Abrams: Star Trek Not Traditional Prequel | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams: Star Trek Not Traditional Prequel February 5, 2008

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

When JJ Abrams comes to TrekMovie.com for a live chat or speaks at some tech conference, he shows off his geek cred. But, of course his plan for the new Star Trek is to appeal to everyone so he has to shed that when he talks to the ‘norms.’ Which is exactly what you can see with some quotes buried in one of those ‘Movies to look forward to in 2008′ previews over at USA Today where Abrams is quoted saying…


I was not an avid Star Trek fan, I want this to appeal to people who never saw Star Trek or think its days are over.

POTENTIAL

SPOILER

BELOW

The director also explained to the USA TODAY how his new Star Trek will not be like other recent prequels:

It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live.

TREKMOVIE SNEAK PEEK
could this be what Abrams is referring to?

More at USA Today

Thanks to Etha for the link

Comments

1. Section 31 - February 5, 2008

This is PROOF that this movie is not loyal to canon!

2. Chris Pike - February 5, 2008

He’s dead already!!!!

3. DJT - February 5, 2008

The no-win scenario just got a little more complicated.

4. Admiral_Bumblebee - February 5, 2008

Either someone dies in ther alternate timeline or they are killing off old Spock, which I would find really bad.

5. Section 31 - February 5, 2008

Scotty will be replaced with Welshy (Futurama episode)

6. Section 31 - February 5, 2008

#4 Yeah, I agree.

It seems that old Spock will die. Kirk had to die in Generations to pass on the torch. Now it seems that old Spock will die to pass on the legacy to the new crew.

7. Skippy 2k - February 5, 2008

Yeah, we won’t know all the characters will live. Anyone could die… Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Checkov or even Ensign Ricky! I guess we will have to wait and see which of these survive and which don’t. ;-)

Now I am going to go to bed and set my alarm for 11:00, Dec 24…. thats sure to work.

8. Tino - February 5, 2008

Let’s wait and see. He won’t kill off any regular character without bringing him/her back.

9. Skippy 2k - February 5, 2008

#5. WEEEEEELSHEEEEEeeeeeeee!!!!

10. Section 31 - February 5, 2008

This movie already butchered set design canon and now it seems that canon history will be violated!

11. SirMartman - February 5, 2008

Im trying very hard not to read the spoilers !!!

I strongly urge all Trek fans to stop reading Spoilers!

This movie is going to Rock,, I cant wait to see this!

12. Matty D - February 5, 2008

Excellent. This movie will break new ground afterall.

13. Iowagirl - February 5, 2008

This film will be fatal.

14. Anthony Pascale - February 5, 2008

Section 31 warning for spamming

15. Sci-Fi Bri - February 5, 2008

This is great to hear. with an alternate timeline and a liberal reading of canon this is gonna be fantastic !

Kirk dead at the end of the movie? Sulu lost the cold vacuum of space? Scotty dead from overconsumption of french fries? this could be a 3 part series just like II, III, IV.

awesome.

16. Nuallain - February 5, 2008

Note that Abrams said the problem with prequels was that everybody KNOWS nobody can die, NOT that nobody does die.

Nothing in his comment suggests he’s killing anybody off. Just that he’s introduced a scenario knows he *could* kill somebody off. The very fact that the movie has time travel from the future establishes that.

17. Chris Clow - February 5, 2008

@#10

Enterprise already butchered set design canon. Also, for people who freak out about that stuff, have you noticed that there’s no one cosistent look for the 1701-A across three movies? You can say “it was a refit” all you want, but that’s not canonical either.

Just let the man make his movie and we’ll judge it on Christmas.

18. ngen - February 5, 2008

perhaps he’s just talking about some well known red-shirted ensigns. would be canon.

19. Cheve - February 5, 2008

10. Section 31

breath, man.

He is not killing anyone alive in TOS.

Sometimes it seems as if you actually wanted the movie to break canon so you could attack it.

20. Dyson Sphere - February 5, 2008

Captain April, don your red tunic and take this other noname ship to go after that Klingon/Romulan attacker thingy. Make sure Pike doesn’t get hurt or anything also. Take a few of Pike’s guys from the Talos run, they’d be good to help.

No, no one will die, just get so mamed that they can only beep…. ;-)

21. Continuum - February 5, 2008

He actually called it a _prequel_… is there still hope it won’t *really* be a reimagining, but a “hi-fidelity” prequel? Of course for it to be a prequel, it can’t violate what comes after or else it is no longer a prequel.

So what does he mean with this looming axe over our intrepid heroes?

22. Realisttrekkie32 - February 5, 2008

It’s going to change everything isn’t it?

Abrams isn’t a trekkie or a trekker, so simple as this will just be Star Trek’s dumbing down and mainstreaming, which probably means just a few less Trek-esq pieces of dialogue and a hell of a lot more blowing stuff up and actual human relations bits.

This is an attempt to make Trek cool, and for the main part it’s working, people are getting interested in the hype, the trailer isn’t what you would expect from Star Trek and the Enterprise has been changed to make it look more realistic.

Thing is, if you were a fan of Trek before, it’s probably not going to appeal as much. I mean the purists were always going to be mad about this, but they do have a slight point.

Ok, it would be unfair to claim that JJ Abrams is taking this franchise (a horrible word for Star Trek that is) just to make money and try and claim status as ‘the guy who saved trek’, but at the same time you must realise he was never going to leave alot the same no matter what he promised.

End of the day if your pitching Trek to a mainstream, hard to occupy audience, then you have to loose things which are essentially what Trek is about. The ethic of humans working toward something greater and better is still there, but the feeling of Trek, that buzz of it will not be there in the film if it looses some of the lingo and the general Trek themes.

The film could be epic, I know I will go and see it, as I am a self confessed Trek lover. But I know at the end of the day this isn’t going to be a ‘real’ Star Trek. It’s a shiny version. One to try and rebirth something which many seem to think has become old and tired.

But maybe older trek just isn’t getting a chance? I don’t know.

I don’t know whether I’m happy or sad about this movie. I know Nemesis sucked gigantic arse, but if what Abrams is making gets any more complicated, or is a total retcon, there will be that vain of sadness in watching the film.

Although the canon thing was ALWAYS going to be difficult. I don’t reckon there is a director out there who can cope with trek canon lol.

And in response to Section 31’s anger, I’m not thrilled about some of the stuff I’ve heard mate, but it’s quite obvious they won’t kill anyone who’s in the main cast, because that would just plain not make sense. Chillax. Stop being overly hostile and wait till it comes out. I’m voicing concerns, but not totally poo pooing it!

Although, New Voyages episode ‘To Serve All My Days’ end is worth mentioning….does anyone want to explain how that fits in lol because it threw me!

*Not mentioning how it ends so I don’t ruin it for any potential New Voyages viewers*

23. Pr011 - February 5, 2008

#1 “This is PROOF that this movie is not loyal to canon!”

Yes, of course it is.

How did you reach that conclusion with two one-line quotes?

24. Daniel Broadway - February 5, 2008

I don’t care if this movie breaks canon. As long as it’s good, and fun, I’ll love it. Transformers rocked my world, and I’m hoping for that feeling again with Star Trek.

25. KevinA Melbourne Australia - February 5, 2008

What if someone important is killed? Chechov, Uhura, Scotty?? We’ve never seen animportant death in “the Past” before because it would effect the future from existing shows and movies piont of view.

It couls so easily have happenned in “Yesterdays Enterprise”. If for what ever reason Guinan hadn’t convinced Picard to act, there would have been an entire life experience and altered universe to contend with. If Picard ahd not sent the Enterprise B back there would suddenly have been an entire series of stories to tell about the Klingon war.

What if some one is killed at the end on the new movie by someone from the future? Then time as we know it will have been altered. Hence new existance, new series but not the same mission. Yet at some time down the track, all could be reset if a Guinan type character says “This is not the way it was meant to be”

We’ve never seen a time paradox from the pasts view point before. There could be several movies of “lets go thatta way” instead of the way it was in the original series only to be reset at some piont in the future when “story telling” decides it’s necessary. In the mean time we enjoy what could have been and what could become the “Search for the Real time line”. Canon is wiped but alive at the same time.

I really love Trek.com. It’s the only place I would ever dream and speculate like this.

26. KevinA Melbourne Australia - February 5, 2008

Sorry Anthony..I meant TrekMovie.com at the end and sorry for spelling mistakes..didn’t run the spell checker this time

27. theSpockette - February 5, 2008

Spock!!! My first thought was that they’re killing off old Spock too, which would make me very sad. :( I could sort of see it though, since we’ve seen Kirk die and don’t know how Spock dies. Still, it would be too sad!

28. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#1
#10

Section 31 – take your canon and shove it up your arse.

Even if I cared about canon, which I don’t, there are several ways that major characters could be killed which don’t violate “my preciousssss…” – uh, I mean canon.

a. Old Spock could be killed.
b. It could show the death of one of the major characters in the lives of young Kirk or Spock; someone who never appeared in TOS.
c. Some or all of the film could occur in the mirror universe or some other alternate universe. If you know how to read, take out your canon bible and read about: Yesterday’s Enterprise, Parallels, Mirror Mirror, etc, etc. All canon, all involving deaths and ressurections that DID NOT happen in the TOS universe.

Get a life.

29. Iowagirl - February 5, 2008

#22
-.. but it’s quite obvious they won’t kill anyone who’s in the main cast, because that would just plain not make sense. –

You’re obviously right as regards young Spock; killing him would make no sense as we already know that old Spock is still alive in the TNG timeline, but why would killing old Spock at the end of the movie make no sense?

And if Abrams was only referring to old Kirk remaining dead, he already suggested that with his most recent comments and his current comment would not have been an interesting tidbit, a statement as to his perception of the film’s approach, but a redundancy. As I understand it, *that* would just plain not make sense.

30. madcynic - February 5, 2008

#25: C, it was the C.

31. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#25

Excellent points. A mirror-universe seen from the past would be good. One of the few good eps from Enterprise was there mirror universe 2-parter. The new movie could be a similar idea – show a “what if” scenario of an alternate universe that would happen if Kirk were killed, and then have future Spock somehow set it right.

Section 31 – the official films (like this one) ESTABLISH canon, dummy. They can do whatever they want and then it becomes canon.

32. Ty Webb - February 5, 2008

I know what he’s talking about. I mean, in a parallel universe different things can happen and nobody is safe.

33. G-Seven - February 5, 2008

If it is alternate time lines interacting with other alternate timelines then you can kill Kirk and co. lots of times… just as long as he survies in “our” timeline,. We already have the mirror universe, so why not others too.

34. Ty Webb - February 5, 2008

Thinking about it, the new series of Doctor Who has done a similar thing in some cases, not being a reboot it did go down the route with some classic enemies of re-telling a slightly different origins story in a mirror universe. That way you preserve the official canon and get to reboot things at the same time.

35. yan - February 5, 2008

JJ Abrams raped my childhood!! Hang on, I’m 32 and that was Star wars. Ooops, sorry.

36. PaoloM - February 5, 2008

“I was not an avid Star Trek fan, I want this to appeal to people who never saw Star Trek or think its days are over.”

For this to be true the plot doesn’t have to be too complicated. IMO, time travel and alternate timelines are matter for Trek geeks. Casual people would have a lot of trouble understanding such intricate events, deeply tied to Trek lore. For this reason I think that we cannot say for sure that timeline messing is involved.

37. Hated STII WOK - February 5, 2008

“It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live.”

Just so long as they don’t go killing off Spock again. >:(

38. CanuckLou - February 5, 2008

Old Spock will not die but who knows maybe young Spock….

;-)

The adventure continues…

39. KevinA Melbourne Australia - February 5, 2008

#30madcynic
I stand corrected. Most definately C

40. Daniel - February 5, 2008

Abrams is pretty much giving CPR to Star Trek and the purists are whinging because if it lives it won’t be wearing the same clothes.

Im glad Abrams is going in this direction with a liberal reading of canon. IMO by the end of the film it will be a Star Trek alternate timeline. For goodness sake its only television and just because its an alternate timeline it doesn’t mean all the stuff in the ‘ordinary’ timeline didn’t happen, im betting their writing the film on the assumption that the many worlds interpretation of physics is true, in which case as soon as the timeline changes it will have branched off into an alternate universe.

41. TK - February 5, 2008

all this speculation is making me very nervous…………..

42. maspill - February 5, 2008

so someone dies he also spoke of different time lines so i assume kirk dies and we see the universe without kirks influence !!

43. Smike van Dyke - February 5, 2008

Okay, it finally all makes sense. I’ve always predicted something like that but I guess this means PROOF now:

1. As CBS TV and Paramount Pictures have split the Trek copyright, they desperately need TWO Trek timelines! CBS will explore the future of the old timeline with DTV releases and TV productions, while Paramount is going to present us all new blockbuster movies in this new, undetermined timeline.

2. Nero and Old Spock are just means to an end, i.e. establishing the new timeline. That’s why Nero’s role is little more than a cameo. Nero is not your average villain planing to alter the timeline by timetravel. Everything is just an accident! An experiment went wrong, setting developments in motion that DO change significant aspects of THIS NEW Trek universe, e.g. technology (ship design!), politics (destriction of Vulcan) and even characters (young Spock mind melding etc)…

3. While old viewers will be able to relate the new timeline with the original chronology trough Old Spock, new viewers won’t have to bother with any of that. They can enjoy the new Trek as a completely independent incarnation, like Raimi’s Spider-Man movies being independent from the comic books…You don’t need to read the comics to understand those movies but you may enjoy certain details a little more if you know your comic books…

4. In case of success, this new timeline will recombine things in a completely different way. We may see Kirk fighting the Borg or even discovering the Bajoran wormhole and the Dominion and none of this will hurt continuity since it already is a completely different reality! And that is absolutely brilliant…

As long as the original timeline won’t cease to exist (and how could it, given IDIC), I’m fine with all of this…it makes a lot of sense…

44. Stef* - February 5, 2008

Spock has to live … please.

I won’t survive another dead Spock – please NO!!!!!!!!

45. doubleofive - February 5, 2008

35. RE: Star Wars

At least JJ didn’t destroy what he himself created and was rightly proud of. :-P

Paramount handed the reigns to JJ for a reason. If he wants to kill characters, by golly, he has a right to. Just like some fans ignore “Enterprise”, just ignore the movie if you’re going to be upset about it. People are way too quick to judge.

If the movie is good, I’m going to enjoy it. If it creates a new continuity, that’s fine with me. I’ve made my peace.

46. Matt - February 5, 2008

How about….

Kirk does die at the end of this –

Old Spock fails, lost in interminable timelines and he can’t get back home

…..and his younger Sylar self is now… Captain of the Enterprise!!!

There must be an evil laugh somewhere…

47. TK - February 5, 2008

The 11 months wait is excruciating. I don’t know if I can hold on for much longer… ;) I might literally explode from anticipation around summer… I’ll let you guys know if I survive. :)

I don’t think I’ve been as hyped about a movie like this in my entire life. JJ better deliver after lifting my expectations so much, I don’t know what I will do if I don’t like the movie!!!

48. Ralph Pinheiro - Brazil - February 5, 2008

My conclusion: old Spock will die and Shatner will not appear in Star Trek ever. Live long and prosper to new cast.

49. Marian Ciobanu - February 5, 2008

-So we will never see an old KIRK again..we know that thing already.. : )

50. Captain Dunsel - February 5, 2008

Time will tell. There are always possibilities.

I wonder how long it will be before old Stanky gets over the shock of THIS announcement! Can’t imagine that he won’t weigh in soon!

51. Stephen from Scotland - February 5, 2008

Here’s what I think.

In this movie Old Spock will die during some event in which the whole timeline is changed forever creating a brand new timeline.

This will then allow this new version of Star Trek to have totally new adventures not violating canon as we will now be in an alternative timeline.

We could even go on the five year mission all over again as it will all be new and in an alternate timeline that we will now be following. And as all of their futures are now unsure and no longer set in stone we can no longer assume that the main characters are safe or when they die (for instance Kirk may not now die the way he died in the original timeline).

Who knows in twenty or thirty years time this means that we may even get a new version of TNG.

If I’m right then Abrams and his writers are geniuses as they will be able to do whatever they want after this movie in the Star Trek universe whilst at the same time being able to say that all of the original canon will still exist in the original alternate timeline and is safe and will remain untouched.

Not only that they will have ensured the continuation of the franchise for a brand new generation.

With sci-fi you can have your cake and eat it.

52. Kirk, James T. - February 5, 2008

YAY! :-D this film sounds so cool.

53. Diabolik - February 5, 2008

This means we could see new and bigger versions of the TV episodes, since this is a new timeline, but where many of the same things happen.

Imagine a movie version of The Doomsday Machine!

54. Ensign Ricky - February 5, 2008

Hey, a cameo for me, hahahaha! ;-)

55. Stanky McFibberich - February 5, 2008

Another round of meaningless information taken to be more than what it is. These people involved in production talk and they don’t say anything, but there are plenty of other people willing to put meaning behind the statements.

56. j w wright - February 5, 2008

this must be the movie where spock really dies…

#6 ha ha! welshy was da man!

#53 that would rock… commodore decker was great, that ep would make a great feature

57. Kuvagh - February 5, 2008

10: Using exact replicas of any TOS sets would be completely impossible unless the movie was going to be a comedy. What little we’ve seen of the sets suggests a modern interpretation of the original Jefferies designs. Note the shape of the hallway sections. In fact, there’s nothing in them which couldn’t indicate that the sets as they appeared in TOS were actually an upgraded refit which replaced what we’ll see in the movie… if you want to be a canon purist.

16: Exactly. The instant Spock shows up in the past, the entire universe from that point on becomes flexible. In “real” time travel, the shockwaves of change would make things more and more unrecognizable the farther we go into the future. Even if Picard’s parents decide to conceive on the same day, a different… cell… might fertilize the egg, etc. In Star Trek, we’ve seen this shockwave to be relatively weak, so this doesn’t mean that everything we’ve seen take place is now invalid. What it does mean is that the writers are now free to make little changes in the interest of whatever is creative and cool. It also means that there’s an opportunity for the writers to explore the cost and consequences of time travel. The resistance of the fans will be the force which prevents them from straying too far. Geordi won’t be replaced by a sighted woman named Gia, Beverly won’t give Picard medical hair restoration and the Allies won’t lose the Dominion War. Probably.

Mirror Universe: Please, no. It’s a fine playground for episodic Star Trek, but it’s too silly for film. The notion that hundreds of years of history can be radically altered and that all of the same people will still be born and found in roughly the same location as their regular universe counterparts can’t be taken seriously. It was a vehicle for talking about opposing tyranny, and other shows had a little bit of fun with it here and there, but it should be mostly avoided IMO.

58. Son - February 5, 2008

#1 –

Since when has Star Trek followed its own cannon? Enterprise had many cannon violations!

59. SolFlyer - February 5, 2008

For all of you whining about this ruining canon, think about it. This may be the perfect way to bring back The Shat for future movies. If the timeline is altered, he may never die in Generations. (Of course, this would create a temporal paradox that could destroy the universe but, hey, you pays your money, you takes your chances)

60. section9 - February 5, 2008

Yah, in the new timeline everyone walks around in Mirror Universe clothing, BUT everyone is good.

All the Fashion Goodies of the Mirror Universe without the Agony Booth. Zoe wears killer boots as Uhura.

Downside? Old Spock gets killed off in a final “Fistful of Dollars” battle with Nero for the hand of the jilted Romulan Commander from “The Enterprise Incident”. But Nimoy probably wants to check out and get one last paycheck on the way out the door.

Meanwhile, in the REAL Mirror Universe, everyone wears uniforms that looks like they work at a Motel Six but they still commit genocide on a planetary scale. Uhura looks like the maid.

61. KennyB - February 5, 2008

I am totally cool with it as long as they do not introduce a new Engineer named Jar Jar………………”Mesa givin’ all she can handles Captain, sir”

62. Ryan - February 5, 2008

Spock cannot die because Vulcans are immortal, duh.

63. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - February 5, 2008

Yea yea… someone dies… OR…. someone that was dead LIVES!!!

*Runs for the hills*

64. AnAvidFan - February 5, 2008

To be honest…..

I’m sick and tired of reading these effin’ crybaby purists…..

Example:
No. 10: “This movie already butchered set design canon and now it seems that canon history will be violated!”

Some other’s I’ve seen in the past (in exaggerated form):

“I’m so pissed Abrams did make to Enterprise look EXACTLY like the 1966 version!”

“I can’t believe the bridge isn’t going to look EXACTLY like the original!”

And my all-time favorite:
“HE’S RAPING MY CHILDHOOD!”

What is canon and who wrote it? Seems to me the show was put together in concept and characters, and like all other television show productions, was written one episode at a time by writers trying to take a concept and put it into reality. There was no written biography of Kirk, Spock, or any other character. There was no official history of the United Federation of Planets, or Starfleet, or much less Earth from 1968 on… aside from a few references here and there (ala Khan). They had to build it from scratch.

And lest we forget, the writers and original creator(s) of Star Trek broke from canon themselves. Star Trek IV is a perfect example. According to STARTREK.com, Khan Noonien Singh was “a genetically-bred “superman” of Earth’s India in the late 20th century.” In addition, the site goes on to say, “Rising to power among others of his kind, his ambition helped further the Eugenics Wars, which involved much of Earth’s Third World. Finally facing defeat, he and dozens of followers escaped in the S.S. Botany Bay, a DY-100 vessel modified as a sleeper ship.” It seems to me that there would have been something, somewhere, referencing this, or a Eugenics War, or even political strife leading up to it, in the story of Star Trek IV… instead we got, “there be whales here!”

