19, 2008

#64 I agree with a lot of your points. Modern Trek drowned in technobabble most of the time to make up for bad stories. When the Enterprise-D was in trouble we heard Geordi spew a whole bunch of meaningless babble of what the problem was and how he was gonna fix it. On Star Trek, Scotty would make a quip and tell Kirk he would have it fixed, and we could move on with the story.

I think the fans that are into the whole canon thing are going to have to take this movie with a grain of salt. Star Trek has moved into the realm of the superhero and james bond movies with a new cast and a new look, but each movie pretty much stays within their own universes “rules”.

120. meandu - January 19, 2008


perspective people!!

121. Robohunter - January 19, 2008


Good for you. You’re 100% on the money. I cannot for the life of me understand the rank cynicism and negativity that some posters dump all over this website – it’s downright weird. You are so right to remind everyone that this movie is what fans of Star Trek had been begging for – a chance to revitalize our beloved franchise and captivate a whole new generation of Trekkers.

I despair when I read comments from people who want a post-Nemesis story, replete with esoteric references to 28 seasons and 10 movies of continuity. How on earth can you get new people on board by doing that?

This movie will give us the best of both worlds – great easter eggs for the long-time fans, but a fully accessible story for EVERYONE.

No pressure, Roberto, but I just know this film is going to be bloody brilliant.

122. Call Me Trekker - January 19, 2008

Assuming the goal of the trailer was to whet my appetite, it accomplished that 1000% percent. Thank you – I’m hooked!

Question for Mr. Orci: I’m a big Star Trek fan and really looking forward to the film. So part of me wants to read all the reports about the film in production (which I’ve never done before with any other film) – but I’m also worried that I’ll discover some piece of information that will spoil a major surprise.

So, what’s your advice? Be an engaged fan – or actively avoid spoilers.

123. non-belligerency confirmed - January 19, 2008

glad to hear mister orci hangs out here to keep an ear to fans ideas and opinions and witness their personality disorders. i was begining to think he was quite insane to tolerate it all. one imagines a coin toss on the supreme court to determine which one of them it was going to be:
“sorry bob, it looks like you have to spend every waking hour over at trekmovie, babe. good luck with that.”

nevertheless, we’re lucky to have ya.
the trailer was real good. thumb suckin’ good.

124. JBishop - January 19, 2008

For the record, Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest man ever elected president, beating Kennedy by more than a year.

125. Gene - January 19, 2008

Hello again everyone:

I kind of see myself as a moderate on this whole canon debate. I just would like the series to continue. Look, Star Wars created a canon of sort..I lot of people didn’t like the prequels. But, what can anyone say…Lucas created it. So, what can you say.

Here, with Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry created it. If you review the history behind trek…he worked very hard to create something special. He died prior to the release of Star Trek 6 and who knows what he would have thought of Kirk’s demise in “Generations.” Please, check out the commentaries on the feature films as to how much Roddenberry like remaining true to what he created.

I say this, for some who are critical of those who are very vocal about saying true to the canon…to have a bit of understanding. Everyone has a lot riding on this movie’s success. If it fails, that it for a while. Directors come and go on Star Trek movies…but changes (e.g. TWOK, Generations) are there forever…and pose problems at times.

Moreover, I think a lot of fans have a right to be a little afraid of the unknown. When I saw the Superman trailer (the one with Marlon Brando’s voice), I was excited. Who amongst us thought that Bryan Singer in his reboot of the Superman franchise whould make Superman a “baby’s daddy” and so much a love story?

My point is, to those use “fanatics” to refer to some of these fans…hey…these guys may know something…best to listen to them:-)


126. Will Decker - January 19, 2008

49: Are you still going on about that? With all due respect: Just let it be. Nimoy did the monologue in ’82 and ’84. And he’s doing it again. I like Bill Shatner and all, but I give Nimoy more credit since he was part of Trek since DAY ONE with Jeff Hunter.

127. Flying Tigress - January 19, 2008


It is just a movie.

It a “just a movie” based upon something near and dear to us, but, in the end, it isn’t a film version of a research article in the AmJPhys (or equivalent). This concept of making sacrifices of ‘known physics/natural sciences” for the sake of story-telling has been happening since Day 1 of writing The Cage.

(perhaps hyperbole, but, the point is there).

It is a story. And, the Enterprise is a vehicle (in the writing sense) for telling the story.

To reiterate what someone elsewhere is said, it is functionally equivalent to the contemporary construction of a ship/sub. Just because they are built on shore (and then fitted out once in the water) doesn’t mean that they are capable of returning to land after being completed.

Besides, much as it galls some people, the owner of the product (the Trek franchise) gets to determine what is the basis for canon — much as Gene, himself, got to excise-out what was shown on screen (and, therefore, ‘canon’ by the traditional rules) as BEING canonical “Trek”.

This film, until a later owner excises it, and (effectively) declares it heresy, will become canon. So, effectively, as of Jan 18, 2008, part of canon will be, apparently, that the construction of the Enterprise occured on terra firma.

If you don’t care for that, become a screenwriter/director/producer and convince the owner of the franchise to allow a mulligan — and redo this movie.

128. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

I paid to see “And Justice For All” in 1979 mainly to see the Orson Welles-narrated trailer for “Star Trek: The Motion Picture.”

Not that the Pacino flick didn’t turn out to be worth the price of admission. Love that guy.

Anyway, my response to seeing close-up shots of the Jefferies/Jennings/Probert/Michaelson-designed Enterprise roll out of spacedock in that ad was akin to “Alexander Dane’s” in “Galaxy Quest:”

“Oh my god, it’s real.”

I had the same feeling in watching the teaser before “Cloverfield” yesterday – it accomplishes the same thing in a more modern, immediate and sophisticated way. Just wonderfu.

129. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

uh, “wonderful.” D’oh!

130. johnconner - January 19, 2008

Way to keep a level head. You are absolutely right.

As for the interview, I was getting so tired of the “Enterprise is/isn’t built on Earth” debate that I nearly cried in stark relief when I read his response. Then a few posts in, someone goes all nitpicky on the iPhone statement.

All I know is, Nurse Chapel better have a silver beehive or I’M BOYCOTTING THIS MOVIE.

131. Katie G. - January 19, 2008

Re: #21. roberto Orci

“…You might be right about the buzz thing, but then I’ve never fully assimilated the lesson of Snakes on a Plane…”

Hello, sir. Just logged on and saw the above comment. I’m not familiar with that movie. Never saw it (for obvious reasons (shiverrrrrrrrr). What happened with that movive that you are calling a lesson you never assimilated? Something to do with “buzz”, I take it.


132. johnconner - January 19, 2008


Dennis, I agree with every single word you just posted (even your misspelled one and the two that make up Al Pacino).

133. Ryan - January 19, 2008

Last night my gf and I went to see cloverfield at the theater in college station. It was packed full of mostly college students obviously. After the ST trailer came up people started talking. I couldn’t really understand the reaction. The gf of a guy next to me said “what’s that?” to which he replied “it’s Star Trek,” but without the sarcastic “ST is gay” remark like the one somebody said above. My adrenaline was going pretty fast seeing the trailer and I love it!

The Cloverfield part really pissed me off. I thought it was a great movie and there were many times I got a bit freaked out. But when the end of the movie came there seemed to be one huge groan saying, “that’s it?!, that ending sucked!” I really don’t know how people can like a movie and then hate just because they thought the ending sucked. And honestly, what kind of ending would one expect. It’s a video of somebody documenting a “terrible thing” :) , why on earth would there be some big finale at the end? That would be stupid in this movie. If people truly understood the premise, as they say they do, then bygolly they wouldn’t have said the ending sucked.

End mindless rambling.

I swear there are a lot of close-minded/ignorant individuals out there.

134. Shaggy - January 19, 2008

Excellent interview Anthony and great responses Roberto. I personally loved the trailer (ok, the only part I didn’t like was the blinking-like motion of fading in and out a few times but I never like that in any trailer. But I suppose it’s more dramatic that way) and I can hardly wait for the next full trailer (or the actual film :D )

135. Edith Keeler - January 19, 2008

I still want to know why they decided not to use the Cawley cameo.

136. dalek - January 19, 2008

#135 what cawley cameo? They haven’t even finished filming yet so how do you know what they have decided to use before they’ve edited a cut? lol

137. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#5,#34–You both make a good point, but perception is reality, especially to those fans who haven’t been around so long and perhaps do not have the imagination which I believe is inherent in most Trekkers. If it looks unimpressive to them (the targeted new fans), it will be. No judgement here as to right or wrong, but I think that is a legitimate concern for the filmmakers, at least to some degree when Star Trek tech is the subject. At least I would expect it to be. If communicators in the new movie look more impressive than they did 40 years ago, that will be okay with me. In fact, I would expect it.

138. Randy - January 19, 2008

I had to comment on this been a star trek fan for a long time…ok kirk is not in it ok everybody needs to get over it. Its time spock is in ths spotlight nothing wrong with that at all…..

After the last star trek movie everybody was burnt out and everybody was getting old. Its time for new blood and bring new life back to star trek..

I think this movie going to be great and cant wait until it comes out everybody should give a chance and not be so hard on the new film….

Great interview and it sounds like they know what they are doing and they know that cant mess it up Star trek is to big and the fan base is bigger than them. So they know that have to stay true to Star trek legend….

139. Andreas -horn- Hornig - January 19, 2008

hi, for me it really doesn’t matter whether or not the Big E is build on earth or in an earth orbit, As long as it fits to the rest of the movie plot everything is fine for me :).

but it would be nice to know how the big chunks will be transported intospace, assembled or in parts and later on asembled, because I am a student of Aerospacial Engineering and it would be really cool to know how the people of tommorw can achiev to lift such a fat lady.
perhaps it could give me some good ideas to solve some of todays space transportation problems :D.
like mentioned in the interview, the scifi inventions of the late 60s are now often available in current devices. so the influences of the scifi genre is still around.

I can’t wait to leech the HD trailer where ever it will be available and when cloverfield will be released here in Germany I will see it ont the big silver screen :).

greets, Andreas

140. Plum - January 19, 2008

Remember you uneducated robot militarist automatons… Star Trek is all about the Cold War for dilithium.

The current creative team has a chance to perpetuate what was an allegory for the war torn late 60s, when the USA was ripping itself apart with it’s own murderousness. Sounds like today, doesn’t it.

And 82. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine – Gene R. WAS a marine you goof. I reckon the only reason you posted that ignorant nick to to imply in fascist fashion that Marines are better people than other people. They are not. Buy a frellin clue ya twit.

141. Marian Ciobanu - January 19, 2008


142. The Gregster - January 19, 2008

#49, I have been a big fan of Star Trek since TOS first aired and I didn’t feel slapped or insulted at all when I heard Mr. Nimoy’s voice on the trailer. I saw the trailer at a showing of Cloverfield as many here did. There was not alot of reaction from the crowd. There were some whispers and murmers but NO booing. I LOVED the trailer. BTW, it’s so great to be able to post on this site knowing people involved in the movie and with Trek in general, see it. It creates a kind of connection for we fans that simply wasn’t possible in decades past. I agree with those who believe this movie is in good hands. Let’s keep our minds and hearts open and enjoy the ride.

143. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

#133: “But when the end of the movie came there seemed to be one huge groan saying, “that’s it?!, that ending sucked!” I really don’t know how people can like a movie and then hate just because they thought the ending sucked. And honestly, what kind of ending would one expect. It’s a video of somebody documenting a “terrible thing” , why on earth would there be some big finale at the end?”

I loved the movie, but I’d agree that the last five or ten minutes is the least effective – not because it lacks a big finale but because it becomes a little too pat in servicing audience expectations:

1) Gives us one long, uninterrupted, loving look at the monster under unlikely circumstances and

2) Gives us closure on everyone’s story.

To maintain a little bit more versimilitude, the movie should – IMAO – have ended at one of two points just prior to those last sequences. I won’t elaborate as that would involve pretty specific spoilers.

Now, I liked the ending and would have been disappointed had those last scenes not been included – nonetheless, they did take me a little bit out of my “willing suspension of disbelief.”

144. Edith Keeler - January 19, 2008

#136 How do I know? Industry people like to eat good, cheap mexican food at Lucy’s at Sunset and Gower and talk about what they did at work.

145. Trekkie, Trekker - Hell, I'm both! - January 19, 2008

To Anthony: You asked the questions I wanted answers to. Well-thought and well-done.

To Roberto: You gave answers that were straightforward and honest. As always, thank you! Your participation here is both cherished and welcomed.

I maintain that the new “Star Trek” doesn’t defile canon; it doesn’t destroy Gene’s vision; it doesn’t displace what was. We’re looking at the Trek universe through different glasses now. Fortunately, a better realized version, thanks to a robust production budget and a production team that honors the original vision.

Question for Roberto:

* When the official Paramount movie site goes online, will you be actively participating in the new forums there, or remaining active on Or posting on both sites? I’m curious which site is going to get more attention from the production team, namely you.

Not the fairest question to ask, since we fans prefer to see you posting here. :)

* WIll you be posting any information about your new project “Fringe” to this site?

146. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#65, #69–As a history major, I say congratulations to both of you! I also appreciate historical accuracy.

#116–I’m not sure that’s what most of us want. I don’t. I prefer the return to the more colorful period of the 23rd century and up to the start of TNG. There is, after all, 78 years of Star Trek history which we have seen very little of. I like the Excelsior idea, or even Enterprise-B. I would not even mind a Pike-era series, mini-series (preferably HBO), or a film or two. TNG-era Star Trek became stale, too sterile, and boring. It took a quadrant-wide war just to spark some excitement in DS9 towards the end. I am tired of Star Trek on obscure networks like UPN. The future is the past, and it may be confined to the big screen or a better budgeted network. I think the success or failure of this film will determine how Star Trek is perceived by the “suits”(self-ridicule LOL) going forward.

147. CW - January 19, 2008

I saw Cloverfield last night. My 16 year old daughter was laughing out loud when the monster thing tossed the Statue’s head down the street, and was then crying her eyes out when the other girl exploded from the bite. Oh yea, the Star Trek thing was cool too!

I just read a post that said James Cawley may or may not get a cameo in ST? I hope so, he and his NV shows really reignited my interest in TOS. I love all things trek, I even named my dogs Kira, Sisko and Hoshi, but I was kind off the TOS thing until NV. I hope he gets a little love from the casting people on ST. He deserves it.

148. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - January 19, 2008


1. Has the strike kept you guys off the set? If so, how are you appraised of how it’s going and do you get to see dailies? I’m wondering if there are any scenes that J.J. may want to tweak or even fully reshoot if the strike is resolved and you guys can write again.

2. Did you like “Cloverfield” ?

3. Don’t take it personally, but I’m one of the rare persons who doesn’t sweat the canon details because I don’t think you – or anone else, really – can reboot the original characters on film. Regardless, if the film is a financial success, you will surely be in the position to move forward with a second one. Where would you want to go with the characters and story you’ve re-established?

(and please don’t say ‘back in time’ or ‘time-travel’ or anything like that again, please).

149. chapelmapel - January 19, 2008

I think #103’s comment is right on the money. I think its best everyone take that advice.

Theres no way anyone in hollywood will touch to Star Trek franchise again if this movie fails.

Paramount has pretty much put it out there that the’re out of the TV business with the failure of UPN and layoffs to there tv division.
Who’s gonna make another star trek movie if it becomes known in Hollywood that the core fans are going to tear down anyone who even tries anything remotely original in these films.

What filmmaker wants to devote a year or more of their lives to make a movie that feels more like a dust off of 35 years of other peoples ideas and history.

I mean whats it gonna take people? I mean for god sakes its the 1701!!
This is what we’ve been dreaming of! It hasnt been on the big screen since the middle of StarTrek 3! Did you ever think after First Contact that paramout would ever go back to these great original characters??
Take it in People!! Enjoy it! We got what we wanted…..Dont ruin it

150. Thomas Jensen - January 19, 2008

I’ve got no problem with the ship being built on land, completely, for that matter, and being flown into space. Or parts being shipped into space and assembled. The idea that parts are constructed on the ground can be derived from written sources over the years works just fine. It seems the ship is still depicted as being constructed in San Francisco so everything comes together nicely.

Mr. Orci’s explanation for this is quite interesting and I’m sure reflects the many discussions they must have had on the subject.

151. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#49—Sounds like a giant load of “Shat” to me!

152. Rhett Coates - January 19, 2008


I skipped down to post here after somewhere around Post #20: I went to see “Cloverfield” just to see the trailer—and like others, I teared up when I saw USS ENTERPRISE … NCC-1701, too … and CHEERED! An elderly man sitting in the row behind me spoke to his (I presume) wife who as sitting next to him after the Big E appeared, saying “Star Trek. [PAUSE, THEN:] Hmm…….” YES, you’ve gotten the attention of the masses, and those masses will be looking for ST XI in December.

WOW, those shots are amazing—they made me just BLINK in awe and wonder. (Did ILM do those effects, too?) The sheer build-up to it all, then…. I only wish it had been 45 seconds (or even 60), instead of just 30. And just a LITTLE BIT MORE of the vessell. But I know we’ll see more in time.

THANK YOU, Roberto. And please express our TREMENDOUS gratitude to JJ, Alex, and all the rest of the crew and cast: we’re with you all, and as Kirk said in ST III, “May the wind be at our backs.”

I’m also thinking ahead, to your stories for ST XII and ST XIII ….. noting that Zach has mentioned [in a previous interview] something about a “multiple-picture contract…..”

BTW, a side-note for JJ: I was termbling in shock for nearly an hour after leaving the theater, as “Cloverfield” left me feeling that this movie was perhaps the most “violently scarry” movie I believe I have ever seen. And yes, I DID notice that subtle, “unseen” big splash far off in the background during the very last 10-second sequence (at Coney Island). Might we therefore see “Coverfield 2″ in another couple of year…..?

153. Dan - January 19, 2008

I don’t post here often. But my two cents. Everything that I have read from the people actually doing the movie has been positive. Does anyone imagine that Stuart Baird, for example, would have even known enough to ask whether to ask if warp nacelles can be calibrated in a gravity field? Knowing that Orci is into that much detail, I am very comfortable that they are not going to destroy all ties to canon. Where canon is not clear, they have to make a call and they seem very concientious about making the best choices they can.

The producers of this show cannot please everybody, but looking at the images from the trailer, they have the right balance. The ship in the pictures is not identical to 1966 TV episodes, but it is instantly recognizable as the Enterprise, with round Nacelles and a saucer that looks really close to the original. The thing is, it looks real, just like Karl Urban said, “Star Trek HD”. It looks stunningly real. Far more real than the ship from any previous film. Looking at the Actors from the cloverfield premier, you can’t get much closer in appearance than Pine as Kirk, Quinto as Spock, Urban as McCoy. Again, not a shred of evidence these guys are trying to rewrite Trek history – they’re just trying to make it real and believable and stunning for a 2008 audience. I have no further need to look for spoilers – I am confident the film is in good hands, and I want to be surprised with a few things next Christmas – I expect it to be really, really good. Can’t wait to hear the score.

As for the whole Shatner question, it is pretty simple. If Shatner is not in the movie they are going to say “No, Shatner is not in the movie”. If Shatner were to be in the movie, that would be a MAJOR plot line that they would never divulge and they are going to say the same thing. Let it rest. It would be fun to see Spock somehow bring back his old friend, but I wouldn’t want to know in advance! And if it doesn’t happen, this still appears to be be a movie worth seeing.

154. Rhett Coates - January 19, 2008

….”BTW, a side-note for JJ: I was trembling in shock for nearly an hour after leaving the theater,…..

TREMBLING, not “termbling.” (My bad. Robot.)

155. Gallifrey1983 - January 19, 2008

I like the teaser, it hit the mark on building anticipation without giving away too much.

They are doing a good job of keeping details of the plot under wraps. Anyone remember the TV spots for Star Trek III that proclaimed it was “the final voyage of the Starship Enterprise” and showed the ship exploding? That was giving away way too much!

156. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#108–It is my understanding that TAS is not canon, unless it is confirmed in a live action episode or film.

Over 150 posts, and this thread has not yet deteriorated into Shat/no-Shat. Wow!!!

I love Star Trek.

157. NZorak - January 19, 2008

I wonder who Orci is among the regular posters here. Many creative types like to sneak into online fan base discussions, sometimes rallying those who are opposed to them just for a good laugh, and to see if any truly valid points rise to the surface.

158. Jay - January 19, 2008

The trailer is just awesome! Definitly worth seeing on the big screen. It was kinda cool seeing it in a theatre, most people didn’t know what it was until the theme/ Nimoy’s part (Obviously I knew what it was after I saw the Bad Robot logo). But when it became obvious that it was for Star Trek, I heard a few people in the audience going “What?!? That’s ‘Star Trek’?” which was so cool and exactly what I had hoped for with this first teaser and eventually the whole movie.

As for the whole connecting it with Kennedy and the 60’s and such, I thought that was just brilliant! I’ve always thought that one of the reasons why Star Trek was so accepted and loved was that it basically took the space age of the 1960’s and said what would be the result of all this 300 years from now!

I simply loved the Star Trek teaser and really can’t wait till December. Trek is back!!! This is the most radical and greatest thing to happen to Star Trek in a very long time!

159. dalek - January 19, 2008

#144 on a movie this secretive they let slip in a bar? i dont think so lol

160. Ryan T. Riddle - January 19, 2008

At first, I was taken aback by the rumors that the big E was being constructed on Earth but then I thought more about it. I came to the conclusion that if a 23rd century world can travel across the universe at warp speeds and convert matter into energy and back again, that it would have the technology to transport a huge starship, built at a drydock on the ground into orbit much the way NASA builds sections of the space station and sends it into orbit. Then, I was like cool!

Having seen the trailer and appreciating the metaphor for the construction of the movie and the reconstruction of Trek, I am more excited than ever for a new Trek project. I haven’t been this excited since TNG came out in the late-80s.

The trailer tied our space program past with our “future.” The choice of building the ship on Earth in the trailer also tied the space navy of that future to our naval past and present. I lived in San Diego most of my life and my friend’s father worked for NASSCO, the navy’s ship building facility and plant. The manner in which the E was being built reminded me of those huge ships that are still built at the NASSCO yards. It also made Trek seem more real by having real men welding the damn thing together. Like Nick Meyer in his version of Trek, we have a tactile and visceral future that seems more tangible than the one in TNG and TMP (though I don’t have a problem with either).

161. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 19, 2008

#140 Plum Thanks for noticing. Gene Roddenberry served in the US Army Air Corps in WWII in the Pacific, receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross. That is impressive. Go look up other recipients, it is a select group. Gene L. Coon served in the Marine Corps during WWII as well, also in the Pacific theater. I am engaging in some light-hearted interservice rivalry. We like to tweak the sister services. Doesn’t make us “fascists”, “ya twit”. Coon tends to get forgotten, and I am doing my small part to get him noticed. He obviously didn’t create Trek, Roddenberry did. But he did play a huge role in making Trek what it became. Lighten up.

As for your slipshod use of the word “fascist”, you need to go read a little. And Marines aren’t “better people” than other people. Just better shots.

162. Data_Lives_in_B4 - January 19, 2008


You are the man for actually reading comments & posting on this site.

Can’t wait till the movie comes out. I’m really hoping STAR TREK can cross over to the “main stream” with this film. I remember talking to some middle school kids at a community center two years ago and when I said “Star Trek” you could hear the crickets outside. Until one kid raised his hand and said, “Don’t you mean STAR WARS?” I was about to shoot myself!

Loved the cloak-and-dagger approach of marketing for CLOVERFIELD. It would work great for STAR TREK, imho. Love that you’re guarding secrecy of STAR TREK. I don’t like spoilers either.


From what I saw in the teaser:

Thanks for brining STAR TREK down-to-earth (literally with the construction of the Enterprise) and grounding it in reality and making the world of ST solid.

163. Flying Tigress - January 19, 2008

I saw smoke coming from this thread and correctly saw flames from a little bit upthread.

“Roddenberry was a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions in the U.S. Army Air Corps in the Pacific Theatre of World War II.”

/just sayin’

164. steve623 - January 19, 2008

161 – Thank God for the United States Marines.

165. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#161–Semper Fi, from a fellow combat veteran Marine.

166. Yehuda - January 19, 2008

#161–202 IDF Para’s. But I would rub shoulders with the US Marines anytime.

167. Flying Tigress - January 19, 2008

Still trying to figure out the “Cold War for dilithium.”

168. New Horizon - January 19, 2008

Mr Orci:

Great interview, thank you so much. The message in the trailer was very clear, and I stand behind what you are all doing. If the trailer is any indication, your movie is going to be awe inspiring on many levels. Trek inspired me, on so many levels. The original series, and seasons 3, 4, 5 and most of 6 from Next Generation, really captured the wonder and awe of Star Trek. Next Gen was really more self exploratory at times, and often left me asking questions of myself…my own existence. It was a great platform. The original series asked questions not only of itself, but the world it existed in. A balance between the two would be ideal, because they are both parts of Gene’s philosophy…just from different points in his life.

169. CmdrR - January 19, 2008

Cool interview. Did you ask him who gave the E her new look?
Totally psyched. This has been a big boost to a crappy week.

170. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#140–You need to lighten up on the military bashing. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines don’t make policy, nor are they robot automations. We are as enlightened as anyone else. As you (rather inaccurately)pointed out, Star Trek’s founder was himself, a war veteran. His vision of a brighter future for mankind was born of the horrors his generation witnessed mankind perpetrate. I, too, am a combat veteran Marine, and I chose long ago to share in Mr. Roddenberry’s vision (even if he was Army Air Corps lol) of humanity’s potential. Do not be so narrow-minded. We are all Star Trek fans.

…If the Army and the Navy ever look on heaven’s scene,

they will find the streets are guarded…

by Gene L. Coon and his band of hard core trekkin’ Devil Dogs!!! Ooorah!

171. Ali - January 19, 2008
The White House itself says JFK was the youngest elected President. Are they wrong?

172. Noleuser - January 19, 2008

“You never know who may be stopping by” –WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN ANTHONY???

173. Regular Joe - January 19, 2008

171 – Teddy was the youngest in office, though he was NOT elected to the office. He was McKinley’s VP and assumed office following McKinley’s assassination. JFK was the youngest ELECTED.

174. Stanky McFibberich - January 19, 2008

171 – yes he is the youngest ELECTED President.

175. Trek Nerd Central - January 19, 2008

Reading that looooong paragraph explaining the logic behind the warp nacelles, I thought:

“Okay. This guy is obviously way more of a dweeb than I am. I think I can trust him on matters of absurd Trek arcana. The franchise is in good hands.”

I agree with #103 and everyone who agrees with #103. The more I read from Orci & others connected with the film, the more excited I am about it.

As for his enigmatic comments about some “theory” driving the movie — what the heck, folks. Give it a chance. Do we want this new Star Trek to be a boring and slavish rehash of old Star Treks, or do we want to see it reinvigorated?

Orci is clearly the dork above all dorks who post here. Trust him to make everything new while being respectful of our beloved old show.

That’s how I vote.

176. David (Flaming Wings Forever - Peter Cullen for the computer voice!) - January 19, 2008

Great Interview! And love the fact that the response (in this thread) has been overwhelmingly positive.

So the next great topic of conversation…… will the bridge have ‘The (Captains) Chair’?

Arguably, the ‘Big Chair’ has played a role in onscreen banter. From the classic – ‘I’m not ready for The Chair’ or ‘that was his chair’, to the funny ‘it squeaks’.

One chair or three? Or perhaps a large couch? Or in taking a look at 1960’s technology reinvisioned for our world – one big Ball or Globe chair ala 1966’s Eero Aarnio?

The Ball Chair – or Globe Chair as it’s called sometimes – was designed by using one of the most simple geometric forms – the ball. Cutting of a part and fixing it at one point Eero Aarnio comes to a remarkable result – a completely unconventional shaped chair

177. Ali - January 19, 2008

Which is what I said in 78, contradicted by 128.

178. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

#176: “So the next great topic of conversation…… will the bridge have ‘The (Captains) Chair’?”

I think there’s a mention in the article about Tom Cruise’s visit to the set of him sitting in the Enterprise captain’s chair while he was there. :)

179. David (Flaming Wings Forever!) - January 19, 2008

Yes, but what does it look like?

180. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

It has tuck-and-roll upholstery and big honkin’ flames painted on the arms.

181. Plum - January 19, 2008

161. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine.

That nick means what?

… Oh, it’s something I should have known about because that’s how you intended it? Stop boring people with what you wrote as if we should know what you mean, I am not a frickin’ mind reader.

Like talking to windmills.

182. Timncc1701 - January 19, 2008

Will this Supreme Court be able to capture the spirit of TOS even though they may fudge on some canon details? It remains to be seen. I think that the only way this film gets repeat viewings-beyond the first curiousity viewing-as well as reinvigorate/save the franchise-is to capture the spirit of TOS. I say that being of the opinion that TNG did not really capture it. TNG was Gene Roddenberry’s unadulterated version of Trek. Too much jawing and not enough Kirkian fistfights. Roddenberry always criticized the network for bastarding his vision. It was the synthesis or dialectic of Roddenberry and the network that made TOS. Can this crew recapture the essence of that? If not, it will go the way of the spinoffs.

183. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#179–Hopefully, it looks like something befitting a Star Fleet Captain in the mid-23rd Century. I, for one, do not feel that it has to look like it did in the 1960’s tv show (although it should not be completely unrecognizable). I feel the same way about such things as bridge instrument panels, tricorders, communicators, the transporter pad, Engineering, auxiliary control, etc. It should be as grand as a film released in December of 2008 can make it.
Even Superman’s cape now reflects a modern look. Such things will never make or break this film in the broader scope of things. If I want nostalgia, I can put in my TOS dvd’s and get a good laugh out of my kids!

184. cw - January 19, 2008

Well,it appears that tere is plenty o hope for among the canon appreciators and the canon-haters.

It looks as if Orci is at lest trying to respect and adere to Trek’s story canon (despite its ow writing flubs), which shoult keep the canon folk happy; and Treck technology and appearance may be upated to appease that anti-canon folk.

185. Yehuda - January 19, 2008

Hmmm. Who would be the greater fool? The windmill for just being itself or the block head trying to talk to it? Interesting thought experiment.

186. Lt. Iowagirl - January 19, 2008


This isn’t a Shatner thread; we’ve just had two. Considering the fact that Orci did not mention the Shatner issue, we still have considerable 17 out of 176 posts that touch the Shatner yes/no question by some means or other. I took the liberty of counting your post, as well.

As for all that JFK skirmish, I think it’s important not to forget Roddenberry’s most important reference when describing Kirk:

“A space-age Captain Horatio Hornblower“.

187. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#182–I hope that is the whole point. I’ve been all for getting back to Jim Krk fist-fighting and fornicating his way across the galaxy ever since I was first disappointed at “Farpoint”. TNG and the other spinoffs never really captured the magic of the TOS characters. Those characters were okay, but never to be compared with Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Checkov, Chapel, Rand, etc. Everything about it was fantastic. The stories (certain forgettable episodes notwithstanding), the characters, the music, the sexuality, the social commentaries, all of it. Most of all, it was the imagination of its creators and writers that made it all so enthralling that we are still sitting here at our computers talking about it now–40 years later. If nothing else, I appreciate the effort to bring it back. Good luck to all of them.

188. Jabob Slatter - January 19, 2008

I’m a fan of TOS, and watched it when it first aired, when I was a kid. So I’m an old school fan.

That being said, I really don’t give a damn about so-called “canon.” I may or may not like this new film, but right now I’m plenty excited about it, and I don’t care if you mess Star Trek up. It has needed some serious messing up since DS9 went off the air.

I’m not going to let redesigns or diversion from “canon” ruin this for me. Good luck to Roberto Orci and all of the crew!

189. Driver - January 19, 2008

Saw the trailer with a capacity crowd. Some chuckles and a sense of Huh?, What?(not in a good way). The images were so dark and quick. I felt alone in my admiration. So when will the next teaser be out? In a couple of months?

190. eyesdowndink - January 19, 2008

What’s happening on this board and in the ST universe is simply amazing — this is something that could only happen in this day and age, where the “power” goes to the periphery and producers/writers actively court the opinion of the fans. It’s a fantastic thing, and so far, everything they’ve done, to my opinion, has been simply brilliant. I think, given the talent involved, they can not fail.

At 46, you can probably imagine where my “true trek heart” lies — nonetheless, I’ll relegate everything I already know about Trek to an alternate universe, and let this new incarnation be the REAL Trek from this time forward. It’s the best of both worlds: Fond memories AND something new to look forward to!

191. guideX - January 19, 2008

It’s completely possible for the original Enterprise to be built on the ground. The Enterprise D was also partially built on the ground at Utopia Planetia on mars. I don’t know what these canon worshiping purists are complaining about. There’s no on screen evidence either way.

It would be a lot harder to built it in orbit, and at that point in Trek they didn’t have spacedock’s so it makes total sense to me.

192. Alex Trekek - January 19, 2008

I couldn’t feel better about Star Trek being in the hands of these guys.

Thanks, Mr. Orci

193. Mark Pizi - January 19, 2008

I think that the 60’s style ship and technology is not suitable for the big screen.
Remeber movie “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow ”
The technology in this movie looks great and retro.
But it would be wrong to do new Star Trek similar way.
I like the TOS but it is outdated.
I decedid to look on the new movie with optimistic eyes.
Imagine a special glasses. After you put them on and then you look on the TOS, it will look like the new movie version and vice versa. With that point of view nothing has ever changed.

194. Marian Ciobanu - January 19, 2008


195. DavidJ - January 19, 2008

Wow, the trailer looked AWESOME on the big screen. it just oozed atmosphere and mystery, which are two key things Star Trek has been missing for a long while.

I think the best thing about it though is that it suggests Abrams is making an actual MOVIE here. As good as his MI3 was, there was no denying that it was essentially a big budget episode of Alias. I don’t get that “TV feel” at all with this trailer. This thing looks MASSIVE.

