Interview - Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer January 19, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview, Orci/Kurtzman, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackbackEXCLUSIVE: 
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. TrekMovie.com 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.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: I have to ask…is the trailer actually going to be part of the movie itself?
Roberto Orci: No comment [laughs]
TrekMovie.com: Is that a new recording of Nimoy’s voice?
Roberto Orci: Yes. He recorded that on set just between takes.
TrekMovie.com: How many takes did it take to get it?
Roberto Orci: Not very many [laughs]
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: But this does seem to fall into one of those canon grey areas where you guys made a call.
Roberto Orci: Exactly
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: So who sits on the court?
Roberto Orci: It is the five of us: me, Alex [Kurtzman], JJ [Abrams], Bryan [Burk], and Damon [Lindelof]
TrekMovie.com: Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.
Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51.
TrekMovie.com: 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.
TrekMovie.com: 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."
TrekMovie.com: 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 TrekMovie.com Coverage of the Star Trek Trailer:
Review - Star Trek Teaser Trailer [w/TRAILER VIDEO]
First Official Image of the USS Entperprise
…and the conversation continues
Mr. Orci has been kind enough to interact with the TrekMovie.com 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.
Comments»
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.
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.”
“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?
nice. now wait for 900+ posts debating spelling and all other things of manner
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.
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.
I’m liking the detail going into the story - sense of scale is superb.
Looking forward to seeing an HD version of the trailer.
6 WITHOUT A FRIGGIN’ DOUBT. WHY DO YOU THINK I SPEND SO MUCH TIME HERE?
6th!
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.
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.
#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.
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.”
ROTGLMAO.
Right on.
As long as Kirk’s communicator doesn’t use AT&T, he’ll be fine.
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
#13 ATT “Amen To That”
Rob Orci, I just gotta say:
THE VAST MAJORITY OF US ARE BEHIND YOU.
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.
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…?
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
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…
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!
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.
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.
Well said, Mr. Orci. When canon is fuzzy *you* are in charge and *you* define canon. Let’s keep the Trek going on!
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!
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*
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…
:D
If this Movie has viral marketing we’ll probably see some web pages such as Cloverfield’s http://www.1-18-08.com/ and The Dark Knight’s http://www.whysoserious.com/
We should keep our eyes open for these web pages and post the info here. I havn’t found any yet.
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.
#2
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.
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…
@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
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!
canon could eventually kill trek
BAN CANON!
#5
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!
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.
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.
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. ;)
#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.
#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.
I DON’T THINK IT’S UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME…
…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?
“TrekMovie.com: 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?
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.
I guess I am not the only one to have tried http://www.12-25-08.com … :-)
#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.
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.
“Star Trek” may not have been in the trailer typographically, but it sure was in the trailer musically.
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,
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.
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!
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!)
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.
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.
Gene
#44-
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.
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.
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.
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 ..in 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 mistakes..like the fact that bajorans..and other species look different…..
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.
#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?
#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.
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.
“Literally a century closer”?
Um, not quite.
[…] 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 | TrekMovie.com 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." […]
[…] Interview - Orci Answers Questions About New Star Trek Trailer | TrekMovie.com 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." […]
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
#65 - buy that man a scotch - he is absolutely correct - JFK was the youngest ELECTED president - TR was VP to the assasinated William McKinley.
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?
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
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!
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.
Gene
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!
#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!
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.
#52
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.
65 Youngest elected = real president.
By the way Anthony, I see Bill Hunt at http://www.thedigitalbits.com gave you and this site a mention today when he wrote about his ‘Cloverfield’ screening…
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.
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.
#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…
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?
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.
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
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.
Two questions Mr Orci, hope you are well:
1) When are you planning to release a trailer with actual actor footage from the film?
and
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.
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.
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!
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.
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…
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? ;)
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 !!
When will the web site be fully functional?
in the poll:
what does “Can I buy my ticket now?” mean?
“It was bloody fantastic!” or “I havent seen it yet”
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.
#93
Ditto. Absolutely. :)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
http://scifipulse.net/Trek_ArchiveII/January2008/Karl_Urban_Jan18_2008.html
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 ;-) )
btw:
It’s the San Francisco Bay AREA, isn’t it? Just because of the mist in the background… ;-)
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!!!!
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!
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. (:
#103
the most intelligent post I read thus far about the movie
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!
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!
#103
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?
amen to #103
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!
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?
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.
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
#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”.
#103
agreed!
perspective people!!
#103
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.
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.
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.
For the record, Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest man ever elected president, beating Kennedy by more than a year.
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:-)
Gene
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.
#117
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.
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.
uh, “wonderful.” D’oh!
#103
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.
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.
kg
#128:
Dennis, I agree with every single word you just posted (even your misspelled one and the two that make up Al Pacino).
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.
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 )
I still want to know why they decided not to use the Cawley cameo.
#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
#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.
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….
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
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.
I DON’T SEE WHY THEY TRY TO RESURECT THE ORIGINAL CREW…TO ME ANOTHER KIRK WAS RIKER IN THE FIRST SEASONS OF TNG…ARCHER IS ANOTHER VERSION OF KIRK…JUST LIKE T’POL IS ANOTHER SEVEN OF NINE..PHLOX IS JUST ANOTHER NEELIX…..O’BRIEN IS ANOTHER OLDER SCOTTY …WHY IS SO MUCH LACK OF ORIGINAL IDEAS I DON’T KNOW…BUT SURE THAT THING MAKES THE FANS TO KEEP LOOKING FOR ANOTHER SCI -FI SHOWS…ANYWAY STAR TREK SEEMS TO BE..WOMANISED…AND THE FEMALE CHARACTERS ARE TOO ..ASEXUAL ..LATELY.. AND THE MEN ARE TOO… DELICATE.. SURELY THEY AREN’T JUST ‘ SMART SOLDIERS’ AND THE UNIFORMS [ESPECIALLY FROM ENTERPRISE AND TNG AND VOYAGER-NO COMMENT TO TOS WICH IS TOO OLD] ARE MORE APPROPIATE FOR ..CIRCUS OR..BALLET..SORRY..!!!
#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.
#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.”
#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.
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 TrekMovie.com? 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 TrekMovie.com fans prefer to see you posting here. :)
* WIll you be posting any information about your new project “Fringe” to this site?
#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.
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.
ROBERTO -
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).
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
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.
#49—Sounds like a giant load of “Shat” to me!
Roberto,
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…..?
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.
TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTION from Post #152:
….”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.)
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!
#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.
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.
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!
#144 on a movie this secretive they let slip in a bar? i dont think so lol
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).
#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.