Oh, and perhaps we can see holes in story lines. Let’s look at one of the most revered Star Trek films in existence — Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Ceti Alpha VI explodes, altering the orbit of Khan’s planet, Ceti Alpha V. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the explorers and devout scientists of Starfleet and the UFP would have been curious about the plight of a planet, namely one that was known capable of supporting life? Perhaps a USS Grissom-esque science vessel (STIII) would be sent to examine it. Would Kirk not have reported the “Space Seed” incident to his superiors right after he dropped them off, and would they have not, at some point, sent a ship to “check on our progress” as Admiral Kirk seemingly failed to do?

Lets move on to Star Trek: Generations. The Whoopi Goldberg character ‘Guinan’ is one of the refugees rescued from the derelict ships trapped in the Nexus in the beginning of the film. Would not have someone from Starfleet or the UFP questioned these refugees as to where they came from, and how their planet was destroyed? Would not the name “Borg” have been referenced earlier in TNG? Why the sudden surprise of their discovery? Oh, and lest we forget the Borg were in an episode of Enterprise. Is Starfleets’ historical, operational, and medical database that corrupted that large chunks of it’s own data is lost… and it’s members just generally forgot MAJOR scientific finds?

Are you really concerned whether the Enterprise doesn’t “fit canon?” Seriously……

Ladies and gentlemen… we don’t HAVE an official Star Trek right now, other than what’s rerun in syndication. The last series, aside from a few episodes, story concepts and good intentions, was largely a failure to fans AND to Paramount. Viewership had decreased in folds since the end of TNG, regardless of how good DS9 actually was. Rick Berman, though I’m sure it wasn’t his conscious intent, drove the franchise into the ground, both on television and in film. And yes, it is a franchise, for those who scoff at that word. Perhaps we can let J.J. Abrams do his job which he obviously has a talent for (see: Lost, MI:III, and Cloverfield). And lets not forget, at the end of the day, Star Trek is a part of the entertainment business — the watch word being ‘BUSINESS.’ It’s primary function is to “put asses in the seats” to collect a profit. By all rights, J.J. Abrams could turn to Enterprise into the Queen Elizabeth, make a profit on the release of the film, and be quite established in the studios as a money-making filmmaker. I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for considering the woes, concerns and questions of the fans at all… never mind the fact that HE’S PUTTING STAR TREK BACK ON THE MAP!!!

I am thrilled at what I’ve seen and read…. I cannot wait to see this film! I haven’t felt this optimistic about seeing Star Trek since I was a little kid.

65. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - February 5, 2008

oh and besides… Nero is going to die (assumably) and what about Captain Archer? he died after the Enterprise launch (apparently)

*Turn around and runs again*

66. Gornorrhea - February 5, 2008

#59

With all due respect, I love Shatner but he’s old and…um…large. For how many more movies can you pencil him in?

67. ss - February 5, 2008

Kirk dies in minute 82. Don’t ask me how I know…

68. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

Okay, so J.J.’s adding some cylons, whadda gonna do?

69. Diabolik - February 5, 2008

The Family Guy clips is funny… but why is Kirk spazzing out like that? Are they trying to insinuate that Shatner overacted?

And if so, where would they come up with such a stupid idea? The Shat is just bigger than life and some can’t handle it. :)

70. Beck - February 5, 2008

I know someone is going to jump me for saying this but – it would make sense to me for Old Spock to die, from what very little I know of the movie, and especially if they plan on making more films with this new crew. He’s not immortal, he has to die sometime, and that would be a way of passing the torch to the new cast.

As long as he got a better send off than Kirk did in Generations, I think I’d be cool with that.

71. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

Once Nero jacks with the timeline, all bets are off. But wouldn’t it be cool that after all is said and done, the crew is all in their classic TOS uniforms, Kirk gets his first command of the 01, and music swells, the lights go up…we step on popcorn and sticky floors…grab our iphones and start blogging before we even get to the car….

IDIC

72. Admiral_Bumblebee - February 5, 2008

Why does the evil guy always have to die?

Star Trek 1: V’Ger – dead. Ok, he “evolved”, but he was gone.
Star Trek 2: Khan – dead.
Star Trek 3: Kruge – dead.
Star Trek 4: There was no evil guy.
Star Trek 5: “God” – dead.
Star Trek 6: Chang – dead.
Star Trek 7: The Duras Sisters and Soran – dead.
Star Trek 8: The Borg (Queen) – dead.
Star Trek 9: Ru’afo – dead.
Star Trek 10: Shinzon – dead.

I would love to see a Star Trek movie in which the evil guy wouldn’t have to die at the end…

And when I look at this list… There was only one female antagonist in ten movies? Speak about discrimination ;)

73. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

re:70

Yes. I think Nimoy agreed to do a one of.

74. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

re:72

Maybe Nero is a pre-op “female.” Now, that would be something to draw out the ire of ST fandom!

75. doubleofive - February 5, 2008

70. RE: Death of Spock?

I think that Spock is going to fall down the bottomless pit on the Enterprise, just like that viceroy in Nemesis.

As long as he doesn’t grasp onto the ledge and say “Fly, you fools”. Then we’d expect yet another resurrection.

“I am Spock The White.”

76. Iowagirl - February 5, 2008

I’m all for alternative timelines, “mirror” universes, jumping back and forth in time, and looking at the established ST universe from a rather different angle, as IMO this would be the only way to make this movie work.

And 40 years of great Star Trek provide the basis for taking pleasure in speculating over the new film’s approach, as any new gimmick will just add a chapter and may be fun to watch, but will never be able to replace or destroy the fundamental image we were given by TOS.

77. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - February 5, 2008

#75 LMFAO!

78. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#43 – “As long as the original timeline won’t cease to exist (and how could it, given IDIC), I’m fine with all of this…it makes a lot of sense… ”

Well, no matter what happens in the film, the original timeline won’t cease to exist, in theory (and even in practice to a certain degree, since we’re told that Spock starts there at the film’s beginning).

But…

In real-life practice, if the net result is to create this new alternate timeline, all future Trek productions will be set in the “new continuum”, and even the licensed material will be increasingly influenced by same (and there’s pretty much no way it wouldn’t be, given the nature of the beast here), then in effect the original timeline ceases to exist except in the minds and hearts of folks who care about the Trekverse of the first 4 decades.

And if that happens, if the studio’s going to just walk away from 40+ years of storytelling, almost all within a single general continuity, it will be a very sad day, irrelevant of how good or bad the film itself might turn out to be.

#59 – “For all of you whining about this ruining canon, think about it. This may be the perfect way to bring back The Shat for future movies. ”

Not worth it. (Sorry, Bill, if you’re reading!)

#64-“Are you really concerned whether the Enterprise doesn’t ‘fit canon?’ Seriously……”

Nope, ’cause it fit just fine. ;)

79. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#71 Perfect. I can’t think of a better end to the movie than this. What a great image.

#76 For once we agree.

80. SirBroiler - February 5, 2008

Couldn’t old Spock, before he dies, grab the young Spock and dump his Katra hard drive via mind meld. Now young Spock approaches all of the new adventures with old Spock’s experience and perspective – but no one else on the enterprise knows he is future-aware.

I know – it’s bullshit – but hey, I’m trying here.

81. Montalban's Nipple - February 5, 2008

Oh, really, who gives a Tribble’s ass if the movie is loyal to canon or not? Is that fact that the Enterprise is built on Earth (horror of horrors) REALLY going to prevent Star Trek from being a good movie? In my experience, the majority of Trekkies are smart, curious people, but reading remarks from obsessive Trekkies remind me of fundamentalist Christians quibbling over which version of the Bible is ‘true.’

It was steadfast, slavish adherence to canon that completely ground Trek to a halt in the first place (I tip my hat to you, Rick Berman). Hopefully, JJ Abrams will retain the spirit of what we all love about Trek while giving us something fresh and fun (which is what made the original Trek, warts and all, so appealing), and it looks like so far he has- that teaser gave me goosebumps too. But, for IDIC’s sake, please remember: it’s not a holy text, it’s not a religion, just a movie.

82. Jim - February 5, 2008

This one’s the last straw. I give up. Frankly, I’m tired of all the “trust me” and “not your daddy’s trek” and the enthusiastically delivered comments that really don’t reveal anything that come from the production team. The fan base is running around trying to pick flysh*t out of pepper based on what? A 30 second trailer that really doesn’t reveal jack? Some amorphous comments from “insiders”?

There was a time (pre-internet days, for all readers under 15), when fans had to seek out information about new movies from obscure print sources. Anyone out there remember fanzines, or Jim Steranko’s “Mediascene” or other like publications produced by folks who clearly loved the genres upon which they were reporting? Because of that, the way in which movies were released and promoted was much different (for the better, IMHO).

Creative types actually seemed to care about attracting a passionate fan base by releasing meaningful information rather than running around saying “trust us – we make good movie”. For example, several months prior to the release of “Star Wars” (and no I ain’t doing the renumbered chapters foolishness), Lucas had not only released a lot of Ralph McQuarrie’s pre-production art but a complete novelization of the movie.

It is sounding almost as though this film will be one for the “it blowed up real good” crowd than for those who found ST more challenging (and thus, more entertaining) over the years because it seemed to resist pandering to the lowest common denominator. If this is the creative team’s idea of “viral marketing”, it sure has backfired for me. After a brief period of cautious optimism, these recent comments have driven me to a point where I could care less about what’s up with this new film.

83. Dr. Image - February 5, 2008

#80-
Just might actually happen. Hope NOT.
Personally, I think old Spock is done- permanently.

84. newman - February 5, 2008

why does everyone at the helm of the Star Trek franchise think it’s cool to kill off all our favourite characters? Why is this necessary? It seriously bothers me. The first examples that come to mind are Trip and Data. Their deaths did not contribute to the quality of Nemesis or the Enterprise Finale, and the stories certainly could’ve been told without these deaths. Especially Kirk! That whole movie could’ve been done without the TOS cast. Berman & company really dropped the ball on that one, and Shatner never should’ve signed on, especially if Nimoy refused to sign on. A strange twist of fate that Nimoy refused to participate with Generations, and now Shatner can’t get into XI.

Anyway, my point here is that killing off beloved characters doesn’t always make for a great episode or movie.

85. Diabolik - February 5, 2008

Folks, we have to grasp the fact that the only way we’re going to see new Trek based on the TOS is like this: starting new with the same characters.

Same of different timeline., it’s all double-talk to justify it to the hardcore canonites…. but the reality is, we’re getting new TOS adventures.

I’ll take what I can get.

86. Rick - February 5, 2008

Very interesting comments from the above comments. I have been thinking about some of what this film has to be myself. I know in the end it is all about a business and making money. Let us get real Paramount is not going to want a STAR TREK film to have low attendance when it comes out, so it must appeal to a huge section of the population. Here is where I am torn. Myself who loves the original STAR TREK and to a degree most of the spin off, wants this film to really have as much of the look and feel of the original show that is possible. But I know some elements have to be changed to bring in others. But the irony is the original most of been good enough as it was to survive and have the interest up to this present film. Myself I would love a CAGE type Enterprise with that era uniform/equipment made with good material and slightly updated. Who knows we haven’t seen anything yet to know what we are getting. Of course part of me who in truth always wanted a reboot of the whole thing so they could go off and not worry about trying to match or fit in with the original series. So there is a part of me that will either enjoy how they pull off what they do or be disappointed. Still it is just a film to me and real life is more important. ;)

Myself I find it a touch ironic that to want as much of a original series looking film makes it seem sort of alternative or out of the mainstream. The original STAR TREK was like any series a money making venture first that would be taking a few chances with story and characters, but with network execs trying to make it more mainstream. So here we are 40 years later taking that STAR TREK and attempting to mainstream it more.;) Funny in some respects, but very realistic in the end. Since my college years where I met others that opened me up to other music, films, comics, etc. beyond what was top selling, top 40, etc. I have usually in many cases not agreed with much popular culture stuff. Not all of it as I am amazed there are a few top selling songs, films, shows, etc. I may well enjoy. I just hope to make this STAR TREK film more mainstream they don’t dumb it down and rip out all of the elements that made it interesting. I am not a purist and enjoy some revisions. Hell I love the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA remake. Of course remember the original show was only a season so there was not much to get so attached to. Will STAR TREK the story has continued 40 years. Oh yeah one more thing please do not put any lame top 40 hip hop rap in the soundtrack.;) Sorry I know too many people that like that stuff and see too many films that have it in the sound tracks. That would be my breaking point with this film. Still I do love some rap and hip hop just not the mainstream crap. Hmmm not sure why I mentioned that…;)

I read 51. Stephen from Scotland post and loved his idea of what could happen to make it a new series being born out of the old! It starts with the original canon and branches out. The other series into films still exists in one way but we follow this branch started by JJ ABRAMS. To me that would be cool. I do love that Nimoy who was with STAR TREK at the very beginning is here again. I almost see him as the actor and character as a comfort/father figure seeing off the new offspring. This new TREK. Of course others say it is passing the baton. Gee I have typed too much. ;) I just felt inspired reading the other comments to through in my 2 cents. I do look forward to this film and I know I will definitely have some opinion of it. Here is hope for a good one.;)

Oh yeah one more thing 64. AnAvidFan also makes some good points about continuity with the overall STAR TREK series with films included. In the end I hope first for good story with acting to pull you in, and at least some of the classic look of STAR TREK. There now I have said enough.

87. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#81-“Oh, really, who gives a Tribble’s ass if the movie is loyal to canon or not?”

Me. :)

“Is that fact that the Enterprise is built on Earth (horror of horrors) REALLY going to prevent Star Trek from being a good movie?”

Nope, but then it was never established how the Enterprise was constructed, so it’s an open question.

Equally, some flexibility with visual portrayal really is pretty much a necessity, and I think that most folks probably believe that and are will to offer that sort of flexibility.

“It was steadfast, slavish adherence to canon that completely ground Trek to a halt in the first place (I tip my hat to you, Rick Berman).”

I completely disagree with this. I think it was uninspired storytelling and a lack of engaging characters that did that, far more than anything having to do with staying in continuity.

“Hopefully, JJ Abrams will retain the spirit of what we all love about Trek while giving us something fresh and fun (which is what made the original Trek, warts and all, so appealing), and it looks like so far he has- that teaser gave me goosebumps too.”

With this I will agree, but I don’t consider “fresh and fun” to be mutually exclusive from remaining in basic continuity with what’s come before. And I have to admit to being completely unable to comprehend the suggestion that it would be.

“But, for IDIC’s sake, please remember: it’s not a holy text, it’s not a religion, just a movie.”

And if the movie would stand completely on its own and not be an influence on how Paramount and its licensees handle Trek moving forward, it’d be one thing. But we know that isn’t the case, and thus it carries with it a certain level of responsibility to be true to the source material.

IMHO, at any rate.

88. dalek - February 5, 2008

I’m all for it if people who *previously* died can have a totally different destiny ;)

89. Admiral_Bumblebee - February 5, 2008

But isn’t the purpose of a prequel to tell what happened before the events we all know, to tell how those events came to pass?
It seems to me, JJ wants to have a fresh start. But if so, why use the known characters? Why not create new characters?

I do not have a problem when he updates the look of the ship, the bridge, the uniforms etc. But if he creates a new timeline in which everything we have seen doesn’t happen, then I will be angry.
If JJ wants to do his thing, then he sould have created his own characters, maybe have the story set in the future and not the past.

90. Iowagirl - February 5, 2008

#88

I have not the faintest idea what you’re talking about… ;)

91. Dennis Bailey - February 5, 2008

#22: “Abrams isn’t a trekkie or a trekker, so simple as this will just be Star Trek’s dumbing down and mainstreaming,”

One doesn’t follow from the other.

This may well – and hopefully will – represent a “mainstreaming” of Trek. That said, disinterest in or ignoring of trekkies (or “trekkers”) does not necessarily represent a “dumbing down” of the concept. Trek fans are not smarter, on average, than the “mainstream” audience.

92. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#89-“But isn’t the purpose of a prequel to tell what happened before the events we all know, to tell how those events came to pass?”

See, now you’re thinkin’ too logically. ;)

“It seems to me, JJ wants to have a fresh start. But if so, why use the known characters? Why not create new characters?”

The short answer is marketability. Even still, the idea of an “origin story”, starting out the saga, which has never been done for TOS, can be an effective way of creating that jumping-on point for the general public. Now I’d actually have preferred the whole-new-ship-and-crew approach, myself, but I can completely understand why they’re going back to the TOS characters.

“I do not have a problem when he updates the look of the ship, the bridge, the uniforms etc. But if he creates a new timeline in which everything we have seen doesn’t happen, then I will be angry.”

Right. I agree with this.

Now, I also just had my “D’oh!” moment of the day. We actually know, courtesy of this very site, that at least the TOS regulars all survive, in their younger incarnations. How? Because during their chat here, Zachary Quinto told us that they were filming the final scene of the film, on the bridge, and everybody was there. Zoe Saldana seemed to imply that even Simon Pegg was around someplace, though there seemed to be some confusion about that. And the only other character in the film whose fate is in some way known is Pike.

So unless there’s a whole lot more going on than we know about, I think we can breathe easier on *that* front. ;)

93. SolFlyer - February 5, 2008

@66 & 78. Yeah. I was joking about The Shat. Just taking a friendly jab at both the Trek “purists” and the Bring-back-the-Shat pack. Should have lol-ed or j.k-ed or something.

94. Ivory - February 5, 2008

Why is it so diffucult for people to understand that this film (and the series from here on out) will take place in an alternate universe?

That does not mean what has gone before will be thrown out. It just means the action will take place in another time frame. Think Mirror universe vs the established universe we have lived in for 40 plus years.

This lets them put their own stamp on the film as well as keep the established universe it tact.

95. non-belligerency confirmed - February 5, 2008

my childhood is being greased and bound for molestation, but strangely, my childhood is ENJOYING it. my childhood turns out to be real trollop, evidently.

the film is going to be great.

96. Captain Hackett - February 5, 2008

#58

Well said! Dammit, Berman and Braga broke the canon rules too many times and too often on only not Enterprise, also other series and movies.

97. Ivory - February 5, 2008

” It won’t suffer from the same problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live”

IThat statement also seems to leave the door wide open for Kirk to have a better ending.

98. Captain Hackett - February 5, 2008

Being a diehard Star Trek fan, I am using my wait and see attitude and keeping my minds open until I watch this new movie.

You TOS purists already made hasty judgments WITHOUT WATCHING THE NEW MOVIE! It is extremely unfair to the J.J. and his crew.

99. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - February 5, 2008

I personally am waiting for Bob Orci!

100. Stef* - February 5, 2008

Please … who ever reads this … dont kill Spock.

Let him be lost in some timeline or simply been snapped away or DO SOMETHING, where I can spin my thoughts around and have some little, little form of “hope” without having to cry again.

I don’t want ever again having to cry about Spock. There are so much alternatives.

Don’t kill him again.

101. Doug - February 5, 2008

You mean (gulp) that “Star Trek” isn’t (gasp) religion???

Canon? What??? again??? Hey, you know history is always written by the victors, but the reality is all too often unrecognizable from what was written in the books. History is almost always revisionist.

“Evil empires” are, more often than not, just words used to rile up the masses, and who is to say that what we have seen in the past TREKs aren’t the historical accounts that have built up the winners’ legacy?

As someone pointed out earlier, TREK’s canon is so tainted that we cannot truly accept anything “as real.”

So what am I saying? To those of you who are so rigidly tied to what you perceive as canon…

Let’s not forget.. it’s just entertainment… Say it with me now.. it’s not real… it’s not real… it’s just a movie… it’s not real (HEY, put down that phaser, buster!!!).

102. Captain Hackett - February 5, 2008

#99

I concur with you.

I hope Bob will clear it up with us.

103. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#84 The fact that Shatner signed on to Generations and Nimoy didn’t, and the reverse is true on the new film, is a good sign. Shat signed on to a turkey and Nimoy’s judgement was vindicated. Nimoy is a thoughtful and careful guardian of ST lore and values. Shat is simply a buffoon who signed on to Generations for $$$$$$.

I trust Nimoy and his judgement. This will be a good film.

104. Ivory - February 5, 2008

Nobody wants to go to another Star Trek funeral.

Make sure that old Spock is alive at the end of this film. And for good measure lets see Shatner one more time to prove Shatner’s version of Kirk is alive and well (even if in an alt timeline)

105. Ivory - February 5, 2008

#103

Uh, didn’t Nimoy kill off Spock in ST II? Was he a “buffoon” for doing that?

106. Doug - February 5, 2008

Both Harlan Ellison and David Gerrold have said in the past that one problem TREK has had in the past is that it is too static… some characters never change, the Federation always wins, etc…

Later reincarnations have made attempts to recitfy that flaw (Troi and Riker getting married… Riker accepting command of the Titan, for example)… Berman, Braga and company tried to inject new elements into the mythos as well–and in a lot of cases the fans crucified / punished them for it.

Abrams clearly recognizes that if TREK is to regain its place in our culture, it must change, evolve and find appeal in today’s audience–not just those consisting entirely of 1966.

Fun thing about TREK fans is that we ALL have opinions of what should be. I, for one, am looking forward to see how this movie “boldly goes…”

107. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#94-“Why is it so diffucult for people to understand that this film (and the series from here on out) will take place in an alternate universe?

That does not mean what has gone before will be thrown out. It just means the action will take place in another time frame. Think Mirror universe vs the established universe we have lived in for 40 plus years.”

The Mirror Universe episodes did not stop the next episode from continuing in the regular Trekverse. If (and I do say *if*) this new film establishes an alternate continuity, can you say the same about the next film? That’s the difference.

#96 – “Enterprise” had direct canon violations (as contrasted with violations of people’s preconceptions of the 22nd Century) less than three times in four years, a better record than even TNG could boast of.

(But that’s a topic for a whole other thread. ;) )

#103 – To be perfectly fair, Nimoy also said that people’s fears that this film was going to screw up the overall continuity were groundless, too. So we shall see who’s accurate.

108. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#105

You misunderstand. Generations wasn’t a turkey because Kirk was killed – it was a bad movie, period. Kirk dying wasn’t necessarily wrong; it was the storeline around his death and all kinds of other stuff in the movie that was bad.

Spock’s death in TWOK was an integral part of a superb movie and was beautifully, touchingly, and respectfully handled.

Shat has proven his “buffoonery” many times over by his dollar-driven reaction to ST opportunities and by the demeaning and clownish work that he’s done since TOS. In TOS and in his earlier work, he was a serious and talented actor. Now he is a stereotype and a clown.

109. Jack - February 5, 2008

#10 you are kidding right? Butchered set design and cannon? The movie is not even out yet and it has devasted set design? O h my god! I guess the movie cannot be an entertaining re-imagination of a dying franchise? Gee I guess Battstar Galactica has destroyed set design and cannon to simply get a phenomenal audience and critical review. I better stop watching it because the Galactica command center has buttons in the wrong places!
The most backwards thinking fans I have ever seen. I have beena trek fan my whole life and I am still shocked at the closed mindedness.

110. Dr. Image - February 5, 2008

#103- Yes. I trust Nimoy’s judgement.
As long as he doesn’t insist on putting whales in it……. or any of his recent photographic subjects… I’m sure the movie will huge, regardless.

111. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

The mirror-universe episode of Enterprise in which the TOS-era Defiant was showcased in-detail shows that it’s very possible to take basic TOS design and upgrade it believably and impressively for 21st century audiences. They did a nice job on The Defiant, so there’s every reason to believe that with an even bigger budget, JJ’s Enterprise will be even better (and faithful to TOS).

112. Phil Smith - February 5, 2008

Canon? Who cares? Abrams is an artist. Artists can do whatever they want when interpreting material. I look forward to this and could care less if a rivet is off center or the Big E looks strange.

113. Doug - February 5, 2008

Wow! from two simple quotes people have gleamed that this movie is going to bring the end of the world as we know it. I didn’t know so many Star Trek fans are psychic.

While you guys are at it, can you tell me what google’s stock will be worth next month? or who will win the Presidential election this November?

114. Jack - February 5, 2008

The funny thing is that all those idiots screaming about other re-boots such as BG, James Bond, Batman,etc. all wasted their breath complaining when the product ended up being very good and the old crusty fans simply got trampled under. I hope that happens here when we get a great ‘stylish’ updated version of Trek. All of the crusty legions looking for the same bridge and tricorder will crawl back into their safe little holes watching old VHS tapes of ‘The Balance of Terror”!

115. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - February 5, 2008

Out of interest what Canon did Enterprise violate???

(I only watched 5 shows)

116. Dennis Bailey - February 5, 2008

None. It just violated a lot of “fanon.”

117. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#114 Totally accurate. On December 26, when the reboot Star Trek is a huge hit; Section 31 and his ilk can creep back into their basements, listen to their 8-track tapes, and watch TOS. Nobody will care about them or their opinions. The vast majority of the ST audience will be watching new-trek and just as importantly, paying for new movies and new TV series’ to be produced.

118. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

Enterprise was a good series; but many of the fanatics here would only have been satisfied with toggle switches and pajama uniforms.

119. dalek - February 5, 2008

#115 loads
First contact with the klingons, temporal cold war, millions of people dying on earth at hands of Xindi that never did in the original timeline, Klingons having “warbirds” as mentioned in the pilot.

120. T'Pol - February 5, 2008

ENTERPRISE IS THE SECOND BEST SERIES NEXT TO TOS!!!!!

121. FREE TREK FROM THE CANONINSTAS! - February 5, 2008

Did you ever consider that characters and storylines were stiff in later-Trek because pig-headed Trek canonites were ready to pounce and rip to shred any idea that might conflict with something that supposedly took place before?

I mean the Borg and to a lesser extent, the Dominion, worked because the writers could do what they wanted without worrying about canonites killing them and ripping them to shred.

The same stuff is going on now. Star Trek TOS and the movies were some great storytelling. Its time to move on from there, and the best way seems to involve an alternate universe because the present Star Trek universe, based on all these stupid rules and data points, seems closed..thanks to the Roman Canon Church and their leaders, who are upset because their 40 year old Star Trek tech encloypedia may no longer give them the true answers!

T

122. mind meld - February 5, 2008

This writer seems to suck. How could they put a non Trekie super duper geek fan to write a new startrek movie? He just wants to make it acceptible to the masses?
That will not make it popular. Star Trek was and still popular for some reasons, that you cannot alter, and everyone thought it would NOT be popular, but for those very reasons it DID in fact become popular

The more I learn about this movie the more I think they will kill star trek and make an abomination out of it.

123. Skeptik - February 5, 2008

Are you all crazy? As has been pointed out, canon violations took place continuously throughout the franchise’s history (people have all kinds of elaborate theories as to how to justify why Scotty thought Kirk was rescuing him in “Relics”, for example–well, turn that creative power into explaining canon mistakes in this movie too). So why is that more important than if the new movie has a good STORY. There have been some wonderful stories on Star Trek, and some really childish ones too (for example, the premise behind how V’Ger got is name has got to be one of the most primitive and silly in all of science fiction). Let’s cool the passions on canon. If the story of the movie sucks, then it won’t matter how badly canon’s been violated, the movie will go down as a bad movie. If the story’s great, canon violations here and there will be unpleasant, but ultimately will matter no more than Klingon ridges did for the thirty or forty years before Enterprise.

124. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

Canon is extremely overrated. I am a lover of TOS—first and foremost, but I cannot even begin to count the number of times I noticed a canonical contradiction from one episode to another. Yet, remarkably, TOS gets a pass. Actually, it is not quite so remarkable. No one, in 1966, envisioned that 40+ years later, fans from all over the world might be analyzing it the way we do.

I have seen countless claims that ENT violated canon, but I have yet to see an episode which does so.

I have a difficult time reconciling with a permanently altered timeline, but as someone posted previously, it is not even necessarily permanent. We could see a gigantic story arc which spans a trilogy of films, ending with the original timeline being restored. I have to say that is most intriguing, pure speculation of course, but intriguing to me nonetheless. An entire series of films dedicated to what might have been, yet eventually restoring what was! That has the potential for fantastic storytelling, which is all I require of this bold, new Star Trek.

I was all for this “prequel” telling us stories, within the original timeline, which enable us as fans to fill in the blanks. I have wished for that for years. However, I would be a hypocrite if I dismissed this simply because it is not exactly what I asked for. Who am I to say, before seeing the film, that this is right or wrong. Paramount did not give the franchise to me—they gave it to Mr. Abrams. If he can put Star Trek back on the map of relevancy, good for him.

I wish the new Star Trek team all the success in the world. May Star Trek live long and prosper…

125. Darkowski - February 5, 2008

“It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live.”

I got a feeling that the movie will bet set in a parallel universe….

126. Kirk, James T. - February 5, 2008

Its still canon if JJ Abrams decides to alter the timeline, just because he changes the way things happen doesn’t mean he’s erased the last 40 years, he’s just moving Trek along. if this is to be a brave new world our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it, a Klingon chancellor once said – lets not make it hard by crossing your hands like a child would if he/she didn’t get his/her way.

127. David (Flaming Wings Forever!) - February 5, 2008

We can certainly agree that long the way, certain ‘creators’ and ‘show runners’ paid little respect to the ‘canon’ established onscreen.

They most definitely ignored, or in some minor cases acknowledged ‘fanon’ to a degree which drives many insane.

They also made simple mistakes. Stuff missed the writers room, slipped passed the producers, and somehow made it to air.

None of these three conditions apply to the movie. Get a grip people. JJ & Crew will mess with you, have fun with you, but will never intentionally screw with your love and affection for Star Trek. Whine, scream, rant and post to your hearts desire – in the end you’ll line up like the rest of us and for some part of the experience – you will smile. Maybe even feel your heart grow two sizes bigger.

This isn’t a ‘Resistance is Futile’ moment. It’s an acknowledgment that the people working on Trek today are skilled craftsmen and women who care about what they do, because honestly if they do a bad job, it hurts them as much as it hurts us. If you didn’t get that from the very unscripted chat, then you need to reread it. The won’t be able to please everyone, because like politics, there are no two types of Star Trek fans. We bicker more than ___add your own political party here____.

So, from one fan to another – peace brothers. In the end, it will work itself out.

David

128. star trackie - February 5, 2008

#108 “In TOS and in his earlier work, he was a serious and talented actor. Now he is a stereotype and a clown. ”

No, Shatner is still a serious and talented actor, who now chooses to play what he at he wants, and whose choices of late have made him more popular than ever and has earned him great recognition from his peers.

Nothing wrong with that.

129. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#119–You are confusing “canon” with “fanon”. Nothing ENT did contradicts previously established canon. Things may not have been the way you imagined them, but that is quite different. Apparently, you had some preconceived notions about the 22nd Century. What took place in ENT IS canon. Are you suggesting that they should never have depicted anything which was not previously mentioned? That is absurd. Many things, some terrible, had to happen before Mr. Roddenberry’s “utopia”(depicted in TOS) was born. ENT tried to show us some of that long road. It is unfortunate that it was constrained by airing on the UPN. I thought it was fantastic–that is, once I was able to see it. Having seen them all, I now consider it among the best of Star Trek, and along with DS9, the best of the spinoffs. I look forward to some homage to it in the new film. I think some did not like it simply because it was different. Of course, it never had the character magic of TOS–but neither did TNG, VOY, or DS9. It stands to me as one of the most underrated series in recent memory.

130. Dennis Bailey - February 5, 2008

#119: “First contact with the klingons, temporal cold war, millions of people dying on earth at hands of Xindi that never did in the original timeline, Klingons having “warbirds” as mentioned in the pilot.”

None of that violated “canon.”

It did, however, become canon itself as a result of appearing onscreen. :)

131. star trackie - February 5, 2008

And I don’t get the big “revelation” that this is going to be in an alternate timeline or universe. We’ve known this for a long time now. And so characters die, so what? In an alternate time line, people can die, Kirk can live, all bets are off and that makes for some very fertile ground to plant in.

As far as I’m concerned, this movie is sounding better and better all the time. I say unload all the baggage of the last 20 years and give me a movie that is set in another timeline and is chock full o’ balls-to-the-wall fun and adventure!

132. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

Anybody else ever notice that Leonard Nimoy has had a predilection for large mammals since 1986?

Surprised he hasn’t invested in a chain of “fat farms” that are situated on oceanfront property! M’yeah, that would do it! :)

133. Kirk, James T. - February 5, 2008

130 – exactly

Before TOS, the timeline was changed, re-writing our futures – nothing to say it didn’t happen or can’t happen so what’s the big hoo-har!

134. Jon C - February 5, 2008

132 Must have come from that mind meld with the whale.

135. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#119 -“#115 loads
“First contact with the klingons” – Never established canonically
” temporal cold war” – Entirely new and therefore no canon to contradict
“millions of people dying on earth at hands of Xindi that never did in the original timeline” – How do you know? Nothing ever said that such a thing couldn’t have happened; it just hadn’t been mentioned previously.
“Klingons having “warbirds” as mentioned in the pilot” – Never established that the word couldn’t apply to Klingon vessel.

Okay, we’re 0 for 4 on alleged violations. ;)

#121 – “Did you ever consider that characters and storylines were stiff in later-Trek because pig-headed Trek canonites were ready to pounce and rip to shred any idea that might conflict with something that supposedly took place before?”

Yup, considered and dismissed the prospect. :D

#123 – “Are you all crazy?”

Well, maybe a little crazy… ;)

“As has been pointed out, canon violations took place continuously throughout the franchise’s history (people have all kinds of elaborate theories as to how to justify why Scotty thought Kirk was rescuing him in “Relics”, for example–well, turn that creative power into explaining canon mistakes in this movie too).”

Sure. In the old days, before folks lost their sense of humor, they used to be called YATIs (for Yet Another Trek Inconsistency), and as you say, we spent lots of time having fun cooking up resolutions to them. But they were usually relatively minor mistakes, or a bit of a tweak so a story could work. And as closettrekker has said, even TOS has its glitches. There was never a deliberate attempt to say, “We are throwing out all previous continuity and starting anew.” To be fair, TPTB haven’t said they’re doing that now, either; in fact, they’ve implied the opposite. But when asked to take that last step from implication to explication, they go silent. And that silence is what raises suspicion.

Let me be clear. I am not either expecting or demanding a slavish devotion to every single detail of a 40-year-old TV series created using filmmaking technologies considered “antique” by today’s standards, and which had to make its own compromises in the context in which it was produced, just to *be* produced. I simply ask that the new material play in the same fictional world, in broad terms, as that in which all the rest of filmed Trek has played, with the same reasonable allowances for variation of detail that we’ve seen all along. I do not believe that is unreasonable to ask.

136. D. McCoy - February 5, 2008

Old Spock dies in the past…preventing him from saving Kirk in the future. This is the real reason Spock can’t save Kirk and that a Spock saving Kirk can not happen in a future movie.

This is also why Nimoy probably likes the script so much.

137. Daoud - February 5, 2008

I think JJ is hinting more towards a “Butterfly Effect” series of alternate timelines. Nero goes back to attempt to kill off Kirk, but something worse happens each time he does it. He has to keep going back to an earlier time, etc.

We’ve already got clear indication we’ve got the timeframe of the “crew-we-know” on the bridge (that “final” scene), probably the timeframe of the “Pike to Kirk handover”, the timeframe of Kirk taking the Kobayashi Maru, perhaps the timeframe of Kirk in the academy, the timeframe of young Jim and Sam as tweenagers, the timeframe of Kirk’s birth, and perhaps the timeframe of Kirk’s parents meeting.

Sounds like Kill Kirk could be a twist on the classic Kill Hitler sci-fi story where a time traveller’s sent back to kill Hitler, and when the traveller returns, he’s asked why he didn’t kill Mueller like he was supposed to.

In any event, considering Kirk’s parents aren’t indicated as alive during TOS, I think we can guarantee George and Winona Kirk die in this movie. (I think Sarek and Amanda will be okay, though.)

Also, “Green Orion Woman”… probably dies.

Also, Commander Scott (Simon Pegg) probably dies. Good thing his younger brother Lt. Montgomery Scott (Paul McGillion) is around to take his place. (Hmmm, maybe the older Scott’s nickname can be “Welshy”).

Other’n that… any of the cameos could die. Tyler Perry’s Commandant, the “Federation Captain” (hi Tom Cruise!), etc.

138. Kev-1 - February 5, 2008

Every movie is just a bunch of coincidences that couldn’t happen in real life so whether or not somebody can die really doesn’t matter. And Star Trek has already earned its relevance regardless of this movie’s success or failure. Why don’t they just cease talking and release some cast photos already? They did for STTMP a year early.

139. D. McCoy - February 5, 2008

Old Spock’s death also ties the movie in with WOK, his other death scene. Plus you get a final bridge shot at the end where everone is sad but movie forward. “Death” makes the movie more “real” and Abrams is shooting for real.

Of course, this is all just guesswork… :o)

140. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#132– “M’yeah, that would do it”

Harry, where are you from?

141. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#133 – Except that the timeline wasn’t changed. We simply learned about things that we hadn’t known about before.

142. Shatner4TrekXI - February 5, 2008

The only thing worse than poor writing is the excuses people come up with to justify it. If Abrams can’t deal with the Trek canon, then he shouldn’t be writing Star Trek.

143. Phil123 - February 5, 2008

I think we have all missed the true canon question. in early Trek episodes, you will remember that the Enterprise was powered by lithium, not dilithium. this was quickly changed for obvious reasons. but lithium is still canon!! So as this is a prequel, the ship better be lithium powered!!!

144. FREE TREK FROM THE CANONINSTAS! - February 5, 2008

Hey Alex thats fine, because it is already established that messing with the past alters the future. We saw that as far back as Guardian. So J.J. is just using a theory that already has been established in Trek “canon” Its called the big fat reset button, and honestly, if Trek, is going to continue to stay viable for movies and TV scripts, the Enterprise has to be involved in some fashion.

So unless you want to keep going forward in the future, with Captain >>>>> of the Enterprise Z, the reset button is being pushed. Of course its not a full reset, as Trek is ok with parallel universes, and “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and “Parallels” are considered some of Trek’s greatest achievements.

Of course, the Alien Nazis wasn’t so hot, so counterpoint.

145. CW - February 5, 2008

Anyone watch the Terminator : Sarah Connor Chronicles? Totally zapped the timeline and you know what? Who cares! Maybe JJ is going to make Trek his own and that is fine and dandy with me. If you feel that its changing the way trek was, then just watch/read old trek. I, for one, am game for anything new and intesting.

146. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#140″Harry, where are you from?”

Assuming that’s not a metaphysical question, I “hang my hat” in Toronto.

147. Zirclet - February 5, 2008

Yeah- referring way back to #17- WHY DOES EVERYONE GET ALL TWISTED UP ABOUT DESIGN WHEN THERE WAS NOOOOO CONSISTENCY IN THE FIRST SIX FILMS???

148. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

I’ll repeat what I said in a previous post floating around this site:

Canon, schmanon. All I really want is for someone to tell me a good story. That fact hasn’t changed since I was three years old, and it ain’t changin’ anytime soon.

Being familiar with a *lot* of JJ’s work (I’ve watched almost every series he produced), I have a lot of confidence in him and his team to give us a good story. To quote Nimoy: “Let them make their movie.”

Y’all wait and see. It’s going to be good.

#130: Thank you! ST: Enterprise is highly underrated.

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

149. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#142–You seem to forget what was said in live chat.

I believe I can paraphrase it this way—-

Anything which appears to violate established canon will have a canon-inspired explanation.

I believe it was Mr. Orci who said that. How can you know this to be false if you have yet to see the film?

150. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#143

Why settle for one lithium when you can have two?

151. Elrond L. - February 5, 2008

#97: “That statement also seems to leave the door wide open for Kirk to have a better ending.”

Funny, that’s the way I took it. It’s like the Star Wars prequels . . . as much as I love Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan, you KNEW he wasn’t in any real danger, because he has to become Alec Guiness. Likewise, it would really suck knowing that young Kirk will cheat death again and again, only to fall off a bridge as William Shatner. If JJ & company can remove that reality somehow, I’m all for it. We don’t even need Shatner to appear for that to happen.

Jeez, what hysteria from two simple sentences. Thank God for the occasional islands of rational thought. Let’s trust Leonard Nimoy’s judgment for now — we need Trek to be a hit again.

152. Jorg Sacul - February 5, 2008

>>Rick Berman, though I’m sure it wasn’t his conscious intent, drove the franchise into the ground, both on television and in film.

AMEN to that! He may not have meant to, but he milked the TrekCow to the point of dessication.

Now, this movie will happen, whether or not any one of James T. Kirk’s 17 violations of the Temporal Prime Directive have changed history or not.

Speaking of time travel, maybe Spock has a little help from the Temporal Police in his voyages? Just a thought.

And whatever became of Porthos?

153. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#152

Porthos was fed to a Targ

154. Daoud - February 5, 2008

#143: Didn’t you hear the apostrophe? When you heard lithium, what was on the page was lithium, which is a contracted form of dilithium. That YATI was solved ages ago. When trilithium was concocted, it became necessary to stop abbreviating dilithium.

155. Jorg Sacul - February 5, 2008

#143… they’ve secretly replaced the ship’s lithium crystals with Folger’s Dilithium Crystals. Let’s see if anyone notices…

156. RaveOnEd - February 5, 2008

132 – I find what you posted to be offensive and a little out of line there.

157. Trek Nerd Central - February 5, 2008

I’ve been thinking all along this might be an alternate-universe scenario. It would certainly free Abrams & Co to do whatever the flip they want, and then revert to canoniverse at movie’s end.

My guess is the film will be based mostly in the main Trek universe but will incorporate jumps into an alternate dimension. . . maybe even an island in the South Pacific. . . a really weird island. . . with polar bears.

158. PaoloM - February 5, 2008

Starting from scratch. Making every step of the classic Enterprise a *new* step. You know, as long as the vision is faithful to the original roddenberrian themes of exploration, discovery and optimism, I am for it !

159. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

I’m not even going to bother reading the above posts as they have already started with the “Not canon! Not canon!!” freakouts. Time to put canon away and get your popcorn out and enjoy the show. Or stay home and let us have some fun. Gee whiz some of you people can be spoil sports. I’m starting to hope that they change everything drastically just to give the canon worshippers fainting spells.

OK, I lied. I did read your comment Vulcanista. And yours Closettrekker. Because they were right above mine while I was typing. I agree and concur. Pass the popcorn, please.

160. mntrekfan - February 5, 2008

I have a pretty open mind abou this movie. I’m excited for it. I really believe Mr. Nimoy would not have anything to do with it if he felt it was anything other than Star Trek. Let’s give it a chance. Someone said that since J.J. wasn’t an avid fan of Trek, this movie will suffer. That Logan fellow that wrote Nemisis was a HUGE Trek fan and A lot of people thought that movie suffered-a lot. I liked it, I like to watch Trek for the sure pleasure of watching a movie and not exploring all the cryptic meaning behind a story.

161. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#154

That explanation is SO cute, I’m half-tempted to feed you to a Mugatu! :)

162. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#156

And here I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly!

163. xizro345 - February 5, 2008

I personally do not care about canon violations. But I do worry about Abrams and the screenplayers (while Transformers was enjoyable I wouldn’t call it a good screenplay). All this PR is pointless, without real details it’s not worth it to discuss much.

164. Boborci - February 5, 2008

Section 31 – February 5, 2008
This is PROOF that this movie is not loyal to canon!

A: NO IT DOESN’T.

13. Iowagirl – February 5, 2008
This film will be fatal.

A: IOWAGIRL,

You’ve been so positive and supportive before. Why the change of heart?

165. xizro345 - February 5, 2008

Just to clarify the above statement, Abrams does the kind of shows I’m mostly skeptical about (Lost and Cloverfield for example).