As far as “getting audiences excited” goes, I honestly don’t think that’ll happen until they get a look at the new actors. Right now anyone who’s not a hardcore Trekkie or not following the news might just think it’s another TNG movie. But when they realize Abrams is actually recreating the original series here, the curiosity factor ought to shoot up MUCH higher.

196. m aspill - January 19, 2008

does anyone know of any plans or desires to make a sequal when this film achieves its potential ?

197. the king in shreds and tatters - January 19, 2008

I eat babies and crunch their tiny bones.

198. 1701_Cag - January 19, 2008

What about bringing our favorite TOS crew back in all their youthful glory by using the same technology seen in movies like Beowulf and Polar Express. Then it could only be a matter of casting similar voices instead of look a likes.

199. m aspill - January 19, 2008

198 no !!

200. Noleuser - January 19, 2008

Hey Roberto,

2 Questions:

1 I love Alias and Lost, do you think anyone in your camp would be interested in being a part of a new Star Trek series, Lost would undoubtedly be done by then?

2 Also, the teaser has a stye and look to it, is JJ keeping that look as opposed to Trek’s usually cut and dry visuals?

201. Jacques Chirac - January 19, 2008

To read this whole bunch of posts is too painful. I rest my case, beacuse just few realize that ST XI have huge canon breaking potential. Enterpise was far better show than this, with more respect to canon. Frankly, Enterprise and Deep Space Nine are the best from Star Trek.

Having that in mind, I want to see Deep Space Nine, or Enterprise (Romulan Wars) movie more than ST XI with Xenu and vulcan aliens.

202. Jacques Chirac - January 19, 2008

I forget to say in previuos post : Bring back Rick and Brannon! I never tought that I am gonna say that.

203. Dr. Image - January 19, 2008

Roberto- I ask again: (And with greatest respect for you and this project.)

Why did you guys decide to change the design of the Enterprise so radically from a design which had become such a well-known cultural icon? And, more importantly, from one which had been established in Trek history as looking a certain way- as it did in The Original Series.
Not to mention the fact that you’re using one of the original actors from that era to provide continuity.
What, then, about the ship?? It is not… illogical to change it?
As we have seen from Trek Remastered, the original design would have been awesome on the big screen,
And sorry, the excuse of having a “saucer and nacelles, therefore it’s the Enterprise” doesn’t make for a truly acceptable justification for the glaring changes.


204. Jacques Chirac - January 19, 2008

From TrekWeb (thanks to Gustavo):

I found this at TrekBBS, I dont know if Roddenberry words are canon :

“Our vessel was constructed in space and has never felt the solidity of the surface of a planet.” – Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek Writer & Director’s Guide (Bible) dated April 17, 1967.

205. continuum - January 19, 2008

Hi Mr Orci!!!! (I’m very polite) While we are on end credits, why are Spock’s parents (Ben Cross and Winona Ryder) listed, but Kirk’s parents (Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison) aren’t?

Roberto Orci: I guess they must have better agents.?

What does that mean????

206. asc1138 - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci,



I haven’t felt that electric jolt of raw emotion since 1991. You guys are going to nail this. I didn’t think the true spirit of Trek could ever be recaptured after the debacle known as Generations. You just can’t make Star Trek without at least having an appreciation for the originals. I think Generations was an attempt to sort of make us forget about Star Trek’s roots in favor of Berman’s sterilzed, castrated Trek. As a result, Trek became sort of schizo leading to its eventual death. Now its reborn and its just the way remember it. Maybe even better. Now, maybe we can finally have one whole Trek rather than the focus being only TNG, or only TOS.

A few questions –

1.) I’ve accepted the idea that Shat’s not going to be in the film, but is there any way you guys can write a part for him in the next movie (at this point its too early, but I’m already expecting a sequel)?

2.) Is there going to be an explanation as to why the look of the Enterprise is so much different than the original 60’s version? I know the changes are actually minor, but they make a big impact on the overall design.

3.) Is there a reason why Cpt. Robert April isn’t going to be in the movie? Will we see him take the enterprise out of dry dock?

Also wanted to mention that I appreciate the ST:Enterprise nod. While it took them until their 4th year to become relevant, Manny Coto and the crew did some important work that season, which I believe made great strides to get Paramount to change their focus back to TOS. The whole 4th season is pretty much a homage to TOS, and they deserve the same respect.

Can’t tell you how much your involvement and willingness to speak with us means to me. You guys are a class act and my new heros. Thank you again for this wonderful gift!

207. Robert Meyer Burnett - January 19, 2008


I try and refrain, but they keep pulling me back in…

My two cents on the trailer…epic, grand, beautiful…and I quite enjoyed it…because, ultimately, I don’t really care where the connie was built…as long as the hows and whys of it are somewhat addressed.

But I have some thoughts…

TREK works best telling allegorical stories through the experiences of our richly drawn characters in a Sci-Fi context. The series always took on the tough issues, racism, Vietnam, drug use, lust and desire, the perils of leadership, etc, when network standards and practices wouldn’t allow other, more “realistic” dramas near such subjects.

This resonated with audiences, which is why the franchise is still around.

Now, where a Starship happens to be build isn’t the point. How the characters and the universe interact and are treated is.

Ask yourselves, why did everyone hate the fact Greedo shot first in the 1997 special edition of STAR WARS? George Lucas has gone on record saying he never felt comfortable with the fact Han Solo was a murderer. By firing first, Greedo makes himself the aggressor, leaving Han no choice but to defend himself, so Han is no longer a cold-blooded killer.

However, every original audience member understood Greedo had ALREADY threatened Han’s life by sticking a gun in Han’s face and then TELLING him this would end over Han’s dead body. Han acted in self-defense.

Han’s actions, being able to slip his own blaster out of it’s holster unnoticed then firing upon Greedo, even while he had Greedo’s blaster suck in his face, makes Han a very competent and dangerous opponent. When called upon, Han can rock ‘n roll, surviving even when someone else gets the drop on him. This speaks to his character and immediately makes him a formidable badass. When Han eventually throws in with Luke and Ben, the audience knows they’ve just found an ally which may help them rescue the princess. That’s good storytelling and great character development. In the special edition, not so much.

If Greedo shoots first and misses, at point blank range, it just makes Greedo look incompetent and Han look very, very, lucky, diminishing both characters and the entire sequence.

Lucas’ decision to change the scene was not based on the characters or story, which by then had existed for 20 years, but by a misguided desire to send a message to children everywhere that Han Solo wasn’t a murderer. Lucas had become a father in the intervening years, and in that time somehow came up with the ridiculous notion Han was a murderer. But by changing the scene, Lucas actually diminished his own creation and did a disservice to children everywhere by illustrating that if a crazy alien, or street corner thug, sticks a blaster or gun in your face, let THEM pull the trigger first before you act.

Disgusting and not just a little bit dangerous.

Which brings me to Captain James Tiberious Kirk. We all know he came up against some pretty terrible stuff in his younger days; The famine on Tarsus IV and the horrible reaction to that situation perpetrated by Governor Kodos, as a Starfleet Cadet, he honestly reported on his friend Ben Finney while assigned to the starship Republic, resulting in Finneys demotion, and then, perhaps most importantly, while a young Lieutenant on the USS Farragut, Kirk saw captain Garrovick and 200 fellow shipmates killed by the dikironium cloud creature, which Kirk insisted upon blaming himself for, because he mistakenly believed he failed to act fast enough (Of course he, and we, found out this wasn’t true at all in the episode OBSESSION).

Quite simply, Kirk is a stand up guy and a born leader. Even as a thirteen year old boy, in the face of horror, Kirk survived and probably save a lot of lives in the process. Even his much celebrated love of the ladies is based on respect for them. In the entire history of Trek, Kirk’s never been with anyone other than exceptional women (heck, even the Dolman of Elyas, had her good points).

Which brings me to this new film. Granted, I haven’t read the script, but judging from the past work of the core creative team, from FELICITY through ALIAS through even TRANSFORMERS (all of which I enjoyed to various degrees, btw), there’s a definite pattern to the characterization of their main characters, all flawed, yet able to overcome those flaws before succeeding. In our grade-inflated coddled society, where EVERYONE is deeply flawed, current storytelling fashion doesn’t allow for total strength of character and true heroism to exist (unless you’re watching GLADIATOR…the character never changes…which ultimately lead to him bringing back the Roman Republic).

In film today, it seems as if EVERYONE has to be flawed in some way, so you can tell the story of a character overcoming those flaws to succeed. It’s good drama, after all…

I fear such characterization when it comes to Kirk. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, in the new film we see him rely on someone else’s help to reprogram the Kobayashi Maru scenario. We already know Kirk “cheated” according to his son, but “changed the conditions of the test” according to him. To the point of Starfleet giving him a commendation for original thinking. Giving HIM and no one else a commendation for original thinking.

I’m willing to bet the new film suggests he did, in fact, have help doing this, whether from a hot blonde or Spock himself, and the rest of the cadets do, as reported, think he “cheated.”

IMHO, this diminishes Kirk’s character. It doesn’t make him “flawed” or more sympathetic, it just makes him not as cool and certainly not as heroic.

I’m not interested in seeing this take on the character.

This is what I worry about for the upcoming film. I think we’ll see a misguided attempt to give our beloved characters more “flaws” to make them seem more human and more sympathetic to modern audiences.

Thing is…I maintain we’ve ALREADY seen that during the entire history of Trek. That’s why we’ve all watched for over forty years. That’s why the franchise continues to live and grow. The characters have already succeed time and time again even with their flaws. Do we have to see yet another take on that which we know so well?

In CASINO ROYALE, Bond never failed to act while earning his 00 status. Sure, may have felt that first killing, but he never hesitated to act. He was still Bond, even from the beginning.

I don’t want to see Kirk’s character diminished in any way to make him seem more “human.” I’m willing to bet, however, we’ll be seeing just that.

On the other hand, JJ, Orci and company have the potential here to inject much needed creative juice to the franchise, not seen since 1982.

My fingers are crossed.

Have a better day.

208. Oregon Trek Geek - January 19, 2008

198. 1701_Cag — I too have thought about that. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but in 20 or so years, it could be very possible to create a ST episode with an “original” CGI cast.

209. Sci-Fi Bri - January 19, 2008

I strongly approve of ‘the Supreme Court’

this is exactly the kind of look i like to see in trek… gritty and real…

btw, Cloverfield was awesome

210. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

#204: “I found this at TrekBBS, I dont know if Roddenberry words are canon :”

Well no, they’re not.

211. PaoloM - January 19, 2008

#198 “What about bringing our favorite TOS crew back in all their youthful glory by using the same technology seen in movies like Beowulf and Polar Express”

Please, don’t do that. All that plastic virtual dolls gave me and headache!

212. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

19. Trekee – January 19, 2008
…And if my iPhone could communicate with a starship travelling at warp half a solar system away without the use of a repeater inbetween, then I’d let it be a little bulkier and have a gold sieve on top too…]

LOL!!!! Iv’e been saying that for 10 years too! AWESOME that the logic is has been thought of and posted from another! Thanks Teekee!

213. D - January 19, 2008

First of all, I’m going to state my real opinion.
I like the trailer (even though it strikes me that with a simple change of audio it could be an old time communist workers propaganda film), and I’m looking forward to this movie.

Now, I’m going to delve back into my nerdish/fanboyish persona that I haven’t had for several years, so as the people that don’t understand the naysayers can get a feel for what’s going on in those twisted minds.

How dare you say there are fuzzy areas in canon…it’s all perfectly clear to someone who is willing to devote the time and energy to research it. How dare you invalidate the (insert number) of hours of my precious free time I have dedicated to working out a perfectly plausible future history book. You want the truth…you can’t handle the truth…I deride your truth handling abilities….

Okay, I’m back…wow, that was painful…I’m going to go play with my son for some therapy now.

Again, like the trailer, looking forward to the movie, keep up the good work.

214. Papa Jim - January 19, 2008

How can people not know this is Star Trek?

Who, on this planet, doesn’t know what “Space The Final Frontier” or the U.S.S Enterprise is from?

215. josh1701 - January 19, 2008

i would like to say to the creative team of the new STAR TREK:

When Enterprise was cancelled, i lost all hope. i had grew up in trek throught my life, starting in the 80’s with the original series and then Next Gen. and so forth. Trek was a fundamental item in my life. it was my church. it was my school, it was my freinds house where i sat with the charectors. i felt empty. in the days after 9/11 (i live in NYC) Star Trek is what held me together, and in ’05 with Trek off the air things really seemed bleak to me. i had lost something that was very dear to me.

With the news of a new team behind trek i was extremely leary. After the news of STAR TREK: THE BEGINNING being cancelled and then Berman leaving treks production i felt that things were not getting better for trek. Then came JJ…

I loved MI:3 and Lost. But i honestly thought that after all the drama in the Trek world that this would be a mistake.As i said before i had lost hope.

When i watched the comic con vid of you guys announcing Mr. Nimoy participating in your film, i cried…Trek was BACK! My Faith restored. At that point i accepted that JJ and all who are now apart of this new “Enterprise”, are a part of my life. and i guess we trekkers are now apart of your lives, in this family called Star Trek,

Thank you all for giving me my friends back, my church, and my school. Thank you for giving us trekkers hope that Star Trek in the 21st century is everlasting.

May the hard work and dedication to this project be rewarding in infinate ways.

216. asc1138 - January 19, 2008

202. – Oh God no, please! I’d rather there be no Trek at all rather than give it back to those 2 hacks. They can’t write themselves out of a paper bag.

217. SPB - January 19, 2008

#205 –

C’mon, it’s pretty simple… Winona Ryder and Ben Cross have been in the business for decades. However minor, there is some degree of name recognition there.

I’m pretty sure the general public at large has no idea who Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison are. Hence, Ryder and Cross end up in the main credits before them.

218. Will Johnson - January 19, 2008

I don’t like the whale engines that have been stuck on the Enterprise. I’m still waiting to see if this movie has anything that makes me wanna see it beyond Nimoy.

Right now, I’m pretty certain this movie will do massive at the box office, we’ll wind up seeing another 2 movies in this franchise made(at least) and the Trek that I grew up with and love will officially die forever.

Anyone else thing the new nacelles look like freaking whales with rotors in the front?

219. SPB - January 19, 2008


…and “glaring changes.”

Looks like the Enterprise to me.

220. Tony Whitehead - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci in his early comments said that he and the”Supreme Court” drew on the novels in coming up with Earth-based construction. In my mind, this is the first step in bringing in the novels into the canon fold. I will refer you to the book ‘Star Trek: A Flag Full of Stars’ by Brad Ferguson. I believe this is where they drew their inspiration.

On another note, way to go, #103!

221. Tony Whitehead - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci in his early comments said that he and the”Supreme Court” drew on the novels in coming up with Earth-based construction. In my mind, this is the first step in bringing in the novels into the canon fold. I will refer you to the book ‘Star Trek: A Flag Full of Stars’ by Brad Ferguson. I believe this is where they drew their inspiration.

On another note, way to go, #103!

222. Elrond L. - January 19, 2008

Thanks for the interview, Anthony — it’s a great “post-game” fix for those of us who were blown away yesterday. I’m glad to see more search traffic heading your way. I get a daily Google news alert for Star Trek, and it drives me crazy that most links are to other fan sites that report YOUR news. For what it’s worth, I recently touted your site to a Yahoo group and added links to my sites.

Oh, yeah, the teaser! #103 and Dennis /#129 said it well. Who could have ever imagined, after the dismal days of Nemesis and Enterprise, that 2008 would see the return of Trek in such glory. I’m so grateful I got to see that on a big screen yesterday . . . Between the JFK clips, Nimoy’s voiceover, and the reveal of the Enterprise in all her majesty . . . Oh. My. God. Saying I had chills doesn’t do it justice. :-) Wow, it’s real indeed. J.J., Roberto and the rest of the crew have restored my faith.

223. Jacques Chirac - January 19, 2008

Neverthelles, that is definite prof of Xenu…pardon..Abrams…ignorance toward Gene Roddenberry.

224. Will Johnson - January 19, 2008

Hey, I just thought of something that may save this for me. It’ll at least get me by until my hopes are no doubt crushed by the next set of photos/video of the Enterprise.

Maybe it’ll be like in that horrid Lost In space movie. The enterprise is wrapped in this ugly ass bloated whale skin exterior and once in space, BAM, it blows off and we get the Enterprise instead of the bastard shown in the teaser…

225. Jacques Chirac - January 19, 2008

Hmm, maybe. Well, Enterprise crew should go in quest for the Xenu, and they need tough ship, capable to enter into the atmosphere of Planet of the gods. :D

226. Levois - January 19, 2008

Great interview! It makes me more excited to want to catch this movie. I really hope it’s great.

227. Redjac - January 19, 2008

Gustavo and O. Deus…the only ones worth a damn over at Trekweb! LOL!!!

228. Jacques Chirac - January 19, 2008

And what about Yuri Gagarin, first man in the orbit?

Gagarin: “When I orbited the Earth in a spaceship, I saw how beautiful our planet is. Mankind, let us preserve and increase this beauty, and not destroy it!”

229. Peter N - January 19, 2008

I am very impressed by this new rendering of the Enterprise, and I am looking forward to this movie. I am a shameless fan of ST, always happy to have some Trek on the screen (big or little) rather than none at all, so I am keeping an open mind about the new film. I like the incorporation of TMP design elements into this “new” Enterprise; to friends who criticized ENT as not looking enough like it was taking place before TOS, I suggested that taking TMP as a point of departure for looking backward rather than TOS one could make an argument for ENT’s technology being more “primitive.” Perhaps that is part of the plan? That would certainly help to pull ENT more closely into the canon fold (although I am certain that there are fans who would not wish that to be the case).

At any rate, I can’t wait to see more shots of the NCC-1701. A beautiful ship, no matter if it is TOS (remastered or not) or ST I-III. But it was the transporter sound effects at the end of the teaser that really gave me the goosebumps….

230. SteveinSF - January 19, 2008

ok, so old Spock meets Picard again at some space bar or dance club, then he tells him of the whole Kirk death thing, Spock goes back to the guardian of forever, zips back to the time Kirk just about bites it on that bridge contraption Soren made, and saves him. I’ve seen/read worse things written.

Hey I’m a kindergarten teacher, my thinking can be simple. :)

231. DavidJ - January 19, 2008

207. Yikes, talk about jumping to conclusions. I don’t know how anyone can conclude from the team’s previous work that somehow Kirk is going to be “wimpified” in this movie.

I have no doubt they’ll give the characters a few more dimensions than we’ve seen in the past (especially with those who were barely explored in the first place), and may even come up with a few unexpected twists here and there. But I’m confident Kirk is still going to be a pretty heroic and inspiring guy in the end.

He kind of HAS to be if he’s going to be convincing as a starship captain. And if he has a couple weak moments, so what? I wouldn’t expect him to get EVERYTHING right from the very beginning.

232. Nina - January 19, 2008

Can I just say, since everyone here seems most concerned with the finer aspects of canon, that a modern re-thinking of Star Trek is VERY welcome in terms of its characterization of women. Yes, yes, Uhura, Rand, etc. were awesome and before their time, but they still left a lot to be desired.

If Star Trek 2008 can give us fully-realized, fully-flawed female characters — not just as objects of desire for the fanboys, or as concessions to political correctness — then I’m all for supporting something that is not a direct copy of the original.

233. Marian Ciobanu - January 19, 2008


234. asc1138 - January 19, 2008

224. – Those engines ROCK! I say this as a purist.

235. asylumjn - January 19, 2008

People keep using Star Trek III as an example that Kirk could be brought back too. The problem is that Star Trek III was a movie DEDICATED to bringing Spock back. I don’t want to watch an hour and a half of Kirk resurrection and 15 minutes of actual plot.

236. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

#128 Dennis Bailly
[…I paid to see “And Justice For All” in 1979 mainly to see the Orson Welles-narrated trailer for “Star Trek: The Motion Picture…my response to seeing close-up shots of the Jefferies/Jennings/Probert/Michaelson-designed Enterprise roll out of spacedock in that ad was akin to “Alexander Dane’s” in “Galaxy Quest:” ]

Nice! Great post!

237. SPB - January 19, 2008


Let’s say, for the sake of argument, we WERE to get the original, TV version of the Enterprise up on the big screen for TREK XI, outdated 1960’s design and all…

…You can’t tell me with a straight face that these same fans (or others like them) wouldn’t THEN be calling for: The exact same interior designs and layout; the exact same uniforms (velour and all); the exact same phasers, tricorders and communicators; the exact same, flat, over-lit television photography; the exact same paper-mache alien planet sets; the exact same musical cues and sound effects; the exact same outdated ’60s fashions (go-go boots, beehive hairdos, etc.); and, as we’ve already seen from at least one other poster on another thread, calls for the new actors to simply mimic the mannerisms of Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, et al.

How hard is it to grasp that the original TV Enterprise, no matter how iconic, just won’t work on today’s movie screens? Most fans here understand that. Remember, you’re talking about a design that was significantly dictated by 1960’s television deadlines and budgets (and if I remember Shatner’s “Star Trek Memories” correctly, TREK’s budget at the time was even LESS than the typical television drama!).

Or think of it this way… if Roddenberry had made a FILM instead in 1966, with the time and budget allotted to say, Stanley Kubrick and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, then perhaps his team may have come up with something as radically “different” as the 1979 TMP version or the 2008 XI version.

Slavishly recreating the past for a big-budget TREK film in 2008 would be asking for trouble. Maybe it works for THE NEW VOYAGES on the internet… it would look as silly and out-dated as 1967’s CASINO ROYALE if you tried putting that up on the big screen today. A small minority of TREK fans would drool all over it; most others would simply have one good chuckle and shrug; and everybody else would laugh it right out of the theater.

238. trektacular - January 19, 2008

I like the new teaser, it was awe inspiring, something I don’t think I’ve ever really felt with Trek old or new to tell you the truth.

239. Classic trek - January 19, 2008

its amazing that mr orci comes on here and interacts with the fans the way he does. im reassured when he says ‘its both wonderful and terifying’ at the same time. as a big fan that how i feel. id be concerned if he didnt feel that way.

looks like star trek is in good hands. it needs to be, these original characters are gold dust.


240. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

136. dalek – January 19, 2008
]#135 what cawley cameo? They haven’t even finished filming yet so how do you know what they have decided to use before they’ve edited a cut? lol ]

You have to admit, an Elvis appearance in this movie, even for a moment would be distracting a bit of a streach for the non-Trekkies watching.
Hee, hee, hee!

Sorry Caws’ I do love your New Voyages though. ; )

241. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 19, 2008


“161. Gene L. Coon (was the Better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine.

That nick means what?

… Oh, it’s something I should have known about because that’s how you intended it? Stop boring people with what you wrote as if we should know what you mean, I am not a frickin’ mind reader.

Like talking to windmills.”

No, you are not a mind reader. Nor are you much of a reader. Had you been, you would have read enough in your experience to know that a) Roddenberry wasn’t a Marine b) Coon was, c) what “fascist’ means d) that everyone in the military is not “the Other” (little fascist humor there) The “nick” is neither directed towards you, nor anyone in particular. You are a bit sensitive, no? I am wounded that you find my prose style “boring”. I thought it was wryly humorous, with a touch of whimsy. Hmmm. Perhaps it is the strike. What must you think of Trek’s naval overtones? All that chain of command, duty, honor, (Country) Federation, stuff. Must drive you to distraction.

242. SPB - January 19, 2008


…the 1960’s Batmobile from TV’s “Batman” is just as iconic as the TV Enterprise…

…but there’s no way in hell THAT’S showing up in THE DARK KNIGHT.

243. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#207–In the new film, we get to see how these characters we love evolved into the people we knew in TOS. As with all people, events that happen to them and decisions they make affect how they evolve with age. Even if your worries come to fruition, why would it be so unimaginable to you that Jim Kirk had to make mistakes or overcome flaws before becoming the benevolent hero later in life? My guess is, the directing and acting will be good enough to make the audience see in Chris Pine’s character what we saw before in Bill Shatner’s. Perhaps, at worst, it will be less polished, but there nonetheless.

244. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

47. Adam Grima (from Sydney) – January 19, 2008
Question for Roberto Oci:

You mentioned that seeing your work with Star Trek on the big screen is, “both wonderful and terrifying…there is no going back now.”

Have you ver ha ay doubts that your work quld no tbe well received, given the clear abundance of talent within the team. Or does that merely contribute to your trepidation (if any)?

Answer: We’ve never had doubts about what we LOVE about Star Trek. That doesn’t mean audiences will love the same thing. So yes, it is frightening, but when you’re walking a tightrope, you just have to look straight ahead to where you’re going and not look down. And of course, there is a nice safety in numbers teaming with Alex and I teaming with the amazing Damon Lindelof, Burk, and Abrams

245. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

49. Son of V’ger – January 19, 2008
Without William Shatner as James T. Kirk there is NO human adventure to continue, only JJ Abrams farce! Spock reciting Kirk’s “Space, the final frontier..” was a slap at Shatner, and to us!

SPOCK already said the famous line in Star Trek 2. I don’t think it was intended as a slap then and we certainly don’t mean it that way now.

246. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

52 Noted.

247. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008



248. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

76. cugel the clever – January 19, 2008
Mr Orci –

Can comment on the reason for showing welders doing manual work in the trailer? I think it was a great image, but the “reality” of 23rd century construction is that welding and fitting would probably be done by robotic devices in order to achieve the necessary speed and precision.

Answer: We wanted the construction of the Enterprise to feel visceral and grounded and evoke the wonder and hands on humanism of the early space program. And I don’t think having some welders precludes the notion of robotic assistance and automated precision as well.

249. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

84. Adam Cohen – January 19, 2008
Hi Mr. Orci,

Question- why didn’t you record Chris Pine saying “Space, the final frontier”?

Answer: He hasn’t had a chance to earn his place yet in fans eyes.. It would be presumptuous, in our opinion.

250. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

87. dalek – January 19, 2008
Two questions Mr Orci, hope you are well:

1) When are you planning to release a trailer with actual actor footage from the film?
2) After JJ’s interview yesterday is the Shatner thing closed and ended now, or still open?

Answer to both: I don’t honestly know. Much still up in the air.

251. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

207. Robert Meyer Burnett

Great Post!!!!

A MUST READ BY ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

252. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


253. Lostrod - January 19, 2008

#76 Mr. Orci

I agree that using human welders rather than robots was a nice touch and does not preclude dozens of little robot welders (that we don’t see) as well.

This is similar to the questions I had while watching ST VI – why were human cooks and pots boiling in the gallery rather than something more ‘automated? It just looked interesting.


254. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


I think we should be hearing some familiar sounds. A mix of old and new.

255. trekgeezer - January 19, 2008

Hey 140 (Plum) Gene Roddenberry was an aviator in the Army Air Corps, he was not a Marine.

256. Chris Roberts - January 19, 2008

Hi, Mr. Orci. The trailer echoes real exploration history (soundbytes from JFK, John Glenn and Neil Armstrong…) something you mention Star Trek Enterprise did. Can fans of Enterprise look forward to any nod to their series on screen in the film? Something as simple as an NX ship as set decoration or elaborate like a cameo. I know it doesn’t necessarily advance the kind of story you’re crafting, which is Original Series influenced, but handing over the baton is very much a tradition. An elderly McCoy sending TNG off, Picard on DS9, Cochrane’s video message to ENT etc. Somebody like an old Archer or T’Pol would be a nice link to the previous era.

257. m aspill - January 19, 2008

more movies to follow ?

258. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

122. Call Me Trekker – January 19, 2008
Assuming the goal of the trailer was to whet my appetite, it accomplished that 1000% percent. Thank you – I’m hooked!

Question for Mr. Orci: I’m a big Star Trek fan and really looking forward to the film. So part of me wants to read all the reports about the film in production (which I’ve never done before with any other film) – but I’m also worried that I’ll discover some piece of information that will spoil a major surprise.

So, what’s your advice? Be an engaged fan – or actively avoid spoilers.

Answer: Yikes. That’s a tough one. The more you know about a magic trick the less it works on you. However, you may trade that for a deeper appreciation of slight of hand. I for one try to avoid spoilers for anything I care about and try to take in only what the folks behind something release purposely with the hope that they are smartly guiding me to maximum enjoyment. On the other hand, it’s almost impossible to avoid learning thing you may not want to know. It may just be a NO WIN SCENARIO.

259. trekgeezer - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci – You have a lot of patience and very huge nads to wade through some of the crap put forward here.

I’m 52 and been with Star Trek since day one and have yet to visit a Star Trek discussion group anywhere that I could tolerate for more than about 10 minutes.

I for one will be withholding judgment of your movie until it I actually get to see it.

260. Elrond L - January 19, 2008

A ST teaser question for Roberto Orci: Besides the Alexander Courage fanfare, was the other music done by Michael Giacchino? While brief, it really added to the goosebump factor.

We stuck around through the end credits of Cloverfield (which was great), and loved his “Roar!” music at the end. Star Trek’s score is in great hands.

261. Edward - January 19, 2008


I thought I’d respond here since I don’t have much time (working on a project) and I wasn’t sure if you were watching the other thread anymore. In response to this:



I am sorry if I sounded angry, I actually was not. I was quite calm ;) I really wish you the best with this project. For the record, I thought you guys really did pull it off with Transformers and that was before it became a smash hit (I was one of the first people to see it hint hint).

I just want you guys to really have success with this one as well and the problem is I am seeing twice the hate as before and want to make sure you guys get a bead on it and squash it (nicely) before it hurts the project itself in the ol’ pocket.

I know you don’t want to come across as money grubbers but the reality is that people need to wake up and realize (not you of course, the fans I mean) that just like everything else, its about the dollars and cents and if they want this franchise to continue they need to support it and not trash it at every turn.

Your explanation for the Enterprise (which may or may not hover ;) ) is GREAT …it shows that the creative juices are flowing which is great indeed.

Especifically, I really hope you guys can get a hold of the Shatner thing because in Transformers you were able to fit in Mr. Cullen which was the KIRK of that franchise. The problem is that in this franchise you didn’t get him, you got the second most character. Again, I am not going into it about the death or whatever of a SCI-FI character, but you guys could’ve come up with something if you really wanted too, but you did not. So, now the PR is going to have to turn up a notch. That’s what I’m trying to say because it seems you guys are fighting the fans more than trying to put the fire out and that may or may not be the best way. If you guys have something up your sleeve (which would be nothing new for Hollywood) and are indeed going to include him, then thats great as that in and of itself will provide the PR buzz to raise this project to a magnitude above most. But if not, then please try and do better PR on this subject especially since Mr. Shatner is on a tour and constantly reminding people (him or the reporters) for better or what I am seeing…worse.

Again, the teaser was O.K. …I really think you guys could’ve been a little more imaginative, but it was O.K. …In my personal opinion the next one should be something completely fresh and different from anything that might be like any of your other past projects. I know the last formula worked but like I said…its just one mans opinion…take it or leave it as they say :). I tend to be a perfectionist.

Once again, break a leg my friend! I wish you the best of success in this project, and future ones. I truly hope that one day we can work on a project together, as from your works and what I have seen from the ‘outside’, it would be fanatstic to work with you. Take care.


262. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

131. Katie G. – January 19, 2008
Re: #21. roberto Orci

“…You might be right about the buzz thing, but then I’ve never fully assimilated the lesson of Snakes on a Plane…”

Hello, sir. Just logged on and saw the above comment. I’m not familiar with that movie. Never saw it (for obvious reasons (shiverrrrrrrrr). What happened with that movive that you are calling a lesson you never assimilated? Something to do with “buzz”, I take it.

I WAS JUST REFERRING TO THE CURIOSITY THAT BUZZ DID NOT TRANSLATE TO SUCCESS — but as someone earlier smartly pointed out, the lesson may be that buzz must be followed be good execution (which is neither a confirmation nor a denial that I like or hated SNAKES ON A PLANE).

263. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

253. Lostrod
[I agree that using human welders rather than robots was a nice touch and does not preclude dozens of little robot welders (that we don’t see) as well.]

I was just going to type that too, Lostrod.

An artisan will always have to oversee what a robotic device has made (especially on the Enterprise) and sometimes it is more efficient to add a human touch on the final work.

264. DavidJ - January 19, 2008

LOL, somehow I don’t think seeing a bunch of automated robotic arms welding the ship together would have been NEARLY as compelling or evocative. :D

Besides, this isn’t a car on a production line being put together. It’s a gigantic, first-of-it’s-kind STARSHIP. I imagine even in the future there would be an army of engineers and workers hovering over this thing to make sure everything was perfectly fitted together.

265. trektacular - January 19, 2008

All this nitpicking about every detail will just make this movie boring, and we’ve already had enough boring Trek.

266. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

Question for Roberto:

* When the official Paramount movie site goes online, will you be actively participating in the new forums there, or remaining active on Or posting on both sites? I’m curious which site is going to get more attention from the production team, namely you.

Not the fairest question to ask, since we fans prefer to see you posting here.

* WIll you be posting any information about your new project “Fringe” to this site?

We will be posting on the official site, but we’ll never stop posting here either. Although some have criticized this site for being a mouth piece for production, it’s truly an independent fan site and we value that.

As for Fringe, we won’t be taking up time on this site to promote either Fringe (next Fall on FOX, or Eagle Eye (coming to theaters this summer!).


267. Juli - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci, from what I’ve seen and heard so far, this is going to be and amazing movie. Thank you, and everyone else working so hard to make this movie, for doing everything to tie my dad’s idea of Star Trek (he’s 51) to mine (I’m 15.) I’m sure this will be amazing and don’t let the nitpicking done here get you down, you know that they’ll end up seeing the movie anyway because it’s trek and that’s what’s important ;-)

268. Kenny S - January 19, 2008

127. Flying Tigress, and others…

Science has always been in the background of Star Trek, and as far as I know they did have scientists as advisers for the scripts of series and movies.

The story is of outmost importance, but you forget that the audience, and especially the audience of star trek has grown far more sophisticated and knowlegable of what can be done or not than it was 40 or even 10 years ago. This is not star wars, a fantasy story line… this whole concept of this new film is about how the things that star trek has shown can become indeed reality. Many have already become reality, for example the communicator– cell phone.