166. Tom - February 5, 2008

Would anyone consider TNG episode “Tapestry” a prequel?

167. Kev-1 - February 5, 2008

If the timelime is reset , be careful what you wish for. They may just keep bringing back old characters in new ways; Khan again but younger and buffer; a Romulan commander who falls for Kirk this time; a bigger Doomsday Machine, et. al. Rehash redux until they reset again. It ‘s eaier than getting writers who wrote for TOS like Jerome Bixby (also penned fantastic voyage with Otto Klement-short story) or Robert Bloch (psycho) to make up new stuff. And knocking off Spock might not make this like another prequel, but it would make it just like a little movie called TWOK a quarter century ago.

168. Anthony Pascale - February 5, 2008

Hi Bob

Still cold?

so can you tell us who is playing Ensign Ricky?

169. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

#165 Maybe you’re skeptical about Lost and Cloverfield, but thankfully the majority of the public likes them. If JJ pulls off a Lost or Cloverfield with the new Star Trek movie, then we should all kneel down and praise him because he will have saved the ST franchise.

170. Boborci - February 5, 2008

82. Jim – February 5, 2008

There was a time (pre-internet days, for all readers under 15), when fans had to seek out information about new movies from obscure print sources. Anyone out there remember fanzines, or Jim Steranko’s “Mediascene” or other like publications produced by folks who clearly loved the genres upon which they were reporting? Because of that, the way in which movies were released and promoted was much different (for the better, IMHO).

Creative types actually seemed to care about attracting a passionate fan base by releasing meaningful information rather than running around saying “trust us – we make good movie”. For example, several months prior to the release of “Star Wars” (and no I ain’t doing the renumbered chapters foolishness), Lucas had not only released a lot of Ralph McQuarrie’s pre-production art but a complete novelization of the movie.

It is sounding almost as though this film will be one for the “it blowed up real good” crowd than for those who found ST more challenging (and thus, more entertaining) over the years because it seemed to resist pandering to the lowest common denominator. If this is the creative team’s idea of “viral marketing”, it sure has backfired for me. After a brief period of cautious optimism, these recent comments have driven me to a point where I could care less about what’s up with this new film.

A: Marketing and making a movie are two entirely different endeavors. I would implore you not to base your opinion of one based on the other, particularly when it has been our intention to not have ANYTHING be known about this movie until much later — we are forced into revealing details of your surprise party because thanks to the internet, fans don’t like surprises. Our trade off, however, has been to be as open as possible about the process and the thinking behind our decisions.

Although I have to come to be suspicious of the phrase LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR as a unintentional code word of the elite, let me just say that the story of this movie IS NOT targeting the least common denominator.

171. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

I think The Shat’s Star Trek novels should be canon. IMO Shatner is carrier of the canon torch. He revived Kirk in the most logical & cinematic way & his vision would have made ST XI the biggest hit since Titanic.

Star Trek is about warping forward, not re-imaginating the past.

172. Tom - February 5, 2008

Also, for some prespective, was anyone around during the production days of TWoK?

Do you remember all the hoopla and rumors surrounding the death of Spock, how outraged the fans were, complaints about Roddenberry being marginalized for the production, how no one was going to see this movie, that this was going to be the proverbial “final nail in the coffin” for Star Trek?

I know 1982 was a lifetime ago. But as I remember, the movie was OK.
:)

173. xizro345 - February 5, 2008

#169

Doesn’t change that objectively they may have flaws, success or not. I honestly find Abrams irritating with this “I speak but I don’t speak” attitude. Release some real information when the time comes or just don’t talk at all. I could care less of his PR spins (all he said so far, basically).

174. Boborci - February 5, 2008

89. Admiral_Bumblebee – February 5, 2008
But isn’t the purpose of a prequel to tell what happened before the events we all know, to tell how those events came to pass?
It seems to me, JJ wants to have a fresh start. But if so, why use the known characters? Why not create new characters?

I do not have a problem when he updates the look of the ship, the bridge, the uniforms etc. But if he creates a new timeline in which everything we have seen doesn’t happen, then I will be angry.
If JJ wants to do his thing, then he sould have created his own characters, maybe have the story set in the future and not the past.

A: JJ had no intention of directing Trek at all. But we knew if we could get an A-lister non-“AVID”-fan like him to do it, with a TOS script that still satisfied our geek impulses and that still maintained original characters, then we would really have a shot at making this work.

175. Boborci - February 5, 2008

Jay – “The Real Jim Kirk” – February 5, 2008
I personally am waiting for Bob Orci!

A: (SINGS to the tune of Mighty Mouse) Here I come to confuse the day!

176. Chris Pike - February 5, 2008

Death can often mean a new beginning…?

177. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

Bob Orci

quick question….where did you live when you were growing up in Toronto? My being a lifetime Torontonian makes me curious!

178. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

I too lived in Toronto for decades.

179. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

Hey Bob – did you ever see 2001 A Space Odyssey at the Glendale Theatre on Avenue Road? That was true nirvana for the scfi fan!

180. Boborci - February 5, 2008

Shatner4TrekXI – February 5, 2008
The only thing worse than poor writing is the excuses people come up with to justify it. If Abrams can’t deal with the Trek canon, then he shouldn’t be writing Star Trek.

A: Hi. My name is Roberto Orci and my writing partner’s name is Alex Kurtzman. We are thrilled to have JJ Abrams directing Star Trek

181. Mike - February 5, 2008

Canon sucks… get over it.

182. RaveOnEd - February 5, 2008

162 – I’m not fat or overweight, I just find what you wrote to be out of line.

171 – “He revived Kirk in the most logical & cinematic way & his vision would have made ST XI the biggest hit since Titanic.”

I just did a spit take on that one. Sybok, I could read your stuff for hours…

183. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#144 – “Hey Alex thats fine, because it is already established that messing with the past alters the future.”

Sure, but the citations for alleged canon violations in ENT so far (which have all been disproven) weren’t instances of the timeline being altered…unless one assumes that the universe around one alters every time one learns a new bit of history. I suppose it *could*, but that’s a bit too solipsistic for me. ;)

“We saw that as far back as Guardian. So J.J. is just using a theory that already has been established in Trek “canon” Its called the big fat reset button,”

And if JJ resets all his alternate universes into the baseline Trekverse by the end of the film, I’m cool with that.

“and honestly, if Trek, is going to continue to stay viable for movies and TV scripts, the Enterprise has to be involved in some fashion.”

I don’t know that that’s true at all, really. Trek got a few hundred episodes out of the counter-argument.

“Of course, the Alien Nazis wasn’t so hot, so counterpoint.”

Oh, I agree re those episodes. I’m not making any statements about relative quality, since that’s way too subjective. Trek’s always had good and bad episodes, in every series. That’s not an argument for chucking continuity, though.

#147 – The answer there, of course, is that they were progressing forward in time, and any changes were just that: changes. They didn’t suggest that what had come before didn’t happen; they merely suggested that the ship had undergone modification. Happens all the time in reality, even.

#151 – ” It’s like the Star Wars prequels . . . as much as I love Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan, you KNEW he wasn’t in any real danger, because he has to become Alec Guiness. ”

Didn’t matter to me. I didn’t need to have to artificially worry about the character. I wanted to know how the story played out.

#164 – Hi, Bob! I can’t speak for Iowagirl, but for me, the evolution in perception has been from the original press release, which told us that the film was respecting and embracing continuity, to now, when it seems like every other comment sounds like a dodge to get out of continuity. (The result is that I’ve gone from super-enthusiastic about this film to wary and uncomfortable and really hoping for something to bring me back to that super-enthusiastic state. :) ) Now, I’ll freely grant you, there’s a whole lot about the film I don’t know, and it might not be hard to bring me back to the really happy side of the fence, but I gotta hear/see it.

Either way, thanks for still reading!

184. Boborci - February 5, 2008

177

North York.

I’m in Toronto right now.

185. Freddie Wise - February 5, 2008

Here’s my theory:

I believe Nero will at some point kill of young Kirk, and in which case creates an alternate timeline. Old Spock at some point realizes that something is not right and decides to go back to several points in time to figure out when Kirk was killed. He eventually saves Kirk and everything returns to normal. Thats my theory.

186. Boborci - February 5, 2008

nthony Pascale – February 5, 2008
Hi Bob

Still cold?

so can you tell us who is playing Ensign Ricky?

A: Warm in my hotel right now, but looking forward to freezing my face off later during an all-night shoot.

Ensign Ricky will be played by Peter O’Toole.

187. Cugel the Canon Killer - February 5, 2008

hmmmmmmm – maybe ST-XI is filming in the wilds of the Metro Zoo?

188. Boborci - February 5, 2008

185 Freddie Wise – February 5, 2008
Here’s my theory:

I believe Nero will at some point kill of young Kirk, and in which case creates an alternate timeline. Old Spock at some point realizes that something is not right and decides to go back to several points in time to figure out when Kirk was killed. He eventually saves Kirk and everything returns to normal. Thats my theory.

A: It’s a good theory in that it fits into two categories

1) Is in line with available observable evidence

2) It is scientifically testable (next X-Mas).

Of course, the earth being the center of the Universe was also a good theory once :)

189. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#183 “…the really happy side of the fence…”

It’s fun over here! There’s booze and good food and music and dancing…

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

190. Ahkenatan - February 5, 2008

Thanks for taking the time to comment Mr. Orci.
I dug out my TOS dvds and have been watching them in anticipation. I love the old series and yes I love the canon stuff, even though TOS and all Trek really has serious canon problems. If your movie isn’t perfect to the letter canon so be it.
So I wanted to say I like what I hear so far and I hope the flick put some serious cash in your pockets.

But I have a major, important, stupendous question. Will we see miniskirts? For the love of God please tell me!!!!!

Kidding, you don’t have to. I know you have to save some important stuff for the opening night of the flick;)

191. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#186

Re night shoot: Have you tried foot warmers that backpackers and campers use? They’re fantastic, and you can get them anywhere they sell sporting goods. They’ve got them for gloves too.

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

192. Boborci - February 5, 2008

190. Ahkenatan – February 5, 2008
But I have a major, important, stupendous question. Will we see miniskirts? For the love of God please tell me!!!!!

A: You will have an answer about what everyone is wearing very soon.

193. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

OK, Harry, you have your assignment. Find Roberto and get on that set. We want details, info, and stuff to argue about. Although of the latter, we are not in short supply.

Roberto, please let Harry on the set. You will recognize him from two distinguishing characteristics.

194. lostrod - February 5, 2008

# 170

Mr. Orci

Yes sir, I do remember those days. I remember back in the 60’s the main source of entertainment news for me was TV Guide. It hit the stands every Tuesday. I used to scour the neighborhood to find 4 empty coke bottles so I can return them for their 4 cent deposit so I could afford the 15 cent cover price for TV Guide.

TV Guide generally had a few feature articles, but I most liked the little “news tidbits” in the front section. Terse statements like “ABC to unveil Movie of the Week series”, “Dick York Leaves Bewitched” and, of course, “Star Trek Cancelled”.

I still have a lot of those old issues – including some of the ones featuring ST covers.

Now it’s basically information overload. And because of the huge demand for information – the pressure is on to come up with something. As a result we gets LOTS of rumours and outright falsities to wade through.

Thanks for you regular clarifications.

195. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

Roberto,

I think that I have been supportive of you in our talks here too, but I too am starting to get a little concerned. But I will say I can only imagine the pressure that you and Alex had, considering that this franchise was basically dead.

196. Iowagirl - February 5, 2008

#164

Hi Roberto, great to have you with us again.

Although I think you mistake me for somebody else, I very much appreciate your concern.

I have been very bothered about STXI from the beginning because I doubt that the original vision of TOS will be respected. I‘m in the BBOK camp and for me the essence of TOS has always been provided by the unique Kirk-Spock dynamic. A lot of people care about not only young Kirk, but old Kirk as well and would like to see the new adventures, but also to see old Kirk and old Spock being reunited. I think Kirk‘s death doesn‘t bode well for this film and the creative team of STXI would be in the position to give old Kirk a better ending. As it seems, this is not the story you want to tell.

From the current statement JJ Abrams has just made, some of us had the impression that maybe another main character is to die in the new film, which would be as disastrous, and which led to my comment in question.

Roberto, I would really like to be positive and supportive about STXI, as I am a huge ST fan, but presently my doubts and my disappointment at the direction you‘re obviously heading for prevail.

Thank you very much for taking the time and asking me; again, it‘s very much appreciated.

197. RoobyDoo - February 5, 2008

Hi Bob,

Welcome to Canada, home of the frozen face. I’m about 400km east of TO. Pretty balmy right now, actually. The real fun begin when we dip down below -20.

198. Boborci - February 5, 2008

193

LOL!

199. Sean4000 - February 5, 2008

We have been told by various members of the production staff to keep an open mind when viewing this film.

I’m afraid that to accept all of the canon-altering changes we’ll have to be so open minded that our brains fall out. :(

I’m not quite sure I’m behind this movie 100% anymore.

200. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

re:192

Yeah, I think once Toy Fair images leak, we will see costumes, the ship, et cetera….

201. table10 - February 5, 2008

My theory on why mr Orci and rest of production team decided to do a TOS movie is the same reason why all of you obsess day in and day out over the details of that show… because the material was extremely entertaining, and continues to be a force to this day.

I know if I had the option of making a star trek movie I would make one from that period as well. Imagine the thrill of being able to play with such rich and interesting characters and setting.

202. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

Robero,

Did we ever get an answer from “Cast and Crew…” as to what JJ is shooting with? Digital (i.e. the Genesis cam used in Sup. Returns) or film?

Gracias

203. Anthony Pascale - February 5, 2008

RE 192
on miniskirts and soon knowing what EVERYONE is wearing???

Roberto you know I am a flexible guy….but no mini-skirts on Kirk please. I know that the ‘skant’ is part of Roddenberry’s canon…but I for one consider it a low point

204. Shatner4TrekXI - February 5, 2008

As long as Abrams is the boss, he is responsible for the content as much as the writers. One concern today would be the idea of killing older Spock. That would end the franchise for me once and for all. There’s already been enough poor judgment regarding this movie, I would hope this is not something that is even on the table.

205. Boborci - February 5, 2008

Iowagirl – February 5, 2008
#164

Hi Roberto, great to have you with us again.

Although I think you mistake me for somebody else, I very much appreciate your concern.

A: No, I was being ironic. Sorry. I’m well ware of your concerns. If they are truly based on your desire for that “unique Kirk-Spock dynamic” then I hope and believe you will be presently surprised. I agree with you that their relationship is one of the main engines of TOS, and I’ve said before that we treated their relationship with the attention and respect worthy of Lennon and McCartney.

Thanks for continuing to care despite your pessimism.

206. Boborci - February 5, 2008

205

Corrections

ware = aware

presently = pleasantly

207. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

re: 204

Why would that end the franchise? How many stories can Bob and Alex tell, in the era that was TOS? Spock would be very much alive there. Whether we like it or not, Nimoy, Shatner, et al, won’t be alive forever. I like knowing that I can see my iconic favorites for possibly years to come, even if it is other actors in those roles.

208. Boborci - February 5, 2008

Anthony Pascale – February 5, 2008
RE 192
on miniskirts and soon knowing what EVERYONE is wearing???

Roberto you know I am a flexible guy….but no mini-skirts on Kirk please. I know that the ’skant’ is part of Roddenberry’s canon…but I for one consider it a low point

A: Keep an open mind. You haven’t seen Pine’s legs.

209. Bobby - February 5, 2008

yeah Canada!!! Brantford, Ontario…but now in LA.

and all this talk over “RUMORS”!!! I know it gets the juices flowing, but seriously. For the most part I see two dimensional thinking in regards to how people are interpreting these rumors.

Faith, people…faith.

210. Phil Smith - February 5, 2008

#192 –

I hope we see the classic uniform, even though as far as uniforms they always made me laugh… Those miniskirts in particular are pretty iconic. Much better than those silly skin-tight outfits of T’Pal and Seven.

211. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

re:205

Better Lennon and McCartney, than Lenin and McCarthy, that’s what I always say!

Sorry. I should not write here until the WGA affair is over…

212. Ahkenatan - February 5, 2008

203. Anthony Pascale – February 5, 2008
RE 192
on miniskirts and soon knowing what EVERYONE is wearing???

Roberto you know I am a flexible guy….but no mini-skirts on Kirk please. I know that the ’skant’ is part of Roddenberry’s canon…but I for one consider it a low point

Holy crap! Please let’s not travel down that road.

213. RoobyDoo - February 5, 2008

One cameo that I would get a kick from — the (suitably re-invigorated) 3D chess board from WNMHGB. Particularly if Lennon & McCartney are seated on either side.

214. Doorchime - February 5, 2008

Bald boy: Do not try to alter Canon; that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.
Bob Orci: What truth?
Bald Boy: There is no canon.
Bob Orci: There is no canon?
Boy: Then you will see, it is not the canon that alters, it is only yourself.

:)

215. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

#199-“I’m afraid that to accept all of the canon-altering changes we’ll have to be so open minded that our brains fall out.”

This is a situation that has apparently already occured.

#209-“Much better than those silly skin-tight outfits of T’Pal and Seven.”

There is nothing silly about beautiful women in skin-tight outfits.

I trust, Roberto, that in respect to canon, you and J.J. and the gang are “featuring” the many beautiful women in this movie in the most complimentary of fashions?

216. alex - February 5, 2008

I have said this earlyer i hope one day they would bring the episodes unification part 1 and 2 from star trek the next generation as an bonus movie on the star trek movie box like Mission Unification 7.5. With Spock on board. It would be nice for the Spock fans and a good bonus to the NEXT Generation Star trek movie box Hope some one will pick up the id to bring it out as 1 existince movie on the list of star trek movies as 7.5 for example

217. Iowagirl - February 5, 2008

#205

Thanks a lot for your answer. I’ll watch out for your irony, remain pessimistic and hope for a real surprise.

218. Rick - February 5, 2008

Why do I keep getting the feeling thatthis movieis going to really disappoint me? Some day people will realize that change is not always a good thing! If Abrams wants his own STAR TREK, then he should go out and make it, but not with characters that already exist, and for the record the Enterprise is just as essential character as say Kirk, Spock and McCoy… changing “HER” is wrong!

219. Kevin Rubio - February 5, 2008

Funeral services for Ensign Ricky, will be held on the observation deck at 14:00 hrs. – military dress.

220. GaryP - February 5, 2008

I’m not too big on canon. I feel that Star Trek holds up because of its stories and characters. If anything, the biggest disruption of canon was when the writers decided to turn Jean-Luc Picard, the stern diplomatic humanist of the series into an aggressive, irrational action-hero in the movies. It just didn’t work.

221. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#203, 208,
212: “A: Keep an open mind. You haven’t seen Pine’s legs.”

LOL!

You know, there *will* be women attending this movie. I for one appreciate the eye-candy that we ladies will be getting! ;-)

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

222. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#220

Dennis, may I get another can of gasoline for you?

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

223. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#198 Boborci

Bob…..I PROMISE to make Helen Keller look like a loudmouth if you let me come to the night-shoot!

You’re good at clues……give me a subtle one and see if I can twig to it! Barring that, Anthony has my e-mail if you would allow me a visit and afford one of us the opportunity to report back (with no secrets revealed) to our crowd here how everything is going……..oh, please…..give me “a fighting chance TO LIVE!” (pant, pant)

224. OneBuckFilms - February 5, 2008

Roberto,

Thanks for being open with all of us.

Look forward to seeing what you guys come up with.

Save those sets, just in case …

225. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

You work it, Ballzy. I tried for you but all I got was “LOL”.

226. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

p.s. In regard to my “two distinguishing characteristics”, I promise to wear pants! :)

227. Sean4000 - February 5, 2008

226: Finally some humor in this thread. lol

228. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

Harry, how do you know I wasn’t referring to your rakish good looks and witty repartee?

OK, so I wasn’t, but still.

229. Jon - February 5, 2008

EVERYTIME I WRITE THIS THEY ERASE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SPOCK WILL DIE JUST LIKE THE OLD LADY IN THE MOVIE TITANIC

SPOCK WILL DIE JUST LIKE THE OLD LADY IN THE MOVIE TITANIC

SPOCK WILL DIE JUST LIKE THE OLD LADY IN THE MOVIE TITANIC

SPOCK WILL DIE JUST LIKE THE OLD LADY IN THE MOVIE TITANIC

SPOCK WILL DIE JUST LIKE THE OLD LADY IN THE MOVIE TITANIC

230. Anthony Pascale - February 5, 2008

Mr. Ballz…Orci is not in Canada shooting TREK…he is there shooting FRINGE. Which may end up being as cool, but there will not be any women in full body green makeup there (or will there?)

231. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

THX….thanks for trying to knock those BALLZ out of the park, or onto the set, for me…..but I think a Klingon would stand a better chance of becoming a diplomat at the U.N. then my being granted entry to “the inner sanctum”…….Oooooooh!!

232. Doorchime - February 5, 2008

#229 – You’re sure she died? I mean, they never found her body ;)

233. Boborci - February 5, 2008

Off to work — thanks for impromptu chance to respond. Remember that our dealings with main stream press are different than with real fans.

CIAO!

234. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

Roberto,

From the “letting us behind the curtain” without spoiling anything, can you share what “Cast and Crew” are doing this week? Studio? Location? Care to say which set they might be on, if they are on the Paramount lot? Please don’t throw out, stage nine, either! :)

Thanks…

235. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

I would like to take this opprotunity to thank Mr. Orci for taking time out of his busy schedule to interact with those of us who are excited, anxious, and even “terrified” about this endeavor and its outcome. Thank you for attempting to answer some tough questions, without giving away too much.
I have waited a long time for a return to the glorious TOS-era of Star Trek, and finally someone has stepped up to the plate to do it.
I also acknowledge that many of us here, myself at times included, have used the name JJ Abrams to encompass the whole of the creative force behind it. That is an obvious injustice, and I will start referring to Bob Orci and his partner Alex Kurtzman as the writers more often in my own posts. Please forgive me for not making enough effort to differentiate before. I meant no offense, and I continue to be supportive of your efforts (even though permanent alternate timeline rumors frighten me).

236. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

#229-

I count five. How many more times did you write it? And do you mean that he dies in his sleep after tossing the heart shaped necklace given to him by his lover into the ocean?

237. Red Shirt - February 5, 2008

Dang! Just missed him. I hope he visits this thread again soon. “Radio silence” was boring!

238. Boborci - February 5, 2008

235

Thanks, Mom. Call you after work!

239. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

Anthony, thanks for letting me know I was barking up the wrong “production”……….

……as tempting as FRINGE sounds, if there are no women in full body green makeup, well….what would be the point?

I’d still like to buy Bob a beer (or six)….. :)

240. Scott G1. - February 5, 2008

Quote:

“The only thing worse than poor writing is the excuses people come up with to justify it. If Abrams can’t deal with the Trek canon, then he shouldn’t be writing Star Trek.

A: Hi. My name is Roberto Orci and my writing partner’s name is Alex Kurtzman. We are thrilled to have JJ Abrams directing Star Trek ”

You know, there certainly is that segment of the fan base that is tenacious in regards to keeping to the so called “canon” that was set out upon by Gene Roddenberry. I have to say that I wish some people would be a little more understanding instead of insulting to others. The question becomes in my mind, can the spirit of the original series, the cast, the vision of Star Trek be re-invigorated today in such a way, so as to not tear apart completely what has come before? I for one understand that it has to be financially viable as well as appealing to the many, rather than the few. I take no exception to there being some new vision and new life being breathed into Star Trek. Many would say its high-time, and I have to reneg my own purist mindset and agree and also say that I’ll leave my own faith for the spirit of the original in your hands Roberto and the others working on this project. You do sound like you’ve got your head wrapped around this enough to carry on the torch so to speak.

My honest fears stem from the entire culture of persons nowadays that really don’t give a thought to, nor do they appear to give a rats behind about the true history and cultural impact that Trek has had over the decades and why its so held so close to the hearts of many. Gene Roddenberry said that Star Trek was a positive vision about the future of mankind. A vision that wasn’t all dark, sinister and apocalyptic. That to me along with the characters is what made this special to me when I was a boy and is still special to me today. If this spirit is maintained, even with some tweaking here and there, I’ll be fine with the final product.

None of that means I won’t have my fingers crossed hoping that some studio exec hasn’t destroyed the thing.

Do your best to carry it on. :)

241. Doug - February 5, 2008

#87: ” I completely disagree with this. I think it was uninspired storytelling and a lack of engaging characters that did that, far more than anything having to do with staying in continuity.”

I really must disagree with your assessment.

For the canonites, the fact that we never knew about the Xindi attack on Earth is inconsequential. How many events do we not know about just because they were never mentioned in the past? That is a preposterous notion. If anything, the Xindi attack on Earth, in all likelihood, helped the Federation be ready for war when the conflict between the Romulans arose (the “never again” syndrome).

For whatever reasons that might be, post Gene Roddenberry TREK characters generally seem to be the ones that fans have the most problems with.

I felt all of the characters on DS9, (only some on VOY) and nearly all of the characters on ENT were fascinating to me. I always wanted to know more about the secondary characters like Hoshi, Mayweather (the latter being the most shortchanged of that cast) and the good Doctor. The primary characters; Archer Trip, T’Pol and Reed were three-dimensional and well rounded–and always full of surprises.

In season one, I enjoyed the “oh boy, this universe is so cool–the newness of it all” mentality of Archer and crew. Their seeing everything for the first time made the experience all the more enjoyable.. nothing was old hat to them.

I also liked that we saw another side (and hardly one we would have expected) to the Vulcans. The evolution of their interactions with Earth by the series’ end was great… and it even laid the groundwork for Spock’s desire to see a reunification of Romulus and Vulcan.

Enterprise was showing so much promise as it progressed; it still troubles me that the short-sightedness the management of UPN took that away from us. If the series had continued I often wonder how they would have gotten themselves out of the hole they dug in the finale (Trip’s death)… and as I have said in the past, I know we would have seen the turmoils as the Federation began to form.

I am one of those fans that felt the prequel series rivals the best of the other series… sadly, I am in a minority in my opinion on this.. but then I also like “ST: TMP” the best of the movies. AND alas, a moot point since ENT is gone (way before its time).

242. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#236 “he dies in his sleep after tossing the heart shaped necklace given to him by his lover into the ocean?”

Now that’s just silly…………….how could Kirk ever afford jewellery like THAT on a Starfleet Captain’s salary?? :)

243. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#242 Harry, Harry, Harry.

Do I have to find a can of gasoline for you too, sweetpea? It wasn’t Kirk. It was Bones. ;-)

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

244. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#241–Doug, I agree with you on almost all counts. I can’t say I ever cared for VOY’s characters at all, and I rank TMP second behind TWOK. Other than that, I’m right there with you. ENT is grossly underrated. Unfortunately, I don’t think enough of us saw it during its short run of 4 seasons. Thank goodness for DVD box sets, or I would have missed out on the best of the Trek spinoffs!

245. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

I love it when you call me “sweetpea”……..GROWR!! :)

246. Daoud - February 5, 2008

#239 Harry… hey, if you can get on the set of FRINGE… I’d say go for it. From the description I’ve read of what they’ve proposed, it wouldn’t be out of the question, that the lead characters might be investigating a sudden appearance of scantily-clad well-bosomed raven-haired green women!!!

Of course instead of Orions, it might be more along the lines of a mutant like She-Hulk… but who cares! It’s… green. :)

247. Doug - February 5, 2008

#212: ” Holy crap! Please let’s not travel down that road.”

Gee, you’re no fun at all! After all, we did see a guy or two wearing a mini in the premiere of NEXT GEN.

248. Вячеслав - February 5, 2008

Прости, я не понял. Новый Стар Трек, не будет соответствовать канону? Обьясните мне пожалуйста. У меня плохо с английским.

249. Jeffrey S. Nelson - February 5, 2008

Maybe Captain Pike will get a new scooter.

250. Jorg Sacul - February 5, 2008

#236 “he dies in his sleep after tossing the heart shaped necklace given to him by his lover into the ocean?”

Now that’s just silly…………….how could Kirk ever afford jewellery like THAT on a Starfleet Captain’s salary?? :)

Remember, Kirk told Korob that they could manufacture a ton of jewels like that on the ship. Apparently in the future, natural stones are pretty much non-precious….and the way the business works mining them here on earth these days, I fully agree to de-glorify the “rocks and shiny metal” business. Sure, pay the artists who cut the stones, and form the jewelry, and while you’re at it, END THE SLAVERY that is diamond mining in Africa. Canadian diamonds are better, anyway. (and I’m not Canadian)

Oh, yeah… the topic…

Not traditional? Well good. I’m tired of linear story telling. C’mon, JJ, give us a Star Trek that makes us THINK again. Bring social issues to the thinly-veiled stage. Wow us with CONCEPT. Give us something that keeps us up at night, wondering about it.

I’m 100% behind this movie, because, well, My name is George, and I love Star Trek~!

251. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

I was recently looking back at a past thread.

(TruthBTold) said that he could not understand my faith in JJ Abrams as director. He said, “…after all, he’s no (Martin) Scorsese.”

Can you imagine?

“Raging Klingon”
“The Last Temptation Of Surak”
“Ferengifellas”
“Quark’s Casino”
“Mean Planetoid”
“Cape Remus”
“Gangs Of The Orion Syndicate”

I couldn’t think of any other good ones…

“The Departed Founders”

Worse, a Star Trek film with a Rolling Stones soundtrack.

252. David (Flaming Wings Forever!) - February 5, 2008

#247 – Yes we saw the male miniskirts for 1 episode. Thankfully, it ended there..

#248 – No, the wings were actually the ends of the 2 main nacelles. On the original Enterprise, they looked like coolant pipes. Check your model blueprints…

#249 – I thought he was going to have the new iPhone instead.

253. Gary - February 5, 2008

Here’s my prediction. We all know Kirk brought Spock back to life. Now its time for Spock to return the favor. TNG Old Spock goes back into the past to save Kirk from being killed by the Romulans. But in order to do so he must make the ultimate sacrifice, his life. However, this sacrifice does not come without a price. A slightly altered Trek timeline is the result. Everything in TOS happened the same way we all know except things look a bit more updated and modernized.

254. Doug - February 5, 2008

#244: Closettrekker, I wouldn’t disagree with you too much. I do think “Voyager” was the weakest of the TREKs. Of the characters on that series, I very much enjoyed Capt. Janeway and the good Doctor.

If I had to grade that series I’d have to give it a B to B-. At the time it aired I was kinda wishy-washy on it… however, after having watched VOY DVD marathons I came to appreciate the series a bit more. It did do some things even better than NextGen… introduction of humor, for instance… having a plausible and quite believeable female Captain… or utilizing more multi-part episodes and story arcs.

But like you, I definitely feel ENT was underrated.

Personally, I think the work Abrams and Orci is doing on the upcoming film is going to knock our socks off.

255. D. McCoy - February 5, 2008

#253..

I AGREE! Sounds like that’s how it’s going.

256. Flo - February 5, 2008

190. Ahkenatan – February 5, 2008
But I have a major, important, stupendous question. Will we see miniskirts? For the love of God please tell me!!!!!

A: You will have an answer about what everyone is wearing very soon.

So this means a complete cast picture in their uniforms soon?

257. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#246 Daoud “if you can get on the set of FRINGE….I’d say go for it”

Yes, you make a good point! Green-skinned women or not, it would give me a chance to sneak up behind Orci and tickle him until he cries “uncle” and spills his guts about the storyline to Trek XI!

Hmmmm, a new toy for the Trek universe…..a Tickle Me Orci doll from Hasbro! :)

258. Doug L. - February 5, 2008

Hey Y’all!

I haven’t read the threads, but my take on this is that some dire event places Spock in the past causing what will essentially be a very similar, yet “alternate” timeline.

This frees Abrams up from future continuity issues, and allows him to tell classic stories without being hampered by all the history. If the premise is solid and the storytelling solid, then I can totally live with this approach.

It doesn’t negate the future so much as opening it up to new potential. It also doesn’t prevent stories from the next gen from having existed either. I think this is a best of both worlds scenario (pun intended)… a potential win win.

I love that it might begin in TNG era… Let’s see if it’s good.

Very exciting stuff – Doug L.

259. Doug - February 5, 2008

#244: Of course, not enough of people saw “Enterprise” during its four-year run. It was on the wrong network… grrrr!

How many people actually lived in an area that had a UPN affiliate? I’ve always said ENT should have been syndicated or aired on the Sci-fi Network.

260. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#259–Someone should pitch an HBO mini-series which ties ENT and the Earth-Romulan War. That would be fantastic!

261. Demode - February 5, 2008

Hi Bob Orci!

I didn’t know you were a fellow Torontonian! Now I definitely know the Trek movie is in good hands! :)

262. Ron - February 5, 2008

#91: “Trek fans are not smarter, on average, than the “mainstream” audience.”

But wait — back during the big campaigns to save TOS back in the ’60s, wasn’t the fact that Trek’s audience was composed primarily of educated, intelligent people one of the main selling points of the campaign? That would at least imply that fans — TOS fans, anyway — are or were considered smarter than average.

While I’m on that subject, is it known if Abrams or anyone at Paramount has reached out to Bjo Trimble? Has she offered any opinions on the new film? Her endorsement would undoubtedly sway more than a few skeptical hearts and minds, and I for one would be very interested in hearing her comments. Hopefully she remains active and in good health.

#145: “Anyone watch the Terminator : Sarah Connor Chronicles? Totally zapped the timeline and you know what? Who cares!”

It certainly helps matters that nobody really liked Terminator 3 anyway…

263. Harsh - February 5, 2008

There is no chance that Old Spock is gonna die in this film. None. Especially after the perfect death scene in ST:II, and an entire movie based around his resurrection in ST: III, and FOURTEEN YEARS of fans bitching about the death of Kirk.

Spock, Kirk, Data…
There comes a point where death isn’t drama, it’s just trite.

It’s not gonna happen.

Besides, Old Spock dying wouldn’t solve the problem inherent in JJ’s comment that “It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live.” because his whole point is to emphasize a vulnerability for the original (young) characters.

264. Dennis Bailey - February 5, 2008

#262: “But wait — back during the big campaigns to save TOS back in the ’60s, wasn’t the fact that Trek’s audience was composed primarily of educated, intelligent people one of the main selling points of the campaign? ”

That was their *self-description,* yes, and it was a bit of snobbery carried over from literary science fiction fandom. Producing any evidence to support the claim, of course, was not part of their brief.

If you’re interested in the details of how the two “Save Star Trek” campaigns really worked, the book “Inside Star Trek” by Robert Justman and Herb Solow is fascinating. Aside from the fact that DesiLu reimbursed Roddenberry for his expenses in organizing the campaigns (yep, he did) one of the most interesting parts of the story is Solow’s conclusion that NBC was favorably disposed toward “Star Trek” because of one thing that they *could* ascertain about many Trek fans: an unusually high percentage of them owned color television sets at a time when NBC’s parent company – RCA – was fervently pushing color.

265. Classic trek - February 5, 2008

there is some conflicting information coming out here i think. karl urban came on here and said this that traditional trek fans have nothing to fear but now JJ says that this isnt a traditional trek movie. its a bit of a rollercoatser. have i read this wrong…its been a long day!
cheers
greg
UK

266. Gene - February 5, 2008

Mr Robert Orci:

Curious……

Did you think the Star Trek “canon” issue would be such a bone of contention for so many fans when you took on this project? What is your view on the importance or lack of importance of canon?

267. Diabolik - February 5, 2008

265… Sorry, but he said it’s not a traditional “prequel.”

However, I think we can safely infer that it’s not a traditional Trek movie also. Thank God for that! Maybe it won’t tank at the B.O. now.

268. justaskinman - February 5, 2008

I can’t believe some people are still talking about Shatner… it seems pretty clear that the Supreme Court would have put him in the movie.

I’d venture to say that they wanted him for a cameo, but that he refused because he would only accept starring pay for a cameo role. His Q rating and overall brand [Priceline, Boston Legal] are at an all time high, so it stands to reason that his ego is as well. Am I the only guy who caught a whiff of snark in the SC’s explanation that Shatner killed Kirk off?

Chris Pine’s CSI was on the other day… he’s pretty compelling. Great physicality.

269. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#263—I don’t think there is a problem inherent in JJ’s comment. First of all, it has been made rather clear that JJ, Bob Orci, and the others will be the consumate politicians in their comments to the press. After all, one of the stated goals is to make Star Trek relevant to a broader audience.

Just because he is teasing everyone with the possibility, doesn’t make it likely to happen. People need to stop going nuts over JJ’s comments to the general media, disecting his choice of words, for instance. With these guys, we aren’t going to be sure of anything until the final credits roll in the theater.

270. AP - February 5, 2008

Two things:

1. I’m glad to see Enterprise getting a little love here recently. I never gave it a chance years ago, and have only recently watched the entire series. It’s fantastic! I agree with Closettrekker–it’s the best of all of the Trek spinoffs (with the possible exception of DS9).

2. Here’s my prediction for the movie: Spock will go back in time to correct whatever errors in the timeline were created by Nero. Along the way, Kirk will assume command of the Enterprise. His job done, just before leaving the past to go back to the future, the old Spock, moved by seeing his friend again, will whisper something to young Kirk (which we don’t hear). Spock will then return to his own time, and there waiting for him will be James T. Kirk himself. We realize Spock whispered a warning to Kirk, thus saving his life. Kirk will give Spock a “lecture” about changing the timeline. They share a meaningful look. Cut back to young Kirk and Spock on the bridge of 1701, sharing the same look as they set off for their first adventures together. End of movie.

271. Pizza - February 5, 2008

Well Harry, go up to the top of the CN tower and look all over the city for some movie shoot. If you’re lucky you might actually spot something. Make sure to bring your binoculars. Also bring your Orci doll if you don’t see them, and a six pack if you do.

Perhaps the city hall? That’s somewhat futuristic looking? Or even Ontario Cinesphere?? Casa Loma?? Toronto’s a big place.

272. justaskinman - February 5, 2008

Enterprise–yeesh. I never made it past Diane Warren’s “It’s been loooong time” country tune. That was the moment the Second Epoch of Star Trek died.

273. Harsh - February 5, 2008

269: “I don’t think there is a problem inherent in JJ’s comment.”

You misunderstand. There’s not a problem with JJ’s comment.
JJ’s comment simply expresses a problem that has been solved…

“It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live.”

274. justaskinman - February 5, 2008

AP 270 – That’s a fairly good notion, but if Spock is bouncing around time, he wouldn’t have to be half that clever.

275. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#270–Glad to know we share an opinion about the underrated ENT, but I hope you are wrong about the movie.

Spock may indeed travel back to “correct” Nero’s changing of the timeline (why Spock is unaffected would be an interesting bit in itself), but to think that he would, personally, take any action which would “alter” the timeline–even to save the life of a personal friend—-is UNthinkable. Besides, if Spock returned to the TNG-era, why would Kirk be there, still alive after all these years, and what would he be doing? Chasing tail around the interstellar nursing home? No, thank you.

276. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#272–Like I posted earlier, some people just couldn’t get past it being different.

277. AP - February 5, 2008

274: “That’s a fairly good notion, but if Spock is bouncing around time, he wouldn’t have to be half that clever.”

True, unless Spock isn’t in control of what time periods he is bouncing to. (e.g. He is only “hitching a ride” to whatever time periods Nero happens to travel to.)

278. justaskinman - February 5, 2008

anyone have an idea who Sonita Henry will portray? An Academy student makes the most sense, but she’s definitely Vulc-able.

279. AP - February 5, 2008

275: “but to think that he would, personally, take any action which would “alter” the timeline–even to save the life of a personal friend—-is UNthinkable.”

But that would be the point. Here Spock is so worried about correcting the timeline, and yet is willing to risk everything for a chance to save his friend. (If Kirk was willing to destroy the Enterprise for Spock, I think Spock might risk a slight change in the timeline for Kirk.)

275: “Besides, if Spock returned to the TNG-era, why would Kirk be there, still alive after all these years, and what would he be doing?”

I’m thinking he would warn him about the deal with Soran, not the deal with the Enterprise-B. (I’m willing to overlook why he would warn about the one and not the other.) Theoretically, the “old Spock time period” could be soon after Generations.

280. Ron - February 5, 2008

#264: I no longer have a copy immediately available to fact check myself, but I recall reading in the introduction to “The Star Trek Companion” way back when that the organizers of the campaign actually got this information (the presumed above-average intelligence of Trek fans) from NBC’s own market research. So I’m thinking they must have had at least that much to back it up.

281. justaskinman - February 5, 2008

I realize I’m binge-posting, but I’d like to draw attention to Clifton Collins Jr. as Ayel. That guy is an incredible actor and he has a terrific face. Bana’s no slouch, but I predict that Cliff will be a frieken great Romulan.

282. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

It’s time to restore Star Trek’s honor, bring back THE SHAT! Only with Shat in the big chair can Star Trek shine again.

283. Smike van Dyke - February 5, 2008

Taking for granted Nimoy-Spock is still on Romulus (either undercover or as an official Federation representative) he might get involved in Nero’s experiments and by some sort of temporal bubble, be spared from all those changes so that he and he alone can travel back through time to save what can be saved…he’ll most certainly fail in preserving the entire timeline but he might save Kirk (Pine-Kirk, and not Shat-Kirk post-GEN!!!)

Whether or not Nimoy’s Spock dies in the process: the result of all this will be two distinct timelines: one for the new big screen movies owned by Paramount Pictures and one for more TV/DTV-productions owned by CBS…that’s the big deal. It finally comes down to copyright issues…two franchises out of one!

284. The Guardian of Forever - February 5, 2008

Well even if they do kill someone important, they obviously have to bring them back. Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Jack, the main character, dies. Jack comes back in At World’s End. Everyone knew it was gonna happen and life goes on.

285. Smike van Dyke - February 5, 2008

#282: No, much better, let’s introduce THE HOFF on Star Trek and send THE SHAT for a stint on the new Knight Rider sets…

No, really…why don’t you just listen to the man himself. Ob his album “Has Been” there is a really good song called “You’re gonna die”…Shatner’s Kirk HAS BEEN dead for 14 years now. Let him rest in piece and “get a life”…

286. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#279–You said,
“(If Kirk was willing to destroy the Enterprise for Spock, I think Spock might risk a slight change in the timeline for Kirk.)”

I don’t wish to drag this into an old argument, but let me say this.

Kirk had no idea that restoring Spock’s mind and body to cohesion would result in the destruction of the Enterprise or the death of his son. Those were unfortunate resulting consequences. He was willing to risk his career—but that is something altogether different. Nor did the storyline for STIII require him to put at risk the current timeline, as he did not have to travel back in time to do any of it.
You seem to put little significance into the potential consequences of “altering” the timeline. Even the prevention of a seemingly insignificant death could be disasterous. Spock would know this well (TOS “City On The Edge Of Forever”). Even the slightest interaction of an “undead” Kirk could cause major changes in the current timeline. I understand your sentiment, but that would be an unSpock-like act. If JJ, Bob, and Alex want to have their villain affect changes in the timeline, fine, but Spock could not behave in such fashion.

287. Smike van Dyke - February 5, 2008

PS 285: “On his album”…”rest in peace”…

288. Jim - February 5, 2008

Re: #170 – Boborci – thanks for the thoughtful response. Never really considered it a surprise party until you said so. Something to consider. If you happen to stopover in Minnesota on your way back from Toronto, let me know – I’ll buy you a beer (or scotch or absinthe or cigar – the liquor cabinet and humidor are full…)

289. Doug - February 5, 2008

#272: “Enterprise–yeesh. I never made it past Diane Warren’s “It’s been loooong time” country tune.”

Incidentally, Diane Warren’s song “Faith of the Heart” was first recorded by soft rocker Rod Stewart and was used in Robin William’s film “Patch Adams.”

Frankly, I could have done without a “Star Trek” theme song with lyrics. and … Here’s another piece of “News You Can’t Use…” Lyrics were written for the original series theme song as well. They were written by creator Gene Roddenberry. Just look in the opening pages of “The Making of Star Trek” by Stephen Whitfield and there they are. The lyrics were truly wretched… and thankfully- never made to airing.

JJ., if you are reading this, please please please ignore them and do not use them for the movie (grin).

290. Elrond L. - February 5, 2008

192. Boborci –
A: You will have an answer about what everyone is wearing very soon.

That news alone was worth scanning through the last 100 posts.

It makes up for the bad mental picture of Harry’s twin “characteristics” that I can’t shake. :-)

291. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#259–I sure didn’t, at least not until the decision had already been made to cancel it. I think I was able to watch most of the third and all of the fourth season. I had to start from the beginning on DVD.

#289–The wonderful thing is, on dvd, you can fast-forward through the opening music and still not miss a good series like ENT. I always do.

292. sean - February 5, 2008

what i take away from that is the shat will be back…….

293. justaskinman - February 5, 2008

the papanazis caught Zoe Saldana out the other day. this is not interesting video, but think about it: IF THEY’RE FOLLOWING HER NOW… this bodes well for mainstream success.
http://wwww.tmz.com/2008/02/05/star-trek-star-hummer-we-hardley-knew-her/

294. Dom - February 5, 2008

I think Realisttrekkie32’s post (32) sums up a problem certain people seem to be having with the new film.

Realisttrekkie32: ‘It’s going to change everything isn’t it?’

Yes, very possibly. We’ll see!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘Abrams isn’t a trekkie or a trekker,’

Abrams is a fan, not a nerd. ;)

Realisttrekkie32: ‘so simple as this will just be Star Trek’s dumbing down and mainstreaming’

Star Trek is meant to be mainstream entertainment. ‘Mainstream’ doesn’t have to equate with ‘dumbed down!’

Realisttrekkie32: ‘which probably means just a few less Trek-esq pieces of dialogue’

If you mean that weird way everyone spoke in TNG and later Treks, then I hope it does. The lack of naturalistic speech in later Trek shows is part of what held them up to ridicule in later days.

‘and a hell of a lot more blowing stuff up and actual human relations bits.’

There’s no evidence of that. The writers’ and director’s past work has balanced both very nicely!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘This is an attempt to make Trek cool, and for the main part it’s working, people are getting interested in the hype, the trailer isn’t what you would expect from Star Trek and the Enterprise has been changed to make it look more realistic.’

So, surely that’s a good thing? Connecting Trek with the people is surely the point of the exercise!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘Thing is, if you were a fan of Trek before, it’s probably not going to appeal as much. I mean the purists were always going to be mad about this, but they do have a slight point.’

Depends on how you look at things. Trek connected very directly with the hopes and fears of the 60s era and, through that ‘lens,’ tried to create a believable future filtered through the sensibilities and filmmaking of that era. I can’t wait to see this film!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘ you must realise he was never going to leave alot the same no matter what he promised.’

Change is good. Trek’s broke and needs fixing. Trek’s been in a nerds-only ghetto for too long. Modern Trek’s been more like Star Wars in terms of its look and feel – weird dialogue, over-earnest acting etc. Difference is, not many people were left wanting to watch it.

Realisttrekkie32: ‘End of the day if your pitching Trek to a mainstream, hard to occupy audience, then you have to loose things which are essentially what Trek is about.’

No you don’t! TOS was aimed at the mainstream!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘The ethic of humans working toward something greater and better is still there, but the feeling of Trek, that buzz of it will not be there in the film if it looses some of the lingo and the general Trek themes.’

If the style of dialogue is more believable, then great. Why would the writers – self-professed fans – want to lose those themes?

‘The film could be epic, I know I will go and see it, as I am a self confessed Trek lover. But I know at the end of the day this isn’t going to be a ‘real’ Star Trek. It’s a shiny version. One to try and rebirth something which many seem to think has become old and tired.’

I think you’re looking at this from a production point of view. Roddenberry would have made Trek ‘shiny’ had he been given the budget. ST:TMP proves this!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘But maybe older trek just isn’t getting a chance?’

By revisiting Kirk, Spock and McCoy, older Trek is getting more exposure than ever!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘ if what Abrams is making gets any more complicated, or is a total retcon, there will be that vain of sadness in watching the film.’

That’s part of growing older, I’m afraid!

Realisttrekkie32: ‘Although the canon thing was ALWAYS going to be difficult. I don’t reckon there is a director out there who can cope with trek canon lol.’

Nope! It’s a heavy burden!

If history it ‘branched’ into a new continuity, I think that’s great! It means any character could feasibly die or live on! Original Trek survives. New Trek is free to go wherever it wants!

295. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - February 5, 2008

Sigh…….

296. Josh - February 5, 2008

Ah, the good old squabble of canonical debate. Yes, it is going to be different. I’ve loved Trek since childhood. To be honest, the series could use a bit of a refit. I mean, look at half the crap we have now with technology. Do you really want to think that we’re going to have warp-capable ships that use knobs and levers?

No.

Personally, the NX-01 was a much better representation of what the future would look like. And I hated Enterprise.

As for the alternate timeline thing, yeah, it’s been done to death, but never in a movie. We may be back to “Mirror, Mirror” or back to that one TNG episode where Worf was living in several different realities.

Trek needs this. Sure, it’ll be slaughtering some things we know as canon. And big deal if Old Spock dies! They had the audacity to kill off Kirk, one of the main characters. He’s old, VERY old.

“All good things must come to an end.” -Q

Some things just have to happen.

If we want Trek to survive into the NEXT century, it’s going to have to undergo change, just like everything else. We all live, we change, we die. So will Trek. It’ll come and go, just like the current Presidential Election. Things CHANGE.

I don’t even like what I’m saying, but it’s the truth. I don’t think that they’re going to change canon too much, just enough. There is NOTHING that says that Spock can’t die. It’s perfectly feasible. And what about this whole 2-line thing

“It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live.”

It could be nothin more than that: words. Who knows what will happen.

297. OR Coast Trekkie - February 5, 2008

Kobiyashi Maru, huh?

298. Josh - February 5, 2008

ONE MORE THING. It had been said, by many people, that this story WILL ABSOLUTELY BE RESPECTFUL TO CANON!!!!

299. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - February 5, 2008

more sighing…. sigh….
losts of snotty eye rolling

300. Dr. Image - February 5, 2008

#170- Boborci
“Least common denominator” as a code word of the elite? (code: LCD!)
Hmmm… the term has been used many a time to describe the pandering type of one-dimensional storytelling used by some recent incarnations of Trek. The term is in fact an accurate way to describe the way in which the subject has been handled, which causes some present concern. Understandable, I think.

Now, about those miniskirts……….. they better be damn short…

Wait, are you in Toronto? Hit The Red Tomato on King St.-a fav resturaunt
when we visit the city from Cleveland- which is as often as possible.

BTW- EVERYONE here should read Solow and Justman’s “Inside Star Trek.” One can’t really argue points regarding facts behind TOS without having read it.

301. CaptainRickover - February 5, 2008

Perhaps Abrams’ comment means someone could die in the end (but will come back in another movie. like…. Spock in ST-3). The search for Kirk or the search for Pike perhaps.

# 293

Dom, I don’t think that you will get what you want (an entire new Star Trek I presume), nor will the TOS-purists. I think the new movie will have strong references to the existing canon, but will tell also some new things, no man has known or seen before.

302. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

Whatever is in this film WILL be canon.

303. CaptainRickover - February 5, 2008

# 293
Nope! It’s a heavy burden!

No, the One Ring is a heavy burden!

Hmm… Why don’t write something that not interferes with canon? I think the solutions are very simple, exept you want to make Jim Kirk to Jane Kirk or something like that. That could be a bit tricky to explain :).

304. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#301–Most likely, the comment was intended to inject some suspense, which is lacking in past prequels done in film. His PR work has the purpose of drawing a broader audience to Star Trek. Like I said before, when talking to the general media, they are going to be the consumate politicians. For that matter, they do the same when talking to the nerdery. Their comments will be tailored to fit their intended audience. And who can blame them? After all, they are making a constant sales pitch. In the end, you’ll be curious. That’s the point.

305. Dr. Image - February 5, 2008

I WAS 300th!!!!
THIS IS TREKDOM!!!! (Couldn’t resist. Sorry.)

Now, there were two different miniskirt patterns, I think the earlier style- NOT the Nurse Chapel style- was much more… flattering.

306. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

302: “Whatever is in this film WILL be canon.”

Canon out the window if even the stitching on the uniforms do not match the original source.

307. Rick - February 5, 2008

Wow this comment page sure grew! Cool and interesting comment and a cool guest star Boborci. Nice to hear from you and look forward to your work. The show you are working on in Canada sounds interesting. I got a X-Files vibe from the plot summary I read, but I am sure it will be it’s own interesting animal. Anyways bring on this cool sounding STAR TREK film and file all canons on the port side mate! ;)

PS: Anthony stop having such a cool and fun site I am taking up too much time here.;) Later.

308. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

#306

In the basement, no one can hear you scream.

(just havin’ a little fun, pal)

309. Closettrekker - February 5, 2008

#306–Sybok, you are truely running amok. Canon has nothing to do with stitching. If you are determined not to like this movie, then what is the point of even talking about it? Perhaps sticking to the Shat novels would be safer for you, since canon is not a challenge there.

310. Captain Fantastic - February 5, 2008

guys, i really don’t think a major character death will occur which will violate canon. Yes, Nimoy’s spoke might die, but not an original member of the crew, that would be very reckless of the makers of this film as they know it will turn alot of fans off and not make any sense when viewed in line with the rest of the tv series and films. and anyway, aren’t most of the major cast members, i.e crew of the enterprise, already signed for three films!?

311. Captain Fantastic - February 5, 2008

i meant spock, not spoke, sorry!

312. Anthony Pascale - February 5, 2008

307: Rick
PS: Anthony stop having such a cool and fun site I am taking up too much time here.;) Later.

ummm…sorry?

313. Negotiator - February 5, 2008

CANON is getting killed off!

314. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

#309: Canon is about ever detail, every piece of trivia, every character’s nuance down to how Kirk sips his coffee.

315. Kirky - February 5, 2008

The End Is Nigh!!! :p

316. Etha Williams - February 5, 2008

Love the redshirt vid…

Thanks for the credit, Anthony.

317. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#304

I learned a new word today: nerdery. I can add that to “adorkable” and “whinging.”

LOL! Love it!

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

318. Dr. Image - February 5, 2008

When Bakula used an Art Asylum phaser in Enterprise, it became canon.
If it’s in the show, or the movies, or now maybe in TAS, it’s written in stone.
Thus sayeth the Law of Canon. (I have a Canon 40D, BTW.)

Just felt the need to state the obvoius for those lurkers out there.

319. Xai - February 5, 2008

306. Sybok Amok – February 5, 2008

“Canon out the window if even the stitching on the uniforms do not match the original source. ”

“Canon is about ever detail, every piece of trivia, every character’s nuance down to how Kirk sips his coffee. ”

You just love to fan the flames with a little gasoline, don’t you.

320. LostOnNCC1701 - February 5, 2008

If done right (by which I mean, done way better then Kirk’s demise, which isn’t hard to do), Old Spock’s death (because let’s face it here folks: killing off, say “young” versions isn’t going to happen, Abrams wouldn’t mess with canon that much) could be a great moment in Trek History.

I mean, imagine this: Spock is on the bridge of Nero’s ship, he fights Nero while the NCC-1701 and Nero’s ship are going at it (and Nero’s ship, enhanced with TNG tech, is winning.) The only way history (and the Big E) is gonna be kept even close to intact is if Spock hits the autodestruct button, or, better yet, plunges the whole goddamn thing into a black hole (to save the timeline from being corrupted even more). It could definitely be a “Let History never forget the name, Enterprise!” moment.

321. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#319

I’m hoping the quoted material is sarcasm.

Who’s got the Hershey bars?

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

322. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

#314-“Canon is about ever detail, every piece of trivia, every character’s nuance down to how Kirk sips his coffee.”

No, it’s not. What you are describing is fanatical obsession. By your reasoning Kirk’s middle name begins with an R because that was established in WNMHGB. They violated it when Kirk’s middle name was mentioned as Tiberius.

So I guess in that sense Trek has a long and proud tradition of breaking with canon that goes back to the first season. Making Trek’s violation of canon,canon.

323. Blackknight23 - February 5, 2008

I think that is crazy That the Old Spock is gonna die Jj is a master of being secretive i am just gonna enjoy the movie on the 25th…Btw Rick Berman should of never took over the frianchise Nicolas Meyer of Harve Bennett should of…

324. Dennis Bailey - February 5, 2008

#300: ““Least common denominator” as a code word of the elite? (code: LCD!)
Hmmm… the term has been used many a time to describe the pandering type of one-dimensional storytelling used by some recent incarnations of Trek. The term is in fact an accurate way to describe the way in which the subject has been handled,”

No, it’s not. “Lowest common denominator” is simply a way for some folks to describe something that they don’t like in such a way as to attempt to assume an authority or superior perspective that they don’t actually have. That’s exactly as it’s been applied by some trekkies to “Star Trek.” ;)

325. GaryP - February 5, 2008

Vulcanista,

Put your can of gasoline away. I’m simply expressing my opinion. I don’t think that replacing Picard’s basic characteristics made the movies any more or less mainstream than they could have been. That’s all.

326. Blackknight23 - February 5, 2008

HEY IOWAGURL im from iowa too and its too bad they didnt film part of the story in Riverside…

327. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#325

Well, I did address it to “Dennis,” but I wonder what happened here! I had originally replied to Dennis Bailey, who’s post at 220 has apparently disappeared. Apparently, he took his smart-ass pill today and got his post pulled.

I can only wonder what *you* were thinking!

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

328. OnlyTheAntiKirkCrowdCanTalk - February 5, 2008

#320–that would be horrible.

329. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

*whose* post and delete one of those “apparently”s.

I *really* want that do-over button.

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

330. Bono luthor - February 5, 2008

Time travel. Alternate timeline. Shatner Kirk alive. Anyone can die? Anyone can live. Don’t give me excuses.

331. Christopher - February 5, 2008

#330

Excellent point, everyone should know that anything is possible with Star Trek.

332. johnny - February 5, 2008

I support Section 31’s comments! I share the same concerns and the same concerns that Dave a former canon poster shared on this website a year ago before he was banned from posting!!

333. the king in shreds and tatters - February 5, 2008

Telling you, man, Spock travels back in time, mind-rapes Kirk and steal his katra.

334. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#325

I went back to look to see what you’re talking about, and the post I was replying to (220) has been deleted. I think somebody took his smart-ass pill today and got spanked. :)

I can only imagine what *you* must have thought!

To All: Laissez les bon temps roulez! C’est Mardi Gras!

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

335. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

Sorry for the double post.

Stupid computer…

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

336. Jamie - February 5, 2008

I just hope the film has Guinan in it, so if any timelines get altered, she can be “aware” of the way things should be.

Pretty unlikely they’d include Guinan in a brand new TOS film though. But still, it would be ultra-cool :D

337. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

322: “By your reasoning Kirk’s middle name begins with an R because that was established in WNMHGB. They violated it when Kirk’s middle name was mentioned as Tiberius.”

WNMHGB was a pilot episode & some things like an inital have to be overlooked, as with Spock smiling in The Cage. Trek canon officially sets in stone with The Corbomite Maneuver. Every detail down to McCoy’s pinky ring is canon. If Bones is not wearing one (or it doesn’t exactly match the original) in ST XI, canon is broken.

338. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

Sybok Amock
So when the Klingons got ridges in TMP, Roddenberry wasn’t violating canon then?

How convenient it is to ascribe your own definitions of canon. You are not of the body.

Next.

339. K. M. Kirby - February 5, 2008

It’s all just a dream of the elder Spock.

340. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

338: “So when the Klingons got ridges in TMP, Roddenberry wasn’t violating canon then?”

Back in 1979 there were two explanations by Roddenberry about the ridges, first that they always looked that way & when that wasn’t flying he said it was the result of a genetic experiment gone wrong, which was explored in great detail on ENT. So yes, the change is within canon.

On the other hand, the TNG Romulan foreheads..

341. Jon C - February 5, 2008

Canon is for fanboys.Star Trek needs to be re-invented,but retain it’s essential elements.

342. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#339

If that’s the case, I shall throw my Coke and Raisinettes at the screen and storm out of the theater, demanding the return of my money.

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

343. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

341: Canon is for fanboys.Star Trek needs to be re-invented,but retain it’s essential elements.

Canon IS Star Trek’s essential element. That’s what seperates it from Lost in Space, where consistency was thrown out the airlock.

The pain, oh the pain..

344. Edith Keeler - February 5, 2008

SPOILER ALERT

OK I admit it – not only am I Kirk’s love interest, I am also his great great great great great grandmother – in the alternate time line, of course.

345. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

343: “Canon IS Star Trek’s essential element. That’s what seperates it from Lost in Space, where consistency was thrown out the airlock.”

Sorry, I meant to say “where continuity was thrown out the airlock”

346. Xai - February 5, 2008

343 Sybok

You say canon is Trek’s essential element and also claim Trek is nothing without “The Shat” as Kirk.
You better go review the goings-on of a Trek movie from about 15 years ago.
You have a problem.

347. TrekSucksHard - February 5, 2008

Well in that case- they should bring in the entire crew from Next Gen and Enterprise and kill them off- those shows sucked so bad.

348. RideOp1 - February 5, 2008

What Abrams said is just to create a hype people. He is wetting everyone’s appetites, even if it pisses some people off. Nick Meyer wasn’t a Trekker either when he Directed ST II, but he was a major factor in saving the movie franchise. I would hope however that Abrams won’t make the same mistakes that Berman made. The reason Star Trek has lasted so long is the loyalty of it’s fans and staying true (for the most part) to Gene Roddenberry’s concept. Changing the ENTERPRISE for Example………Not a good idea. For TMP it was a an upgrade, a re-fit, not a re-imagining. Look at the Carrier Enterprise CV 65, her Island looks nothing like it originally did, but her overall design is the same. We are talking about the Grand Old Lady Now, Don’t F&*K with the Original Enterprise. It is the most recognized SciFi Icon in History. Everyone Knows the ENTERPRISE. It would be Blasphemic.
I understand today’s audiences want more realism, and such. Well show the Old Girl the way Roddenberry wanted. Show her the way she looks in the Smithsonian. The lighting in the 60’s washed out all her texturing etc. With CGI, they can make her look the way she was supposed to, Even better than the Re-mastered Episodes. Accent details, don’t Change her design.
People always say that Ron Moore’s New design of the Galactica was well received. Not by the fans I have spoken to. Moore’s re-immagining of the show was good in a lot of ways, but Frankly the Galactica and the Pegasus new look SUCKED! But this is Star Trek, A higher standard is expected, and owed to the Loyal fans.
As for Interior Sets………the changing of sets on TOS were over time, gradual and subtle as well as the Motion Picture Sets. if this is supposed to be Kirk’s 1st or earlier missions fine, subtle accentuation on set design will work, but you can’t make supposed older designs to be changed so drastically when they have been shown and known by so many for so long.
Alot of you say, who cares about Canon, or Canon has nothing to do with the Ship itself and set design. You’re all either just plain Nuts, or not the devoted fans you think you are. There is such a thing as consistency. Albeit that Berman totally screwed that up, especially in “ENTERPRISE”, but the TOS referrences have always stayed true for the most part, especially when the Enterprise was concerned, (ex – Trails and tribblations, and In a Mirror Darkly. Also with the Re-Mastered episodes seeing the Enterprise in her original design, changing it for the film is just Moronic. Are you non-purists and the movie makers willing to piss off and alienate the loyal fans of decades just to bring in some new viewers? Star Trek is Star Trek.The Film is going to be a Box-Office smash without changing what made Star Trek Unique. Unfortunately Non-Fans have a preconceived notion that it is silly and campy. If they are new viewers to the franchise, they won’t know that things weren’t changed anyway. The set design could use some subtle embellishment for realism and detail. Roddenberry’s original wish that the still photos on the bridge above duty stations be smaller working view screens as seen on “Enterprise”, would be a good start. I’m talking about SUBTLE accentuation to the original design. Modern audiences have already seen how the Original Enterprise bridge should appear, from “RELICS”-TNG, “TRIALS & TRIBBLATIONS”-DS9, and “IN A MIRROR DARKLY”-Enterprise. So stick with what works and has worked for 40 years. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!! Berman totally screwed up the franchise. Examples – RESURRECTION/NEMESIS, and he needed to go, he ruined ENTERPRISE, with all that Xindi bullshit, when he should have filled all the gaps and answered the questions brought up in the original series, as was attempted in the 4th season, but it was too late to save the show from cancellation. Good Riddens Rick Berman. Let’s hope Abrams doesn’t make the same Mistakes.
I think a fantastic openning scene would be Jonathon Archer witnessing the Launch of 1701. Archer’s Bio says he lived to see the construction and launch of the ENTERPRISE-1701, and died of natural causes shortly after. I think that would make a great scene. then fade out and bring it up to the time of Kirk. similar things have been done before, and worked well. EXAMPLE – Dr. McCoy walking with DATA after touring the Enterprise D in the TNG Pilot.
In Closing, Star Trek Canon exists for a reason. DON’T F&*K WITH IT!!!!!!!!!! 40 years folks, It has worked for 40 years, don’t fix it if it isn’t broken.