As an animator, I know very well what can be fiction or not.. but the best FICTION or SCIENCE FICTION must be believable. Even if something goes beyond what science says as currently possible, there must be a good reason for this, and some sort of explaination.

If course this is their product, and I am just a star trek fan, but I must point out that NASA engineers, have been working for DECADES on plans for possible starships, and I have seen them.
One is called ORION and the other one DEDALUS, but there are more… all these STARSHIPS, (spaceships capable of traveling to stars theoretically) are so huge that you have to assemble them in space.

remember Star Trek is more than a story… it is the vision of the future… and this is what the director tells us that the film is all about.

269. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

148. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius – January 19, 2008

1. Has the strike kept you guys off the set? If so, how are you appraised of how it’s going and do you get to see dailies? I’m wondering if there are any scenes that J.J. may want to tweak or even fully reshoot if the strike is resolved and you guys can write again.

2. Did you like “Cloverfield” ?

3. Don’t take it personally, but I’m one of the rare persons who doesn’t sweat the canon details because I don’t think you – or anone else, really – can reboot the original characters on film. Regardless, if the film is a financial success, you will surely be in the position to move forward with a second one. Where would you want to go with the characters and story you’ve re-established?

(and please don’t say ‘back in time’ or ‘time-travel’ or anything like that again, please).

1.) Thanks to the heavens aligning such that we are also producers on this movie, we can visit the set and execute the duties of an Executive producer. We can’t write or change lines.

2.) Yes. I thought Cloverfield delivered.

3.) Much too early to assume the success of this movie. Our focus is just to make ONE good movie, and then, Q willing, we can start to think about another one.

270. Robert Saint John - January 19, 2008

I’m so glad there wasn’t an internet (well, this internet) back in 1976. If there had been, I doubt the nitpickers would ever have allowed a “Phase 2″ let alone a TMP.

You crazy kids these days just don’t know how good you’ve had it. ;)

271. GraniteTrek - January 19, 2008

Mr Orci,

Question for you: now that the movie is in production, what part do you and the other writers play in the production process? I know there’s a strike on that probably limits what you can do (I believe JJ mentioned that you can’t do rewrites on the fly due to the strike). What about if there wasn’t a strike? And do you think some scenes might get rewritten and reshot if the strike ends before production does? Thanks.

272. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

157. NZorak – January 19, 2008
I wonder who Orci is among the regular posters here. Many creative types like to sneak into online fan base discussions, sometimes rallying those who are opposed to them just for a good laugh, and to see if any truly valid points rise to the surface.

I never do that. I am always myself. Getting caught would hurt my credibility.

273. Steve in Austin - January 19, 2008

I just really hope there’s a lot of spandex in this movie. ;)

274. Dr. Image - January 19, 2008

#219 SPB-
Yes, glaring changes. Are you blind, or delusional? “Looks like the Enterprise to me.” Hmmm… which alternate-universe Enterprise would that be?

Everyone I know who has seen the “new” old Enterprise has the same question and it is certainly not an unreasonable one.
And we all know that the original design could have been sufficiently detailed to work “on the big screen” just fine.
In fact, it would have been glorious.

Mr. Orci, my question in question is at #203.

275. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - January 19, 2008


Since this is the first time JJ has directed your work, what do you feel his strengths are and how he has responded to the material? What does he bring to the table in regard to ST, having seen him in the trenches with it?

276. BigMac - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Please keep us wanting more. I have not been this excited for an ST movie, in well… ever. Aside from the fan boys who have had a little too much caffeine, we are all excited, and hope that you are able to jump start this franchise. One little request, don’t change anything based on the few on these boards!

277. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

205 Just a joke. In contracts, sometimes credit placement is negotiated ahead of time by an actors representatives.

278. The Vulcanista - January 19, 2008

Mr. O, got a Transformers question for you. Trying not to be spoiler-y:

I probably missed something amongst all the action, but why did Sam make the choice he made regarding the use of the Allspark at the end of the movie? How did he know he’d get the results he got?

Hope that’s not *too* stupid.

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

279. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

#77. Mary Jane
[As for bringing Kirk back: it’s definitely possible, but it would be hard to explain in the context of a film….]

#81. AJ
[…And instead of rescuing that ship and being blown into the nexus, he and Spock are in a Starbucks on Vulcan drinking cappucino and playing 3D chess. Done.]

#87. dalek
[I’d like to have Kirk in the movie too but he’s dead. I don’t want them to spend ten minutes of the new movie explaining how come he’s not dead anymore.]

#153. Dan
[…As for the whole Shatner question, it is pretty simple. If Shatner is not in the movie they are going to say “No, Shatner is not in the movie”. If Shatner were to be in the movie, that would be a MAJOR plot line that they would never divulge and they are going to say the same thing.]

#156. Closettrekker
[…Over 150 posts, and this thread has not yet deteriorated into Shat/no-Shat. Wow!!!]

#186. Lt. Iowagirl
[This isn’t a Shatner thread; we’ve just had two.]

#206. asc1138
[…I’ve accepted the idea that Shat’s not going to be in the film, but is there any way you guys can write a part for him in the next movie?]

#49. Son of V’ger
[Without William Shatner as James T. Kirk there is NO human adventure to continue, only JJ Abrams farce! Spock reciting Kirk’s “Space, the final frontier..” was a slap at Shatner, and to us!]

For those who would find it hard to include Kirk in this pic, REMEMBER, anything is possible. As was my STAR Trek snynopsis located 18 articles back. Sorry, I cannot hotlink to my previous post – I’ve been warned not to (for some reason ; ) .

Plus I think it may be Shatner’s fair turn this time. Nimoy had to wait all the way through ST III to finally appear. I don’t think he had a line in that movie either (not counting the ones that came from McCoy.) Plus Shatner can do a cameo. That ‘no cameoe for me’ comment was surely a deception. Shatner has also performed in countless priceline commercials, not to mention his cameo as Kirkin the recent ‘Direct TV’ commerical.

I’ve posted here before, that I really liked the simplicity of TOS designs. I always thought that tomorrow’s technology will be interfaced directly to the brain or, more likely, through tiny optical viewing devices imprinted on the human eye.

That’s why the Tricorder, or communicator do not need large viewing screens. The characters easily saw what they needed via a bluetooh type devices that they were previously ‘equiped’ with. Is that TOO futurisytic for all of us to understand or accept?

Keep in mind that the use of implantable BIOCHIPs is a decision that we all will be making soon. I see it as a similar eveolution of technology as to what happened with the Communicator predating the Cell phones we all use today.


My question to you Mr. Orci would be

280. Ktrek - January 19, 2008

I think that Orci is full of it. Building a ship the size of the Enterprise on Earth is logistically impossible. It would be like us building the Space Station here and then trying to get it into space. Small components of the ship could be built here undoubdtedly and then assembled in space, but for the major construction to happen here? It’s laughable to say the least! And even if the Enterprise was to be built on Earth San Francisco is the least likely of all places. It’s too overcrowded. You would need a more remote and desert like location to launch from. And how do they know that engaging warp drives within an atmosphere would not create unexpected problems? So, thrusters would have to be used and the amount of energy required to get a vessel the size of the Enterprise into space without any problems would be a logistical nightmare. Did Orci or anyone actually consult real space engineers or physicists before making such an absurd decision? And to say that the nacelles could only be balanced in a gravity well is just trying to cover their creative license. The more Orci actually talks about the movie the more worried I am becoming.

281. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

203 — Can’t comment too much because it involves a story point to a degree, but I can say that one of our guiding principles in our approach to many things in this movie is to make them feel REAL as can be. Willing to discuss this more as we get closer.

282. Mr Phil - January 19, 2008

Presumably the shoot is coming to an end in a few weeks…?

My question to Mr Orci is…will you be wearing a ST uniform to the wrap party?

And who is doing the DI? Bring it to the UK!

283. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

As always ignore my typos. Sorry all. I never took a typing course and pasting to a spell check seems to take too long} AND that last line too. ; )

284. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

Oh yeah, I wanted to say that Uhura’s ear piece was Bluetooth device LONG, LONG before that tech was ever thought of by the general public(how inspiring) and probably was so large as to include a universal translator capable of translating languages of most species in the Federation.

285. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


All signs point to “yes.”

286. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 19, 2008


287. Ty Webb - January 19, 2008

I’m so looking forward to this. I hope it reboots the franchise and creates many new fans.

288. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


Dear Trekgeezer

remember that 50’s are the new 40’s! But seriously, my uncle (55) is the man who introduced me to Star Trek and I will spend the rest of my life in deep therapy if I fail him. So thanks for the open mind.

289. Kelly St.Clair - January 19, 2008

Question for Mr. Orci:

Do you know if there was any particular reason that the art team went with the Microgramma/Eurostile font for the ship’s registry, rather than USAF/Amarillo?

290. refuge5 - January 19, 2008

as a life long fan – the trailer gave me chills and I totally loved it… I love that in the interview Mr. Orci mentioned a nod to ST: Enterprise – I actually thought that it felt sort of ENT to me before the money shot anyway. I pumped my fist as the logo came up and my friend that was sitting with me actually asked me what the trailer was about… It was so cool to just “Star Trek”

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christams… CANNOT WAIT!!!!!

291. asc1138 - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Did you get a chance to look at my questions? I am post #206. Sorry, I know you have a ridiculous amount of questions to answer. If you don’t have time then I understand.

Thanks again for your involvement with us!!!!!

292. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008



Fair enough and thanks for clarification. Cullen/Shatner comparison is valid. will take under advisement.

293. AJ - January 19, 2008

Roberto: Thanks for taking the time to be here with us crazies. Y’all knew what you were taking on in terms of a fanbase when you began. Please KICK ASS (trekwise).

294. Blake powers - January 19, 2008

ok, its cool that you are building the enterprise on the ground. But please oh please tell me that you will at least address how the enterprise gets from San francisco to outer space. Apart from the
space elevator
or some ridiculously huge rockets I don’t know how it would be done

295. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

Thank you Mr. Orci for the intelligent and cretive teaser.

And please do not worry so much about the what the ‘fans will think’ or about your decisions in making this new movie. Trust me, self doubt REALLY sucks and always gets in the way of a creative moment.

Take the time to REALLY enjoy the ride!!!

296. Think About It - January 19, 2008

#281 – Fully DISAGREE. To think that 200 years ago, the concept of building an aircraft carrier would have been near next to inconceivable based on then technology/design.

Now, 200 years from now (in the 23rd century), I would expect us to have the technology/design abilities to build the starship Enterprise, such as Mr. Orci is suggesting.

297. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!!!!!!!!!!! - January 19, 2008

I LOVE it! I like the “engineering thinking” that went into the explanation of the gravity field, and calibration of the warp field. Then again, I’m an engineer :-)

Can’t wait for the movie! I’m 43, was a HUGE fan as a kid, and am really excited to see this new version. Bring it on!

298. jonboc - January 19, 2008

Just saw Cloverfield and teh trailer.Man it is SOO much better on the big screen. It really captured the audience,that’s for sure. By the time the transporter/planet sound hit the theater was dead silent…and the sound effect was suitably eerie. Afterwords a ripple of low conversation could be heard throughout the theater but I couldn’t hear any specifics, pro or con.

The movie was a lot of fun, but shakycam did the film a dis-service. For that device to work the actors need to seem very real, but they played it like a scripted film. I think it would have really shined had it been more traditional in it’s storytelling. I know what they were trying to do, just didn’t buy into it at that level. But still, damn entertaining film.

299. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

276. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius – January 19, 2008

Since this is the first time JJ has directed your work, what do you feel his strengths are and how he has responded to the material? What does he bring to the table in regard to ST, having seen him in the trenches with it?

Answer: Actually, he directed some of our stuff on Alias, and we co-wrote Mission Impossible 3 with him, so it’s not the first time. We know him and his style well and endeavored to write a script and develop a story (with Damon Lindelof’s amazing brain as well) that would lure JJ into directing this movie. He brings so much. He pushes everything to be better, he comes up with amazing details and character moments , and above all he wants you to BELIEVE IT IN YOUR BONES. Many of his production decisions have come from trying to find a way to make this AS REAL AS POSSIBLE. And since he and Damon are both unbelievable writers, there is no bit of lazyness or screenwriting trick we can sneak past them.

300. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


Optimus told him to merge the allspark with his own spark even though it meant Optimus dying. Sam figured if it can kill Prime, in can kill Megatron. Snap decision in which he DID NOT listen to Prime to save Prime (which I know some people hated because Prime is the hero).

301. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

Wait, I have a question for you Mr. Orci.

Will you be seeing the opening (If it IS on the 25th – Christmas day) or wil you be spending time with family?

That’s still a hard decision for me – The Worlds Greatest Trekkie.
But I’ll probably see twice the moning of. If I can find an open theatre.

302. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


Wish I could answer more specifically but it would get into spoiler territory. * ball says, “AS AGAIN LATER!”

303. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


Wish I could answer more specifically but it would get into spoiler territory. 8 ball says, “ASK AGAIN LATER!”

304. sean - January 19, 2008


Rodenberry FREQUENTLY changed his mind and said many contradictory things about canon (including not being able to make up his mind exactly where the ship was built), which is why things he said aren’t canon. Canon is on screen, period.

For everyone complaining about welders being present, the Enterprise can’t be built on Earth, yadda yadda – look, film is a visual medium. The visual they created with the trailer is a very moving one, regardless of it’s plausibility. The fact is, what works best visually is what they should go with, regardless of whether it’s scientifically possible or not. This has been true with Star Trek from its’ inception as a tv show to its reincarnation as a film series.

Many, many things on the show weren’t built in a certain way because it was the most practical or because they would most accurately reflected current scientific theory. They placed things based on whether it looked good, which didn’t always equate to how something would actually work or look.

If you want textbook acccuracy…well, read a textbook. Cinema is a visual art, and aesthetics need to win over science.

305. blake powers - January 19, 2008

P.S. If you can make a good story out of Transformers!!!! I think you have true writing talent. Star Trek should be “easy” for you…
To trump your writing challenges with Transformer I think you should make an action adventure that involves the My Little Ponies brand. Have them face off against the care bears or something. Think of the special effects coming off their bellies. Classic!!!

306. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

Captain April had his moment in the ‘cartoon sun’ in the animated “The Counter-Clock Incident” But that is really NOT a show stopper.

307. Captain Scokirk - January 19, 2008

Enough with the Russians, Europeans, etc. conquered space too… I mean WE WON, we got to the moon first, because Kennedy set the goal, and American Government/Commerce made it happen. Nobody bends over backwards to acknoledge second place ! This is not say that other nations have had no significant contribution, but the heroic epoch defining acomplishment was made by the Americans getting to the moon. And we did in plain view of the world- our failures were not revealed years later. Unfortunately we stopped…but that we stepped back our comittment is a discussion for a later time.

Besides Star Trek already threw a bone to the Russians by having Chekov on the show, so there is your token “yes, yes the whole world contributed to space travel too.”

Also adding a clip of Yuri Gagarin speaking RUSSIAN would confuse people, maybe on the Russian dub they can put him in place of “God Speed John Glenn.” Ooh or howabout “The Wurrrld trembeleddd aat the sound of ourrrr RRRRockets, now they wil tremble again…..”

Enterprise gave plenty of credit every week in the opening credits to all as Q may have put it “the little people”

308. The Vulcanista - January 19, 2008

#301: Thanks! I somehow completely missed that bit of instruction from OP.

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

309. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 19, 2008

Off subject.. guys I just spent the last 15 min staring at the new E and I, Lord Garth, have a couple of observations that seem not to have been mentioned
1. If you look at the bottom of the pic the registry NCC 1701 seems to be right at the edge of the saucer. At first I thought this may just be perspective but if you look at it the saucer diameter seems quite small in comparison with the bridge dome. It length of the saucer from the edge of the bridge dome to the rim is shorter than the movie E (assuming they are both roughly 300 meters)
2. Much is made saying that the new E appears to be much larger than the original but if you look to the very left of the bridge you see a workman. His size compared with the ship does not appear to be
too far out of line with the 300 (and change) meter Movie E
3. The officers lounge dome beneth the bridge dome is only half as tall as the original but perhaps wider
4. Bridge dome is definately bigger than movie E bridge

Opinions, not criticizing but wondering if the scrutinizing eye is seeing the same things I am ????????

310. Craig - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci, do you feel anything post Nemesis is done? I read alot of posts on other forums saying they should have gone forward not backward because Enterprise failed. I am not saying that, I am looking forward to the new movie. I can’t wait to see more of the 1701.

311. Craig - January 19, 2008

I forgot to add I wasn’t a fan of Enterprise since it never showed the Romulan War.

312. AJ - January 19, 2008

Let’s see her move and shoot something!

313. David (Flaming Wings Forever!) - January 19, 2008

281 – stop being a whiner. even if your comments could change how and where the E was ‘assembled’ it’s unlikey that due to the writers strike that they would change it just for you and the half dozen other strong complainers.

293 – Robert

Thanks for enaging with us, this has been a blast. Saw the teaser last night on the big screen, and finally – got the thrill-chills reminiscent of the Wrath of Khan trailor. Saw the movie at 4:20- younger, hipper audience. The conversation after the trailor could be heard leading into the movie. I’d say it was 50/50, but what was neat was the number of ST fans who were there.

One other thank you – for all the security. While I loved watching the bootleg vid on YouTube – nothing compares to seeing the teaser on the big screen. Keep us in the dark!


314. The Vulcanista - January 19, 2008

My Four Little Ponies of the Apocolypse v. The Terrortubbies?

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

315. The Vulcanista - January 19, 2008

Ooops. #315 was for 306, BTW.

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

316. Kelly St.Clair - January 19, 2008

There IS some Russian in the teaser. Listen carefully.

317. Chris Roberts - January 19, 2008

286: A heart felt thanks to you, Alex & J.J. for taking up the torch and keeping Star Trek alive. Do us all proud.

Check out the tribute video I edited to celebrate the 40th Anniversary, when you can.

It seem downbeat but the franchise’s future seemed less certain back in 2006. Happy to say, that’s all about to change!

318. cyberghost - January 19, 2008

Firstly, thanks to Mr. Orci for participating in this forum, it just shows his true interest in what the fans think.

Secondly, no matter what is said our leaked about the movie, I will be at the theatre opening day, just like all the past trek movies.

On another note, and I am not sure there is an answer for this, but the problem I have with a Time Travel based storyline is,
If the end result is not accomplished by whomever, what prevents that person/person from trying it all again?

I guess if the one time travel event in ST TOS “The City on the Edge of Forever” The Guardian of Forever could be destroyed, (if possible) or in another ST TOS episode “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” as the enterprise is being catapulted around the sun and the clock starts clicking backward….. and I believe Kirks says “we might just try that again sometime”, that could be done again by whomever.

We could get Shatner back in the movie and endless other possibilities…but does anyone get my drift?

I do consider myself a trekkie/ sci fi fan big time, but if this is what the true story is based on, then where do you go, a cycle, around and around…

BTW- the first time I remember seeing ST-TOS was probably in 1968, and I am now 46 years old and haven’t stopped watching most the ST TOS episodes ever since, TV, VHS, DVD and now HD DVD…and most of you posting could probably name the couple of episodes I just cant stand.

319. Trekee - January 19, 2008

@310 – Lord Garth

My humble opinions…

1 – at first glance it looks like perspective, but it does seem on closer examination that the lettering isn’t as far back as it was.
2 – is he standing on a box?
3 – there seems to be an extra “shelf” but I don’t have reference material to compare just now. I think it’s the same relative size.
4 – I don’t think so, but if I remember, the bridge was never the correct size and was ‘sunk’ inside the ship in the technical manuals. Same problem the SW Falcon had, the insides never actually fitted the externals…. I think this fits the same pattern.

Where *IS* that old copy of Mr Scott’s guide to the Enterprise when you need it????

It’s dreadful, but I love all this stuff!! :)

320. SPB - January 19, 2008

#275 – Dr. Image –

“Are you blind, or delusional?”

Nah. Just rational and reasonable. But thanks for asking.

I see a saucer section, some warp nacelles and writing that spells out “Enterprise.” I’m assuming you’re fixating on silver hull plating, (slightly) oversized nacelles and a different type font. And if you can’t look past stuff like THAT, then I fear it’s going to be one, long, hard slog of a year for you as a fan.

Are these “glaring changes” REALLY going to hamper your enjoyment of the film, or prove to be storytelling obstacles for the writers to overcome?

321. DavidJ - January 19, 2008

286 (Orci)

Oh well, I guess I could live with a small nod to ENT. Actually I never had that much of a problem with there being a previous Enterprise (although obviously I would prefer that there wasn’t). It was mainly just the execution of the show that I had a problem with.

And it’s not like you guys were responsible for that.

322. Kevin Glover - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci.

I know theres hundreds of questions on here already, but mine won’t be too taxing.

I was wondering which of the main cast is the biggest Trekkie (so I know who’s performance I’ll have to be watching very closely!)

My money’s on Pegg.


323. Denise de Arman - January 19, 2008

I have the same misgivings as #207 when it comes to the young Kirk’s character. It was established in Conscience of the King that he lived through a horrendous ordeal under the rule of the Hitler-like Kodos – tomes of essays have been written in fanzines throughout the past forty years about how that experience at such a young, impressionable age probably shaped his entire life from that point forward – entering the academy, questioning himself as to whether he was doing the right thing for his crew, the Federation, etc. in critical moments (Roddenberry did envision Kirk as a Captain Horatio Hornblower MIXED with a bit of Hamlet), and always putting anyone else before himself. After living through the events on Tarsus, would that same young cadet candidate ask anyone else to reprogram the simulator so he could win the Kobiyashi Maru? He knew as soon as the test was over all the command structure of the academy would demand answers, foremost being “Did you have help, if so, who?” Kirk stated in the Wrath of Kahn that HE reprogramed the simulator because he didn’t believe in the no-win scenerio, and that he didn’t like to lose (no doubt lessons learned on Tarsus). A young man with that strength of character and conviction would never ask some girl he was dating, Spock, or anyone to risk their academy career for him, as he would have no way of knowing at the time if he would earn a reprimand, be expelled, etc. At Starfleet Academy, surely the equivalent to say, Westpoint now, his character would surely not expect a commendation for original thinking.

My husband is an Air Force vetern and pilot who has done consulting work with Lockhead Skunkworks, Boeing, many others in the aeronautics business – he’s even had the privilege of having some dealings with Nasa. While doing some consulting work with Flight Options (a company which trains and retests pilots on simulators), he has had numerous dealings in the simulators, with the machinery itself, and with the proprietary software. When I laid out the scenario of Kirk asking some girl to reprogram the simulators for him, he barked out a laugh. His reply was, “Kirk is a command cadet. He’s suppose to be the best of the best. He would reprogram the damn thing himself.”

By the way, in Court Martial it was established that there were only three people on board the ship who had the ability to reprogram the ship’s computers to show a false record of bridge events – the records officer, the First Officer and the Captain of the ship, thus proving that Kirk did indeed possess the technical proficiency to pull off a computer-generated faux pas, as it were.

Mr. Orci, I hope that the rumors of a cadet Kirk getting someone else to reprogram that simulator are just that. No matter how young he is at that point in his life, it is only logical to assume that the character of James Kirk, as we know him, would never be callous enough, or stupid enough, to ask another cadet to lay down their career for something he knew he would catch shit for (don’t mean to sound nasty, I think you and JJ’s team are awesome).

324. Kevin Glover - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci.

I know theres hundreds of questions on here already, but mine won’t be too taxing.

Before you started writing Star Trek, what did you consider Trek’s finest moment to be over its forty year history?


325. Trekee - January 19, 2008

Much as I hate to jump on every little todbit then extrapolate wildly… (oh, this is a lie by the way).

@319 – Waaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiit a minute….

If we take….

“282. roberto Orci – January 19, 2008

203 — Can’t comment too much because it involves a story point to a degree,”

which says “Why did you guys decide to change the design of the Enterprise so radically from a design which had become such a well-known cultural icon? And, more importantly, from one which had been established in Trek history as looking a certain way- as it did in The Original Series.”

Does that mean that the design of the ship is influenced by Time Travel??? We may in fact see a reboot, but one which ackowledges the original designs?

(“Yeah, we were GOING to paint her white but in THIS timeline the painshop only has Aztec Matte….”)

There is a recent example in BSG Razor (and in fact the mini series) which showed original Cylons in all their 70’s garb…

To reboot (sorry, sorrrrrryy but it’s late here and I can’t think of another word to use) it by their being some time travelling thing to preserve mirror universes would not be incosistent with Trek storytelling (ala that TNG ep with Worf when all of TNG from that point on was set in an alternate timeline).

Mr Orci, I know you can’t answer but you can’t be thinking that SURELY? You’d give half the theatre audience a nosebleed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, sure, yeah – canon’s great and all, but that would be the canon preserving escape from the no win scenario to end them all….

I’m sure it’s not this, but if it is, then Ka’Plah to you… ;-)

326. DanielH - January 19, 2008

Just a Kirk thing?
‘Tis also a Picard thing
(As more than 100 episodes of TNG would attest)

327. Kevin Glover - January 19, 2008

Whoops, I didn’t realise I changed my mind over my question, please ignor the first one :P

328. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

#271: “I’m so glad there wasn’t an internet (well, this internet) back in 1976. If there had been, I doubt the nitpickers would ever have allowed a “Phase 2″ let alone a TMP.”

Actually, there was quite the fannish grapevine back in the day, and it did cause its own kind of fuss.

When it became known that “Star Trek: Phase II” was going ahead without Spock and that he’d be replaced by a new Vulcan character, Roddenberry’s office received so many letters of complaint that he felt it necessary to write a letter about the subject – in which he asked the fans to trust him and to understand that he was trying to put together the best series possible under the circumstances – and have that letter distributed to all the Trek fan clubs that he had addresses for.

Back then, Roddenberry himself wasn’t immune to the “outrage” of the fans for not sticking with what they were used to – and a lot of fans tried to directly influence his decisions by communicating their displeasure to him.

So things have changed, yeah – and yet, they haven’t.

329. DavidJ - January 19, 2008

Jeez, you people with your long ass posts. Don’t you realize most people are only going to read the first couple lines and move on? LOL :D

330. ShawnP - January 19, 2008

#330 – Agreed, lol. I’ve wanted to post that but figured it would sound mean.

331. Mr. Atoz - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci

Noticed the sound effect from the tranporter used in the trailer.

Will these and other TOS sound effects be used in the new film?

I think its a great touch if they are.

332. Trekee - January 19, 2008

@330 – No they don’t, it’s just you (oh, and emm, ShawnP)… :-P

333. Captain Robert April - January 19, 2008

“Supreme Court”, eh?

Well, the justices should familiarize themselves with the concept of “precedent”, as in we’ve got forty years of it that tells us just what the ship looked like when Pike commanded her, when Kirk commanded her, and a pretty damn good idea what she looked like when she was built.

And that bloated monstrosity in that trailer is, most definitely, NOT the Enterprise, I don’t care how big the wrong-fonted letters are.

Ya think you’re gonna wipe out that forty years of precedent with one lousy movie? Especially when the other half owners of the franchise, the fine folks over at CBS/Paramount Television, have invested all that time and money into remastering the original episodes, along with spiffy new effects sequences and a exquisitely detailed new digital model of the Enterprise that reinforces the established record of WHAT THE SHIP LOOKS LIKE.

As for not sweating the small details, it’s those small details getting skipped over that make many of us wonder how many of the not-so-small details are also getting sluffed off.

Have fun on opening night. I won’t be there. Or any other night.

334. johnconner - January 19, 2008


Man, I’ll bet you had a seizure when they switched Darrins on BEWITCHED.

335. johnconner - January 19, 2008

Of course I meant #334. There goes the joke. Timing IS everything, after all. :(

336. m aspill - January 19, 2008

mr orci

what does re boot the franchise mean ? does it mean more films and new series in ur new image ?

337. BritFan - January 19, 2008

This is great that Roberto Orci is logging in to respond to queries. Respect to him for that. :)

I don’t really want to ask specific questions, I just hope for ( and based on evidence to date am increasingly confident of getting) lots of real Tear-jerking “*This* is Star Trek” moments.

– Character beats where you just really feel the bond and sense of adventure of the crew, or predict what Kirk will do or say just before he does it.

– Little Happy-Memory-triggers like original sound effects in the background, little sweet continuity touches, etc.

– sweeping plot that pulls you in and gets the heart pumping

– and finally kick-ass moments of sheer awe. Like a beauty pass of the ship that make your jaw drop, or air-punching moments like when the Defiant from DS9 opened fire the first time. and you holler support at the screen like you’re cheering on a football team.

Basically, although I’ll be seeing this movie in the UK, where people usually sit and watch films fairly quietly and reservedly compared to the US, I want to be laughing, crying, jumping on the seat, punching the air and breaking British convention by meeting the end credits with a standing ovation.

338. shuttlepod10 - January 19, 2008

Will Kirk say “Fire!” at any time during the movie?

339. SteveinSF - January 19, 2008

I think is both classy and courageous for Roberto Orci post here. It makes me believe that fans of TOS ( like me) will be happy with the mix of the old and the new. Looking forward to Christmas 2008

340. Charles Pratt - January 19, 2008

I’m not a huge stickler for canon and I’ve been a Star Trek fan since childhood (got my first taste of the show around 73). It doesn’t matter to me if the “new” Enterprise was constructed on Earth, Mars, or at the galactic McDonalds parking lot (Ok, well…). Even though 40 years of Trek has left us with many a great details about our beloved galaxy and crew, I don’t think the essence of Trek can be confined to those individual details. It’s a spirit, a vision that’s bigger than the sum of its tiny components. If Mr. Orci and co. stay true to the vision of Trek, the essence of it’s characters and relationships I will gladly and whole heartedly forgive the rest.

But the next person to respond to my post may well proclaim that I’m full of doo doo from beyond the great barrier. How on earth do you reconcile the two extremes? Everyone proclaims their vision and their understanding of Star Trek as the one true vision. It’s almost like religion. How on earth can any writer(s) hope to please everyone or even most everyone under that sort of maniacal and fanatical devotion? Hey and I’m just as maniacal and fanatical as everyone else on here so…talk about your Kobiashi Maru scenarios. Wow!

But no matter what the future holds for Trek, love the new or hate it, it doesn’t negate all of the things we’ve come to love from the past.

I for one am shaking-in-my-boots excited about the new Star Trek and I think this sort of revitalization/reboot/re imagining/whatever you find the most star trek politically correct thing to say is the very thing Trek’s needed for years and years.

James Bond/Sherlock Holmes/Batman and a plethora of other popular characters have survived and thrived with a clean slate and a “today” relevancy and I’m quite certain Star Trek will too.

Probably for me Shatner, Nimoy, and Co. will always be the Quintessential and supreme “classic” trek but I have more than enough love and enthusiasm in my heart to embrace a familiar but new interpretation of Star Trek.

341. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

#335: “Man, I’ll bet you had a seizure when they switched Darrins on BEWITCHED.”

Dick Sargent is *not* canon!

Captain Robert April is either not getting the “Supreme Court” analogy or he doesn’t understand how the SC functions.

The Supreme Court can treat precedent in several ways – including overturning it.

342. Roddenberry was a peacenik - January 19, 2008

Hey Roberto-

You talked a lot about the ‘gray areas’ of Trek, and the opportunity you have here to fill them in as best you can, respectfully but not slavishly. You also talked about the need to ground this in reality, to give it a visceral feeling of ‘hey guys, this is not some fantasy world, this is what could actually happen’. There’s one topic in Star Trek that is both a gray area, and that over time felt more and more like it was from a fantasy world, instead of a possible future. That is, as some have mentioned, the science in Trek. If you look at the last two series, and the final movies, scientific realism was one of the last casualties of Star Trek’s franchise fatigue. We became annoyed at the ‘treknobabble’ because we knew they were making it up as they went along. They didn’t work to earn our suspension of disbelief anymore. It was watered down fantasy, and not cutting edge science fiction. Now, no one would suggest that you guys are making a documentary. It’s science fiction, not science pedagogy. You’re not going to waste precious time spending 5 minutes telling us how transporters don’t actually violate the physics principle of the conservation of angular momentum when you beam down to a planet. But scientific grounding in the world around us is integral to helping us make that leap of faith as an audience, making that emotional investment in a world because it doesn’t seem that different from our own. You could say it ‘gives us permission’ to believe, in a way.

This was recently made clear with another franchise reboot, Batman Begins. They didn’t sacrifice character growth by world building, by showing us the nuts and bolts of each gadget and staple of the Batman universe. It ‘connected the dots’ from our world to his, convincing us in the, well, logic of it all. Almost subconsciously, we just felt more invested in what was going on. And they were rewarded handsomely at the box office. I believe you have a similar opportunity. Science has made dramatic advances in the last 40 years, but Star Trek was stuck in the science of the 60s. The negative energy hypothesized to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe has also been suggested as a means to enable an Alcubierre ‘warp drive’. But this was ignored by ST. ( Quantum states have been teleported in laboratories, but ST writers were oblivious. I could go on. It’s been a long time since Trek was on the cutting edge of science, but here’s a chance to take the lead once again.

Anyway, thanks for listening, and enduring this fan’s rant.

343. ShawnP - January 19, 2008

#335 & 336 – LOL, perhaps you’re right.

I was thinking to myself, wow…there are millions of men, women, and children that go to bed hungry at night; world governments are at each others’ throats; people in some countries fear acts of terrorism every day; countless children are stuck in the foster care system; exploitation of workers continues throughout the world; incurable diseases infect millions of people…and the list continues.

Let’s put things into perspective here. I understand that people are passionate about Star Trek and have strong opinions, but to harbor such vitriol toward decisions being made about something that’s fictional, I’m thinking, we have bigger fish to fry. Let’s redirect some of that resentment and anger toward the world’s injustices. I love Star Trek because it’s fun and gives a hopeful and positive outcome to the world’s injustices. But that’s just my opinion, and I don’t want to sound like I’m telling people how to think or feel, which I guess is kind of what I’m doing. Lo que sea.

By the way, I love where I see this movie is going, and Mr. Orci, you certainly can count me as a ticket buyer on opening day.

344. Odkin - January 19, 2008

Two things will make or break this movie feeling like Trek – BRIGHT LIGHTS AND COLOR, and ROUSING MUSIC. If they go dark, gritty, and ponderous it’s going to fall dead flat.

345. Regular Joe - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Love the ship. Can’t wait to see more. In the prior movies, we have seen very little of the fleet – the Enterprise, Reliant, Grissom, Excelsior and ? Any chance you’ll be puttin’ the FLEET back into starFLEET?

346. Balock - January 19, 2008

My only comment on the trailer, besides concerns on exterior differences on the E, is that it seemed to have a dark feel to it. Maybe ot was night-time in SF (which I can see from my window), but I’m hoping that the movie sets don’t have a dark tone to them (Earth, E bridge, etc.). I liked they way SF was portrayed in the movies, and other treks: clean bright air in the 23rd century.

347. Balock - January 19, 2008

yes #345, that plus the mini-skirts are a must…

348. Captain Dunsel - January 19, 2008

Just back from the theater. The trailer was a big hit with the audience and I loved it.

However, I left Cloverfield after half an hour–I am just not YouTube enough to enjoy what strikes me as mimmicking the bad photographic skills of people out there with camcorders. I transfered to another theatre in the complex and caught the second half of a real movie–National Treasure II. So I feel like I got double my money’s worth and for a matineee price!

349. me - January 19, 2008

Roberto, u’re crazy answering so many questions.
How long does it take to only read half of them ^^

350. jonboc - January 19, 2008

#342 “#335: “Man, I’ll bet you had a seizure when they switched Darrins on BEWITCHED.”

Dick Sargent is *not* canon!”

You bet your bippy he’s not..

Dick York or nothing!

351. SPB - January 19, 2008


…with “TREK-entologists.”

Much more apt, from the looks of some of the posters on these boards.

(“Captain Robert April”: If you’re planning on boycotting TREK XI for the rest of your life, then why bother posting anymore?)

352. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 19, 2008

Dennis B – what do you think of my observations in post 310. Do you see the same things i am seeing. Again not a critisiscm just very curious about the new design

353. SPB - January 19, 2008


…if some are perfectly willing to accept that there will be NEW, DIFFERENT actors playing established classic characters, who, to some degree, don’t really look like Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, et al…

…then WHY THE BLOODY HELL is it sooooo important that the Enterprise has to look EXACTLY THE SAME?

Explain that one to me. You want the original Enterprise? Fine. Then I’m assuming we should then drop in CGI versions of William Shatner and company circa late 1950’s/early 1960’s, yes? Would that make you happy?

354. the king in shreds and tatters - January 19, 2008

that would be pretty cool, actually

355. the king in shreds and tatters - January 19, 2008

if they do, though, it might behold them to put aside attempts at total photorealism and accept that, for the time being, CGI is still *animation.* Beowulf’s still lodged in the Uncanny Valley, but you can avoid it by pulling a Tintin while retaining all the advantages of CGI.

356. Laserlover2254 - January 19, 2008


Good point, I hope that there will be new ships shown in the movie.

And Orci, how about the pylons? Are they straight, or streamlined?

They’re Trekkie fundamentalists, I think, with some of them, like fundamentalist Christians, babbling about the “one true” faith, when there are many.

357. Robohunter - January 19, 2008

#281 (and similar sentiments)

It never ceases to amaze me how little imagination some fans seem to have. Star Trek is a glorious flight of human imagination, but it seems that the die-hards can’t watch a 45-second trailer without retreating into the most narrow-minded territory.

“Building a ship the size of the Enterprise on Earth is logistically impossible.”

Says who? Human beings have built much larger things. This is 2008 – who are you to say what is logistically impossible in more than 200 years time?!

“It would be like us building the Space Station here and then trying to get it into space.”

Hardly. The International Space Station is about 50% solar panels and fragile spidery frames. A starship it ain’t.

“And even if the Enterprise was to be built on Earth San Francisco is the least likely of all places. It’s too overcrowded.”

How do you know what the overcrowding situation will be like in 200-odd years, post WWIII? “San Francisco” could very well refer to the entire San Fran Peninsula – which is pretty damn big.

“thrusters would have to be used and the amount of energy required to get a vessel the size of the Enterprise into space without any problems would be a logistical nightmare.”

In 2008. You imagine a future in which faster-than-light travel has been cracked, but getting a large object into orbit hasn’t? Give me a break.

“Did Orci or anyone actually consult real space engineers or physicists before making such an absurd decision?”

A theoretical physicist would be a better choice. If it’s possible to create artificial gravity fields in the future, then why not the ability to open a zero-gravity “corridor” to just float the damn thing into orbit? In ‘The Cloud Minders’, Spock calls the cloud city “the finest example of sustained anti-gravity elevation I’ve ever seen.” Getting a starship into orbit would be a piece of piss compared to keeping a whole city continually afloat.

“The more Orci actually talks about the movie the more worried I am becoming.”

Uh huh? Opposite for me

358. mooseday - January 19, 2008

Just watching the Mission Impossible Season 3 ) DVD and noticed one thing about space ships in earths atmosphere watching the Star Trek DVD sets preview …. last episode of Voyager anyone??????

359. ShatisDead - January 19, 2008

Canon purists are what is killing the franchise. They need to be totally disregarded. Canon stifles this franchise. Star Trek is about exploration of space..and more importantly humanity.

Mr. Orci + crew have the daunting task of creating technology that will inspire OUR generation..just like Rodenberry’s vision helped inspire today’s technology.

Oh and any reference to the Nexus in this movie will kill it.

360. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

334. As for not sweating the small details, it’s those small details getting skipped over that make many of us wonder how many of the not-so-small details are also getting sluffed off.

Have fun on opening night. I won’t be there. Or any other night.

SORRY TO HEAR THAT. I don’t mean to imply that we don’t care about the small details. They matter. I just meant that we approached the story from the big picture first, and then let the details be dictated by that.

And to keep on the Supreme Court analogy, some judges feel the constitution is a living document and some feel there is no room for interpretation. In either case, the decisions are based on what’s seems best based on what’s come before. We’re approaching it the same. Hope something this year changes your mind.

361. Balock - January 19, 2008

#354… unfortunately, we are all getting old, but the E doesn’t have to. It is a timeless/classic design. Why the bloody F does it have to change? Ok, so change out the old control buttons on the bridge, so it doesn’t look “dated”. But really, saying the the “old” exterior paint job or fonts or nacelles or big screens around the bridge look dated and will look laughable to modern day viewers is a joke. BTW, call me an old timer, but I don’t really want to see any CGI crap, the models look sooo much better.

362. Rot - January 19, 2008

Is it at all possible that the Enterprise is being constructed in orbit in a massive station? In an artificial gravity chamber that will be cleared out of men and machines when she’s ready to be launched? Flooded with space like when earth ships or subs are slid into the ocean for the first time?
Sorry if this was discussed already.

363. Xenith - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci

All I can say is, thank you. I haven’t been this excited for a Trek movie in years. Seeing the Enterprise in all her glory again nearly brought tears to my eyes. Finally after all these years my all time favorite television/movie series is getting a much needed new breath of life. Thank you guys so much. ^___^

Hmmm… Well… I guess I should take this unique opportunity to ask some questions huh? LOL.

1.) First, I LOVE the redesign of the Enterprise, it reminds me so much of the good old TMP days. What was your first reaction when you saw the new (or should I say old? LOL) TOS Big-E in all her glory?

2.) Second, I have really enjoy the films that you have wrote for. In a lot of the them the characters felt so alive and real. I’m an aspiring writer, and I’m very curious as to how Abrams, Kurtzman, and yourself get that amazing spark of life that no one else has been able to capture.

3.) Got any tips for an aspiring writer? LOL XD

Thanks in advance! ^___^ And I think that it is so cool that you guys take the time to hear what we have to say. Good luck making this movie!

— Xen

364. Rot - January 19, 2008

I base post 363 on the fact that he would not confirm that the ship is being built in San Francisco.

365. Balock - January 19, 2008

ditto #358. A few well placed anti-gravs would put her in orbit…

366. D W - January 19, 2008

I’m delightfully intriguged by this movie.

I’ll say right now that I believe Orci’s answers to the questions above were much more of Harve Bennett caliber than Braga. Bennett saved the Trek franchise with a spunky, insightful flare that only produced a single true klunker, the abominable Trek V: In Search of Shatner. Given that it was probably a quid-pro-quo for going along with Nimoy’s prior directorial leadership, I’m willing to give Bennett a pass on it.

Braga et al ran Trek into the ground with insidious phony treknobabble, completely losing sight of the fact that a *little* unexplained babble is all you need to create whatever device is necessary to the story. I lost track of what percentage of latter-day Braga-treks had more babblogue than story.

But I digress…I hope the feature has half the production value of that trailer, this may be the Killer Trek we’ve all hoped for for three decades.

Roll on, Bad Robot!


367. DavidJ - January 19, 2008

345 and 347

The lighting in the first season of TOS was actually VERY moody, with lots of dark shadows everywhere. It wasn’t until later that they started blasting bright lights onto the sets and made everything look washed out.

Frankly I thought the show looked MUCH more interesting the way they originally did it. Episodes like “The Enemy Within” wouldn’t have been nearly as effective without all those shadows.

And come on, how much damn cooler did the TNG bridge look in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” when IT was lit darker? And don’t forget the bridge in TWOK, or basically everything in DS9. Personally I’m all FOR moody lighting in Trek.

368. cw - January 19, 2008

334 Roberto, don’t worry, I’ll go twice to make up for this guy.

369. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - January 19, 2008


Have you ever written anything that is NOT an adaptation? An original idea/characters/story? This is the rap on you guys, don’t you want to bust out of it? Your success surely can open that door now – do you have any desire to do so? If so, would it be SciFi, Drama, big/small… (generically) what, and why?

also, can you tell us how you got your first break?

370. RTC - January 19, 2008

I have yet to see or hear anything related to ST XI that worries me about the future of the franchise or the seriousness that JJ, Roberto, et. al., are lending to this film.

I’m more convinced than ever that ST XI is going to be a stunning achievement. If a few ‘made up my mind before seeing it’ people decide not to show up … great! Better chance for me to get a seat!

371. Balock - January 19, 2008

Yes, i agree that the first season TOS lighting had a more moody feel (I liked it), but it never seemed dark. There are many things that I liked about TWOK, but the dark and military feeling bridge was definitely one of the things that I did not like…

372. dalek - January 19, 2008

Mr Orci,

Many thanks for answering mine and many of the others questions :)

373. LoyalStarTrekFan - January 19, 2008

I just wanted to say that the teaser trailer was excellent. I loved it. I even have a screen capture of the USS Enterprise under construction from the trailer as my background (one more Star Trek background among the hundreds I have on my computer!) I look forward to this new movie and wanted to ask something: with the production team laid off, the Star Trek CCG cancelled, the Star Trek book list for 2008 lacking (in terms of publication – as far as I can tell, there are a few months with no new books at all), Star Trek Online no longer in production, and CBS only somewhat supporting “Star Trek” (with Star Trek Remastered and Star Trek The Tour) do you feel that Star Trek XI is make or break for the Star Trek franchise?

374. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

281. Ktrek – January 19, 2008
[I think that Orci is full of it. Building a ship the size of the Enterprise on Earth is logistically impossible.]

I’d like to think we have Trek’s technology already. We just do’nt know it publically. I believe we are launching ‘ships’ much larger than the Enterprise today. How else could this (one example amongst many, many others) ever occour?

…or more recently, this…

Just where do you think all these HUGE flying saucers and cigar shaped craft are coming from anyhow? SERIOUSLY!!

‘They’ say the Black Ops are 40 years ahead of us today. What if that secret tech takes exponital leaps? Where does that leave all of us? The working people? In ignorant bliss? No, just ignorant.

I will be waitng for Trek this year, but I am also looking for further for more evidence of REAL ‘Enterprises type’ knowledge to appear or be released soon. Just do’nt be fooled by the Alien angle. I for one do not think we (or any other being) could ever possibly make it to another star and then back in one lifetime.

Now how’s that for being well grounded?

375. Balock - January 19, 2008

well, if nothing else, if it has a big budget, epic feel to it, then I will be much happier than the el cheapo treatment that the movies got. (okay, so TMP made an effort to feel epic, and ST4 at least did not have a cheapo production feel to it)…

376. Dennis Bailey - January 19, 2008

#353: “Do you see the same things i am seeing. Again not a critisiscm just very curious about the new design”

Uh, I agree that the registry is definitely in a different place and the scale of the ship looks to be similar to the original. Whether the bridge area is wider or not I can’t tell – could be a matter of lens focal length, unlike the larger engines.

377. Flying Tigress - January 19, 2008


I’ll go once… on opening night..

…and again…

.. and, well, maybe once more — to pick up things that I might have missed..

… and maybe, one more time.

But, I’m drawing the line at that!

well, perhaps. :D

until I buy the DVD.

378. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

378. Flying Tigress

Sit next to me, so I will have not have to put up with anoying comments from an audience member whom does not have a clue what they are experiencing. ; )

379. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 19, 2008

Dennis B – Thanks can’t wait to see a Hi res image. Also it appears that the forward middle TMP style phaser banks take the spot of the slash mark between NCC and 1701

Interesting stuff !! I must see more

380. Kevin Burke - January 19, 2008

J.J. I love you! Roberto, Alex, Bryan & Stratton, you guys too!

The hairs on the back of my neck are still standing after viewing the trailer. (thanks to You Tube)
I just know that the 25th of December 2008 is going to be the best Christmas for a long time. To have the guys & JJ’s creative & directorial brilliance behind the wheel is honestly the injection of life that all things Trek needed.

I know that the future is in the best of hands! I also know I will not sleep from mid December, just like when you were a child eagerly anticipating the arrival of the big guy wearing red on the 25th.

Oh I wish it was Christmas.

Kevin Burke – Glasgow – Scotland.

381. DavidJ - January 19, 2008


Agreed. Even First Contact had a slightly cheap, TV movie of the week feel to it. Hopefully this new movie will capture that epic scope and feel that TMP had.

While telling a much more exciting story, of course. lol

382. Joseph A - January 19, 2008

#28, i applaud you: star trek is not didascalic knowledge of canon, but stories of men and women.

this may be the wisest thing ive yet to read in all of these talk backs. among all the geeky rants, you offer a glimpse of true understanding of what star trek is about: believing in a harmonious and enlightened future for the human race.

as americans, we live in bleak times, which may (debatably) be something akin to the fall of the roman empire. the morals and tenants of our civilization seem to be waining, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

what is a good thing is the heart and soul of star trek, its optimism about the future and the idea that we may be able to survive this infancy of sentience.

all harshness intended, f*** you dogmatic fanboys.

id much rather explore the archetypes which imbue star trek with meaning in a modern, fresh, relevant manner.

the world has changed, and so should you.

please admit, or come to understand, that the details are not as important as themes.

having said all that, i think this is the best star trek ad since the motion pictures ‘human adventure’ bit.

383. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 19, 2008

That is a heartening interview. I’m glad we have a Supreme Court that can make categorical decisions, taking into account but not bending to the will of the fans. In fact, from now on, I will stop taking about “Abrams” and his decisions, and I will refer to the Supreme Court, because it is clear from this interview that decision-making has been more collective. Or, when it gets confusing, perhaps I’ll refer to them as KABLO (Kurtzman, Abrmas, Burk, Lindelof, Orci). Anyway, keep up the good work, guys….

384. JoeR - January 19, 2008

I am looking over the trailer over at youtube. Its hard to make out, but dose the Words “Star Trek” show up? (I do see them at the credits..In small text.) Is it me it are trying to down play Star Trek. Like if we use Star Trek, then people who are only geeks(Like me) will go see it. But if we have some cool effects and leavethe term trek out..more people would go see it? Maybe I am looking too deep into that.

385. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 19, 2008

#352 — I like “TREK-entologists”, but how about “Trek-enterologists”, since they’ve got their colective heads up canon’s a**?

386. SilverExpress57 - January 19, 2008

#384. 4 8 15 16 23 42


I like it!

387. SPB - January 19, 2008

#28, 383, et al:

Nice to see others take more of a “big picture” stance on the state of STAR TREK, rather than get bogged down in the Orthodox OCD-Canonite TREK-entologist dogma that I’m really getting tired of.

It’s quite telling that NONE of the aforementioned fire-and-brimstone Trekkers have come up with ONE compelling argument as to WHY we should care that the Enterprise should look exactly the same (and/or have been built in space), and how that would adversely affect the STORYTELLING aspect (or overall general quality) of TREK XI.

I do take comfort in the fact that they seem to be in an EXTREMELY small minority on these boards (I’m talking–what–10 people, tops?).

STAR TREK was meant to be fun, enlightening entertainment. No need to eat, sleep and poop it all your lives, or lose sleep over nacelle sizes or font designs…

388. SPB - January 19, 2008

#386 –

Either one works for me! :)

389. Canonista - January 19, 2008

I am a canonista!

390. PaoloM - January 19, 2008

You know what? Reading the comments I realize that there is a silent majority of Trek fans that want to break free from the nerdy and geeky thing that Trek had become. I thought that technobabble and canon fanatism were hopelessly accepted and tolerated. Well, I see now the will to change and this is the first time in years that I feel proud to be called Trekkie.

391. Pan Always Bored Me - January 19, 2008

334- ” Have fun on opening night. I won’t be there. Or any other night.”

While I respect your sentiments on the look of the Enterprise…you know you HAVE to see this movie.

If you take the time to post on this board, how can you not want to see what they come up with…good or bad?

I consider myself a trekkie just not as militant as some others, no offense intended. I started with syndication in the early 70’s and haven’t looked back.

I completely understand the WANT for the original, just not the NEED.

The important thing is we will shortly have STAR TREK back on the big screen and from what I’ve read and seen so far…it looks like it’s going to be AMAZING!!!

( Everything written above is just my personal opinion…You’re mileage may vary)

392. Wayne Spitzer - January 19, 2008

I have one foot in Star Trek-geezerhood myself, being born in 1966 (it is literally the first thing I ever saw on TV; second was a Godzilla movie–so, Cloverfield/Trek trailer? Can’t go wrong there!)…and I have to say, nearly all the creative decisions made thus far on the new Trek seem excellent. And though I certainly didn’t go out of my way to see Transformers (a bit after my time, that one), I did catch it finally at a drive-in theater in Everett, Washington–I was there for the theater, not the movie–and enjoyed it immensely. Combine that with Mr. Orci being so respectful of the property and the fans, just being an all around good ambassador for the film, and, well, you’ve got a lot of good will. Though if I were Roberto I’d probably be thinking: “Sure, thanks, guys. No pressure, right?”

What is so compelling to me about this whole venture is that it’s being done in a way that should find Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, Gen X and Gen Y and most importantly, the Millennials, all seated down in one place at one time, enjoying the same thing, at what is almost certainly a pivotal point in our history. How cool is that? What Star Trek is all about, right?

So wind at your backs! It’s going to be fine.

393. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 19, 2008

Anyone who thinks a starship CAN NEVER, even in 200 years’ time, be built on Earth has no business watching Star Trek. There are far more technically challenging ideas championed by Star Trek — Warp drive, for starters. Also, transporters, time travel, the list goes on and on.

If the Star Trek future includes manipulation of gravity such that the whole inside of the ship can be artificially oriented in an up-down axis, then it is not inconceivable that they have at their disposal anti-gravity devices that can levitate massive objects (like ‘repulsorlift’ in Star Wars, which made possible massive, non-aerodynamic craft to “fly” in the atmospheres of planets), not to mention super-strong, super-lightweight structural materials.

(Don’t get in an argument with me about transporters; I know all about the modern experiments with ‘teleportation’ involving quantum entanglement, and that is not at all to do with Star Trek’s transporters. There is no correlation between the two, no chance of extrapolation.)

394. Balock - January 19, 2008

#388… So…. tell me why you should care if the E looks the same and how that would adversely affect the STORYTELLING aspect (or overall general quality) of TREK XI.???

395. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 19, 2008

#387 — Thanks, let’s make it a meme, shall we?!

The B&B are dead, long live KABLO!


396. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008


we have some original things in the works. Q willing, we’ll get them made.

We broke in through television. Kurtzman got a job as an assistant on a syndicated shows, and we wrote a sample of that show, hoping that if they ever needed an extra script or something, we’d be able to show them ours and see if it was close. Luckily enough, the agreed to read our script at some point and decided it was good enough to hire us to do one. We wrote and episode, and they thought it was decent enough to then hire us on staff. Once there, we just continued to learn everything we could and write as much as we could.

397. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008



398. roberto Orci - January 19, 2008

398 OOPS


399. SPB - January 19, 2008

#395 –

Not sure what you’re asking… if I’m using your earlier posts as a guide, did you mean to ask, “Tell me why we SHOULDN’T care if the E looks the same?”

400. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 19, 2008

Err… ships passing in the night there.

It’s back to KABLO, folks!

401. Balock - January 19, 2008

yes, if it looked the same, would that bother you?

402. SilverExpress57 - January 19, 2008

I know I’m thinking about this much in advance…

But has anyone imagined how cool the Extras(special features) on the DVD of this movie will be!?

Mr. Orci, how early in the game do they start thinking about DVD features anyway?

I do one real Star Trek question for you. When could we expect a more official movie poster. Not to say the ones we’ve seen thus far aren’t official. But they’ve only depicted the Classic Star Fleet insigna and Classic Star Trek font type… Not any specific images from the movie or the new Enterprise.

403. New Horizon - January 19, 2008

-334. Captain Robert April-

I’ll never understand such rigid, childish thinking. No offense, but open your mind. Oh well, Kirk had it right in ST:VI, “People can be very frightened of change”.

People seem to think that a reimagining of something they hold dear somehow invalidates or threatens the thing they loved. They seem enraged that someone would dare step on such hallowed ground. Mainly, I think it reminds them that they’re getting old and subconsciously fear ceasing to matter. I grew up on Trek, but I won’t fear anyone reimagining it or changing. It was never perfect, and I sure don’t hold onto the naive notion that somebody couldn’t do something truly amazing with it.

Roberto. If you guys are going to do to Trek what the teaser implies…I will be highly pleased indeed. :) This really gave me a feeling that I haven’t gotten since The Motion Picture, one of maturity, awe, and adventure.

I hope I’m right. :)

404. Kelly St.Clair - January 19, 2008

354: SPB, here’s my answer –

It’s not currently technically possible to get new performances out of a young Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, et al. It is technically possible to make the CGI ship look exactly like the original model – this has been demonstrated multiple times recently.

So why didn’t they? What is the reason for the changes? That’s the question I asked above, and am still hoping for an answer to. There must be one.

405. PaoloM - January 19, 2008

#405 “So why didn’t they? What is the reason for the changes? That’s the question I asked above, and am still hoping for an answer to. There must be one.”

In my opinion, watching the teaser, I don’t think that Enterprise has changed so much. It looks more metallic, more realistic. Modern sfx allow to portray a starship hull the way it should look if it was real. Back in the 60s it was impossibile to get such a model. Why keeping today something that was technically impossible 40 years ago? It’s like klingon ridges: they were in TOS too, but we unable to see them :-)

406. Kirk's Girdle - January 19, 2008

Roberto Orci:

Just curious. Typically, teasers and trailers fall more under promotions and advertising than the actual production so I was wondering to what extent you and Alex were involved in the teaser. Was the concept JJ’s or yours, or a combination of both. Also, with regard to the strike, was the albeit very simple plotline of the teaser written prior to the strike?

For what it’s worth, I like the teaser, although I pictured it differently in my head. I pictured it in full daylight, looking just like these guys were building a regular ocean vessel. The camera pulls up and away to show more and more guys welding and then the name comes intyo frame. You might have even shown the Golden Gate Bridge over the worker’s shoulder. IMHO, the current teaser looks a little too sinister, and the welders look like crazy Germans. :)

407. SolFlyer - January 19, 2008

Mr. Orci, if you do indeed read EVERY comment here, then absolutely no one can ever again question your devotion to the fanbase. I couldn’t make it through more than 60 or 70, myself, before my brain started hurting. Some of you guys have very interesting, well-thought out input. Some of you…well, some of you are just insane.

I loved the trailer! I got cold chills with the lingering transporter sound effect at the end, very “retro-futuristic”. And if Enterprise had taken this approach with the voices-of-the-past, instead leading into that painful theme song, I might not have gone into every episode(every episode that I actually watched) with a wave of nausea.

Can’t wait to see more.

408. The Realist - January 19, 2008

Mr Orci… Roberto…mate….pal, be careful you seem to be getting sucked into the black hole of Trek message boards!!!

But bloody brilliant teaser, probably one of the best teasers I have ever seen, even a die hard anti Trek mate sat up and went wow! So keep doing what you guys are doing!!

409. Russ - January 19, 2008

Just got back from seeing Cloverfield this evening. Great movie. Perfectly executed. And what a great job Paramount did at marketing it.

Watching the Star Trek teaser trailer on the big screen was amazing. I’m so excited for the film.

And after reading this interview and Mr. Orci’s comments in the feedback, I’m even more excited. Also love reading that Enterprise may get a nod in the film. :)

410. DavidJ - January 19, 2008


If they kept the ship exactly the same, I wouldn’t throw a huge fuss. I WOULD be dissappointed that they didn’t attempt to try something new though.

Even as a diehard TOS fan, I would be much more excited to see a revised and modernized Enterprise than simply the 1966 Enterprise blown up to big screen proportions.

Where’s the newness or originality in THAT? I want to see TOS as a WHOLE reinterpreted, not just a few minor elements here and there.

411. Ed - January 19, 2008

Great answers from Mr. Orci.

I like the style, and I like the suggestion that this sort of future isn’t as far away as it seemed in the past.

I’m curious though, will there be a logical wrap up of the OS and TNG? Will that universe have ended in a parallel universe thanks to the suggested story for this film? It would be wonderful to make a nod in this direction that the old universe had in-fact once existed, but has since been left entirely altered.

412. DavidJ - January 19, 2008

Not to mention the fact that I already know what every square inch of the 1966 model looks like. After about 10 minutes the novelty of seeing it on the big screen would probably wear off and I’d just be looking at the same old ship again (just like the novelty of seeing the TOSR ship has worn off already).

“Oh look, there’s the circles under the secondary hull. There’s those four rectangular lights on the saucer. There’s those green and red lights under the hangar bay doors…” Yaaaawn.

Personally I would have a LOT more fun checking out a NEW design throughout the movie, and seeing all the interesting new changes that were made and all the new design elements that were incorporated.

413. Orbitalic - January 19, 2008

Look at all the new names… welcome.

I saw The teaser and cloverfield this afternoon.

Cloverfield was a fun, popcorn and a Coke movie

And the teaser gave me that excited and joyful little tear when Enterprise hove into view while Leonard spoke the word “Space…”

Excellent job gentlemen.

414. Jabob Slatter - January 19, 2008

I can’t believe that somebody would refuse to see this movie based on what they’ve already seen and heard. What kind of fans are you? You’d rather see the franchise crumble because it doesn’t adhere to your rigid and ridiculous expectations?

You don’t own this property, folks. It’s just sad when you act like you do.

415. Kynan( future writer/director of awesome movies) - January 19, 2008

hi Mr. Orci,

First Im a huge star trek fan and am endlessly excited about the new film.
I am also a big fan of your other work, M.i.3, Transformers,Zorro, an so on are all in my opinion great films and well written. I was also given a little extra boost of confidence/excitment when i recently read that u an fellow writer had worked on hurcules tv series to which im am also a fan. In some ways i think that that series had similarities in themes an ideas of morals an the human condition and spirit as star trek. well, basically im saying that I have confidence in ur touch on star trek.

id also like to say, being 23 years old at the moment an with many hopes and dreams linked to my passions in life i one day hope to break through as a writer an hahahah in my dream of dreams director. i would just like to say that reading recently about ur success an journey as a writer from around my current age has further inspired me.

I do believe in canon,an being respectful of it but with star trek i also believe the most important thing to capture is simply the great philosophical storys driven by complex an human(in a general sense of the term,so including alian characters) characters who are trying to be the best ambassadors of humanity they can, while on a great adventure thats as thought prevoking as it is fun and exciting. From the things ive read an seen of the people working on this new film, u guys get all that so im pritty happy atm.

Question: atm im thinking Chris Pine will do a good job in this movie as Kirk following in the footsteps of the great Shatner, but while im here i thought id take the chance to see if ud make any coment on how hes taken to the role? i know u wont give great details but maybe just a general feel of his energy on the set an all??? its just ive seen the other cast members in a fair amount of other films an can see them clearly in their roles. An although i think Chris Pine is a fine choice from what ive seen. ive only ever actually seen him act in Smokin Aces(great film) but its jus a little harder for me to imagin him fully Kirked up yet.

Well, looks great so far. Im looking forward to seeing it.



416. SPB - January 19, 2008

#402 Balock (and others) –

I’ll try not to ramble too much on this…

If the producers of TREK XI decided to revamp all aspects of TREK except for the Enterprise, then the Enterprise would stick out like an sore, antiquated thumb.

If they revamp the Enterprise (which they are doing), but leave the original interiors, costumes, props, etc., then people would rightfully ask, “Well, what’s the point of changing the Enterprise, but not the velour tunics and bell-bottom pants?”

So it seems to be a case of all or nothing: Revamp the overall look of the TREK universe, and the Enterprise has to be updated, too. Or…

Decide to go 100% retro, and run the risk of the general public collectively yawning and saying, “We’ve seen this before… for free… on TV.”

And lest you all forget: This is ONE, 2-hour movie. Regardless of whether they knock it out of the park, or if turns out to be the biggest, most expensive bomb in Paramount’s history, you’ll STILL have the original Enterprise in all it’s glory, whether it’s on DVD or in the form or toys, posters, books, models, etc.

The novelty of having an exact duplicate of the 1960’s TV Enterprise on the big screen would wear off in about 5 minutes. I LIKE the original E. I’m NOT a “canon-hater.” But I am sensible enough to realize that times change. We’ve had a new Enterprise once every 10 years or so (1979, 1987, 1996, 2008). It’s almost a tradition at this point. Slavish devotion to the 1960’s ONLY is a job for THE NEW VOYAGES… not STAR TREK XI.

417. Jabob Slatter - January 19, 2008

Hey, the bridge of the Klingon ship that Kirk stole in Search for Spock changed drastically in Voyage Home. What, did the Vulcans do a refit while they healed Spock?

Get over it, guys. Things change. A LOT. Especially in the Star Trek movies.

418. SPB - January 19, 2008

#404 New Horizon-

“People seem to think that a reimagining of something they hold dear somehow invalidates or threatens the thing they loved. They seem enraged that someone would dare step on such hallowed ground. Mainly, I think it reminds them that they’re getting old and subconsciously fear ceasing to matter. I grew up on Trek, but I won’t fear anyone reimagining it or changing. It was never perfect, and I sure don’t hold onto the naive notion that somebody couldn’t do something truly amazing with it.”

Probably one of the most succinct, intelligent and LOGICAL statements I’ve read yet on these boards. Bravo, and I wholeheartedly agree 100%.

419. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - January 19, 2008


the novelty that is going to wear thin is the recasting of Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

420. ivy - January 19, 2008

I trust these guys not to screw it up too much. If they’re really fans then I don’t think anyone has too much to worry about. There are of course going to be updates to fit the times, and people are gonna get pissed just like with Transformers, but they’ll get over it.

421. Alex Rosenzweig - January 19, 2008

#354 – “…if some are perfectly willing to accept that there will be NEW, DIFFERENT actors playing established classic characters, who, to some degree, don’t really look like Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, et al…

…then WHY THE BLOODY HELL is it sooooo important that the Enterprise has to look EXACTLY THE SAME?”

I’m not sure I even feel that the Enterprise should look *exactly* the same, but I’ll answer as one who thinks the ship would do well to at least look fairly close to the original. (I mean, heck, the Defiant in ENT didn’t look exactly the same, but it was obviously the original design, and it looked great, at least on the small screen.)

In many ways, I agree with the viewpoint that the Enterprise is at least as important a “character” than the crewmembers who inhabit her. She is the vehicle of imagination, and we as the audience ride aboard her vicariously, through the adventures of the characters.

The reality is that we will never again be able to have the original cast portray those characters as young men and women. It’s a fact of life. As much as we may love and admire Bill Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, etc., they are human and they are real and as subject to the march of time as are we all. So we either never see those characters in live-action again or we accept the possibility that new performers could do a credible job of portraying them.

The Enterprise, “character” or not, is still a thing. It can be replicated. It has been, over the years, in DS9, in ENT (as the Defiant), and in the Remastered episodes of TOS. And as we’ve seen in the latter two instances, there have been tweaks of the design to make it feel more real and believable for audiences of today. I’d have no doubt that such would be necessary for the Enterprise in the new movie, too, but I also feel that such detailing upgrades wouldn’t require a change to the basic shapes and proportions, so I prefer a close replica to one which has greater differences.

All that said, I’ve liked most of what I’ve seen of the new ship in the trailer, so maybe I’m not the ideal person to answer that question. I understand the feelings of those folks, though, so I wanted to take a shot at it. :)

“Explain that one to me. You want the original Enterprise? Fine. Then I’m assuming we should then drop in CGI versions of William Shatner and company circa late 1950’s/early 1960’s, yes? Would that make you happy?”

If I thought it could be done convincingly, it’d make me very happy. I’d love to see a CG animated Star Trek that included likenesses of the original cast at the right ages to play the characters. But the reality is that the tech is not there yet. Computer-generated characters simply cannot do what real, human performers can, and thus the trade-off of getting animated versions of the younger original Trek cast would be lost when they don’t truly look or “feel” like those performers. There’s even an argument to be made that a different cast of performers could make the characters feel more like the originals than could CG images.

I credit “New Voyages” with making me more open to the concept of recasting. Sure, many of those folks aren’t professional actors. But they’ve been good enough to make the characters feel a lot like the original performers did. And if amateurs could do that well, who am I to criticize a fair attempt to let pros try it? :)

422. longwinded - January 19, 2008


Thanks for all the hard work. The teaser brought me back to the time when I was 12 when ST:TMP came out, just pure excitement. Now on to my question.