349. Dr. Image - February 5, 2008

#324-
1) I wasn’t talking to you.
2) Since you insist on sticking your opinion in on my comment anyhow, allow me to point out the obvious again- there has been good Trek and bad Trek, and you and others know it. Anyone who denies this is
utterly delusional. Voyager was in it for the ratings race. Braga even admits that mistakes were made.
Thanks to the people in charge now, we’ll be perhaps getting what has been overdue since DS9 went off the air, namely, well-written Trek, NOT aimed at the– let’s see- at those willing to accept a lesser-quality product.
That is, the kind we’ve been force-fed over the past several years by producers who think that no one will notice.
Enough of the same is enough.
I think JJ & co. would agree, or they wouldn’t have taken this on.

350. Xai - February 5, 2008

348. RideOp1

A saucer, two nacelles and a lower engineering hull. I see very little exterior change in what can be seen in the trailer. Some minor changes in the intercooler area on the nacelles, maybe? It is an incomplete construction.
Interior wise… what have we seen besides a corridor (maybe) and possibly a control panel. If I missed a shot, I’d like to know.

351. Jabob Slatter - February 5, 2008

I’ve said it 40 times, I’ve said it before – There is no such thing as canon in Star Trek.

Canon implies there was a ruling body, or an authoritative text on which to base your claims of canon. Unfortunately, there have been so many conflicting books and movies and TV shows that canon is merely those things each fan doesn’t want changed.

In other words, for Star Trek, canon is subjective. So throw it out the window and let Star Trek grow up. We’re humans, we adapt to change. Cease all his whining and accept that you are not getting TOS.

It’s getting so tiring I don’t even want to read these posts anymore.

352. Whill - February 5, 2008

“It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live.”

The key words are “you know.” That doesn’t mean that anyone WILL die. That means that the story will be constructed to make you THINK that they may die. In other words: time travel.

Someone from the future goes back to the past to kill someone from the classic crew. Since there is all this ambiguity about how strictly this movie will adhere (or not adhere) to the previously-established continuity, we will be lead to believe that the villain may succeed. But then the timeline is restored so the future could still have all those stories we already know about. Or maybe there will even be minor changes a la Marty’s family at the end of Back to the Future.

353. RideOp1 - February 5, 2008

A number of people have said they hadn’t seen any violation of Canon on “ENTERPRISE”, The Entire show was a violation of canon…………..lol. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with T’Pol, ENTERPRISE was the best of the spinoffs, well it’s conception was anyway. I definately like the Design of the NX-01 better than the ship in the gallery on the TMP rec deck, that looks like a Vulcan Ship, and is one of the ships in the Galactica Fleet, look for it, it’s there…………lol. Berman and Braga had a chance to tell so many stories, answer so many questions, and they just totally f*#ked it up. That ridiculous Temporal Cold war, The Suliban, who were based on the Taliban, for god’s sake. And don’t get me started on that Xindi Crap, an entire season was wasted. They Finally got their heads our of their asses in the 4th season but then it was too late. There were so many aliens from TOS that they coud have shown, but they just kept using the same new lame ones they came up with. they could have shown the precursers to the Romulan War, and if the series lasted, they could have done a whole season on the Romulan war itself.
I’m purist, i’ll admit it, but i do realize change is inevitable. Besides we can sit here and debate and argue all we want. CBS/Paramount only cares about the bottom line. It’s all about the money, It’s Hollywood. I’m looking forward to seeing Jennifer Morrison (the Hottie from HOUSE) as Kirk’s Mother, I just hope they don’t old her up too much……….lol.
I think Karl Urban as McCoy, Ben Cross as Sarek, Quinto as Spock, are all good choices, i’ll wait for the film to judge the rest. Why couldn’t Shatner play Kirk’s dad?………lol. put a mustache, beard, new toupe, it could work……..lol.

354. John from Cincinnati - February 5, 2008

I have the solution to all of this…the movie starts with old Spock in the post-TNG universe. We see Nero time traveling, screwing up history and Spock going to the past to correct things, however at the end of the movie we see old Spock in….the holodeck. It was all just him playing around testing theories and being sentimental.

355. Sybok Amok - February 5, 2008

346: “You better go review the goings-on of a Trek movie from about 15 years ago.”

I have been reviewing ALL goings on regarding Trek since 1966.

356. Paul Fitz - February 5, 2008

I cant wait for this movie!
Thats all I wanted to say, no snipes about Kirk, Canon, The big E, Spock…… nothing.
I do want to say that its really cool of Roberto Orci to come here and converse with the fans.
*Ireland is wetter than an otters pockets at the moment*

357. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#354

See post #342.

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

358. AP - February 5, 2008

#353:

Umm, after claiming that Enterprise itself was one big violation of canon, you then spent your entire post without listing one single canon violation. Surely if what you said was true you could have come up with at least one or two examples.

Just because you didn’t like the plots, doesn’t mean the plots violated canon. Just because the plots didn’t match fanboy speculation, doesn’t mean they violated canon. Frankly, if every episode of Enterprise was nothing more than “OK, what TOS episode can we do a prequel for this week” it would have ridiculous and boring. The writers actually had the guts to come up with new situations and characters and races. (And all without violating canon.)

Best Trek ever, IMHO.

359. Xai - February 5, 2008

355. Sybok Amok – February 5, 2008
346: “You better go review the goings-on of a Trek movie from about 15 years ago.”

I have been reviewing ALL goings on regarding Trek since 1966.

Good for you, but you aren’t the only one.

Canon AND an alive older Kirk…. …Wow. I guess it’s ok when YOU bend canon, eh?

360. RideOp1 - February 5, 2008

#358

Did you not see what I said about the Temporal Cold war, the Suliban, the Xindi? You’d think if some species attacked Earth and killed 7 million people, it would have gotten a mention in the other 4 shows somewhere. Ok, here you go, The romulans didn’t have warp drive prior to their alliance with the klingons,(SCOTTY said in Balance of terror….”No question, their power is simple impulse”)
I never said I didn’t like the plots, I DID say that I liked this spinoff the best. You seem to have some anger issues in your tone there AP. This is supposed to be a fun place to talk and debate, take a Xanax…………..lol.

361. Rob Christopher - February 5, 2008

Random note: I remember a photo of J.J. during his chat with trekmovie.com, and I noticed the computer console, and it resembled set designs from TNG on, but I also remember (I forget the post #) that the set design from the new movie resembles TOS design. Assuming the former is true, does that mean that for 150 years, from Trek 11 to Voyager, computer sophistication advanced as much as cell phones have in 20 years, going from those clunky 5 pounders to those damned iPhones.

362. AP - February 5, 2008

“Did you not see what I said about the Temporal Cold war, the Suliban, the Xindi?”

None of those things violated anything in canon.

“You’d think if some species attacked Earth and killed 7 million people, it would have gotten a mention in the other 4 shows somewhere.”

Says who? That’s nothing more than an argument from silence. According to that logic, Star Trek canon officially denies every single event in human history that hasn’t been explicitly mentioned in an episode. You really expected the writers to base their stories only on things that had already been mentioned? Talk about stifling all creativity. (Besides, what kind of mention were you expecting? “Captain, the Borg have killed 1000 people.” “Oh, that kinda reminds of this one time with the Xindi…” Stilted.)

It’s far too easy and cliche for people to trash Enterprise for no reason other than that it’s easy and cliche.

363. I AM THX-1138 - February 5, 2008

Xai, Sybock is a troll. I was a fool for feeding it. Sybock Amock is using circular logic and “superior fanboy” posturing to try to make strawman type arguments. Jabob is right. Canon implies a ruling body, of which a fanboy cannot appoint himself.

I’m laughing at the “superior” intellect.

364. Xai - February 5, 2008

THX-1138

I noticed, but I was bored. Thanks though.

365. RideOp1 - February 5, 2008

OK, AP you really are not Listening…………………..what part of I liked ENTERPRISE better than any of the other spinoffs do you NOT understand?………GEEEZ, I am not Trashing it, i was stating scenarios. you really need to lighten up dude, and actually read what people say before posting. ENTERPRISE had incredible potential, but Berman and Braga pissed it away, on some really stupid ideas. Just as some of TOS were stupid. I love Star Trek in all it’s incarnations, My Favorites are TOS, then ENTERPRISE, the rest…………ehhh.

366. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

THX+Xai….what do you think, are we all getting short of temper and quibbling with the “knuckle-draggers” because we’re all antsy for more info regarding the movie?

Yeah, that must be it……….by the way, thanks Xai for trying to calm me down the other night……I appreciate it!

367. Alex Rosenzweig - February 5, 2008

#241 – “#87: ” I completely disagree with this. I think it was uninspired storytelling and a lack of engaging characters that did that, far more than anything having to do with staying in continuity.”

I really must disagree with your assessment.

For the canonites, the fact that we never knew about the Xindi attack on Earth is inconsequential.”

Actually, for the most extreme of the adherents to canon, it was totally consequential, because they couldn’t accept the idea that something could happen that hadn’t already been talked about. This always seemed odd to me, since the only real issue should be making sure not to contradict what had been established, not to prevent new ideas from being added.

“How many events do we not know about just because they were never mentioned in the past? That is a preposterous notion. If anything, the Xindi attack on Earth, in all likelihood, helped the Federation be ready for war when the conflict between the Romulans arose (the “never again”
syndrome).”

Exactly. I completely agree.

But the fact remains that a lot of folks weren’t engaged by the characters, and if I had to pinpoint the one spot where ENT fell over the cliff and never recovered, it was the second quarter or so of the 2nd season, where a run of truly uninspired storytelling drove many folks away, and they never came back, even though the show turned the corner midway through that season.

“I felt all of the characters on DS9, (only some on VOY) and nearly all of the characters on ENT were fascinating to me. I always wanted to know more about the secondary characters like Hoshi, Mayweather (the latter being the most shortchanged of that cast) and the good Doctor. The primary characters; Archer Trip, T’Pol and Reed were three-dimensional and well rounded-and always full of surprises.

In season one, I enjoyed the “oh boy, this universe is so cool-the newness of it all” mentality of Archer and crew. Their seeing everything for the first time made the experience all the more enjoyable.. nothing was old hat to them.”

No disagreement there!

“I also liked that we saw another side (and hardly one we would have
expected) to the Vulcans. The evolution of their interactions with Earth by the series’ end was great… and it even laid the groundwork for Spock’s desire to see a reunification of Romulus and Vulcan.”

And I agree with you here, as well. I was particularly taken, too, with the development of relations between Earth, Vulcan, and Andor. In a way, those three worlds echoed the personality archetypes of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate in TOS, writ large.

“I am one of those fans that felt the prequel series rivals the best of the other series… sadly, I am in a minority in my opinion on this..”

Well, I share that minority with you. I enjoyed ENT more than either TNG or VOY, and almost as much as DS9. But it still goes to demonstrate what I was talking about. :) The existing Trekverse is plenty big enough to add more aspects, and that’s what I’d been hoping for from the new film, too. I’m still hoping for it, though my concern-meter is spiking these days.

(Ironically, though… If the new film does lead to a divergent universe, it may be that ENT is the only series that Trekverse Prime and the Abramsverse have in common. ;) )

#253 – “A slightly altered Trek timeline is the result. Everything in TOS happened the same way we all know except things look a bit more updated and modernized.”

Now that I could live with, though I think the answer then would be to just go ahead with the production design changes and not worry about trying to explain stuff on that level.

368. Daoud - February 5, 2008

#360

Temporal Cold War: What’s there to mention? Section 31 and folks like Gary Seven, Daniels, and his ilk cleaned up all the evidence.

Suliban: A minor race, only active a couple years… mostly had already been herded and decimated by the Tandarans. May have renamed themselves after finally ditching the Cabal. Perhaps are now called “Saurians”.

Xindi: Potentially one of many Federation members. I like to think of them as having relocated to Alpha Centauri (where there are many Class M worlds in the Star Trek universe), and the key founders of the Alpha Centauri Concordium of Planets that is a key UFP member by the era of TOS. The Avian subrace thought dead, can be seen as surviving by having separated under the Skorr Faith, and relocating to Aurelia. I also like to think of DS9’s Albino as being a Xindi-Arboreal (or mostly that).

Earth 7 million. Terrible, but 37 million were killed in your third world war, and many more during the Post Atomic Horror. The 7 million killed was certainly terrible…

Romulans certainly had something analogous to warp drive. They use artificial singularities: viz. TNG. Your reference to “Balance of Terror” and Scott’s comments are regarding the travel of the cloaked vessel. They can’t cloak and travel at warp: they’d be visible in other spectra: the warp trail, for example.

Enterprise fits fine. The Axanar, for example. How Surakian thought was brought back ot Vulcan. The rationale for the “Romulan reunification”. Why the Klingons tolerate Earth: Earth saved their ass a few times going back to the start. The variation in Andorians seen in TAS explained. The Klingon forehead situation creatively covered, and tied in wonderfully to Khan and Eugenics.

Perhaps you should have one of your alprazolam, too? :)

369. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#290 Elrond “It makes up for the bad mental picture of Harry’s twin “characteristics” that I can’t shake”

Yes, I’ve heard this MANY times before……….people have gone BLIND staring at such beauty……………………….

…………..or, at least, that’s what they told me at the time as they closed their eyes and rushed from the room……… :)

370. Jabob Slatter - February 5, 2008

You know, this has gotten too immature even for me. I’m actually becoming embarrassed for being here.

Anthony, ban me. I need to stay away from all this for a while…

371. The Vulcanista - February 5, 2008

#367, 368

Bravo! Well typed, gentlemen!

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

372. RideOp1 - February 5, 2008

Romulans certainly had something analogous to warp drive. They use artificial singularities: viz. TNG. Your reference to “Balance of Terror” and Scott’s comments are regarding the travel of the cloaked vessel. They can’t cloak and travel at warp: they’d be visible in other spectra: the warp trail, for example.

Ok, where did you read this? there is no mention to such in the TOS era, The Enterprise travelled at warp 9 under cloak in after Kirk stole it in “the Enterprise Incident”. and as far as Scotty’s comment. he made that after Kirk’s inquiry as to whether the Enterprise could catch them.

I liked your explanations for some things tho, very imaginative. Now I;m going to say the same to you, I”M NOT TRASHING ENTERPRISE, I LOVED IT

373. Harry Ballz - February 5, 2008

#370 Jabob Slatter “I need to stay away”

Jabob……please reconsider….we need your tempered judgement and wit to offset the blatherings of others. I, for one, appreciate your contribution.

To paraphrase Charlie X……”I want you to stay!” :)

374. RideOp1 - February 5, 2008

Well, we’ve totally gone off topic, and I’m not going to argue. My point all along has been that I hope Abrams doesn’t change things so much that it doesn’t appear like TREK anymore. we can debate all we want. we all know what they say about opinions. Abrams is going to do what he wants with it. Some people will like it, some people will not. what we say here isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference. all we can do is hope that he doesn’t totally ruin it, like have the Enterprise crash on a “LOST” planet no one can find with a hidden klingon bunker underground.

375. Xai - February 5, 2008

366. Harry Ballz – February 5, 2008
THX+Xai….what do you think, are we all getting short of temper and quibbling with the “knuckle-draggers” because we’re all antsy for more info regarding the movie?

Yeah, that must be it……….by the way, thanks Xai for trying to calm me down the other night……I appreciate it!

You are welcome Harry.

376. Dennis Bailey - February 5, 2008

#349: “#324-
1) I wasn’t talking to you.”

I didn’t ask, and don’t care. :)

377. COMPASSIONATE GOD - February 5, 2008

Questions (anyone can answer):

The new film–alternate “reality” from the TV/film universe?

Canon–if the film is set in the TV/film “reality” but J.J. has room to play with material in the franchise, is the animated series recognized?

378. COMPASSIONATE GOD - February 5, 2008

J.J.: “It won’t suffer from the problem that traditional prequels suffer from: that you know all the characters will live”

Actually, the most famous (recent) prequels were in the Star Wars series, and audiences were very aware that most of that series’ main characters would be dead by the end of episode 3.

379. Green-blooded-bastard - February 5, 2008

I bet old Spock dies to save young Kirk…

380. TJ Trek - February 5, 2008

The main characters must survive. I mean no trek lover in there right mind would go see a sequal to this movie with out scotty in it or without sulu in it. It just isnm’t trek if those core “crew characters” do not exspire. Has anyone thought that maybe we are talking about old spock here. This may be old spocks final curtian. Could be a cool thing.

381. TJ Trek - February 5, 2008

Also, look at LOSt. (Sorry to post again so soon.) It works partly because there is a willingness to kill people off for the sake of story not just for the sake of contracts

382. Iowagirl - February 6, 2008

So, there is no such thing as canon – but Abrams must stick to canon if it’s for the sake of the story?

Sounds…highly…illogical.

383. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

Abrams is reaching his goal: people and fans talk convulsively, hype is rapidly building up, speculations are on the run and this will be the most awaited Trek movie in years. A “sure win” scenario :-)

384. Admiral_Bumblebee - February 6, 2008

Dear Mr. Orci,

I hope that you are still reading this thread.
I believe that your intentions with this new movie are the best. You want to bring back the Kirk/Spock-dynamic, that is great and I also believe that it could be a great movie.
I am one of those guys that wants to have William Shatner in the movie as old Kirk (@ Anthony: This is by no means meant to hijack this thread. It is only an explanation).
I am not a Shatner purist, I do not watch Boston Legal regularly etc. But I remember the old TOS movies. I remember the relationship between Spock and Kirk/Shatner and Nimoy, all those great scenes they had together.
When I heard that William Shatner was approached by JJ Abrams, I got my hopes high up that we could see Shatner and Nimoy again one last time.
I didn’t like the way Kirk died in Generations and hoped that Star Trek XI could undo this pointless death, too.
Now it seems that William Shatner won’t be in the new movie. This is a big disappointment as I believe that he and Nimoy could together have some really great scenes in this movie which could only enrich it.
If you watch some videoclips on Youtube where Shatner and Nimoy are together on some con etc. you see the chemistry between them, how they interact and I believe that this could be so great in a new Star Trek movie.
The second concern is that this may be the last chance of seeing them together. Both actors are old and I also somehow have the feeling that old Spock is not going to survive the new movie (I hope that I am wrong) which would make it impossible for him to return in a second movie.

If the story of the movie is as I guess (Romulans travelling back in time, killing young Kirk, which results in an alternate timeline and Spock has to travel back in time to right the things that went wrong), then it is indeed a problem of including old Kirk into the movie.

If the Romulans wouldn’t be out to kill Kirk, but to destroy the whole planet of Vulcan in the past (so that the unification can never happen and the Romulan Empire would become the most powerful force in the 24th century – wouldn’t that be more logical?) this could lead to an alternate timeline in which Kirk could be alive in the future and could travel back in time with Spock.
As I said in another thread this could lead to some great scenes between the two as Kirk is realizing that Spock is about to restore a timeline in which Kirk is dead in the future.
One can dream… ;)

385. Battletrek - February 6, 2008

This a reboot then right? I don’t see how it cannot be if Abrams is talking about prequels sapping the story of danger. Who’s with me on this?

386. Commodore Redshirt - February 6, 2008

Re: 300. Dr. Image
“BTW- EVERYONE here should read Solow and Justman’s “Inside Star Trek.” One can’t really argue points regarding facts behind TOS without having read it.”

Agreed! It is the best book on TOS without question!

BTW, did you read it Mr. Bob Orci?

387. Iowagirl - February 6, 2008

#384
Same here. Orci decided to only refer to the “Kirk/Spock dynamic” in general, although I made it pretty clear in my post that to me this dynamic does not only include the young versions, but first and foremost the old ones, and a better ending for Kirk.

I respect Orci’s answer though and I didn’t expect him to elaborate further on this matter.

For me personally, the situation remains unchanged: 99 % pessimism and disappointment, 1 % hope – and dreams have always been an essential part of ST. ;-)

388. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

#385 “This a reboot then right? I don’t see how it cannot be if Abrams is talking about prequels sapping the story of danger. Who’s with me on this?”

Well, I am becoming convinced that, yes, this could be sort of a reboot explained by a robust storyline.
As I have already said, if this is done the right “Trek” way (and you know what I mean), a reboot is good for me.

389. Matty D - February 6, 2008

I don’t understand how anyone Trek fan can be pessimistic. I can understand uncertainty, but Trek has’t been this exciting in well over a decade.

390. sybok - February 6, 2008

Sec 31. and CanockLou had similar thought(s) as me, namely the point 1.
1. Hm, and what about this:
Nimoy travels back to find an alternate universe, convinces (via that ol’ logic) alt. Quinto to make it better and young alt. Spock dies in a process of setting intertwined parallel timelines back to the normal. The ‘our’ young Spock survives/ or he’s replaced by alt. (a la Harry Kim in Voygaer).

Killing off (original timeline) Nimoy’s Spock ‘d make me realy sad. The young alt. Spock dying in the hands of the old one sounds better to me than the reverse; the ‘wasted’ (sacrificed) potential of the young one is better than killing off the iconic character played by Nimoy!

2. Alternate timeline movie arc – please, don’t!

391. Laserlover2254 - February 6, 2008

It doesn’t have to be about Canon.

How about Continuity? At least focusing on various official and fanmade continuities (there are many).

392. johnny - February 6, 2008

RideOp1 well said!! I concur. I am a purist like Dave, and I am proud of it!!

393. Laserlover2254 - February 6, 2008

It doesn’t have to be about canon.

How about Continuity?

394. Laserlover2254 - February 6, 2008

Oops, it came after all.

Oops.

395. chrisfawkes.com - February 6, 2008

So i wonder who will die that has been signed to a three movie deal.