If the writers strike ends soon do you think that the live action shooting time will be stretched out very long? Is the strike having an impact on filming? I mean are you finding a lot of places where you note this needs to be changed or that needs tweaking?

After reading your earlier response about when the next trailer will come out, think I know the answer but what will be the next thing to come out to whet our appetites? A new poster, trailer, segment on an entertainment news show, or a layout of the bridge in a mag or on a web site?

Will the musical score incorporate some of the more popular musical cues from TOS?

Thanks for your time.

423. johnconner - January 19, 2008


Just an idea – instead of KABLO, it could be…

… wait for it …


You never know … canon could be their “Corbomite.”

:) yeah, i kill me.

424. Alex Rosenzweig - January 19, 2008

#413 – I suppose for me, it’s not the need for a new ship that drives my thinking. I don’t need an entirely new ship. I do want to see the original design preserved, yet “reimagined” as having enough detail to look great on the big screen, and perhaps that’s what we’re getting. (I’m still reserving judgment on that, though speaking solely for me and my own aesthetics, I’d have preferred to see a detail upgrade similar to the Phoenix design of Dennis Bailey’s.) One thing I do rather like about the new version of the Enterprise is that it might make the transition to the TMP version a more believable refit, but again, I’ll have to wait ’til I can see her better to see if that thinking holds true.

I’d like to see some new other ships, though. :) e.g., at the risk of bringing the wrath of some purists down on me, what if we were to see the Farragut (where Kirk served as a lieutenant), and it was an entirely different type of ship than the Enterprise? Sure, “conventional wisdom” has portrayed it as a Constitution, but canonically, we’ve never seen it. It could be a whole different design! And what ship is the as-yet-unidentified “Federation Captain” going to be commanding, hmm?

Plenty of room for new stuff to see, I think even if the Enterprise were kept very close to the original.

425. OR Coast Trekkie - January 19, 2008

Geez Louise, so many people throwing so many insults in here aobut minutia… where the Enterprise was construved, fonts, yadda yadda..

For goodness sake, I enjoy Star Trek as much as the next person, but it is just a tv show. Granted, I am critical of some things, but goodness, I dont sit and go through every detail of every show.

Its people who nit pick like that which make most people not like Star Trek. They are afraid of having to listen to such arguments as \”where the Enterprise was constructed\” or \”the sequence of buttons Sulu pushed\” or some crap like that. To memorize such mundane details so thoroughly over a tv show is a sign of Asperger\’s Syndrome…

426. BringBackTrek! - January 19, 2008

Spoiler Alert!

The new Star Trek is actually a steampunk genre movie.

The Enterprise is being hand-crafted on Earth, the twin steam turbines are being installed and the craft will be lifted up into space by massive balloons.

427. Erehwonnz - January 19, 2008


Thank you for your dedication and time. It’s a refreshing approach and greatly appreciated!

For what it’s worth, the teaser has raised the interest of at least two people I know who were against seeing this film. One was entirely opposed to seeing TOS recast — he thought it was a bad idea altogether. The other hates Trek — she refuses who to watch it under any circumstances. However, after seeing the teaser, both were intrigued and wanted to know more.

If I may join the long queue and ask a couple questions —

Is the nostalgia and sense of humanity “pushing out to the stars” in this teaser something devised for it specifically (something meant to reach a wider audience) or a sentiment we’ll see in the film, as well?

Also — it has been stated that this film will respect the universe we know – does that mean that this film’s story (regardless of its physical and visual elements) will fit comfortably into that universe? Or should we expect it to open up new and separate threads from what we know?

I realize that may be too bold a question. :)

At any rate, good work and good luck. I hope you are having as much fun in the making of this film as we are having in following it!

428. Alex Rosenzweig - January 19, 2008

#426 (Before it goes away ;) ) –
“Its people who nit pick like that which make most people not like Star Trek. They are afraid of having to listen to such arguments as “where the Enterprise was constructed” or “the sequence of buttons Sulu pushed” or some crap like that. To memorize such mundane details so thoroughly over a tv show is a sign of Asperger’s Syndrome…”

I don’t really think that’s fair. Is memorizing those sorts of things any more odd than those people who can quote the stats of every player on their favorite sports team(s) for the past 50 years? Or the folks who know the production crews and other technical details of every movie made since 1970? Or the folks who collect stamps and study the print imperfections, with certain such flaws making the stamps collectible? And so forth. I think it’s actually a natural response to become involved with the trivia of one’s favorite hobby. In my experience, of the folks who get on their high horse and criticize Trek fans over this sort of thing, most have hobbies for which they are just as steeped in the arcana…and about which they are no less passionate.

429. Windsor Bear - January 19, 2008

If everything in the new movie needs to be a 100% “revamp” (is the word I believe #418 used), then why use the original “Star Trek” logo? That logo has never been used in any of the movies or spin-off TV shows. It was only used in the original TOS series. So why use it for this movie? Why is the original uniform emblem being used? Neither of these is new.

Guys, you’re giving mixed signals here. It is no wonder the “hard-core” fans are having cardiacs. On one end, you’re saying this is a totally new Star Trek (even though it will be in a used timeline). Fine. New. I can live with totally new. On the other end, you’re throwing in stuff that isn’t totally new, seemingly to be selective of what “old” items can be used and what can’t. This would seem to suggest that maybe everyting is NOT new after all. Maybe there will be a sense of familiarity. Maybe this movie will somehow tie-in with what has already been established (the absolute main controversy of this whole movie).

The hard thing for me to accept is that you’ve taken the main trademark of the TOS series, the Enterprise, and have redesigned it. Maybe only slightly, but redesigned it nonetheless. Personally, I couldn’t care less who the actors are in the movie, or what the interior of the ship looks like. I’d like the bridge to look familiar, but I don’t really care. Hire Bobcat Goldthwait to do the computer voice. Should be interesting. But don’t mess with the exterior of the Enterprise. Why? Because she is the star of the series. I believe the saying goes… “Space, the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise.” It does not say “these are the voyages of Capt. Kirk”, or “these are the voyages of Mr. Spock”, or even “these are the voyages of the human adventure”. To me, the Enterprise has always been the star of “Star Trek”, which might explain why I absolutely had no interest in DS9 or Voyager. None.

Someone once remarked that there could not be anyone out here that preferred the TOS version over the TMP version. Well, I did, and still do. The TMP version was so “detailed” that it looked fake. I stand by the rule that “less is more”. The TOS Enterprise is sleek, smooth, gets the point across without having to shout about it.. The simple effect of the nacelle caps, using fans and old style Christmas lights, to portray a sense of energy and power, was indeed so simple that modern CGI still cannot seem to emulate it properly. I have yet to see a CGI version of the Enterprise that can properly duplicate the nacelle cap effect.

I would like to see the TOS version of the Enterprise used in the movie. It has a symmetry and style that has never been duplicated. Very sleek, slender, powerful. Looks like it’s fast even when it’s not moving.

The TMP version struck me as the TOS version after having went on a Twinkie eating binge and having breast reduction surgery to it’s nacelles. Still, not too bad, and the lighting effect that they used on it for the first movie really made it shine (an effect they never could get right for the rest of the movies). But still not the Enterprise that I was hoping for. I will always maintain that the TOS Enterprise, given the right lighting and a bit of detailing (but not too much) can hold up on the big screen, and do it very well.

While it is true that I haven’t seen much of this new movie’s Enterprise, what little bit I have seen suggests that it is no longer a “she” but a very well-endowed “HE”. First impressions would lead one to believe that this is now a ship used for military purposes instead of space exploration. Looks BIG. Looks Mighty. Looks like it should have flames shooting out of the rear of the nacelles. American Chopper would be proud.

To sum this overly long message up, I could take any change to “Star Trek” as long as the elegant lady was left to her classic beauty… in the timeline that has already been established. However, changing her, and asking me to believe that this movie still takes place in a fictional, but established timeline, is more than my feeble brain can take.

I’ve often joked with people, telling them that 300 years from now, McDonald’s will still be the #1 fast food chain. Not because of the taste of their food (God forbid), but because they will still be using the original “golden arches” trademark that has helped keep them “familiar” with the masses for all these years. An established trademark. A classic design. When it is done right, it does not needs upgrading… never needs changing. If it ain’t broke, leave it alone.

Now leaving the soapbox. Let the disecting begin.

430. Jabob Slatter - January 19, 2008

“The nacelle cap effect’?

Dude. Wow. You gotta get some other interests. You’re nitpicking this thing to death.

431. Windsor Bear - January 19, 2008

431 – Trust me, I spend very little time worrying about “Star Trek” these days. I check the boards once a day, give my two cents worth, and move on. The glory days of Star Trek are long since past, and anything that comes about now, is just a feeble attempt of regaining that.

And what you call “nitpicking”, is what I call “attention to detail”. I was always taught to “Do it right the first time, or don’t do it at all. Anything else is a waste of time and money.”

432. non-belligerency confirmed - January 19, 2008

430 windsor bear
wow, i really appreciate just about anyone’s opinion, but .. wow.

whoever taught you to “do it right the first time, or don’t do it all” may have been handy with the cattle prod during toliet training, but sadly, didn’t bother to teach you to embrace things like change, art, growth and hope. if the changes hurt you so much please do look away. but the artists who are offending you so much care as much or more about these things as you do.

the glory days of trek are still open to the public, praise shiva. attend to THIS detail and join the fun, baby bear.

433. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

I don’t often protest on these boards so that my comments might make a difference, but after watching the Animated Star Trek episodes this weekend I have come to this conclusion.


The animated Enterprise had a slightly longer secondary hull which I believe was really better for the design. This would allow for a larger compliment of shuttle craft, engineering section and rec decks.

If the only attention to the Enterprise design is going to focus on TOS and TMP design styles then I feel it is my responsibility to STRONGLY VOICE MY COMMENT THE THE ANIMATED VERSION IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!!

If you watch the animated Star Trek you will notice that the Enterprise has a slightly enhanced hull texture that apears to be a bit more metallic. Simalar to the new design, but abit more uniform. Looking at the nacelles you will notice the lettering (NCC-1701) is a bit larger, which would make the ship easier to identify from afar. Isn’t that what Trek was all about? Contacting new civilizations? Don’t we want new civilizations to be able to see who is visiting thier planet? And even though the nacelles do allow for the larger lettering they also appear a bit thinner than the new Trek XI teaser shows.

Perhaps we could get you FX artists to lift the engine nacelles (from the cartoon,… oops… animated series) and place them onto the new “E’s” design. But that might be challenging to match the color just right. So, I again would insist that you just drop back and use the whole animated design instead. To match the colors exactly, I think you may still be able to but the original cells on eBay. But, I am sure they have discolored due to age. So instead, perhaps you could find the origninal animators around somewhere, and they could tell your staff the actual colors they used to paint the acitate cells used for the animation photography.

I have also noticed that the underside of the Primary hull does not include the concave bevel that appears on the TOS design and TMP’s design. I also note a straighter vertical slant underneath that directs the viewers attention down toward the sensor dome. This makes for a smarter dominant design.

Kudos to the animators on Star Trek Animated. That staff REALLY had it right. If it was not for some godless Neilson ratings or irate parents, who probably thought it was TOO intelligent for Bobbie and Suzie, we would have got more of that show!!! Perhaps we could all start a letter writing campaign to get Star Trek Animated back on Saturday mornings???!!! : )

I have also noticed that the interiors depicted a more realistic design too. Much in keeping with the original but BETTER! I especially liked the depiction Kirk’s command chair. It was obviously a bit larger than TOS’s but doesnt that portray the importance of his position? The Engine room design seemed to depict a more logical layout too. AND I THINK CREDIT IS DUE TO THE ANIMATED VERSION FOR HAVING 1st MENTIONED AND TRULY SHOWED THE WARP CORE. Has your staff reviewed that design? You should!!!!

In the mean time Mr. Orci, I would appreciate it DEEPLY if you could go to JJ in the morning and read him this letter. In fact you should probably call him right now. Would you do that for me??????????????????

I know this idea has not been mentioned here before, but with all the talk about how Robert April should be part of the new movie, I though it was important to let you know there is someone who is VERY interested in seeing the best design onscreen again. THE ANIMATED “E” RULEZ!!!!

In fact if you do not use the animated Enterprise version in the Movie, I may not see the movie a 5th time. PROMISE!!!

In closing, TrekMadeMeWonder, But animated TrekMadeMeWonderMore

434. Windsor Bear - January 19, 2008

433 – “Change, art, growth and hope”?? Sounds like a legal firm to me.

But so be it. Let’s take them one by one… change… as in “change” whatever you want for the sake of change. Change should be for a good reason, and changing just for the sake of change, is not logical. Art… as in Mona Lisa… fantastic painting that no doubt will need to be changed if it should ever be used in a motion picture. It is so old it definately would not hold up for the big screen. Suggest getting rid of that silly smile. Growth… as in my tummy after a Saturday night Krispy Kreme binge. Enough said about that. Hope… akin to “faith”… what optimistic people use to comfort themselves when they cannot handle the current reality. Hope and faith are tools for the innocent and the young. At my age, you learn to “cope” instead of “hope.”

As for my toilet training and uses of cattle prods; sweetie, we will need to become more familiar with each other before I will discuss these with you. But if you insist, feel free to look me up.

Change for the good does not bother me. Change to appease the bored masses does. Consider THIS detail attended to.

435. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2008

Oh!! I almost forgot!!! How could I?!


436. Blowback - January 19, 2008

#430 – I also appreciate your passion on TOS but I am happy to see another adventure come to the screen. After 44 years I can certainly understand the need to update the look as long as I still fee a strong echo of TOS. If these new actors are able to capture the magic I am looking forward to more stories of the crew I saw sail off into the sunset in ST:VI.

You said” The TMP version was so “detailed” that it looked fake. I stand by the rule that “less is more”. I respectfully disagree. TOS Enterprise is a classic but TMP Enterprise literally took my breath away when I saw it on the screen for the first time. It has always been my favorite design of all the ships bearing the registry NCC-1701.

437. Blowback - January 19, 2008

#434 – I was not a huge fan of the animated series, but then again most animation in the 70’s and early 80’s lokked a little cheap IMHO. However I would LOVE to see them give it another try now!

438. Laserlover2254 - January 19, 2008


I like to call them Trekkie Fundamentalists, or BIble-Thumpers.

439. Windsor Bear - January 19, 2008

436 – That would be “Arex”. But if you’re gonna bring back Arex, you definately need to bring back Lt. M’Ress. I’ve always wondered how she would react to a bit of catnip.

437 – And I respectfully accept your opinion as well; although it is safe to say that we disagree. But I definately appreciate our being able to disagree in a friendly, adult manner… without having to comment on one’s upbringing or intelligence level. It is safe to assume, my friend, that you have a mature mind and do not need to stoop to that level. Very refreshing on this board, and very much appreciated. Thank You.

440. SolFlyer - January 19, 2008

On comment #408 I noted that some of you are insane…and shortly thereafter, I was resoundingly proven correct.

There’s really no need for me to say who proved it. :)

441. trektacular - January 19, 2008

So Star Trek is art comparable to Mona Lisa? Somehow that sounds very stuffy and to tell you the truth boring to me. Star Trek does not belong in a museum!

442. MikeG - January 20, 2008

This has really been one of the best threads, thanks to Mr. Orci’s truly amazing availability. Already envious, I still want to say “Thanks, Roberto!” Your perspective is really interesting to hear, as far as this fan is concerned. If you’re still answering questions, mine would be: if given the opportunity, do you see yourself participating in more Treks? C’mon, you are really hooked, aren’t you?

443. Windsor Bear - January 20, 2008

442 – er… the original Enterprise model is hanging in the Smithsonian.

444. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 20, 2008

444. Windsor Bear
[442 – er… the original Enterprise model is hanging in the Smithsonian.]


445. Iowagirl - January 20, 2008

87, 250

– Much still up in the air –

Sounds a bit like the title of a song.

Anyway, I like the sound. Hope springs eternal.

dalek, thanks for boldly asking the Shatner question.

Mr. Orci, thanks for taking the time to answer it.

446. asc-1138 - January 20, 2008

Windsor Bear –

Change to appease the bored masses? There are no masses for Trek right now. Just the fans who hope it will be good again. They are just trying to make good Trek. These changes are so minor, not even as much as 1701 refit.

The TMP design is far superior to the TOS version, point blank. Its much more realistic and actually closer to how Gene envisioned the ENT would look. TMP was a triumph, because he could finally tell the story the way he always wanted it.

The same goes with Star Wars, its Lucas’ vision and it should be exactly the way he sees it. Han and Greedo shoot at the same time, just the way it should be. This is coming from a fan who grew up watching TOS in the 70’s and StarWars ep.4 in 77. I applaud the changes.

Those nacelles remind me of the engines on a B-29 bomber, and they look wicked sick!!!! Its a bloody brilliant idea!

We don’t know if Michael Angelo was really satisfied with Mona Lisa. What if he wanted to change it to more suit his vision, shouldn’t we support that? If I Angleo came out with an HD version her, I would prefer it to the original, because when you fall in love with the art, you connect personally with the artist. Thus, I prefer Gene’s “originally envisioned look for TOS but couldn’t make it happen until TMP” version over the original “limited by budget, time and censorship by the studio, so it doesn’t look real” version of TOS anyday.

Now Mr. Abrams is trying to see if he can take the original elements that made TOS great and reincarnate them with todays story telling power and effects, to create a more believable and accessible future. Story telling shouldn’t be hampored by visuals and the original TOS design just looks flat and like a model toy. Not very believable.

ENT is still a “she.” Its ridiculous to say otherwise.

The Enterprise and her crew are one and the same. The crew is the soul of the Enterprise; she herself is the body. Body and Soul travels together across the universe. That’s why Kirk says “We’ve come home” at the end of ST:IV IMO. Both crew and ship are just as important, odd yet interseting that you make the statement that the ship comes before the crew.

I don’t know that you’ll ever see that 60’s retro design again on screen, but at least you got TOSR.

Sill wondering how you could let a cosmetic change ruin your whole experience of Trek. You don’t care who they cast to play the characters but you lose it over the color scheme and the nacelles on the ship? Makes me wonder why you even watch the show. Seems like your just resigned to being unhappy with Trek. You should just get over it

447. trektacular - January 20, 2008

The Smithsonian is an art museum? Cool never knew that.

448. trektacular - January 20, 2008

You guys are right then. Don’t change a thing.

449. asc-1138 - January 20, 2008

Windsor Bear – Sorry If I sounded a little snooty at the end there. Wasn’t meaning to be if I did.

450. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Windsor Bear, you are right sir. Not only is the original Enterprise model hanging in the Smithsonian, it is hanging in a very impressive display area with quite a bit of floor space for the viewing public (which is at a premium in that building). Taking into account that this museum is one of the top ten most-visited museums in the world, and that the Enterprise display has never been taken down and shoved in the archival bowels of the building, that is saying quite alot. Alongside all the other fullsize aircraft displays soaring in the air throughout those very, very high ceilings, the Enterprise stands out. Whoever would question that the Enterprise is a work of art should talk to the head curator at that prestigeous institution.

451. trektacular - January 20, 2008

Seriously though life is too short to be so serious about Star Trek, I’m going to enjoy the new movie whether it violates canon or not.

452. Iowagirl - January 20, 2008

– We don’t know if Michael Angelo was really satisfied with Mona Lisa. What if he wanted to change it to more suit his vision, shouldn’t we support that? –

You mean, change her smile?

453. Windsor Bear - January 20, 2008

447 – “Sill wondering how you could let a cosmetic change ruin your whole experience of Trek. You don’t care who they cast to play the characters but you lose it over the color scheme and the nacelles on the ship? Makes me wonder why you even watch the show. Seems like your just resigned to being unhappy with Trek. You should just get over it”

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone watches a TV program for the same reason. I don’t know why you watched it, but that is none of my business. Am assuming you watched for the human adventure and the hope for a better future. Whatever. I watched it because I needed an escape from reality at that time in my life, and I appreciated the models that were used. A lot of imagination went into TV model making in the 60’s, and it worked.

448 – “The Smithsonian is an art museum? Cool never knew that.”

The Smithsonian, overall, includes various associate museums, including art museums. While the “Air and Space Museum” being an art museum is debatable I guess, I consider the design of the 60’s model as being quite a work of art. And it’s real… PC monitor not required to see it.

454. trektacular - January 20, 2008

Windsor I hope you can get over this new movie not being up to Smithsonian standards.

455. Jabob Slatter - January 20, 2008

I’m so glad this new movie won’t look like a crappy-budgeted cheapo 60s TV series. I love Trek, but the productions values of the show were Gawd Awful. Only idiots would try to duplicate it.

456. AJ - January 20, 2008

As for me, I was pulled into the show when I was 6 because it was high adventure, and that Kirk and Co. were the good guys. They had weapons, but violence was always the last resort. It was about understanding and trust.

As for this model “not being up to Smithsonian standards,” we have only seen an early “under construction” view of a small part of it as it is meant to exist prior to Pike’s (or April’s) captaincy. It’s unfinished.

And those holes dead center of where the swirly orange bits will be on the nacelles…Nice place for pilot-era spikes!

457. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Trektacular, you really should climb down from your little, tiny soapbox and stop telling poor Windsor why his opinions are not valid. We are all here for the same reason at 4:48am Eastern time – because we care about Star Trek in our own personal way (well, with me it’s because of acute insomnia, but that’s for another thread). Obviously some of us are more well-read on Star Trek’s legacy, the arts, probably what causes hummingbirds to migrate. Understandably, this can sometimes be threatening to those less, shall we say, well-informed?

458. trektacular - January 20, 2008

Ok I’m sorry Windsor, and yes you’re right Denise I’m an idiot.

459. Windsor Bear - January 20, 2008

451 – Thanks Denise. I only wish I had a chance to see it in the Smithsonian before that latest atrocious paint job was done to it. I don’t know how long it will be before the next restorative paint job is done to it, but I hope they get an artist that can bring the ol’ girl back to what she originally looked like, and can fix that friggin’ bridge dome they put on that is completely out of proportion.

450 – No offense taken. I have no issues with Abrams, Orci, or anyone else. Paramount has given them the reins, and they can do as they see fit. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I am not one of those fans that goes ga-ga just because something bears the name “Star Trek”. Nor am I ecstatic just because “Star Trek” is coming back to the big screen. On the contrary, I am NOT a movie goer. I think I’ve been to the theaters once in the past ten years, and that was to see a movie at the insistance of my ex. Depressing flick that made me wonder why I paid five bucks for a coke to sit in a cramped theater, with my feet on a sticky floor (why are movie theater floors alway sticky?????) I also hate “Star Trek” being called a “franchise”. But… c’est la vie. Hey, if this is what the current movie-going public wants, then give it to them. No skin off my teeth. But there is nothing in the “Star Trek Fan” rule book that says I have to like it in order to remain a Star Trek fan. But just because I don’t agree with it, doesn’t mean I don’t like the people that are making it. I’m not that familiar with any of them, but I respect Roberto for visiting this site, and I happen to enjoy the comments that he makes. But the general attitude of the users of this board lately are “join us or die”. I don’t think Anthony meant for his site to become a “Stepford Fans” board. I don’t think any of us should be berated because we don’t like something, or don’t agree with something with the movie. Maybe I’m wrong. If I am, I’m sure Anthony will let me know.

460. AJ - January 20, 2008

Windsor Bear:

Trek is a brand that belongs to a multinational company. There is a business plan somewhere which shows earnings in the US, overseas, and on DVD. Plus, there are merchandising, and other, sources of revenue which will hopefully drive a strong profit and re-open the “franchise” as a “tentpole property” for Paramount.

It’s not a franchise like the Pizza Hut down the street. According to Wikipedia, their is a “North American usage” which is “ownership of the characters and setting of a film, video game, book, etc.” That’s exactly what Paramount has with Trek.

I think it is JJ/R. Orci’s “style” to bring all of us to the table on this, and it’s revolutionary and much appreciated. Imagine if G. Lucas had done so before crapping out eps 1&2 of his “franchise.”

461. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Jacob Slatter, you obviously have no knowledge of how the original show was put together 66-68. At that point in time the special effects were
state-of-the-art, mind-blowingly “groovy” to anyone tuning in. The viewing audience had never seen effects and technology so plausibly linked together with excellent stories and emmy-nominated acting (Leonard Nimoy all three years – the only reason he didn’t win was because the vehicle was science fiction). The show ruled with audiences worldwide.

I doubt Windsor or anyone else would actually want to build sets out of cardboard now as Matt Jeffries was forced to do due to constant budgetary restraints; however, does it not speak to the genius of those involved that hundreds of thousands of DVDS of that original series have-and-are-still-being puchased 40 years later? It is with a fair amount of wistfulness that I, along with many other Trek “afficienados”, view the original sets and Enterprise models. My opinion as to the current motion picture in production is neither here-nor-there in this message. Just wishing some of the posters here were a bit more knowledgable as to major aspects of this original culturally iconic show which brings us into discussion.

462. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

AJ- Your point being?

463. Marian Ciobanu - January 20, 2008

-i just want to say to 308 that Star Trek is watched in all over the world…i’m from Romania..somEwhere in Europe.. if you don’t know and i became a sci-fi fan watching TNG and later DS -9 from germans televisions ..after the the fall of comunism in my childhood so..please don’t tell us such things..because i think that the most great fans of StarTrek are in Europe..because we europeans have the tendency be very ruff sometimes with our favorite shows..unlike american people..and i consider Star Trek to be a very international saga..

464. AJ - January 20, 2008


Windsor was uncomfortable with Trek being labeled a “franchise.” It’s a brand and a business, and must be periodically “re-invented” like a car or a Budweiser bottle. I think that the “human touch” of the NEWTREK production team shows an almost anti-corporate sense of inclusion of the fans.

I’m also bored on a Sunday morning!

465. Jabob Slatter - January 20, 2008


I understand completely that TOS was “state of the art” in it’s time. What I’m talking about is that some would have the new film duplicate what now looks cheap and stupid, and certainly low budget.

Stating that I “obviously have no knowledge” is simply a low blow used to reinforce your illusion of knowledge superiority. I’m quite aware of TOS’s cultural iconic standing.

Using old designs, even with non-cardboard materials, would look silly and dated. That’s my argument and I’m sticking to it. Your superior attitude and condescending manner support a weak facade.

466. AJ - January 20, 2008

I think JJ wants his New Trek to also be’ “state of the art” in its time,’ which if my chronometer is set correctly, is 25.12.2008. Otherwise the kids won’t care. Draw them in with FX and cool gadgets, and hit them with a great story.

If people want the old sets and designs, trawl the fanfic sites like New Voyages. Their work is getting better and better.

467. Marian Ciobanu - January 20, 2008

Actually…ENTERPRISE is just for american people …and that is the reson for beeing such a..failure…

468. Windsor Bear - January 20, 2008

Wasn’t sure if everyone knew what I meant by “atrocious paint job”. Here’s a link to what the Enterprise looks like now in the Smithsonian, after the last restorative paint job.


469. AJ - January 20, 2008

Marian: That is an interesting theory. Enterprise had a Black man, a Brit, an Asian woman, and a Vulcan. Probably a corporate decision to “mix ’em up like in previous series.” and it was more “American” because of the opening title references and the noxious theme music.

But Trek, when it started, was uniquely American. The issues it addressed; race, the Vietnam war, etc., came out of the US of the 1960s, and it was intended for an American audience.

How would you suggest the new team approach what is now a truly international audience?

470. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

AJ – I grok that. I remember sitting in the auditorium in Vegas last August listening to Leonard N. as he read some posts from this website and made his own comments on them, mostly with laughter from us. He said then, and I agree “Let them make their movie”. Some of us are so longing with anticipation we call our friends in LA to stake out Abrams house and try to follow him to the day’s various sets to take pictures on their iphones and send to us (no, no, I haven’t done that, never, never even thought about it…). Others of us are at the other end of the pendulum swing, wary of their cherished characters, effects, models, what-have-you in the hands of new visionaries. I would invite those who are so vehement as to call names, deride, etc., to step back a bit on the criticism and take a more mature approach.

Jacob- Sorry: habit when I was on the debate team in my undergrad days. Now that I’ve turned in my Master’s thesis, I have nothing to do but tweak your nose until I decide where to go for my Ph.d

471. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Oh, Windsor Bear, I grieve with thee. I didn’t know! She did not look like that the last time I saw her 3 years ago. Also, in the link picture it appears E is mounted. Twice when I have been there before she was hanging from mobile-like trusses in a flying pose. Perhaps a call or two to the powers-that-be might be in order…

472. Iowagirl - January 20, 2008

The original E, together with the original interiors, have reached unparalleled iconic heights and are embedded in people’s minds as part of their cultural heritage. The timeless quality of the original E has already been proven beyond any doubt.

Abrams et. al are attempting to re-imagine the blueprint for the big screen. Of course, they have to adjust the designs etc. to reach an unaware new generation. The couldn’t use the original for their purpose.

40 years from now, the world will know whether their re-imagination was as enduring as the original. Only few of us will live or care to tell.

473. AJ - January 20, 2008


But since “let them make their movie” in August 2007, and what we have today, i.e, the “movie” cares about us. it seems like much water has passed under the bridge.

This could be “Alien vs. Predator.” Let’s take some Sci-Fi icons, and have them blow things up. Backstory is optional. The Playstation games will make millions, and the computerized ships are dirt-cheap to make, so we can make lots of Star Treks and reap the cash with a batch of so-so forgettable stories and bags of fodder for the eyes. Next year: “Star Trek vs. Aliens!” (don’t anyone start).

They are doing something different than this with Trek, and it’s truly unexpected. I am a corporate guy, and this truly eschews “bottom line” thinking. Perhaps Roberto has some time on his hands with the strike, but I am truly appreciative of the chance participate in the exchange of ideas because they are listening.

474. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

AJ- You are right sir. JJ is the man for taking on the living, breathing legend; Roberto is the coolest geek living (my own modest opinion) because he is not only a proven talent in the industry but, most importantly, a real ST fan who appears to care as much about the fan community as his own work-of-art (the script). However, when one being is dealing with unceasing derision from 2,3,4 other beings, one must step into the fray and say, “Step back guys – manners do count”. And here is poor Windsor, still grief-stricken over what the Smithsonian has allowed to happen to poor E…

475. AJ - January 20, 2008

If the poor E in DC is becoming decrepit, that’s an issue to take up with someone else. Maybe ILM can volunteer to restore her before physical modeling is completely forgotten as an art form.

476. Marian Ciobanu - January 20, 2008


477. Blowback - January 20, 2008

#469 – I knew what you meant about the paint job. I know it has been said by someone the the FX crew back in the sixties that there was more detail to the hull than could be captured on television and that was the goal of the last paint job. I don’t hate it. I always imagined she was looking a little dark and gritty by the time it came for her TMP refit.

However facts are facts and she never look quite like this during the series. A fact confimred by the CBS digital team as they redo the FX now.

#447 – Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa not Michelangelo. But I see your point. I’ve noticed that creative types are never totally satisified with their creations and want to continue to tweak them. It was impossible until very recently and I for one think it’s a good thing.

478. New Horizon - January 20, 2008

– Marian Ciobanu –

PLEASE STOP writing everything in upper caps. It’s difficult to read, and is considered rude…as it is interpreted as shouting. I hope I’m not being mean, but every post you’ve written has been in upper caps and it’s getting out of hand. Please stop. :)

479. Marian Ciobanu - January 20, 2008

A…seems to me that you’re just a’ blind fan’ NEW HORIZON’….I’m a fan too ,this is just what i think about the new trek movie..anyway in my country Nimoy is considered a crazy old man..hmm:’I AM SPOCK’…Spock is just his character..what a silly old man is that Nimoy..don’t you think so..?

480. AJ - January 20, 2008

Marian: I think Jean-Luc Picard did a lot for getting continental Europe on board with Trek. French with an English accent. Worf was brought up by Ukrainians. Perhaps this means something. The message of Trek in 1966 and 1987, was essentially to ask questions about where USA was going in those times, and that most likely appealed to (then) Western European viewers, who have always been more progressive.

I have spent lots of time in Poland, and I know there is a new TNG fan series coming soon from some fans there (ST: Horizon). If you have concerns, please join us lunatics here for the next year, using lower case letters, and bring your friends.

481. Iowagirl - January 20, 2008


Don’t worry about the paint job. It will always be HER. She’s still up there, in that grand museum and they do everything to keep her in good condition. It’s the statement that matters, and the people who after 40 years still come and admire her.

482. deleted - January 20, 2008

deleted by admin

483. johnconner - January 20, 2008

Windsor Bear:

I was all set to dismiss you as Grade A nitpicker until you hit us with this:

Holy Mother Of God, what have they done? Somebody got slap-happy with a Spirograph or something. Incredible, and this at the Smithsonian of all places!

OK, now I concede that diagrams of the old girl might have included all those lines, but I look at the Big E like I remember her from the old series, and that ain’t it. It’s kinda like when I found out that the mustard yellow command shirts were actually green, but the lighting and TV production process produced the mustard yellow we’ve all become accustomed to.

So I don’t know what to think anymore. I guess I’ll go with the line from THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” IOW, the line-design might have been originally intended, but it wasn’t what captivated all us Trekmaniacs.

Anyhoo, sorry to have misjudged you, Windsor Bear, even though you never knew it. :)

484. Marian Ciobanu - January 20, 2008

Actually the most european character to me is …

485. Balock - January 20, 2008

My last post on this thread…. TOS E is far superior to TMP E. The rectangular neon nacelles with fins, yuk… TMP interiors (with exception or large rec room) looked cold and sterile. TMP bridge felt smaller then TOS, and had vey unspiring control stations (lost all those big screens). TMP transporter room needed a control booth, yuk. TMP had no bridge or sensor domes (one of the coolest effects of TOS). TMP uniforms/gear… won’t even go there… All the changes that were not improvements over TOS really took away from some of the movie’s enjoyment experience for me…

Anyway, I think the new E should be extremely true to TOS on the exterior. With a few more hundred years to go, the design is still way ahead of its time. I think that mods to interior are okay.

Nice chatting with you all.

BTW, the new paint job on TOS E at the Smithsonian is another example of someone taking creative licence to “freshen” up the look. The guy who painted it, even had the nerve to claim he duplicated the original paint effects by studying more detailed film of the E. Hopefully, it will get another paint job at the 50th that is a replia of the original…

486. AJ - January 20, 2008


The actor, Walter Koenig, is Lithuanian, I believe. I speak Russian, and had a stupid fanboy moment with him, actually speaking in Russian with him at a convention in New York in the ’90s.

I think “Star Trek” is going to focus on characters, and Chekhov is one of them, this time played by a real Russian. I think the new 23rd century may be a time when we all speak perfect Federation Standard (American English), but when we also value how our differences make us a better whole.

I loved Scotty as a Scot, and I liked O’Brien as a good,solid Irishman (he is). And Bashir brought in the UK’s ethnic realities into play.

487. Balock - January 20, 2008

BTW, I don’t know if this has been previously posted, but there is lot of really interesting TOS E material here:

488. diabolk - January 20, 2008

Some people here crack me up, as if they expect the new movie to be made with exact replicas of a 60’s TV show set and costumes. And if not, it can’t be “canon.” Give me a break. This is not a 60’s TV show. The general audience would spit out their coke and laugh if it was.

489. Matt - January 20, 2008

Federation standard will be Chinese.

Kirk will grow up in rural China.

Or maybe India.

Or maybe Brazil.

How about that TREK?

490. Dr. Image - January 20, 2008

Mr. Orci- THANK YOU for your answer at #282 re:#203.
I very much appreciate your comment- and now understand.

#321- 1) You assume INCORRECTLY. 2) You’re missing the point.
3) I wasn’t asking you.

Cloverfield rocks! One MUST see it on the big screen.
I urge all- see my review on the Cloverfield thread.

491. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 20, 2008

Just to make my point about my last post …

434. TrekMadeMeWonder

That was supposed to be a joke. I think everyone got it. It looks like it may have put a cap on the TOS design being used in the New movie.

492. Chris Pike - January 20, 2008

The classic production series version E is also my favourite version, and it is a pity they have had to move far away from MJ’s genius design, probably the most famous fictional spacecraft design ever. However, from what Roberto Orci has kindly told us, there seems to be a story reason for this which puts a different slant on things and may well be the key to the way she now looks. In some ways I was pleased, as I thought they might have gone even farther away with the design. At least we have the smooth surface, twin nacelles with spin effect and saucer primary! I do think the 1930’s looking stick welders just looks out of place. And the spindly scaffolding for that matter. One would expect them to at least be using some sort of phaser or energy beam welding device. Classic trek always went to great lengths to try to visiualize today’s technology in a futuristic way creatively. Remember the salt shakers that ended up so futuristic they decided to use them as beam-type scalples for Bones? I don’t like to see Trek look too contemporary, it’s in a better more streamlined future.

But a great teaser, wanting more as it should – and LN’s voice is spine tingling!

493. Marian Ciobanu - January 20, 2008

i don’t want to see in this movie the same mistakes like in BATMAN BEGINS..a movie wich is too complex..but in a bad way…is a non-Batman movie..completely..even the ‘batmobile’ is a non-Batman one..shame….that kind of movies makes me to search for sequels..i don’t want to say that in the new trek movie i dont wan’t to see some changes but…i don’t know what to say..makes me wonder indeed…i saw the same mistakes in Enterprise..this could be a step forward..but also a lousy ending to a good saga..the difference between trek shows and the others like Babilon 5 or ..Galactica is the fact that the trek shows do have the tendency to resist in good shows..and movies too..exept maybe NEMESIS or INSURECTION..

494. Mike - January 20, 2008


Agreed. The strict cannon people are ridiculous.

Besides, a lot of the canon is crap.

495. D. McCoy - January 20, 2008

It’s difficult sometimes being a fan of an existing character—hoping that individuals with the opportunity to make movies about these characters do justice to the existing vision.

We have faced it so many times. I guess what bothers me most is when changes are made for no real reason. Like in Spiderman: no web shooters, a suit with 3d webs, or the fact that the franchise starts off with Mary Jane instead of Gwen Stacey (Gwen was his first girlfriend in the comics). Or Superman: where the designers are compelled to change the suit. The upcoming Speed Racer: why change the car? If you are using green screens anyway, set the movie in the 60’s. At least you’ll get the existing fans.

I’m not sure how the filmakers end up on those paths, whether it’s placing their own stamp on it or simplifying the story, they are mistakes

With Star Trek, I agree that some changes or improvements must be made. I think the Enterprise can be a blend of TOS and TMP if done right. If they took the TMP enterprise and just replaced the nacells with the classic round versions, I would survive. Better to have TMP than some of the other versions I’ve seen out there. At least it would stay in the movie universe.

We must remember that no matter what, they can’t take the originals away from us. It’s quite a great thing that we have remastered versions of them with new special effects. Some of the shots are awesome.

496. T Negative - January 20, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Is Star Trek being shot in HD digitally, or with film??


497. Shaun - January 20, 2008

#494 –

Who are you, and what are you talking about? Not sure what Batman has to do with Star Trek, but I can tell you that, as a long time Bat-fan, Batman Begins was a brilliant film. Easily (IMO) the best comic book/superhero film ever. Chris Nolan took the character back to the basics. No campiness, and a healthy respect for the Dark Knight’s dark , gritty roots. He also gave the character a believable (for a comic book come to life) backstory and plenty of depth. The car? So what? If anything, it makes sense for Batman to have a “tank”-like vehicle. Cruising around in a sleek, sporty car never seemed right to me. At any rate, the Tumbler is going to replaced in next summer’s movie, so don’t worry about that.

Again, what did any of this have to do with Trek anyhow?

498. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Marian #480- I appreciate what ST:TNG means to you in that you live in a country which use to suffer under communist rule. It escapes me, therefore, that you could not understand the significance of the original series of the 60\’s and its social relevance in a world rampant with communism and neo-facist ruling states. The remark you made concerning Leonard Nimoy as being a \”crazy old man\” (I cringe even typing those words) is so outrageous as to be laughable. The big L is known to not only ST fans but people worldwide in varied walks of life as being a most intelligent, artistic, caring person. I was sitting in the main auditorium at the ST convention last August when a boy about 10 years old asked LN a question. LN called the boy up on stage, along with his father, and offered to bring their entire family from Hawaii to LA as his personal guests to the premiere of the movie Dec.\’08. He has contributed time and money to many charitable causes ($1 million to the Griffith Observatory in LA, founded a fund for local artists, animal shelters all over the world, to name a few). He is at present a respected photographer ( two best-selling books of fine-art photography ) with showings in respected galleries in LA, NY and Connecticut. Several of his award-winning art photographs are hanging in various museums in the US. Your reference to his book I Am Spock: that is a current autobiography he wrote in reply to an autobiography he wrote in the early \’70\’s entitled I Am Not Spock. When I Am Not Spock was published, although it was a best-selling book, there was fan outcry at the title from those fans who did not read the book and interpreted the title as Nimoy\’s rejection of the Spock character – not his intent and not the spriit of the wriiten material. You would probably do well to purchase the DVDs of the original series and the two Nimoy autobiograhies (only 2 of many books he has written) and learn a bit about the original series and its most beloved, well-known character if you consider yourself to be a ST fan – what you do not know may surprise you.

499. Chris Pike - January 20, 2008


…and meant to add, love the use of the glorious sound effects of classic Trek in the teaser (I believe the original series won an Emmy for its sound editing). Hope to hear more in the final edit!

500. Dennis Bailey - January 20, 2008

#495: “Besides, a lot of the canon is crap.”

That doesn’t get said much, but there’s some truth to it. Mixed into official Trek lore is a fair amount of bad decisions, reasoning and implausibility that have just been compounded over the years.

In terms of behavior and real cultural differences, there’s more variation within a ten mile of my apartment building than among all the species of “Star Trek” – simply having odd make-up and ficitional names/languages doesn’t really make the prosaic seem exotic for much longer than it takes for the novelty to wear off.

501. Windsor Bear - January 20, 2008

499 – Both “I Am Not Spock” and “I Am Spock” are great books. I love the sections where Leonard Nimoy has conversations with Mr. Spock. In the latter book, it is heartening to see that Nimoy can finally embrace his alter-ego as being a positive part of myself. Not unlike Mr. Spock finally being able to embrace his human side as being a positive thing in the movies.

484 – Apology accepted. I’m not a total raving lunatic, just a fringe element. I’m just very, very protective of the things I hold dear to me; The TOS Enterprise model being one of those things. Even as a kid, I was captivated by her beauty. I remember the first AMT model kit I bought of her. It had a light kit that I never could get to work, but she was still a beauty. I hung it proudly in my room. The second AMT model kit I bought had those funky shaped condensed decals. The parts were poorly molded and did not fit together properly. Even as a pre-teen, I went balistic and wrote to the president of AMT. I expected to hear nothing. Imagine my surprise when I received a written apolgy and and a free replacement kit. The squeaky wheel got grease!!!!!

Here are two more links to pics of her current state in the Smithsonian…

I mean, she still looks good… but I would love to go there with a scrub brush and start scrubbing off those silly lines.

502. WilliamShatnersPants! - January 20, 2008

I’m so excited about this movie!!!

:-) Yay for Trek XI!!!

503. AJ - January 20, 2008

It nay be simply that Romania’s fan community cannot share in the collective history we have had in the West these many years.

Spock was always an icon of capitalist excessiveness for the Soviet government’s propaganda machine, so Romania’s Securitate probably made sure that the image of Spock was always portrayed as idiotic. Number 5000 on the list of things to do, but something that has come up nonetheless.

504. Aventhu - January 20, 2008

Stick arc welding a starship by hand, yeah right!

505. Wayne Spitzer - January 20, 2008

Not sure if it was this thread or another (#407 was clearly joking with a wink and a nod), but what’s with the bigoted undercurrent in a few of the posts? Star Trek is about being united. Just gives me an excuse to trot out a Kirkism from “Balance of Terror,” as in:

“Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the bridge.”

Surely one of the finest moments in all of Trek. And a great performance by the Shat. Star Trek may be uniquely American in its birth, but its appeal is most certainly international; indeed, I find the eagerness and earnestness of these fans, based upon their posts, quite inspiring.

Just soap-boxing. And when it comes to that, there’s a little Kirk in all of us.

506. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 20, 2008

505. Aventhu – January 20, 2008
[Stick arc welding a starship by hand, yeah right!]

Aventhu, see my Post #263. That may help comfort you a bit.

507. me - January 20, 2008


We Won, when I already hear things like that.
Star Trek is about a united world, even more a united Federation of Planets.
I don’t think American or any kind of nationalism goes with that ideal.
Thinking in nations is antiquated , even today.

508. New Horizon - January 20, 2008


What would you call me a blind fan? I didn’t have a problem with what you were saying, I just told you that it was rude to be yelling it in upper caps. :)

509. Darren Spraggs - January 20, 2008

Daft question which may have already been asked, but is this a reboot or just set in a certain time within the existing Trek universe.

Because if its a reboot- fair enough.

but if its set in the same Star Trek Universe., how can the Enterprise be under construction and still the Kirk and Co crew use it. Christopher Pike captained the ship first for 5 years before Kirk and Co (except Spock) was on the Enterprise. so whats happening here?

I suspect that possibly Leanord Nimoy is probably having some confrence between Federation with Romulans talking about some peace treaty following from Star Trek: Nemesis and maybe saying how things were different when he started in Starfleet with the Romulans hich means the Romulans may be the heavies in this film. Wonder if the Klingons will be on here and if so if they will look “human” like in the Original Series

510. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

AJ- Never knew about the Soviet Union’s slant on Spock’s character. Do you have any other info you can share as to those particular attitudes of the eastern bloc nations?

511. Dr. Image - January 20, 2008

#497- Interesting question.
Roberto? Genesis camera system or (yeecchh) film?
(I’m a still photographer who swore it off years ago.)

512. Nuallain - January 20, 2008

#510. As I understand it, the teaser is largely symbolic in nature. The movie doesn’t, as far as we’ve heard, purport to show Kirk aboard the Enterprise immediately after its construction.

From what we’ve heard so far, it sounds as if the movie is set towards the end of Pike’s time as captain.

513. Domo_Arigato - January 20, 2008

Am I the only one who got the feeling like Orci was stuck-up and had a “holier-than-thou” attitude during the whole interview or is it just me?

514. Stephen - January 20, 2008

I haven’t seen so many responses to a single blog entry so quickly. There aren’t this many people emotionally invested enough in the 2008 US Presidential election to respond to blog entries like this!

If this single blog entry is any indication, I think the re-envisioned Star Trek will do well. We all know that the first goal of any marketing campaign is to get people talking, and you’ve certainly done that well!

I’m very much looking forward to seeing a fresh take on an old classic. And I won’t hold “The Sacred Star Trek Canon” up to the new film. Instead, I look forward to being taken on a new ride.

Thanks for walking the tightrope so well!

515. Michael Adams - January 20, 2008

Orci, Abrahms, and all the rest. You had better start sweating the details, because if you are the manchurian candidates, like the ones who wrote and directed Nemesis, and “our” movie fails, the people at paramount who wanted TNG out of the way will not have won once, but twice and their willingness to do that (to TNG) and gambing on you not sweating the details might mean that there wont be a second try for you. I don’t know if this makes sense to you, I’m just saying that a lot of people hate those fools (the writer and directer of Nemesis) and I don’t want to feel that way about you.

516. Michael P. Delaney - January 20, 2008

Once again, The Making of Star Trek, a book published in 1968, written by Stephen Whitfield and GENE RODENBERRY clealy and explicitly states that the Enterprise components were built at San Francisco Navy Yards and assembled in space. In the very next sentence, it says that the Enterprise is not designed to operate inside an atmosphere and NEVER lands on a planet. The promo I saw today shows a welder in a wife-beater t-shirt and goggles welding the craft like it was an old ‘57 Chevy muffler. Since we don’t even build passenger aircraft (not to even mention spacecraft) like that TODAY, the teaser is either meant to be nothing but symbolic, or else shows a total lack of respect for 40 years of Star Trek history, as well as the intelligence of the viewers. I’ll have to wait to see which is true.

517. roberto orci - January 20, 2008


AS I said before in this very thread, not sweating the details does not mean that we aren’t scared S#%tless to screw it up. It just means that when you are walking a tightrope, you try not look down. In the context of the interview, I only meant to say that we were still confident in our approach.

518. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Domo #514- You’re the only one.

519. roberto orci - January 20, 2008


Maybe cocky and know-it-all-ish, but “hollier than thou?”

520. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Mr. Orci- Back to join the fray? Courageous as well as talented – my kind of man.

521. SPB - January 20, 2008

#514 –

It was just you.

522. Michael Adams - January 20, 2008

Okay, back to building the Enterprise. I’m hoping that those seemingly enormous nacelles are for heavy lifting the saucer section out into space to be fitted to the main hull. YES EVERYBODY the saucer is designed to detatch (not reatatch like Big D) in an emergency and crash land on the surface if need be. Okay.

523. Red Shirt - January 20, 2008

Herr Orci…. For those that don’t know what you do on the set (since you can’t rewrite sides during the strike), can you take us through an average day?

Also, we’ve all enjoyed viral websites for Blair Witch, Cloverfield and A.I.
Can we expect to see any for this film? It might be interesting to see slighty reworked permutations of facebook or myspace for recent SFA graduates, or maybe something that talks about SF recruiting?

Were you not involved in the trailer’s edit? I mean, you said you had to get back to us as to what the music was at the top of the trailer. Was it P-Mount folks, Damon and JJ only?

Many thanks and think IDIC. That’s what I think of the potential for your movie, and I hope those here can think the same way.

524. Michael Adams - January 20, 2008


Robert I’m sorry if that was rough. #516
Warp fields and gravity wells don’t mix, but that’s only in some novels, and I do trust ya’ll, just don’t turn it into Transformers. Too much fluff.

525. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

523- Just a bit of trivia concerning your point on original E’s detachment capability – that was mentioned in the episode The Apple when Kirk ordered Scotty to separate the saucer serction from the main hull if the ship could not break the planet atmosphere. Fun facts for the kids…

526. Michael Adams - January 20, 2008


I act like I’m a cannon expert, I’m not.

527. Gene - January 20, 2008

Dear Mr. Robert Orci:

Hello…wow..I placed two comments on this thread (#52 & #125) and its still going.

I am impressed that you are listening to everyone.

I just read # 516 and your response in # 518. I think that the comments in #516 just are one of many examples of fears that some fans have. I think that your participation helps maybe calm some of those fears.

Cloverfield made $41 million at the box office. I saw it…very unique indeed. But a lot of that draw was a lot of people trying to figure out what the movie was about.

People know Star Trek. Some don’t like it…regardless of the reboot. So, load the deck…somehow get that Nimoy-Shatner Chemistry (even if Shatner does cameo, which is fine) his support. Your script may not need it. But look at it this way…if every film could survive on the powerful script….why do we have movie hype. Cloverfield didn’t make 41 million on just the script:-)


528. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

#527 Michael Adams “I act like I’m a cannon expert, I’m not”

Nothing to be ashamed about……most of us aren’t acquainted with using firearms! :)

529. Domo_Arigato - January 20, 2008

519, 522: It wouldn’t surprise me

520: meh, I just got that feeling, sorry If I offended you Mr. Orci, but those were just the vibes I got off of the interview

530. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

#520 roberto orci ‘but ‘holier than thou?'”

Maybe he just meant you’d have to be THE POPE to impress this crowd! :)

p.s. where did you live growing up in Canada?

531. Kynan( future writer/director of awesome movies) - January 20, 2008

I would just like to see some pictures of the cast in their starfleet uniforms on the new website.thatd be awesome. itd hold me for a little bit in terms of advertising and hype build up. but i bet itll be a while b4 we get to see that. am i right Mr. Orci??

532. roberto Orci - January 20, 2008


Lived in Toronto.

533. roberto Orci - January 20, 2008


No offense taken. I take you at your word that you felt that way and I appreciate all input. I am not a media savvy expert who can afford to ignore an opinion like yours.

534. KennyB - January 20, 2008

A LOT of people saw that damn trailer this weekend……….

LOS ANGELES – The creature-feature “Cloverfield” became the first monster hit released in 2008, debuting with $41 million, a record opening for January, according to studio estimates Sunday.

The previous record holder was STAR WARS: SE in 97

Congrats Roberto & Co……hopefully they all want to come back in Dec 08!!!!!!!

535. roberto Orci - January 20, 2008


I agree about no warping in gravity wells. Just meant that warping of space is equivalent to gravity (according to general relativity). So a ship that moves through warp is the equivalent of a ship moving through strong gravity well.

The excellent novel PRIME DIRECTIVE has cautioned about the dangers of warping within a planets gravity well.

536. Kynan - January 20, 2008

Mr. Orci,are you on set most days? like when filming is going down?

537. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

528- Gene, please, por favor, no more calling on Orci to wave the magic wand, or his magic clicky-top writer’s pen, to transport Shat into the depths of a movie that has been filming since the beginning of November. There may be, and probably are, other factors at work here that the team cannot divulge. Here is one scenerio (most likely in my opinion): Abrams and Shat sit down to mull over Shat’s involvement in said film. Before Abrams can spill the words “I am so glad we could meet and discuss your possible involvement…yadayada,,,” Shat interrupts and says, “These are my demands…as many lines as Leonard…same pay as Leonard…you say Leonard is getting X? Well, that’s not nearly enough for my time and talent. Cut Leonard’s to Y so I can get Z. Oh, and I need script approval, creative control and oh yes I direct on your next picture…You say you are directing the next picture? Well, I can see you don’t want me in this film… it’s a bad business decision not to monopolize on my popularity…I’m gonna tell…Wah Wah Wah…”

What exactly are Abrams, or Orci, or Nimoy, (the list goes on) suppose to say when questioned by media or fan every 2.35 seconds about why Shat is not in the film? He was incredibly obnoxious, demanding and unrealistic, we tried, we really did but the guy acts like a blithering demi-god and he brought his attorney with him (which is what he did at a meeting before production of ST:3 with his FRIEND Nimoy: ref. Nimoy’s autobiography I Am Spock), etc., etc., etc.

We all know as rational, thinking adults that there are just some things in life that we cannot have control over. Give the creative team the benefit of the doubt in this particular situation, at least. Chances are very, very good that Shat will not be in the movie because of Shat.

538. Gene - January 20, 2008

Hi Densie de Arman:

I respect your point of view in #538. But I think you are making my point with the questions about the media and fans questioning every “2.35 seconds” about Shatner. It will never go away. The last thing I want…is that this movie get bad press or people looking for it to fail. So I am being realistic. You may say, just have faith…but ask those who saw Nemisis fail.

A lot of people who say, who needs Shatner’s blessing…look at his behavior..and say…”who needs him.” For me…its not about teaching Shatner a lesson. It is about keeping a good thing going and not letting it die.

I think Mr. Orci and company know that. Even though I think that Shatner’s comments about it being “good business sense” to have him in the movie can be taken as arrogant. Can you really say given Trek’s history, he is wrong? Box office means a lot…especially to Paramount.

Thats my position:-)


539. Tom in Seattle - January 20, 2008

(Wow over 500 posts in one day!!)

I am a 49 year old airline pilot who got his ST start one night in late 1966 sitting at the bottom of my parents bed in an apartment in Chicago. That day they had just gone out to buy a new RCA “Portable” COLOR!!!! (It was frigging HUGE!) 19inch TV set.

When asked (I was 8 years old) I was told that there was a very special show coming on that night. My dad, who was also a pilot, was an even bigger geek then I turned out to be. From that first look to now I was hooked and ST has been in my life in one form or another for 41 years and I hope/wish it will still generating goose bumps in 41 more years.

This may sound a little hokey but years ago when I pushed the throttles forward on the first Boeing I ever flew, I was thinking about Enterprise and how those guys felt going into warp (yea yea..I cannot help it!!..:))

I saw Clovefield on Friday night and had no idea the trailer was coming up. I was very embarrassed by he fact that I teared up then the logo came on the screen, I actually had to turn away when my 30 year old army buddy who I went to see the movie with turned to me to ask what that was on the screen (YES I said “It’s Star Trek”!!!)

Well nuff of this gooo. Mr. Orci…I am not the total fan who lives and breaths ST 24/7 (this is my first post ever to a fan site) however I am THE fan who likes and has enjoyed every version (good, bad, and ugly) of the “Universe” he has seen in the last 40 some years. I am confident that your team and it’s vision (I fly a B777 and many people think it’s nacelles are too big also!!) will just add to this wonderful legacy. Bring it on!! I am sitting in the front row with the “new kids”.

Tom in Seattle

540. Kynan - January 20, 2008

wow trash talking Mr. Shatner, a man who has contributed so much to star trek an im sure wishes only the best for its future. thats lost. i agree that he probably wont fit into the film an thats ok if it for story reasons but geez who the hell r u to assume so much an trash a great actor an generally good guy.

541. Star Sailor - January 20, 2008

#496. D. McCoy

I agree with you.

What I find sad is that those of us who have enjoyed all of Trek are now the ones who should step aside and let this be what it is–without question. We are the ones who are going to ruin Trek because we want to move forward and not backward, and have a respect for the history of Trek.

There is so much hypocrisy here and double standards on this site, it’s ridiculous. The movie is guaranteed to be the best ever, but those of us who are cautious–who question–are told to shut up, leave, stop complaining and accept what comes.

People are so glad that a new Trek movie is coming that they are willing to throw away history infavor of a shiny bauble in the film, and everyone else is supposed to do the same.

I’m not an ass kisser, as is on display here, so I will say I am not totally happy with what has been said and provided. Not only here, but in other story areas as well. Such is the case of introducing Star Trek to a whole new audience.

What exactly does this mean? Are teen/kids so stupid today that they need explosions instead of great storytelling? Change “Star Trek” to TOS and I can understand, because many teens, discovered Trek through the TNG era (such as myself in the early ’90s).

Also, Mr. Orci, your comments could do with a bit more respect to the audience who has followed Trek alot longer than you have (Immediate recall of all things Trek). You’re coming into our place, so to speak.

Another thing, if this is a reboot, I will do what people here would gladly want–stay away from Trek completely.

This is not the same as Batman or Bond. Did Christian Bale play Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne? Did Daniel Craig play Sean Connery’s Bond? Are actors playng Olivier’s Hamlet, or their own interpretations?

Star Trek is a history of stories linked by characters, races and devices giving a living breathing universe.

I would hate to see that thrown away for FX, and in trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars just for the sake of a younger market. You can appeal to youth without being completely stupid and flashy, ya know.

I will still give Trek XI a chance with a rental, but if it erases what came after the TOS, then, well, goodbye Star Trek.

Oh, and since this is my first post here, I really have to say this site needs better messaging, perhaps a message board, because scrolling to find a response is ridiculous (pages would be better).

542. Michael P. Delaney - January 20, 2008

Mr. Orci, the most courageous thing you could ever do is to give the middle-aged Star Trek fans, who know every line of dialouge from TOS, what we’ve always wanted and never had- a FAITHFUL portrayal of the original series and original Enterprise on the big screen, using modern special effects technology to knock our socks off! I’m talking bright colors, mini-skirts, heavy eye-liner, beehive hairdos, the works! After all, this vision of Star Trek has been reaffirmed as “real” in The Next Generation (‘Relics”), Deep Space Nine (“Trials and Tribblations”), and Enterprise (“A Mirror Darkly”). One of our biggests disappointments with Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1977 was that fans like us hardly recognized it. Face it- a huge draw in any Star Trek movie is nostalgia and affection- it’s like seeing a member of the family again. Please give us the original, unadulterated Matt Jeffries design of the USS Enterprise on the big screen for once!

543. Dennis Bailey - January 20, 2008

#540, that is a wonderful story about your parents and the enthusiasm you shared for these things. Thanks. :)

544. Regular Joe - January 20, 2008

Roberto, I realize you may not be in the loop on merchandising, but do you know if/when we can expect a model kit of the new Enterprise?

545. Gene - January 20, 2008

Kind of bouncing of the last couple of posts, #542,#543 . I think everyone should remember that unlike Bond (orginally a book series) and Batman, Superman (comic books), the public already had some idea of these characters before an actor ever filled the roles.

But in the case of Star Trek (unless I am mistaken), Kirk, Spock and company were but ideas in Gene Roddenberry’s imagination…an idea..then words on a script….before Shatner, Nimoy, and others took their alter-egos. Just like Meyer their Director of TWOK said of the actors…they all at some time ran from the alter-egos…then embraced them. They all, the actors, molded what we know of the characters. Should be respected.

So…anyone can play Bond, Superman, Batman. Not anyone can play Indiana Jones (orginally an idea of George Lucas…ie, Harrison Ford ( who I think is 65). Can you imagine someone other than Ford playing Indiana Jones and people seeing it??

So, again. We all know, for Trek to continue..must have new people. I think everyone is fine with that. But honoring the old guard..while they are alive…..would be great.

Just like #543 said, “a huge draw in any Star Trek movie is nostalgia and affection.”


546. Tanner Waterbury - January 20, 2008

What about the Koerner design? Why did that have to be used instead of the grand ole TOS Enterprise? I mean, you could of updated it a bit by adding Aztec patterns and mabye a more greyish silverish paintjob. But Honestly, it looks WAY to modern to be TOS or Pre TOS in that case. Just like what Dr. McCoy said in STTMP “I Know Engineers they love to change things!” Well, it seems that this is true. Now dont get me wrong, the design is cool and all, but next time, if you make another movie using TOS, Just use the regular good ol 1701. Oh and also, how is the strike coming along?

547. Tanner Waterbury - January 20, 2008

Oh and also i forgot to ask, are you sticking with Gene Roddenberrys Star Trek, where its more of an adventure than action, or are you going the JJ Abrams way, which is EXPLOSIONS AND ACTION AND TWISTS? Hell i really havent watched anythong of his other than cloverfield.

548. Dr. Image - January 20, 2008

#543- Very well said.
If a job is worth doing, it’s worth doing right.
When people think Star Trek, they think of the classic, original trappings.
That’s how it will ALWAYS be.
Everything else is an afterthought.

549. LorienTheYounger - January 20, 2008

#65 “I hate to be a stickler for REAL historical facts… but… to be completely accurate, Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest president ever. Not JFK, as is widely assumed.”

Well, since Roosevelt became president after the assassination of McKinley, you could say JFK was the youngest president to be elected to the position…

550. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

Kynan #541- Ref. “trash-talking Shatner” – tilts head and smirks bemusedly, heavy sigh. Okay, maybe I did take some dramatic license with some of my comments…okay, most of my comments (snicker, chortle)… However, my point remains the same. I point to Leonard Nimoy’s I Am Spock, fellow fans, as proof that the Shat has a prior reputation for making HIGHLY unreasonable demands while in negotiations. I could take three pages of text here quoting word by word what Nimoy wrote in the book, but you guys can read, so go for it.

Star Sailor #542- Ref. “a__-kisser” – blows out breath heavily and cracks knuckles: I could wither you with words, Mr. Sailor; however, I think I will simply clarify my position. I am not writing anything here to impress Mr. Orci, you or anyone else (ref. my post at #324 if you think I have my lips attached to anyone’s butt). Watching the Shat portray the most heroic, complicated captain in the history of modern media (television and literature) has been one of my life’s joys – really, seriously, no joke… I can adore and admire the character, respect and appreciate the talent of the actor, and revile the ego of the man at the same time. Too complicated to absorb that a person could harbor so many mixed, seemingly contrary emotions concerning the same individual? Take a look at yourself in the mirror – we all do it every day as human beings with varied people and situations presented to us. Just part of the good ol’ human condition.

#539 Gene- I wasn’t speaking of teaching the Shat a lesson. The point I was endeavoring to make in my own warped way (snicker…chortle…) is that the team might not have any choice in the matter. Has anyone ever asked you for something that you just did not have the power to give? And when you responded that you just couldn’t do or give what they wanted, was it possible that they did not agree with your answer and resolution to the request? That is my point: Shat may have (and I believe did) ask for something Abrams just could not deliver. If that is the case, 4092 requests a day from antsy fans and intrusive media is not going to change the situation – give the guy a break and let him work on the movie we all want to see 12/25.

551. Gd846c3 - January 20, 2008


It isn’t Koerner’s design. It is the original TOS, just ever so slightly modified with just a few more details to add some flavor.

552. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008


where did you live while in Toronto and for how long?

I’m only asking because I’ve lived in Toronto my whole life… :)

553. Rick James - January 20, 2008

#218: The Star Trek you grew up with and loved died when NBC pulled the plug in 1969. The look of the Enterprise outside and inside were going to change for Star Trek Phase II. When Star Trek The Motion Picture was greenlit, the look of the Enterprise inside and outside changed yet again. If the original look was that good, Roddenberry would have not bothered to comission Matt Jeffries to change the look of the ship for Phase II in the first place. It would have taken less time and money to reuse the old ship from the old tv show for the new tv show at that point in time. However the Enterprise was changed for The Motion Picture because the old Enterprise, TOS and Phase II, was never made to look good on a big theatre screen. In my opinion changing the TOS era Enterprise to look more like the TMP Enterprise makes sense since this prequel is a motion picture and not a tv show. In the end the creators of Star Trek did not find the TOS era 1960s Enterprise worthy of keeping around for neither the sequel television series or the motion picture sequel to the old television series. Abrams in this context are not doing anything more radical then what was done to Star Trek during the 1970s-1980s motion pictures revival.

554. Rick James - January 20, 2008

#451: The original Enterprise is now in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum’s gift shop. The gift shop is located within the “bowels” of the building. I remember seeing the ship when it hung from the ceiling of a main exhibition area but things change. It makes more sense in the new location. The Enterprise was the only exhibit in the entire museum that did not represent something that exists in the ‘real’ world.

I don’t mind the new paint job. It was a surprise the first time I saw it in person. However I figured the ship always looked this way. Just couldn’t see the details because of the old washed out standard def low resolution picture quality of the 1960s era footage.

555. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

#540 Tom- Your post is probably one of the most memorable fan testimonials many of us will ever hear – very giving of yourself to open to the posting forum in such an honest way.

556. Gene - January 20, 2008

Hi Denise de Arman:

I understand your points…all very logical ones. But, I think the problem is that most of the basis for your opinion as to why Shatner may not be in this movie is speculation. And that not your fault and you never said that you know the information as truth. You take this information from Nimoy’s book and Shatner’s reputation to mean that Shatner probably asked for too much and is the reason hes not in the project.

What do we know, really. Mr. Orci comments as to Shatner it is still being talked over. Abrams commented recently that it was “tricky” bringing Shat back cause he died. But many Trek fans find it hard to accept because…well, Spock died. It was “tricky”…but a writer made it happen.

So…to answer your question…no one has really said they could not do it….that is from the New Trek movie team. No one from the team has said Shatner was the problem. And if you look at Mr. Orci’s recent comments, it seems…even if the filming has been going on since November…it may…be a possible….maybe not. Who knows:-)


557. Jabob Slatter - January 20, 2008

The problem with bringing Kirk back is tough. Sure, yeah, Spock died, but they needed a whole movie to bring him back. How are you supposed to bring Kirk back without making it the focus of the story? This isn’t The Search for Kirk.

Shatner chose to die in Generations and that’s his problem. Maybe the next movie can bring Kirk back, but you just can’t fit such a huge sideline plot into a new version of Star Trek.

So knock off yer whining.

558. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

I think they offered Shatner a cameo and he insisted on a much bigger role with a paycheque to match! End of discussion, not just between us, but with Abrams and the Shat as well! Finito!

559. Jabob Slatter - January 20, 2008

Shatner did the same thing to Enterprise. They tried to get him on the show as Kirk, but his asking price was too much. Just as well, because I didn’t really want to watch any more episodes of Enterprise.


560. Star Sailor - January 20, 2008

#551. Denise de Arman


By the time you get to withering me with words on a pseudo message board (oh, tough), I would have moved on after reading your tired description of your acts (breathes deeply…cracks knuckles blah, blah, blah…). By all means say what you feel, but I really think you should just say it rather than describe it.

And I was refering to the ass kissing on this site that makes it as though Roberto and Co. are doing this as a favor (methinks J.J. and Co are geting some serious dough for doing what they are, no?).

Congratulating before seing anything is okay, but questioning what may be is not?

As for your feeling about Shat, I never commented on that…so, meh.

561. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

#555 Rick- The Enterprise is in the gift shop? Can you possibly provide a time frame for when you witnessed this abomination? The last time I was there, she was riding high with the other exhibits.

562. Gene - January 20, 2008

#558-Jabob Slatter…don’t think too hard about…it is Sci Fi. Anything is possible. Never said it had to be the focus of the film…and the only reason you say that is because it was the focus of the “Search for Spock.” You don’t want to limit the New team…but then you do….if it means bringing someone back.

Like I said, if you read what I wrote in past posts. ……but Nimoy created Spock….and Shatner…Kirk by how they played them. If you disagree, tell me how? So …having both them in it..somehow…may help…more than hurt.

Look…a lot of Star Trek is fan based…what bothers you and others are you are in the minority..and you are….look at the posts.

So, again…we all want Trek to do well. And I will see it, regardless. Just want it to do well. And if it takes making a deal with Shat (who must know by know that if he is in this…it will be a minor role/cameo)…then that what is take…to bring more people to the movie to give the new actors a chance.

I am really more “middle of the rode” than most Jabob 558…don’t take it so serious. Sci Fi people..anything


563. Jabob Slatter - January 20, 2008

Actually, Gene, #563, the old-schoolers would seem to be the minority, based on various polls on this web site, but I’m not interested in an extended argument of that point. Besides, I’ve been in the minority in most things all my life, so it doesn’t really bother me. If I’m in the minority here, it just means I’m smarter than most.
Yes, they could bring Kirk back in an instant, and it would be a shining mistake, an obvious concession and blatant pandering. Yeah, there’s a lot of fan support and involvement in Trek, but we don’t own it.

564. Jabob Slatter - January 20, 2008

Hm, my smiley didn’t work…

565. Jabob Slatter - January 20, 2008

OOPS! It’s bedtime. Ya’ll will have to finish this without me. I’m sure that makes you sad.

Good night everybody!

566. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

#561 Mr. Sailor- Sorry for the misinterrr.r.r.r….uh, … oh, sorry, I still have the giggles from a grown man using the phrase “so, meh”. No, really, sorry for the misinterpretation.

Actually, no, I do not think they are really doing the posting as a favor, nor do I think there are any funds changing hands (conspiratol mindset you got going there). I believe, as do the majority of posters here (I think anyway), that Mr. Orci & Co. are sincere fans of our beloved ST and are here to commune with the Collective.

And don’t take my girlish giggles the wrong way – really thought your “meh” was cute (make note to self: use “meh” in the future).

567. johnconner - January 20, 2008

558, 559, 560:

Let’s see if I’ve got this right.

1. If Shatner’s in ST11, then the whole damn shebang has to be about Kirk’s resurrection because that’s what they did with The Search For Spock.

2. Shatner’s dealings with Enterprise are EXACTLY the same as his dealings with the new movie team.

Yeah, you’re right. The hell with all those pesky possibilities.

568. Chain of Command - January 20, 2008

I saw Cloverfield Saturday night. Awesome movie. It made me a little sick at times because of the jarring hand-held camera (Plus we sat WAY too close to the screen) but it was a cool flick.

And, of course, there was little, I guess you call it, a trailer?

So, what can I say? I thought it was great! Nothing like seeing the Enterprise on the big screen again. I think the coolest thing about the trailer was how much of the original spirit of the series it brought back. Hearing Nimoy do the “Space, the Final Frontier” and seeing THE Enterprise looking majestic and, well, “ginormous” was really cool.

As far this interview: I don’t see why people are saying that Roberto Orci is arrogant or any of that garbage. Seems to me that all of these guys who are making this film have more of a grasp of Trek than the previous TNG-era production company.

I get the impression that this film is also going to be the first true Star Trek movie since Nick Meyer directed Star Trek II. If that is indeed the case I’ll be very happy with it.

569. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

#563 Gene- I know a lost cause when I hear one (pounds head on desk).

570. Denise de Arman - January 20, 2008

#563 Gene- Oops, meant “I know a lost cause when I READ one” (pounds head on desk).

571. Gene - January 20, 2008

Hi Denise de Arman

I got you:-) .lol..both in #570 and #571…all in a good healthy debate. Have a good night….going to bed.


572. Jacques Chirac - January 20, 2008


First artificial satellite – Sputnik (SSSR, Russia)
First man in orbit – Yuri Gagarin
First woman in space – Valentina Tereshkova
First real space station – Mir (SSSR, Russia)

International projects:
International Space Station
Hubble space telescope

And…in Star Trek Earth is united, if you didn’t know.

Regarding Yuri Gagarin and Russian language…have you ever heard about subtittles?

573. Another New Person - January 20, 2008

Question for Mr. Orci:

I know this goes into spoiler territory, but can you give any indication what types of hand weapons the crew will use in the film? Lasers a la ‘The Cage’, ‘WNMHGB’, and one or two other TOS eps where the props were reused, Enterprise-era phase guns, or ordinary phasers? Personally, I’m pulling for the lasers concept, since it fits with canon and the average person who has no idea what a phaser is will find the term ‘laser’ more accessible, but a mix of all three would be great too. I wish you fortune with the film.

574. Star Sailor - January 21, 2008

#567. Denise de Arman

I’m talking about doing the film as a favor. No conspiracy here.

Many are already praising the team for what we’ve not been shown. Keep up the good work over some scraps of publicity?

Again, the team of J.J and Co. are getting paid for what they’re doing. It’s not as though they are forgoing royalties just to be a part of Trek. Whether or not they’re fans of Star Trek or a bunch of TOS fanboys who didn’t like the TNG era is to be seen.

575. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

Mr Orci and JJ and co.

It would be cool to have shatner back in the last scenes in the movie, just like it happened to Spock in ST III. But please take my advice here. Shatner’s is in a precarious position. He know you all (akk of us actually) would love for him to be a part of the final closing moments of the film. But, as some whom have posted here earlier have observed, Shatner can be a bit full of himself. Not that that’s bad. That’s just Shatner. Would you expect anything else?

My advice would be (if you are looking older Kirk to appear as a bookend) then just shoot Chris Pine in older makeup. WE TREK FANS WILL ALL UNDERSTAND. That’s just Shatner. Why would we expect anything else?

All my money would be riding on Shatner actually ‘resurrecting’ his role in the movie, if he is (re)appraoched at the right time and place. Just leave that last week open and have a green screen and artist ready to drop him in when the time comes. In the end, I think Shatner will see the light and make the RIGHT decision. If not, WE WILL UNDERSTAND.

Also if you have Shatner in the movie, I WILL be expecting to see ‘Dee’ too!
YES, DeForest Kelly. And with a big loving, blue eyed, older grin. Maybe add a wink too!

And obviously, It’s OK if you don’t comment on this post.

576. Admiral Waugh - January 21, 2008

I just wanted to comment and say I *LOVE* the hull plating on the Enterprise. It is just like the most beautiful thing I have ever seen: the refit Constitution class. That model holds up astoundingly well today, comes up beautifully on the big screen, and really gives a cinematic quality to the ship.

Plus, in my mind, it goes a long way toward establishing continuity. It’s the little things, eh?

577. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

Just saw the new article on the main page. See Shat is still trying to stick it in there. Let him rot for another 10 months. If he comes around them give 1 mil for the days shoot. If not the use Chris.

US TREK FANS WILL ALL UNDERTAND!!! As for the general public, |
it will NOT matter.

578. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

-Batman begins was boring…Nemesis and Insurrection where not important to trek world.[Insurrection was so stupid and so..delicate ].I would like to see in the next movie ..if old Spock succeeds to make romulans to join Vulcan and Federation .. The trek fans always expected to see important events and changes to trek world in a ST movie..but i think that thing is senseless to ST movie producers.. WE will never going to see a DS-9 movie…too bad..the second part of DS -9 series was one of the greatest ..

579. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008


580. j w wright - January 21, 2008

” Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone”


the standard issue ‘fleet communicator is a subspace transceiver, it does not use radio frequencies that are dependent on a network of relay towers and satellites for their very impressive range of operation.

they’re also used as a locater for transporter functions…

not as advanced as an iphone because they couldnt play mp3’s or display pictures of your pet cat, fluffy?

does anyone working on the new movie know anything about star trek at all?

this might be a bigger disaster than nemesis

581. Jacques Chirac - January 21, 2008

Orci said that he read in sam TOS novel that warp nacelles must be balanced in atmosphere. Did he know that informations from series and movies (e.g. Voyager, Intrepid classm is first interstelar ship capable to land on the surface of planets) are canon, while TOS novels aren’t?

582. j w wright - January 21, 2008

“And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well.”

by using lead weights? why not rely on advanced enginerring techniques involving mass, materials and accurate measuring?

warp engines do not often operate in a gravity well, impuse engines take the vessel clear of planets before firing up.

gravity is an obvious variable, but mass is not… would it be too much to ask for a star trek fan to be involved in the movie production on some level?

balance the warp engines in gravity… crickey.

why not insist that phasers use rock candy crystals to focus their beam, which can only be found on the enchanted planet of sentient gummy-bears?

thet wouldnt, technically violate canon either?

open her wide up, bastardize trek all you like because we’re so desperate to see the 1701 on the big screen again

that all we want and no cost is too great.

583. j w wright - January 21, 2008

“So we aren’t going to sweat every little detail. We are going to sweat whether or not you buy our interpretation of it. ”

what was great about trek before, is that details were sweated over, there are contradictions in canon, but no more than in real life. does everyone you know have an accurate kinowledge of american history? of world history?

because one person may remember different things about history and be mistaken about many things, does that mean earth canon has been violated?

of course not, to assume that characters who live in the next handful of centuries are walking historical encyclopedias is ridiculous, but canon nazis insist that they must be, and is evidence to support their position that canon is often violated.

rubbish, that only serves to let the floodgates open to ‘reimagine’ trek with no regard to established fundamentals about the realm.

according to the ‘making of star trek’ the enterprise was partially built on the ground, and assembled in orbit. the galaxy class ships were built the same way, on mars:×11/parallels088.jpg

you can see major hull components on the mars surface, they were assumably assembled in mars orbit… so the construction method mentioned in the book ‘making of…’ is canon.

584. roberto Orci - January 21, 2008


Have addressed your points in this very thread.

The iphone reference is meant to illustrate the point that the future is much closer than it used to be, not as a literal comparison of the features of an iphone and a communicator.

As for warp and gravity — as I said above, gravity itself is described as a warping of space by none other than Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Therefore, it can be said that the Enterprise is designed to sustain MASSIVE GRAVITATIONAL FORCES in that its engines warp space sufficiently to move faster than light.

585. Red Shirt - January 21, 2008

Herr Orci…. For those that don’t know what you do on the set (since you can’t rewrite sides during the strike), can you take us through an average day?

Also, we’ve all enjoyed viral websites for Blair Witch, Cloverfield and A.I.
Can we expect to see any for this film? It might be interesting to see slighty reworked permutations of facebook or myspace for recent SFA graduates, or maybe something that talks about SF recruiting?

Were you not involved in the trailer’s edit? I mean, you said you had to get back to us as to what the music was at the top of the trailer. Was it P-Mount folks, Damon and JJ only?

Many thanks and think IDIC. That’s what I think of the potential for your movie, and I hope those here can think the same way.

586. Rick James - January 21, 2008

#562: Denise:

I last visited the National Air and Space Museum (National Mall location) during the spring of 2005. I too was surprised the Enterprise was no longer hanging from the ceiling. I looked all over the museum and the gift shop was the last location in the building I happened to visit. As far as I know the ship is still in the gift shop. The following web site links to the Smithsonian clearly state the Enterprise now resides in the gift shop.

In fact the link below tells you the museum gift shop is three levels deep with 12,000 square feet of retail space. The USS Enterprise is on the bottom most level of this complex:

Here is a link to the museum’s official web page for the USS Enterprise exhibit:

Also note the URLs above state the obvious: concessions/shops

If you want to see the Star Trek Enterprise(s) flying high the Las Vegas Star Trek experience displays scale models of Star Trek ships in all their glory hanging from the ceiling.

587. roberto Orci - January 21, 2008


Since we can’t write, an average day on set involves answering cast’s questions about intentions of a scene or a character moment, looking over JJ’s shoulder and commenting on performances or blocking — attending marketing meetings to plan marketing calender, giving notes on trailer edit, giving notes on pre-visualization of upcoming sequences, etc…

Since Kurtzman and I are simultaneously in production on another movie, we go back and forth between the two.

588. crazybeach - January 21, 2008

Roddenberry was quoted as saying to the effect that it was TOO EXPENSIVE to show the ship landing week after week, not necessarily that it COULD NOT.

I mean, seriously now. This whole debate about ground vs. space construction is just silly. Ultimately, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE to the movie’s quality (or lack thereof, as the case may be) whether or not the damn ship’s built on the ground or in space?

589. crazybeach - January 21, 2008

DeForest Kelley passed away on June 1, 1999…..

590. Alex Rosenzweig - January 21, 2008

#554 – “In the end the creators of Star Trek did not find the TOS era 1960s Enterprise worthy of keeping around for neither the sequel television series or the motion picture sequel to the old television series. Abrams in this context are not doing anything more radical then what was done to Star Trek during the 1970s-1980s motion pictures revival.”

Just to make a small correction here, and put some perspective on what may be happening, even with the new “Star Trek”…

Some of the changes in “Phase II” and TMP were made for story reasons…the refit/upgrade of the ship, etc. Some were made for technological reasons…advances from 1969 to 1977-78 had been significant, and they could showcase them by introducing a refit concept. Some were even made for legal/patenting reasons, due to errors in the original patent filings. At no point were design changes made because the earlier material was “not worthy of keeping around”. And, indeed, had ST:TMP been simply a TOS episode writ large, an updated, movie-quality version of the TOS Enterprise might very likely have been seen. But they instead sought to tell a different story, and thus the ship was evolved, reflecting a passage of time.

Note that the Enterprise for “Phase II”, while refitted, was much closer in design to the TOS Enterprise than the TMP vessel became. Many of the hull details were retained from the original, because they held up just fine, even ten years later with newer modeling techniques and capabilities. When the jump was made from TV series to feature film, a whole new level of detail became not merely possible, but necessary, and the design evolved to reflect that.

“Star Trek” (2008) has the challenge of returning to the ship’s appearance in an earlier period of time, yet portraying the ship for the big screen, and what we’re seeing reflects the production team’s idea of how best to do that. Obviously different people will have different ideas on how well they accomplish that, but I think any number of very well-done modern CG renditions of the original ship’s design (from the Defiant as seen on “Enterprise” to Dennis Bailey’s Phoenix to Jason “Vektor” Lee’s Constitution (and then Enterprise) to the Remastered version) show how well the basic design holds up. Will what we see in all its glory next Christmas rank up with those versions? I surely hope so. :) Time will tell.

591. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

I hope we will see a great movie…it is an easy thing to make comments…

592. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008


593. Andy Patterson - January 21, 2008

I kind of miss the days when it was the same ten or twelve of us, with the occasional Daren Dochterman or Robert Myer Burnett, discussing and arguing about the latest screen shots from the latest remastered ep.

“Guns, guns, guns.” – Clarence Bodicker

594. "Star Trek" teaser trailer and writer Q&A - January 21, 2008

[…] Also check out this interesting Q&A at with writer Roberto Orci. […]

595. David Pucciarelli - January 21, 2008

Question Mr. Orci

Why can’t Kirk’s resurrection be done in a series of shorts that lead up to the new movie. Sort of like the clone wars for star wars, or webisodes like on Lost. This would bring in a lot of promotion for the new movie and would please long time Trek fans. This would explain Kirk being alive and establish cannon and for new fans that will see the movie it wouldn’t matter if they didnt see it because they probably wouldnt know Kirk was dead in the first place.



596. JediFonger - January 21, 2008

the trailer rocked. i’ve been yapping for ages that star trek can’t have the title star trek because it will discourage NEW viewers from “trying these sci fi/nerdy movies” out. the way in which the new guys are marketing this is brilliant! there is NO POINT IN ADVERTISING TO THE FANS!!! they are going to watch it NO MATTER WTF HAPPENS! but marketing towards avg. joe making them go, what the heck is going=stroke of brilliance.

597. Rick James - January 21, 2008

#591: Alex:

You make very good points for keeping the classic TOS look around. Some of my fellow trekker friends would agree with you 100%. However I disagree and we will have to agree to disagree in how we see the TOS look. You know the whole “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.

However I don’t think the TOS look was changed for Phase II due to patent or copyright issues. As you have pointed out the TOS Enterprise appeared in material produced decades after TOS ended. I have seen these visuals from DS9, ENT and TOS-R. To my eyes these renditions of the TOS Enterprise look very close to the 1960s version with some updates. By and large these updates are minor and the overall look of the ship is pretty much classic TOS.

However you have also pointed out the Phase II and TMP Enterprise were changed to reflect elements of the story i.e. the onward march of technology and equipment refit. Well I have a perfect story explanation for why the “new” TOS Enterprise does not look like the “old” TOS Enterprise.

The quick and dirty answer is time travel i.e. contaminated timeline. When the Enterprise E traveled back in time to 2063 in First Contact the Picard crew did interact with Zefrem Cochrane. I distinctly remember Zefrem seeing the Enterprise E in earth orbit when the Phoenix was launched for the first warp drive trial run. The Enterprise E was so impressive to Cochrane I think he said “WOW!” or something along those lines. IMO because Cochrane saw the Enterprise E, this changed whatever notions he would have had about ship design prior to this encounter.

This may explain why the NX-01 looks so “modern” vs. what conventional wisdom would have dictated for a pre-TOS era starship. Additionally this may explain why the TOS era Enterprise looks so different in Star Trek XI vs. the 1960s version.

598. Chris Pike - January 21, 2008

There’s a big problem with associating the warping of space-time of a planet’s gravity well with the warping gradient necessary for a vessel to achieve FTL travel. The distortion from a typical “M” planet’s gravity is many billions of times weaker than that needed to warp space-time sufficiently to break FTL velocity, so it becomes very hard to see how constructing/”balancing” the vessel’s nacelles in a planet’s gravity well could have any impact at all unless it is a hyper dense black hole rather than a planet. The idea does scientifically seem a tad absurd, sorry! And Roddenberry was always trying to stick to current scientific theory wherever possible dramatically (that was a great example of his genius). Read Jesco Von Puttkamer’s (TMP) elegant description of how he interpreted warp travel, no massive gravity wells there. I always thought part of the warp fields (inevitable) effects would be to “neutralize” the ship’s mass, thus detaching itself from our universe, and effectively presenting the vessel with zero (or even negative?) momentum. No, or negative mass, = no light barrier. You could blow on the ship and it would hit mach 22 in an instant! This would also neatly explain how the ship could create what would appear to be anti gravity, and elegantly rise from her Earth bound drydock without masses of lift. According to Jesco, the ship rides on a warp wave similar to a surfer, creating a pseudo propulsion, and later theories suggest the warp also compresses distance ahead of the ship and stretches distance behind it with warp geometry dictating direction of travel.

599. Chris TROC - January 21, 2008

I suspect the warp coils are balanced on a planet because they will be operating within the ship’s artificial gravity field. You might as well do that within a natural gravity field and haul them up into space, as haul them up into space, balance them in an artificial field, then find out something’s wrong and you have to take the whole thing apart again.

(Honestly, I’d prefer to have them synthesized, machined, and assembled in space because I imagine there’s some rare and potentially toxic materials involved. But if they’re to be built on Earth, that may be the reason.)

600. Colin Barnard - January 21, 2008

Mr. Orci, Mr. Kurtzman and Mr. Abrams, get this straight: you don’t have any creative licence from an artistic sense. Your responsibility to the fans who have sustained Trek and Paramount for 40 years, as well as to Gene Roddenberry, is to respect what has been established. Otherwise, don’t call it “Star Trek” because it isn’t.

What you put out on Friday isn’t, and how much else are you taking “creative licence” with? A pox on you………

601. willtheartman - January 21, 2008

#12: As a story-teller trying to be consistent, sounds like good logic, especially with the “Supreme Court” artistic license in gear: at that point in Trek “history,” the best way known to make the best nacelles for a massive Constellation-class starship could be in a 1 G gravity well.

Many details in ST are subject to the perspective of the instant. “All Good Things” illustrates this, I think.

The story has to be good and meaningful, the characters engaging. It would be great if the details/history could be perfectly in sync across the whole body of ST work. Too late, though, and way too full of humans. ST II showed that a good movie could be made without too much turmoil in the time-line. What we loved about that movie, however, and TOS and hope to love about this new movie is the adventure, including who is in it, and what it says about humanity, including us. Even as a kid, I thought TOS had some hokey production values and lapses in techno-logic. The tales were interesting and adventurous and exotic enough, Kirk cool enough, Spock smart and engaging enough, etc., that none of that mattered. Do the later movies get bogged down with their own Trekkiness? Maybe, but there have been a lot of currents (e.g. sociological) working against them. The word “Trek” carries a lot of baggage, now. The fact that this team of creators got the green-light, despite that, says a lot.

Would I have taken the “baby Kirk/baby Spock” approach in a new ST movie? Probably not, but it has a lot of potential. I have a lot of respect for the attempt, and I can see the current logic and precedents leading to it. If nothing else, they had to sell the concept before any movie could be made. How different it would be, if a panel of Trekkies had control of $200 million, and were courted by writers and production companies. The decision has been made, and I think it is a sound one. The current creators have a lot on their plate, a lot to balance (not least of which is fiscal responsibility). I want to see them nail the “important stuff,” even if details suffer. It is fun to watch any of the movies and pin-point those moments when changing a word or adding three would have served as well and increased consistency, but the same could probably be said by the people who did the original writing in the fluid creative environment which is feature-film production.

602. roberto orci - January 21, 2008

599 I meant that nacelles have to be balanced to maintain class M warp bubble within ship while massive warping occurs outside, not that class M gravity well even comes close to warp.

603. Stephmtl - January 21, 2008

Dear Mr. Orci

PRIME DIRECTIVE is the one trek novel that has sort of followed me around after I stopped reading licensed books around the age of 15, and it’s alway struck me as being a great read and a good star trek adventure. and I totally get where you are goin with the Warp discussion having read it.

And one more thing. Once she’s up, it’s the air friction of coming down that’ll kill her, not anything to do with gravity. If you have artificial gravity generator, escape velocity should be a breeze.

604. Chris Basken - January 21, 2008

First time poster with a question for Roberto Orci.

I found Transformers to be a bit of a disappointment, but mainly because it felt like it didn’t live up to its own potential. I’ve never been a Michael Bay fan, so I suspect that what happened in that particular case is that the core material may have been excellent, but it didn’t survive the journey to finished product.

I mean, after watching it, I found myself imagining how a nanotechnological organism could have been responsible for just about everything, and it made me wish the movie treated itself more like a serious science fiction than the live-action cartoon we got.

So, my question is — and I’m trying to ask this without putting you on the spot — how much influence would you say Michael Bay had on your script, and how much of your original ideas made it through? The followup would be, how much influence are you feeling JJ Abrams exert on your Trek script, and how much of your original ideas seem like they’re making it through?

I saw a really smart, funny, human script underneath (what I felt was) a mess of a movie with Transformers. My hope is that 1) that perception is true and 2) your smart, funny, human writing will shine through on Trek.


605. Denise de Arman - January 21, 2008

#601 Colin- Who peeed in your Wheaties this morning? Colin, your attitude leaves much to be desired.

606. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2008

601…that was over the line Colin and I suggest you do not get personal with anyone here…be they working on the movie or just another fan.

As for creative license…that is EXACTLY what Abrams and his team have. When you are given control over a franchise you have creative license. This is no diffrerent than Harve Bennet, Nick Meyer, Manny Coto, Ira Behr, Michael Piller, Leonard Nimoy and many others who have sat in the producer, writer and director’s chairs over the years.

607. Denise de Arman - January 21, 2008

#587 Rick- Thanks for the reply info on E in the Smithsonian. Both times I have been there and seen it flying high over the years were very special to me. I cannot imagine what the thinking was behind the decision to remove it and put it in the giftshop – new curator or beancounter probably wanted to generate more merchandise revenue and needed a lure.

608. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

590. crazybeach – January 21, 2008
[#576… DeForest Kelley passed away on June 1, 1999]

Just who do you think you are talking too here?

Thats’ why I said, “Maybe ADD a wink too!”

609. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 21, 2008

Mr. Orci: I’ve said this in other threads, but this is the one you’re actually in: You and the rest of the Abrams Five rock my world. This trailer is spot-on and exactly what it needs to be. I was irritated to no end that my local theater chose not to show the Star Trek trailer in front of Cloverfield (which was the only reason I went to CF, not being one for monster movies in general), so I don’t know how my audience might have reacted, but I finally caught it online today.

Then I caught it again. And again. And three more times will writing this post. There’s something simultaneously deeply human and deeply optimistic in your trailer. That feeling -is- Star Trek. It’s why we’re here, and I am SO happy that you and the team get it. Mr. Abrams -said- it back in May 2006 when he talked about the “spirit of Star Trek”, and that helped alleviate my fears of “Trek 90210,” but this trailer takes that perception and makes it concrete. You have all the ingredients of a terrific film here.

What I especially love about you, personally, Mr. Orci, is that you have a head crammed full of canon. The people who are arguing that the Enterprise could not be built in space are, as you well know, insane, but the wonderful thing is that you are capable and willing to have conversations with them about the technobabble of gravity wells while simultaneously backing up your other points with canon and production sources (He knows how warp fields work! My God, Jim! He’s read the Next Generation Technical Manual!) while *simultaneously* pointing out that, hey, you’re the fracking showrunner and you have the *right* to make interpretations that violate the fandom’s own warped and unfounded extended sense of canon.

(Speaking of which: someone above said Robert April was canon. He isn’t. He’s only referenced in show notes and The Animated Series. He is likely the primordial example of pure fandom becoming equated with canon.)

Personally, I would like to see Mr. Orci and a champion of the bashers’ choosing put up against one another in a ‘canon quiz’, in which the two contestants are quizzed on various pieces of Star Trek arcana… some of them trick questions, like, “At what space-based shipyard was the NCC-1701 constructed?” My money’s on Orci.

Anyhow, I’m giving canon much more attention than it needs or, frankly, deserves. It was a wonderful trailer, and I can already smell Christmas on the air. The use of those older clips was inspired–it’s actually the JFK quotation and the musical track underneath it that sends chills down my spine, even more than the final shot of the trailer.

Although… my mother, my house’s designated “casual fan”, saw it, and the first thing she said after was, “Why didn’t Shatner do the voice-thingy?” Personally, I’m very much on the side of not adding silly contrivances to the script, but that concerned me. I don’t want this to become known as “the movie Shatner isn’t in”.

I’ve got to go now. I’ve got to figure out how I can fill out an application to nominate someone for godhood.

Or five people for Pantheonhood.

610. roberto Orci - January 21, 2008



I’d be scared to go up against some fans. I think JJ was overstating it a bit when he said I had immediate recall of all things Trek. I’ll never live up to the hype!

Thanks for cool post.

611. Kynan - January 21, 2008

Mr. Orci,

i just thought of a few questions that u may be able to answer or maybe not. but if u can, even in a very general way thatd be cool,thanks.

1) is there much location shooting going to happen for the film,or just a small amount?

2) we’ve read that some cool people have visited the set, like Mr.speilberg. any other visitors u can maybe tell us about? any former star trek cast or crew members?

3)have u been on set at any point during shooting of an important character moment when uve just thought WoW at how what uve written has been performed by an one of the actors?

4) What are some of ur all time fav star trek novels?

5)which of the main cast members do u think is the biggest star trek fan since b4 being cast in this new film?

612. James - January 21, 2008

I must start by saying that I haven’t read all 600+ posts but I wanted to add my 2 cents…I have been a fan for my entire life and I was (still am kinda) about how this interpretation if Star Trek was going to be as compared to what we know. I have been very vocal on our podcast ( and I think that the marketing campaign is going to do for Trek what it is doing for Cloverfield. I actually got excited the first time I saw the trailer in the theater, which was the first positive feeling I had toward this movie.

The reimagining of shows like Battlestar Galactica have made people choose sides…it shouldn’t be this way. Each vision has merit. When Next Generation came out people were apprehensive but it worked. Granted, Roddenberry was still involved but it wasn’t the Star Trek we grew up with. Then came Deep Space Nine…the best Trek in my opinion and so on…all of these had good qualities. For those who are not willing to give this Trek a chance, I think they are doing themselves a disservice.

You can not judge something like this on a brief trailer…as Kirk once said, “Risk is our business…” and this my friends is the greatest risk…messing with something so many of us love.

613. Kynan - January 21, 2008

Right on James. exactly right an well said.

614. nerdinpink - January 22, 2008

Since you wanted to hear from the lurkers… Hi!

Mr. Orci, I think I love you a little bit.

615. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 22, 2008

#611 (roberto Orci):
Pfft. Don’t sell yourself short. You have a favorite Star Trek novel. That alone makes you the most Trek-knowledgeable member of the “Supreme Court” since Roddenberry (with the exception of Manny Coto). Bonus points for having said novel be written by the Reeves-Stevenses. You demonstrate *in this thread alone* more knowledge of canon than Berman and Braga–good work though they did–were able to demonstrate in more than a decade of running the entire franchise. Bashers will always bash–it is the way of things, as the Jem’Hadar say–but, with you up there, this movie promises to be a more slavish canon devotee than any recent Star Trek offering.

Finally: I punched the air when I heard about the (possible) ST:Enterprise references. There’s a lot of people at TrekUnited who are going to be a lot more receptive to the new movie after hearing that.

Incidentally, rather than KABLO, wouldn’t BALOK be more approriate?

616. Chris Pike - January 22, 2008

603 Roberto Orci

Many thanks for that. So the need for inducing an M gravity well whilst in construction ensures that that particular gravitational environment is preserved inside the warp field when it is engaged ensuring safe life support gravitation levels on the ship…fascinating, I get your idea! This may even imply that the future technology that generates warp field is very similar to that which creates force fields, tractor beams and artificial gravity. This suggests in our wonderful optimistic Trek future there has been a single monumental breakthough in technology/science on a par with the wheel invention that leads to this field generation technology, thus leading to much easier space travel. Isn’t there some back story there…!

617. pa_fan - January 22, 2008

IMHO, the design of the refitted Enterprise in TMP and the latter Enterprise-A represented near perfection. The ship looks great from nearly all angels, something that cannot be said for the Enterprise D & E and Voyager.
The teaser appears to show a melding of the 2 designs, with the details of TMP and the nacelles from TOS. It will be interesting to see if the main deflector is a “dish” like in TOS.
My congrats to the team who put the teaser together! It gives hope that this new film will breath life back into the Trek franchise.

618. New Horizon - January 22, 2008

579. Marian Ciobanu – January 21, 2008
-Batman begins was boring

My wife and I found it exceptionally well made, and exciting. It took it’s time telling the story, and I appreciate that in a film. Movies don’t need to be about an explosion every five minutes.

I agree with you about Nemesis and Insurrection. Both rather pointless.

619. S C I F I R A M A » Interview - Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer - January 22, 2008

[…] TrekMovie – Exclusive: The first teaser trailer for Star Trek (showing now with Clovefield) may be the biggest thing to hit Trek in years and has sparked quite a bit of interest and even some controversy. has conducted a ‘post game interview’ with Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci to help sort it all out. Orci talks about JFK, Nimoy, Earth vs. space construction, the new Trek ‘Supreme Court,’ and more….read below. […]

620. Jason - January 22, 2008

I just wanted to say I would love to see a throw back to when ships used to “roll” off the ways into the water when launched. I don’t know wat that would look like with a starship. Everyone uses drydocks now and it just dosen’t make the same splash.

621. yes, I’m a trekkie, and other ruminations about hollywood… - January 22, 2008

[…] This is the problem I have with this trailer. The enterprise was NOT built on the surface. The guy who came up with the trailer states that theres no reason what so ever as to why the Ship can’t be built on the surface of the planet, and in fact, the operation of the Warp Drive requires you to Calibrate the drive in the surface gravity of a planet. You can read his bullshit reasoning here. […]

622. Commodore - January 22, 2008

According to the the original series writer’s guide, the U.S.S Enterprises’ (NCC-1701) “unit components were built at the star fleet division of what is still called the San Francisco navy yards on earth and the vessel was assembled in space.” Both Gene Roddenberry and Walter M. Jefferies and the Animated Episode “Counter clock inccident” went along with this idea. Also all later Movies and Series of trek have starships at least assembled ,if not fully constructed in spacedock. It is rather idiotic to think that they would construct the whole 947 foot long, 190,000 ton vessel, right down to it’s paint job on earth, and then fly it off the ground into space.

Just my thoughts

623. Chris Basken - January 22, 2008


It’s only idiotic if you look at it in 20th/21st century technology terms.

With the amount of energy they have at their disposal in Trek, it would be no harder to lift a starship up off the planet than it would be for you or I to drive our car to the end of the driveway.

624. Captain Sulu - January 22, 2008

I have seen the trailer, and I have to say I am disappointed in this interpretation. The ship was not built on earth, PERIOD. So says Gene Roddenberry and so agrees the millions of fans who supported the idea. Every ship was built from a drydock. It was kind of funny because he was also against ships with three warp nacelles. If the trailer was meant as something to make people excited, great job. I can see where the team would think of JFK as a Kirk role, but keep in mind to the fact that many of the Trek movies and stories pertained to certain aspects of history, ie STVI which resembled Gorbachev and the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. The idea of a supreme court is humourous, but just remember that the supreme court members are appointed by an elected official who is selected by the people, ie fans. While there is some freedom to adjust the storyline, technology and such most fans such as myself take notice to the details of the story or series, and probably is the reason we are called trekkies. A hypothesis to why Enterprise failed miserably is the fact no one really cared about sticking to the “canon” that everyone is talking about in the thread. The people creating this picture should keep in mind of this. After watching all the movies and listening as well as watching the commentaries, the sucessful movie writers always ensured that the canon was stuck to, to appease the fans. One person talked about how the newer movies spent too much time convincing the audience, I agree with that notion, it was too much technobable, you didn’t see Kirk explain in STII and describe what he was doing when he lowered shields on the Reliant, no he lowered the darn things and fired. That is what the people want and what fans are looking for, they want a story that adheres to the Star Trek universe. Enterprise failed to do this as well as the last movies, it was about who was getting paid more, not really paying attention to the canon, over explaining technology. It is great that there is a fresh team out to ressurect the film, but keep in mind if the fans are not convinced and are not happy the expected 135million that the film is expected to do is not going to happen, and the chance of another film probably won’t either. I am not yet convinced, maybe after a couple more trailers my feeling will change, but what I have seen thus far does not really say star trek. I do sympathize with orci and his counterparts, Trekkie fans can be picky and over technical, ie the cell phone rant (BTW who cares, really?), but I will try to remain optimistic that they will ensure Gene Rodenberry’s creation is preserved in its entirety. Good Luck guys.

625. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 22, 2008

#625: “The ship was not built on earth, PERIOD. So says Gene Roddenberry and so agrees the millions of fans who supported the idea.”

That’s false. Show me a canon reference that says that the Enterprise was built in space.

I’ve said it above, and I will continue to say it: BALOK (Burk, Abrams, Lindelof, Orci, Kurtzman) appears to have a better sense of canon than ANY producer of Star Trek since Roddenberry, with the exception of Manny Coto. The “built in space” section of fandom is (1) exaggerating the importance of canon, and (2) *inventing* canon out of whole cloth and apocrypha (which would seem to be a contradiction of principle (1)). And I find it all very annoying.

Nothing personal against you, Capt. Sulu, except that you are wrong about “built in space”.

626. Marc Klein - January 22, 2008

Mr. Orci,

First I want to say that I enjoyed The Legend of Zorro

Now I have some questions:

1) When you got asked to write the movie what did you do for research? Watch all 6 movies, all 3 seasons, the books what…. ?

2) And based on what we know, where did the storyline come from?

3) Don’t you feel like it’s a slap in the face that Nimoy’s in the film but Shatner isn’t? Is that dead or can he still appear at some point?

4) Is Nero the actual name of Eric Banna’s character because I keep seeing this name in quotes? I find it strange how the villian’s name is a truibute to a Roman Emperor…. What can you tell us about Bana’s role?

5) Can you elaborate a bit on Tyler Perry’s role because when I read about that scene it brought back memories of TWOK where Kirk mentions he failed the Kobiyash Maru. Do we actually get to see him taking it?

6) What year does this film take place in?

7) Will there be refrences to past movies episodes or will you be going in fresh with this and pretend there was nothing before?

8) When will we see the trailer hitting theaters and how many will there be?

9) How big is Nimoy’s role?

10) How far in production are you in? I read somewhere that JJ says he plans on filming till April.

11) The strike must be frustrating to you and Alex especially with this movie since nothing can be changed or added. How do you deal with it?

Anyway, sorry for all the questions.. Keep up the great work…

By the way, I’m not sure Christmas is the best release date but what do I know.. :)

627. Chris Basken - January 22, 2008


“you didn’t see Kirk explain in STII and describe what he was doing when he lowered shields on the Reliant, no he lowered the darn things and fired.”

KIRK: Clear the bridge.
SPOCK: Well, at least we know he doesn’t have Genesis.
KIRK: Just keep nodding as though I’m still giving orders. Mister Saavik, punch up the data charts of Reliant’s command console.
SAAVIK: Reliant’s command…
SPOCK: The prefix code?
KIRK: It’s all we’ve got.
SAAVIK: The chart’s up, sir.
KHAN: Admiral!
KIRK (to Khan): We’re finding it.
KHAN: Admiral!!
KIRK: Please, please – you’ve got to give us time – The… the bridge is smashed, the computers inoperative…
KHAN: Time is a luxury you don’t have, Admiral.
KIRK (to himself): Damn.
KHAN: Admiral?
KIRK: It’s coming through now, Khan.
SPOCK: Reliant’s prefix number is one-six-three-zero-nine.
SAAVIK: I don’t understand –
KIRK: You have got to learn WHY things work on a Starship.
SPOCK: Each ship has its own combination code…
KIRK: … to prevent an enemy to do what we’re attempting; using our console to order Reliant to lower her shields…
SPOCK: Assuming he hasn’t changed the combination. He’s quite intelligent…

That’s an awful lot of “not describing” something…

628. Captain Sulu - January 22, 2008


It does not go into techie bable it is brief. That was the point. =)

629. Chris Basken - January 22, 2008

Well, I’ll admit the dialogue in ST2 was better than anything they wrote later, but they still explained things…


630. Commodore - January 22, 2008

Yes, I am sure they do have great amounts of energy in the 23rd century, I am also more sure they they would not waist said energy on an idiotic idea like constructing a massive spacecraft on the ground and then flying it into orbit, when they can more logicaly just assemble it in space as all other treks have shown and the original writer’s guide states.

Another Thought

631. Chris Basken - January 22, 2008

I hope I don’t get flagged for spamming. I’m trying not to.


Again, it’s only idiotic if the amount of energy necessary to lift the ship up into space is anything close to being a large amount, in a relative sense. The benefits to building on the ground are numerous, the least of which is the ability to work in shirtsleeves. The only real benefit to building in space is that it’s cheaper (in terms of energy) to bring the bits up piecemeal. But that’s contemporary thinking. If the cost to bring the entire ship up at once is trivial in respect to the amount of energy they have available, then there’s really no point in *not* assembling on the ground.

Calling it idiotic from here in 2008 is like someone from 1608 saying it’s idiotic to make ocean vessels out of iron. Iron sinks!

632. Walter - January 22, 2008

Well, anything Trek without Braga and Berman has to be better than with them. However, this will be an “odd Trek” and odd Treks traditionally suck. Yet the trailer has me excited. The few seconds that I saw of the trailer appear to be real and gritty. Unlike the real Supreme Court, I hope that J.J. et. al. bring in a jury of true fans to rule on the real “trekkiness” of this movie. They are the true trier of Trek.

633. brave sausage - January 23, 2008

I say let Roberto and Co. do their jobs!

I cannot wait to see what the writers of such wonderful and imaginative storytelling and dialogue as found in Zorro, Transformers, MI: 3, and The Island have in store for Trek.

Hey Roberto can we please have these things in the flick in a re-write when the WGA gets the pennies they want and not have to live on just noodle soup? (I know you must be hurtin’ right now in the pocket, am I rite?)

–Spock’s parents being as annoying as Sam’s parents in Transformers? Everytime there should be some development, you can cut to them for easy, awful laughs! Yeah! They could even ask Spock, in one hilarious scene, if he MASTRABATES!

–Portray every Black person as a stereotype! I loved that about you and the big K (two more Ks?) writing. Even have a Mexican dude show up out of nowhere and be told to speak English! Or how ’bout if asked if they have a Green Card? C’mon! Common fans would like it and laugh, and you are a common fan’s, well, fan!

–You know someone’s gonna ask for it, so here goes: I want to here one cast members say “MY BAD!” Perhaps one of the Black actors can say this. After all, your writing would lend itself perfectly for such a wonderful bit of dialogue. Joo can do it, man!

Oh, Roberto, if you could do this for me and make this just as great as your past efforts, which everyone here just can’t get enough of and think are all wonderful, then you will pleasure me beyond my dreams. How dare anyone speak any word of criticism at you and your team? You guys deserve nothing but praise!

Oh, but don’t let that pesky J.J. take all the credit . Speak up and let people know you wrote this awesome flick, kay?

Best wishes and luck with the film–and don’t let the haters ever install one idea that you and Kurtz are not the absolute best writers in Hollywood in, like, ever.


634. Kynan - January 23, 2008

“Some people think the future means the end of history, well we havn’t run out of history quite yet”…

“People can be very frightend of change”…

>Star trek 6

As a Star Trek fan i trully hope that my fellow star trek fans watch star trek not just for the great details of the amazing world created but for the messages held there in.

Dont fear the future blindly.Have hope in the true spirit of Trek.

I personally dont fear the future incarnations and continuations of Trek. Actually even though i have so much great Trek for myself already on dvd an so on, I fear a future without any new Trek at all.I fear for new generations not to be made aware of its quality an worth. From what i know i think that the team working on this new Trek movie have a healthy respect for its established history(canon etc) but i also believe that they understand that the most important thing about Star Trek has always been telling a good story an everything else follows behind that.

I personally dont believe that the Enterprise being built on Earth violates any specific canon of trek. It may not be some peoples personal stylistic preference at the moment but hey it was the Enterprise on the big screen people, looking Epic. I dont think its that important where the Enterprise was built really its more importantly about where it can take us, and personally i cant wait to go on that adventure come christmas.

Keep up the good work Mr. Orci an co; ) best wishes for the future.

Keep on Treking.

635. Sean4000 - January 23, 2008

I find it funny that when Orci and crew reimagined the Enterprise to have a more modern look, ie “aztec paneling” “real metal”, there is almost unanimous praise. “the 60’s look is so dated and i’m glad they changed it” blah blah blah

Yet when TOS-R came out and the just for fun images from Eden FX came out, the paneling was “unacceptable”, and “they’re ruining the look of the ship” was all i heard.

I only say this because some of the same people praising the same ship reimagined blasted it when Eden wanted to do the same thing. lol

Thank heavens ILM got the FX contract.

636. Yoqui - January 23, 2008

“I do worry that some left the trailer wondering what it was.”

The trailer closes with the arguably the best-known opening words and score cue in the history of any broadcast entertaiment medium.

There are more sensible things to be worried about. ^_^

Mr. Orci – thank you for taking the time to talk about your work. My only comment is to urge that you and your peers not fall into the trap that Deep Space Nine and works after did – please don’t bury the optimism under ‘gritty realism.’ The post-TNG all have wonderful moments, but none of those series themselves shine. ‘Gritty realism’ may work wonderfully for police dramas, but it crushes Star Trek’s strongest selling point. The last Keepers of the franchise spent 15 years trying to dispense with the optimism, and succeeded only in killing the broadcast and theatrical components of Paramount’s most-lucrative property. Their lesson is clear.

Best of luck to all of you working the project. ^_^

637. Commodore - January 23, 2008

No, it’s not just the energy it would take to lift it into space, It’s also the structures and framework you would have to build to hold up and secure a 190.000 ton hulk of tritanium, when you could just have it free float in space, also the advantages of building it on earth… do they include the weather??? And all the extra equiptment needed to move all the massive parts in 1G???Yah I am sure they would have the tech. in the 23rd century to do it if they HAD too, but why would you go though all the bother when you DON’T have too. Besides it being dramatic on a movie screen that is. I mean it’s STAR TREK, It’s should be plausable space travel science, it’s what Gene Roddenberry strived for. And even in 1608 they knew about the properties of water displacement, and how even if you built something out of heavy iron it would still float, (Back then they just could not mine,temper and assemble Iron in that great a scale) Just as we know in 2008 that it would be better to assemble the unit parts of that large a spacecraft in space, even in 2245.

Still just thinking

638. Commodore - January 23, 2008

No, it’s not just the energy it would take to lift it into space, It’s also the structures and framework you would have to build to hold up and secure a 190.000 ton hulk of tritanium, when you could just have it free float in space, also the advantages of building it on earth… do they include the weather??? And all the extra equiptment needed to move all the massive parts in 1G???Yah I am sure they would have the tech. in the 23rd century to do it if they HAD too, but why would you go though all the bother when you DON’T have too. Besides it being dramatic on a movie screen that is. I mean it’s STAR TREK, It’s should be plausable space travel science, it’s what Gene Roddenberry strived for. And even in 1608 they knew about the properties of water displacement, and how even if you built something out of heavy iron it would still float, (Back then they just could not mine,temper and assemble Iron in that great a scale) Just as we know in 2008 that it would be better to assemble the unit parts of that large a spacecraft in space, even in 2245.

Still just thinking

639. Dave O - January 23, 2008

I have heard some shocking news from a reliable (and somewhat fictional) source that this story will “break new narrative ground.”

This should be good news for all who have said “Hey you can do anything, this is Sci-Fi.”

“And to show we’re really listening to the fans we’ve taken what we believe are truly bold new steps and have eliminated the ‘inciting incident’ and the ‘resolution.’ Also, since the second act causes writers so much grief, this story will only have a first and third act,” my source told me.

He went on: “These kinds of courageous things don’t come without trade-offs, of course, so I have some good news and some bad news. First the good news: we found a way to get Shatner in. The bad news? He was in the second act.”

“What a refreshing creative freedom you get because it’s Sci-Fi.”

640. Chris Basken - January 23, 2008


With their tech, the structures and moving vehicles, again, would be trivial. Granted, with their tech, beaming guys up into orbit to work every day would be trivial, too. I guess my point is, with their level of technology, the differences between building the ship on the surface or in orbit dwindle to incidental concerns. It becomes meaningless to say it’s “idiotic” to build it in one location over the other.

As for the 1600s people and iron ships, that’s exactly my point. They knew about the displacement properties of iron, just as *we* know about the properties of lifting things into orbit. But in the 1600s, the idea of an iron ship would be laughable, because of (as you say) resource issues, but also energy issues. Think about the size of the sails you’d need on an iron ship. They’d be enormous, if it would be possible to do that at all.

So why bother? It would be idiotic to consider building an iron ship when you had plenty of available wood. But they didn’t foresee advances in both the production of iron and the production of power. By the 1900s, it had become “idiotic” to build ships out of wood and sails, when iron ships were so much sturdier and could go faster.

Someone in the 17th century reacting to someone describing ships of the 20th century might think of those descriptions as idiotic, because that person doesn’t really understand how much technology has changed in 300 years.

641. Just Plain Lazy - January 23, 2008

I grew up with the original Enterprise plastic ship and its blinking light bulbs as it made stately turns around the solar system. The look of the model was easily forgiven because the whole show worked.

But the new trailer…. Wow! I felt as if I could walk out on the hull of a real starship. Reminded me of watching the first space shuttle drop out of the sky and land at Edwards AFB in 1981. Cool! A REAL spaceship!

I’m looking forward to the movie, even without an aged and bloated Denny Craig, er James T. Kirk ;-)

642. Dr. G - January 23, 2008

Mr. Orci,

How much thought had been given to the credits?

One of the things that has been better about Star Wars and James Bond as compared to Star Trek is the way that those movies have had a consistent look to their credits. When you walk into a movie theater and look down the barrel of a gun, you know you’re in a Bond movie. Likewise with “the crawl” at the beginning of Star Wars. Mission: Impossible has done this too, but in my opinion, it would have been better if they’d kept it more consistent.

I think it would be cool if the movie started off like the show. Maybe change the astronomical phenomenon the Enterprise is flying by, but keep the same general idea (with Space . . . the final frontier . . .) of course. The Star Trek intro is so iconic, I’m surprised the earlier film makers didn’t think to put it into all the movies. The title would just say “Star Trek” in those classic yellow letters, giving the movie its setting, and after they’re done, the movie could be given some sort of episode name, to distinguish it from the next “Star Trek.”

Another point. In TMP, there was that great scene of the flyby of the Enterprise with Kirk and Scotty in the shuttle pod. Great for letting us see the new E, not so good in terms of the pacing for that film (which everyone agrees was slow) In First Contact, they didn’t bother giving us a “money shot” of the Enterprise-E, and jumped straight into the action (which was good for the pacing of that film). By giving us a good view during the credits, the audience could still get that Motion Picture feeling with the much better pacing of some of the other Trek films.

Unlike any individual ship in Star Wars, the Enterprise is as much a star of the movie as any of the actors. Give her first billing by putting her in “TV style” credits.

643. Marian Ciobanu - January 23, 2008

-I want to see the uniforms from police academy -the series in star trek…

644. Marian Ciobanu - January 23, 2008


645. Bill - January 23, 2008

I do not know if this was covered yet (I wasn’t about to read all 645 comments), but Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest president, not Kennedy.

646. Juke Early - January 23, 2008

The enormity of this Trek is only equaled by the amount of well-intentioned ( and not so-well )nit-picking. The fact this exists at all 40+ years later is enough for me.

I remember how it felt to miss the first 20 minutes of the original network premiere—the whole family was food shopping. AND I sure still know how it felt to hear TOS was cancelled. When the various incarnations were all rumored, I doubted any would ever exist; yet they do. You should know, I thought Star Trek Enterprise was terrific in every way.

The enormity of this Trek is only equaled by the amount of well-intentioned ( and not so-well )nit-picking. The fact this exists at all 40+ years later is enough for me. All I have to say is: Make it so.

647. Kiefer McN. - January 23, 2008

In this day and age if you can’t recognize the Enterprise (even in half-constructed form), you shouldn’t even be allowed to leave the house.

648. The Vulcanista - January 23, 2008


FWIW, for those who never saw ST:Enterprise, SciFi is starting the series run over again next Monday 1/28 at 9:00 p.m.

649. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

This needs restating:


650. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

Damn formatting errors…

“Mr. Orci, the most courageous thing you could ever do is to give the middle-aged Star Trek fans, who know every line of dialouge from TOS, what we’ve always wanted and never had- a FAITHFUL portrayal of the original series and original Enterprise on the big screen, using modern special effects technology to knock our socks off! I’m talking bright colors, mini-skirts, heavy eye-liner, beehive hairdos, the works! After all, this vision of Star Trek has been reaffirmed as “real” in The Next Generation (’Relics”), Deep Space Nine (”Trials and Tribblations”), and Enterprise (”A Mirror Darkly”). One of our biggests disappointments with Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1977 was that fans like us hardly recognized it. Face it- a huge draw in any Star Trek movie is nostalgia and affection- it’s like seeing a member of the family again. Please give us the original, unadulterated Matt Jeffries design of the USS Enterprise on the big screen for once! “

651. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

And kindly consign the present design back to whatever Battlestar Galactica hellhole it came from.

652. Terik - January 23, 2008

First, you should know that I am one of those people who will watch anything with Trek in the title. So I plan on seeing the movie – either opening day or soon after. Having typed that, I must admit that I was skeptical upon hearing that it would feature a young Kirk and Spock. I agree with another post that pointed out that Trek is different than Bond and Batman. And yet another post stated: “A hypothesis to why Enterprise failed miserably is the fact no one really cared about sticking to the “canon” that everyone is talking about in the thread.” (Yes I watched every episode of Enterprise.) When Enterprise began, many fans complained that the ship and other devices were more advanced than TOS. I admit that one of the reasons I didn’t want the franchise to go back is because I knew it would violate canon. (And yet I still watched.) It seems that the Supreme Court wants the Best of Both Worlds. They use Kirk and Spock because everyone can recognize the characters, but might not respect the history (canon) they created. Are They trying to win new fans who are familiar with Kirk, and win back old fans who haven’t watched Trek since Kirk? People point out that story is more important than canon. Can’t we have both?
By the by, I didn’t consider the ‘problem’ of Enterprise being built on Earth or in space until reading this board. What matters to me is when. Sources say that the movie will be about Kirk in Academy and/or his first command. The Enterprise was launched before Kirk was in the Academy. Also the entire crew was not together until Chekov joined during the time of TOS. Will this movie be showing different important moments in time?

653. TheFinalFrontier? - January 23, 2008

Dear Roberto Orci,
Hello. I was extremely pleased with the trailer and hope to see more soon. in the meantime, a quick question. i’m not sure if it’s official canon or not, but it is seen in background text in an episode of enterprise that Archer dedicated the Enterprise a day before he died. any chance of seeing anything like this? even a no comment will do.

654. TheFinalFrontier? - January 23, 2008

oh and btw, everyone should quit complaining about the ship being built on earth or how it could never get into space from earth or whatever! thats the way it is in the movie and roberto has told us some pretty logical reasons as to why its being built on earth instead of in space. LET IT GO.

655. Jodeo - January 24, 2008

“Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone. ”


My iPhone does not have the capacity to talk to a spacecraft ANYWHERE in orbit.
Yes, the 1960s communicator is a big box, but CRIMONY — it can connect to Scotty without a line-of-site connection!!!

656. TheFinalFrontier? - January 24, 2008

oh, and stop hassling him about this iphone thing. seriously, why do you guys care that much?

657. Terik - January 25, 2008

“Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone. It is a different millennium for God’s sake. We are literally a century closer than we were before. ” Yet another reason, IMHO, to show to 24th Century or even the 25th instead of going back to the 23rd.

Will this movie be set in a new universe but with old characters? It seems the question this movie is answering is: What would Star Trek look like if the show began in the 21st Century? Is it possible to combine a movie that is true to canon while at the same time be a re-start?

658. Say No to Flames On The Enterprise - January 25, 2008

i just really hope mr orci doesnt take as many “liberties” with st as he did with transformers..dont get me wrong here….transformers was a visual orgasim..action packed and a very fun movie….but he and his partner changed the basic story and characters so much it really took away from it…now im sure this new movie will be made on the grandest scale and look amazing…but if he goes and changes the basic story is just not going to float well…just because you give the characters names to someone else doesnt make it a star trek movie….dont mess with the story or the main things that are already know by damn near everyone….especially the look of the enterprise….you can keep the same look and still make it look real and untoy like…..just please dont treat this as you did transformers

659. Captain Robert April - January 26, 2008

Kinda like changing Bumblebee to a Camaro. Sort of misses the point of the name, doncha think?

Should’ve told Michael Mann to get stuffed on that issue. He’s called “Bumblebee” because he’s a VW Bug! If you can’t wrap your head around that one, you don’t have any business doing the Transformers.

660. TMoney - January 26, 2008

JFK wasn’t the youngest president ever. Teddy Roosevelt was.

661. Rich - February 10, 2008

After the two interviews I’ve read from Mr.Orci, I am now looking forward to this movie rather than dreading it. The only thing that bothers me in these interviews is the mention of “Enterprise” (the show, not the ship). That show was so far off from “Star Trek” that I would hope they’d not build off it.

“Enterprise” suffers from not being a very well thought out Prequel. The ship design could have predated Next Generation, but not the Original Series. Vulcans being came control freaks that lied and expressed emotions. As a separate show, that wasn’t supposed to be “Star Trek” I couldh have liked it, but I couldn’t except it, I left after the Vulcans were spying on Andorians and lying about it.

“Enterprise” and “Nemesis” are the reasons a new creative team was needed to resurrect “Star Trek”. (Resurrect, how’s that for a better description than, reinvigorate or reinvent, Mr.Orci?)

But that team is here and for the most part it sounds like things will go well. I think this movie will be a good thing, but I also think that it would be good for Star Trek to once again jump ahead, further into the future, to once again go ‘where no one has gone before’ rather than to go back to where we have already been.

On the other hand, I still think the DS9 characters deserve a chance to see the big screen.

Anyway those are my thoughts.

One other thing. It seems that the time frame of this movie is uncertain, part of the surprise perhaps. imdb seems to say it predates TOS, where as other sources say it’s set between TOS and the first movie. I see Christopher Pike is a character, so I’m betting imdb is right.

If it’s before TOS then it’s a little silly that our crew would even know each other. Kirk was hanging with Gary Mitchell and Finnegan, not Spock or Sulu (but I do think he’d known McCoy that long). It was quite evident in “Where no Man Has Gone Before” that Spock and Kirk didn’t know each other well, and even by “The Menagerie” Spock still had great loyalty to Pike.

This leaves me with lots of questions, but I guess I have to stop pursuing answers. I want to feel the surprise when it comes.

See you all in December.


P.S. “Our focus is just to make ONE good movie, and then, Q willing, we can start to think about another one.”
Q willing!!! Awesome!

662. David Joecks - February 13, 2008

Ok, this is my first post on this site. Can across it actually accidentally through other site forums. Now I have been a star trek fan, not really a insane trekkie or anything. Ive seen the shows but didnt memorize every line or anything. However, I have noticed that from TNG on, the uniforms have been standardized. During Kirks time, it is the red uniform with the velcro. The only movie or show I didnt see this in was TMP and the original series.
TNG had modernized uniforms but it was still pretty standard. Even DS9 in time travel or TNG in flashbacks, went to that uniform during that time. Enterprise had a TNG uniform but it was a different color and more like todays uniforms. Still had the same concept though. I didnt come to talk about uniforms though.

I am really getting sick of people saying star trek:Enterprise sucked. I thought it was a great prelude to the star trek world. They tried different things. I liked the fact that there episodes tied in with one another. To see the controversy with the Vulcans and Humans. I dont think it would be easy for two species to get along and to take orders from one another. Vulcans went through a war too. They have emotions, they just hide them better. and that is back in Vulcan time too not just Human.Enterprises’ episodes linked many things together with the other ST shows. I loved it. For you guys saying it didnt make any sense. It made all the sense in the world. Trekkie or not. I really do hope R. Orci and others dont negate the show just because a few people didnt get it. Star Trek just ran out of gas. The show was good. I think nowadays people get bored to fast. Dont like waiting for pieces to come together. The whole season with the expanse prolly turned alot of people off but I thought it was a good idea. More time to develop a story. Almost like a movie with subplots thrown in. Archer is Cannon and so is the show and the rest of the crew, like it or not!

663. Rich - February 14, 2008


There are more shows these days than ever before that have ongoing plots that have to take time to ‘come together’. Shows like Lost.

“Enterprise” is canon, but then so is “Spock’s Brain” and “Star Trek V”, but I think the majority of fans wouldn’t mind if we discounted those for the most part.

I do not think it was just a few that “didn’t get it”. Ratings were not good for Enterprise. The machine that was running Star Trek ran out of gas and creativity.

Hopefully this new movie will be the recharge that is needed.

664. David Joecks - February 15, 2008

I dont disagree but for the most part star trek:enterprise did stick to star trek. It filled in the blanks. I am anticipating the new movie like everyone else. The only thing that made enterprise the show bomb was that they were doing new things. The whole season long arc that people got bored with. To say the show just sucked isnt fair. I think they did a good job in making it a prequel to every other show.

Plus I heard now that the new movie isnt going to really be about time travel as much as it is going to be tangent from the star trek world as we know it. I dunno. That seems kind of ify. To start from scratch for a new movie? I dont know. I have been watching star trek for a while, Im only 27 but still. Rewrite the basic canon of star trek would indeed be erasing 40 years of star trek. I do want a new movie and I dont care if kirk or any of the other cast members are in it but surely they can do a movie that doesnt mess with what is known about star trek. Hell, they did it for 40 years before this movie.

665. Terik - February 20, 2008

I liked the Enterprise show, but I also realize that it did not stick to other Trek. (Which I knew it wouldn’t.) From the beginning, most everyone knew that later crews knew nothing of this crew & ship. They were never mentioned like Kirk was. The ship was never seen along with pictures or models of other ships. Most people don’t realize most of Enterprise was the result of an alternate time-line (temporal cold-war). But even with that taken into account, other liberties were taken. The Romulans and others had cloaked ships. This was supposed to be new to Kirk and his crew. In fact, the very concept of time travel was not supposed to be proven until Kirk’s crew accidently went back at the end of Naked Time. Another change: Only a rebel group of Vulcans mind melded in Enterprise. But by the time of Spock, about 100 years, it becomes such a ritual that Sarek wants Kirk to bring Spock’s katra back to Vulcan. And Kirk does attempts it even if it means his career. Now 100 years seems long to you & me but Vulcans can live that long. How did mind melding go from rebel to ritual?

By the way, the release date of the movie is changed to May 2008.

666. Terik - February 24, 2008

New movie release date is:
May 8, 2009

667. David Joecks - February 24, 2008

ok, in defense. Captain Archer and his crew do document the information but they didnt even know it was the romulans. T’Pol may of said one line or whatever but that was it. The reason the NX-01 wasnt mentioned was because it wasnt all that important. It was just a experimental warp 5 ship. You talk about the first cell phone made all the time? Or the first TV. Highly doubt it. As far as the temporal cold war, it didnt really affect anything except that florida got wiped out. Everything happened the way it was suppose to. With the mind melding of the rebels in enterprise. It was a revolt on Vulcan. By the end of the those episodes, the truth about Sarek is discovered and the high command is dismantled and a new government is formed and vulcans are more free to mind meld thus it becomes normal by the time of kirk.

668. Terik - February 25, 2008

“The reason the NX-01 wasnt mentioned was because it wasnt all that important. It was just a experimental warp 5 ship”

The starship has a picture of the actual Enterprise shuttle. The only thing it ever did was separate from a plane and land. (Way to go Trek fans! Get NASA to name the first shuttle Enterprise, even though it won’t ever trek anywhere!)

Don’t get me wrong. It is possible to have a good movie with a good story and still be wrong on canon. I repeat, I did like Enterprise. Also, WOK is a good case study. Everyone ‘knows’ that Khan never saw Chekov prior. Everyone ‘knows’ that the Eugenics War didn’t happen and no supermen left Earth in a sleeper ship at the end of the 20th Century. Everyone ‘knows’ that if Ceti Alpha VI exploded, the Federation would have a clue. (Did they forget how to count? Ceti Alpha V should remain the fifth planet regardless of a shift in orbit. Did they think V exploded?)

669. Controversial not - March 6, 2008

It is a bit sad seeing arguments about canon – I think most of today’s trekkies have not been around enough to know how much it keeps changing.

For example, Gene Roddenbury released a book called “The Making of Star Trek” when I was at primary school. In it, the Enterprise was 80 years old at the time of TOS and was stated as having been built in a shipyard in San Fransisco.

Seems the new trailer is right on the money with the latter point. I wonder how they get it up into orbit though?

670. Capt. J T Kirk - March 13, 2008

Hey, for all we know maybe part of the ship is built on Earth while the rest of it is constructed in space. Look at the International Space station.
The modules are built here and then transported and assembled in orbit by the shuttle crews. Is it hard to believe that it can’t be done in the 22nd/23rd centuries? Anyway, ” damn it Jim” I hope they stop delaying the release date! May the ST franchise live long and prosper.

671. J - March 24, 2008

I had one of those models. Theres no way you can assemble the damn thing on earth without the nacelles drooping to the ground. what a bunch o crap.

Borg kicks Cylon Ass. but galactica has nicer chicks.

672. Daniel Kirk - April 17, 2008

I’m just hoping they haven’t altered Matt Jeffries’ design of the old lady just for the sake of a new look.

Like Post 2 points out above, most of America aren’t Trek fans. That means Paramount’s coin will be coming largely from fans’ coffers, and after the ratings dud that was Enterprise (despite Manny Coto’s Herculean 4th season rescue effort) Paramount should know better than to try to sell us a Mustang and deliver a Pinto.

673. RGS - April 18, 2008


At the end of the movie – don’t even bother explaining HOW – but just show Kirk (Shatner) and Spock (Nimoy) together in the 24th century traveling together with the stars zipping past – and Kirk says something like, “Thanks for coming back me.” And Spock says, “You have cheated death once again.” And Kirk says, “Maybe I cheated Spock. But this time … I had your help.” ZOOM OUT. ROLL CREDITS.

JJ said that he couldn’t come up with an explanation that didn’t seem ALL FANBOY. Don’t explain it. Let the novels and fan films do that. We all understand the dynamic nature of the Star Trek Universe – leave it to our imaginations. Just BRING BACK KIRK.

If you do – you’ll have me in the seat for multiple showings and I’ll buy the DVD. There are many like me.

674. Luke - July 21, 2008

“And if my iPhone could communicate with a starship travelling at warp half a solar system away without the use of a repeater inbetween, then I’d let it be a little bulkier and have a gold sieve on top too…”

Exactly. The killer bees shoved the ‘kirk’s communicator can do less than my phone” crap down our mouths so often that frankly I’m disappointed with Orci.

675. Movie (and Star Trek) Fan - July 30, 2008

Several things. 1. Shatner is too old to be in this movie. He’s overweight, he’s botoxed. I’d rather remember him the way he was in the original series. 2. Voyager seemed to have no trouble at all taking off and landing on planet’s surfaces. Just why couldn’t the Enterprise? 3. Techobabble. If there was anything that drove regular people away from the later TV series, it was that nonsense. Drop it. Also, don’t worry about having that silly Star Fleet symbol stamped on every visible piece of hardware. Use it sparingly.

676. James - August 30, 2008

Im quite glad there is a fresh take being taken on Trek. Surely most reasonable people realise that it would be a mistake to just recreate 60s sets and ships when technology in present day society is far more advanced then the bridge of the original Enterprise. The last two movies showed that the franchise was starting to stagnate and lose its way. Hopefully this new film will re-vigourise the franchise. I just hope they dont go down the star wars route though (the new ones that is) and over do the CGI – ILM created some fantastically detailed models for the first six films and somehow they do make the ships look far more realistic and authentic then anything CGI can do – I hope they take that on board.

677. Sodhexo - October 13, 2008

“And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well.” Where did that come from?

Roberto Orci: That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.

“DONT TALK CRAP” you are using this”creative liecence to screw over Star Trek and do way with canon and continunity. So all the starships that have been constructed in space in Star Trek have un-balanced warp nacelles yeah………….OK…………………Idiot. I am telling you are wrong ME.
Whatever any one else says about leting go about talking about the ship being built on earth well i wont It is wrong and simply wont work, For obvious reasons. which i wont go into beacuse at time of typing this i am already have to explain and repeat myself elsewhere on the net.

678. Editorial: Star Trek Movie Thoughts - Canon Anyone? | Fused Film - November 17, 2008

[…] The film’s co-writer, Roberto Orci, acknowledged depicting the Enterprise being built on Earth (which we see). He believed that this would cause debates among fans regarding canon [uhh..yeah!]. Explaining that the concept came from their own creative licence and the precedent set in Star Trek novels, he said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with “flimsy” objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship’s machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated. [Source:] […]

679. Sodhexo - November 19, 2008

That above comment is a load of crap, As i stated before Their “creative liecence to screw over Star Trek and do way with canon and continunity”. How dare they change Star Trek to such a degree that is is almost no longer Star Trek. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.