396. Sybok Amok - February 6, 2008

359: “Canon AND an alive older Kirk…. …Wow. I guess it’s ok when YOU bend canon, eh?”

All Trek with The Shat, including TAS, is canon. A revived mature Kirk would be canon.

With the writer’s strike almost over, lets hope JJ hears the global cries to bring back Shat & does the right thing.

For every single advocate seeking ‘rebooting’, there are millions awaiting the return of OUR James T. Kirk. The needs of the many..

397. The Councilman - February 6, 2008

You all missed what Roberto Orci said:

“and I’ve said before that we treated their relationship with the attention and respect worthy of Lennon and McCartney.”

It’s so obvious. Krik, Spock, McCoy start a 23rd century band. The real question is, who will be the drummer… Sulu, Scott or Chekov?

398. jonboc - February 6, 2008

#389 “I don’t understand how anyone Trek fan can be pessimistic. I can understand uncertainty, but Trek has’t been this exciting in well over a decade. ”

More like two decades…for me anyway. I’m more than ready for some fresh air!

399. Iowagirl - February 6, 2008

#397

Scotty, of course. And instead of that maddening Scouse accent, he will have that maddening Scottish accent.

And *that’s* the real re-imagination.

Or, as Lennon put it “Nothing is real”.

400. Alex Rosenzweig - February 6, 2008

#389 – I’m excited by the prospect of a new Trek movie. But that excitement is sapped by the prospect that that movie could signal the end of any further support, on film, of the Trekverse we’ve had for the last 40 years.

Admittedly, as I’ve said previously, I’m biased, and my love for Trek is rooted in its fictional world, not in any given set of characters. Something that changes that world, and alternate timeline explanations aside, we’re still talking about a change *in real-life practice, as an ongoing film series*, to the point that what has already been built for that world no longer matters, is, IMHO, a bad thing.

As I’ve said to Roberto, all I have to know is that that sort of change won’t take place, and I can be fully excited again. I don’t mind costume and production design evolutions, but the basic structure and history that we’ve already seen of the fictional Trekverse is, to me, very important.

401. dalek - February 6, 2008

But canon and changing the timeline are 2 different things.

If the timeline is changed it does not violate canon. It merely creates a new timeline. It’s not a violation of canon; it’s a new alternate path. It also doesn’t erase the previous one as Trek established in TNG Parallels that every decision made the opposite number of infinite possibilities is played out in multiple universes. So the original universe still exists…. check your DVD and video collection ;)

Captain Kirk’s life can still be saved no matter what thinking you verge on.

If you believe that a violation of the timeline is a canon intrusion: then by that very nature you concede that Kirk’s death was non-canon as he originally lived in that timeline until Picard went back and changed things for his own reasons. (its always okay for Picard Janeway etc to save their crew using time travel, but never for Spock and older Kirk hey ;) )

If you agree that changing the timeline is not a canon violation, then you can also respect that Kirk’s future can now change and he is not destined to die like he did in Generations.

Shatner is not crucial. Captain Kirk’s fate and life is the crux.

402. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

We are all right, tolerant fans, purists, canon fanatics. Some of us are ready to accept changes (me among them), others are tied to conventional trekverse. We all love Star Trek. Let’s give this new crew a chance. At Christmas we will have a totally new shiny Trek crafted to shock, amuse and delight us. Reboot? Revamp? Revival? We don’t know and we will not know until 12.25.08. So let’s keep an open mind and don’t bother too much about rumors.

403. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

The cancellation of “Star Trek Enterprise,” the change in leadership at Paramount and the disposal of most sets, props, costumes and other studio-owned paraphenalia related to Trek at auction “signaled the end of any further support, on film” for traditional Trek.

That was it. Check, please.

This is just what comes next.

404. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

#403 “The cancellation of “Star Trek Enterprise,” the change in leadership at Paramount and the disposal of most sets, props, costumes and other studio-owned paraphenalia related to Trek at auction “signaled the end of any further support, on film” for traditional Trek.”

This is a thing we must accept: Berman’s Trek has come to an end. It has failed and is dead. It is a matter of fact, not personal opinion. By “Berman’s Trek” we include a huge amount of modern trek lore so we must assume that every new Trek production will go in a different way in terms of mood, spirit, characters and background. IMO, a lot of the Trek as we know it will not be supported. Well, this may be very good.

405. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#404: “By “Berman’s Trek” we include a huge amount of modern trek lore so we must assume that every new Trek production will go in a different way in terms of mood, spirit, characters and background. IMO, a lot of the Trek as we know it will not be supported. Well, this may be very good.”

Agreed, though there ought to be a more accurate word for it than “Berman’s Trek” – much of the lore and detail that’s being revised or ignored goes back to TOS and to Roddenberry’s and Bennett’s films.

406. Sybok Amok - February 6, 2008

Definitive Star Trek canon = anything on film with The Shat as Kirk.

Harve Bennett & Nick Meyer saved TOS, Berman tried to destroy TOS (he truly despised it) by killing Kirk & now Abrams wants to re-envision TOS in his own image by dissing The Shat.

The TOS universe has been in peril since Shat was hoodwinked into doing Generations, now he wants to make it right. Lets honor The Shat’s gift to us & bring him home.

407. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#360–Obviously, the only “legitimate” beef you have, canon-wise, with ENT is your reference to TOS “Balance Of Terror”. Here’s the problem. Canon was never established in TOS until half way through the mid-season. It took that long before it was even decided how far into the future the show would take place. That episode also depicted the Earth-Romulan War as having taken place PRIOR to any warp technology and as using atomic weapons. Both notions were later dismissed by later TOS episodes. Is Zeprame Cochrane’s warp flight a canon violation as well?

The truth is, at the time of that TOS episode’s airing, there was no canon yet. If ENT is accountable to the information in “Balance Of Terror”, then so was the rest of TOS and First Contact. If that is so, then TOS itself is in violation of canon. It has been said many times (most notably by Michael and Denise Okuda) that different members of the production team had the years of the five year mission anywhere from 200-800 years in the future prior to the halfway point of the first season.

My points is, you cannot hold ENT or anything else accountable for canon that was yet to be established, otherwise, James T. Kirk is really James R. Kirk, Spock is completely comfortable with his emotions, Sulu is a physicist, and the Enterprise falls under the jurisdiction of the “United Earth Space Probe Agency”. Are you comfortable with that? I’m not. Canon is overrated, and completely irrelevant prior to the second half of the first season.

408. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#406—“Definitive Star Trek canon = anything on film with The Shat as Kirk.”

There is nothing which substantiates that. Who made you the guardian of Star Trek canon (which was never even established until halfway through the first season of Star Trek)?

“The TOS universe has been in peril since Shat was hoodwinked into doing Generations, now he wants to make it right. Lets honor The Shat’s gift to us & bring him home.”

We all know that is your agenda, but fortunately, you are not in charge of the Star Trek universe!
“The Shat’s gift to us”?
Give it a rest, will you?

409. AP - February 6, 2008

#407:

Very well said. I find it ironic that TOS-purists have been unleashing so much venom towards Enterprise and the new movie for violating canon, when TOS was BY FAR the worst offender against its own canon. How can you criticize Enterprise or Abrams for slight variations from canonical details from 40 years ago when TOS couldn’t even stay true to canon from one week to the next at the beginning of the series?

410. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

#407 “Is Zeprame Cochrane’s warp flight a canon violation as well”

Zephram Cochrane is a canon violation by himself in First Contact ;-)

411. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

No, Cochrane in “First Contact” *is* canon.

#406: “Definitive Star Trek canon = anything on film with The Shat as Kirk.”

Dude, it’s not even working as parody or trolling any more. Give it up. ;)

412. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

AP, READ MY LIPS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I LOVED ENTERPRISE, WISH IT WAS STILL ON THE AIR, I CAN’T MAKE IT ANY PLAINER THAN THAT. All I’m saying is that Berman/Braga missed a great opportunity. But Berman was always all about Berman. The Torch would have been better passed to Harve Bennett.

CLOSETTREKKER, you seem to think you are the reigning authority on canon and everything else. this forum is about opinions. these people have the right to state their opinions just as you do yours. However most of us don’t berate the other posters with tone and demeanor. what I say on here doesn’t mean shit, just like what you say doesn’t mean shit, and is not going to influence what Abrams and Orci do in this film. We are either going to like or not………….get over yourself

413. Dr. Image - February 6, 2008

I find it ironic that everyone unleashes so much venom at so-called purists at all. What’s your problem??
SOMEONE has to keep track the things that make the Trek universe whole.
Moreover, when you bash purists, it goes against the whole philosophy of what Star Trek represents.
Just how does THAT make you look?
(Oh, yeah, you probably don’t care…. then WHY are you here??)

I’m looking forward to this movie because from the info I’ve assembled, there is every indication that they’re going to do it right and give us a worthy chunk of Trek future history that makes sense- even for purists.

414. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Dr. Image……….APPLAUSE……….well said sir. I always wonder the same thing. So many people come in and totally bash Purists. I’m a 1st Generation Trekker. 09/08/66. I’m not ashamed of that, or of being a Purist. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

“(Oh, yeah, you probably don’t care…. then WHY are you here??)

Well some people just need to express their pompous selfimagined superiority.

415. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#413: “SOMEONE has to keep track the things that make the Trek universe whole.”

No, nobody does.

It really doesn’t contribute anything to the success or enjoyability of the Trek franchise for fans to nitpick and criticize what they decide are the filmmakers’ “mistakes” where continuity is concerned.

416. AP - February 6, 2008

#412: Umm, weren’t you just telling me to take a Xanax? I’ll save some for you. Looks like you need it more than I do. Look, I realize that you liked Enterprise, but thought that many opportunities were lost. But–lost opportunities have nothing to do with violating canon as you previously asserted.

#413 said: “SOMEONE has to keep track the things that make the Trek universe whole.”

Well, Gene Roddenberry didn’t (as the first half of the first season clearly demonstrates) so what makes you think you have to? The funny thing is that Berman’s Trek honored canon a whole lot more than Roddenberry’s did (cf. #407 for proof).

417. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#412–I am sorry to offend you. That was never my intention. Nor was it my intention to berate you or paint myself as superior. We probably agree on alot more Star Trek topics than not. I hope you will not continue to feel as if you need to be defensive, as I am not your adversary. I am just a fellow Star Trek fan with another one of those “opinions”.

418. Doug L. - February 6, 2008

If old spock dies in the past, it sets this new generation off as the new timeline. This is fine with me… If old spock lives and returns to the present… i bet we get a little shatner cameo at the end. This is also fine with me.

Doug L.

419. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

#411 “No, Cochrane in “First Contact” *is* canon.”

So the new movie will be canon. Question settled. Next one? ;-)

420. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Closettrekker; I wasn’t offended and I did not mean to come across so short. Most of us are here because we love TREK, plain and simple. Sometimes people can get a bit emotional about it, myself included. I appreciate your response, and I was a bit harsh.

As I said before, it’s all opinions here, and what we say will have no bearing or influence on what Abrams and Orci do. Hell if they read this stuff at all, they probably think we are all nuts with way too much time on our hands and are laughing about it.

421. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#415–Agreed. TWOK’s misrepresentation of the timeline is a prime example.

Khan mistakenly says, “On Earth, 200 years ago, I was a Prince…with power over millions.”

Well, not according to previously established “canon”. He was off by roughly a century. The film’s writers and the director obviously failed to catch that error.

It does not make me enjoy the film any less…

422. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#419: “So the new movie will be canon. Question settled”

Exactly so. This is the only definition of “canon” that matters. And “canon” does not mean “consistent.”

423. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#420–Hell, I think we’re nuts, and I’m laughing about it right now!

424. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#421: “Well, not according to previously established “canon”. He was off by roughly a century. The film’s writers and the director obviously failed to catch that error.”

Actually, according to “canon” as established by the original TV series he was off by at least a century and maybe by four – it all depends on which episode of the series you choose as a guide.

425. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

#422

Totally agreed

426. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

LMAO…………….as am i. maybe we do have too much time on our hands.

427. Harry Ballz - February 6, 2008

#406 “Shat was hoodwinked into doing Generations”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……………..

Oh, that’s rich! When the producers approached Shatner about appearing in Generations and held the cheque under his nose, he looked at it and squealed, “wow, the last time I saw THAT many zeroes was at a Star Trek convention!”

Hoodwinked…..yeah, right! How do any of us get “hoodwinked” like THAT??!! :)

428. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Ok, maybe i missed something somewhere. what is all this talk about an alternate timeline? was that leaked out as a factor in the film, or is this a group theory explaining Nimoy’s appearance?

Maybe this will be a situation like Dustin Hoffman’s film “LITTLE BIG MAN”. For those of you not old enough to have ever heard of it, He plays a very old man and the only survivor of the Battle Of Little Big Horn. He appears old in the beginning, and is being interviewed in present day. The entire film is flashbacks of his life leading up to and including Custer’s Last Stand.

Maybe Spock is being interviewed, or just feeling nostalgic, and thinking of the past. Hell he could be standing over Kirk’s grave on Veridian III. ofcourse I’m just spitballing here………..lol.

429. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

#406……………Shatner made a bad career choice in accepting the role and getting killed off, that is all there is to it. Read his book, “Star Trek Movie Memories” There are a million ways they could bring back Kirk if they chose to, This is Star Trek after all, Only “Red Shirts” stay dead forever. They just haven’t chosen to do so.

430. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#422–“…’canon’ does not mean ‘consistent’.”

I think it eventually became quite impressively consistent, given the vast amount of Star Trek on film we have today. It just did not become so until midway through the first season of TOS.

#424–I received your post as being supportive of our shared position, but I think we can all agree that it was eventually established that the TOS-era took place in the second half of the 23rd Century (the 2260’s), making him off by about 85 years (given his reference to 1996) by the time of TWOK ( Lest we confuse less thorough comment readers!).

Hard to imagine a genetic superman with a “superior intellect” being so imprecise, isn’t it?

431. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#428–I remember that movie well.

It is “just a rumor”, but apparently from a reliable source. It was a leak (solid info or not), so it is not a theory born of the nerdery, like so many others.

432. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

#430……………..”He’s Intelligent, but not experienced. Pattern indicates two dimensional thinking”

433. Trek Nerd Central - February 6, 2008

All this canon analysis is getting a bit Talmudic. I’m just curious: Is this a TV and movie franchise we’re discussing, or a religion?

If it’s a movie, excuse me for asking, but: WHY DOES IT MATTER if something’s a little bit different? Or is it heresy to ask? Tie me to the stake and light my toes on fire. . .

434. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#430: “I think it eventually became quite impressively consistent, given the vast amount of Star Trek on film we have today.”

Somewhat. Nonetheless, that’s not what “canon” means in regard to Trek and people get into arguments based on that confusion.

If two things have occurred onscreen in “Star Trek” and they contradict one another *both are still canon.”

Fans, including those who actually have worked on “Star Trek,” have spent a lot of time and energy explaining canonical contradictions away – it’s fun as long as one doesn’t take it very seriously (and the folks who are best at it, like the Okudas, are among the least troubled by it).

That said, throwing out something that appeared onscreen as “not canon” because it contradicts something else violates the definition of “canon” in regard to Trek. “Canon” and “consistent” are different.

It was eventually deemed that TOS took place during the 23rd century – while it became a widespread notion in fandom during the 1970s, it was first definitively declared to be so in either the first or second “Star Trek” movie – but the matter was never settled during the run of the original TV series. Roddenberry’s original, stated intention was to be purposefully vague about the time period…which probably had the unintended effect of allowing a lot of the contradictory statements from episode to episode to slip through.

It’s true, though, as you say that Khan’s estimate is contradictory *within* TWOK – at least, it is if his original time period is mentioned in that film as being the 1990s. I don’t remember whether it is, or not.

435. Trek Nerd Central - February 6, 2008

#433. I’m thinking I just mixed religious metaphors up there. Talmudic scholars never burned anyone at the stake, as far as I know.

436. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#433–Hard to tell sometimes. It is not heresy, I assure you.

437. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Thank You Closettrekker. If this is true, then all this debating over Canon means nothing. If it is an alternate timeline, Abrams can do whatever he pleases. I just hope it is explained as such in the film.

438. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

#434…………..TWOK begins with the statement on the screen “In The 23rd Century” Khan himself states the date 1996 when explaining who he is to Captain Terrell. But I’ sure you knew that……………lol

439. Ron - February 6, 2008

#404: “Berman’s Trek has come to an end. It has failed and is dead. It is a matter of fact, not personal opinion.”

Four films and some 17 years of televised episodes are under Berman’s belt. That’s a funny definition of “failed.”

440. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Ron……………..I agree, Failed is the wrong word. Dropped the Ball may be a better analogy.

441. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#439, 440—I think “ran out of steam” is a fair metaphorical statement. While I did not like alot of what Berman did, ENT actually began to “pick up steam” with Manny Coto getting involved later in the series. I would loved to have seen where that could have ended up.

Either way, Star Trek is where it is. Berman’s Trek is finished. Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and JJ Abrams are at the plate.

442. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#438: “#434…………..TWOK begins with the statement on the screen “In The 23rd Century” Khan himself states the date 1996″

I remember the “Late 23rd Century,” of course, but I didn’t recall any dialogue with sufficient certainty to cite it without consulting the script – just as I don’t recall whether the 23rd century is actually mentioned in ST:TMP.

I’m fairly sure that remember Decker referring to Voyager 6 as having been lost about three centuries before the events of the film.

443. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

ENTERPRISE had such potential. The 4th season showed where it could have gone. they really got back on track, and answered alot of questions. Too bad they didn’t get the chance to answer more. The Augment episodes and incorporating the Human Looking Klingons into that story. Explaining what happened to the TOS DEFIANT in the Mirror Universe. That was Good writing.

I must admit that I thought the Last episode was dreadfully disappointing. Putting Riker and Troi into it was totally unnecessary, as was Tripp’s death. Neither plotline added anything worth a damn to the story. TNG had their chances, putting them into ENTERPRISE was a really bad idea. I guess Frakes and Sirtis needed the work…..lol. Well there is 10 year gap from the last run regular episode, so who knows another film may fill those years, or better yet, ENTERPRISE could be brought back on the air…………………..Hey it worked for Family Guy………….lol

444. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

#439 “Four films and some 17 years of televised episodes are under Berman’s belt. That’s a funny definition of “failed.””

You know, life is cruel. People is often remembered for his failures than for his merits. Alas, the end of Berman’s Trek is sad and he is the one responsible for the ultimate departure of the franchise. The reasons have been exposed a lot of times on this site. I am not talking about the horrible TNG movies and the over-exposition of Trek in TV (17 years, omg!). I am talking about his Trek vision, that was much questionable.
Now Berman is no more. We will have to deal with a new Trek. This is a fact.

445. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

#442…………………Quote, Khan speaking to Terrell, “never told you how the Enterprise picked up the Botany Bay lost in space from the year 1996, myself and ships company in chriogenic freeze?” “On earth…..200 years ago, I was a Prince………………with power over millions”

However you are right about Decker’s statement about Voyager 6 being launched over 300 years ago. so what can you do/………..know what I mean?

446. ozy - February 6, 2008

#17:”Enterprise already butchered set design canon. there’s no one cosistent look for the 1701-A across three movies”

Refit is cannonical. ( but in different time periods in star trek time-line ).
But we all know hove ship and sets must look like in 2265-2270 time period ( TOS ) and in year where events from episode ”The Cage” are hapening.

447. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#445: “Quote, Khan speaking to Terrell, “never told you how the Enterprise picked up the Botany Bay lost in space from the year 1996, myself and ships company in chriogenic freeze?” “On earth…..200 years ago, I was a Prince………………with power over millions”

Oh, I believed you – I just wasn’t going to cite it myself as fact when I couldn’t be certain.

448. Harry Ballz - February 6, 2008

The easy answer for Khan’s verbal slip regarding the passage of time is….that he was a DUMMY! He bragged about being genetically enhanced, but it was only regarding his muscles! All brawn and NO grey matter!

Out of all the “supermen”, he was about as sharp as a pound of wet leather! There, that settles it! :)

449. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Agrees with #446 OZY……………………………….refits are canonical. ENTERPRISE’S bridge set was excellently done, and was adding to Canon, not breaking it. The Bridge sets of 1701 were refits. Bridge moduals are changable, that has been established over and over. I do believe that the Bridge set of the 1701 in the new movie should be atleast close to the TOS set, allowing for subtle changes to adhere with better technonology and realism. If anything they should just open up all of Roddenberry’s original nores and suggestions, See how he originally wanted to do it, budgetary concerns wouldn’t allow it at the time.

Well if this movie is alternate timeline, then all this is moot. Abrams can have a full wetbar with girls dancing on a pole if he wants. However that would have made 10 forward a better place…………….lol

450. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

I think we all accept the 23rd Century as the timeframe of TOS and the original movies. But all of this just proves there there is precedent after precedent for “correcting”, or “setting straight”, some of the inconsistent detail in TOS.

If the “alternate timeline” rumors are true, then Mr. Orci, Mr. Kurtzman, and Mr. Abrams are freeing themselves of the burden—whether that burden was ever justified or not.

If it is just intentional disinformation for the sake of uncertainty, as I believe the potential spoiler in this article was, then the “canonites” will crucify them for something—no matter what they choose to do. There will inevitably be a segment of the fan community that is unhappy, as there has been after each and every ST film ever produced, save maybe STIV.

The non-fanboy crowd thought TMP was too slow, and the canonites hated the Ruffles brand Klingons.

The canonites ripped STIII for introducing the “Bird Of Prey”(previously a term used to describe the paintings on a Romulan ship only) as a Klingon ship (how dare they show up in anything that did not resemble a D-7 battlecruiser).

Gene Roddenberry thought TWOK and STVI were too militaristic.

STV, well, that was just a piece of crap. I still rip that movie, and I still want my money back.

The question is, which faction will rip this one?

451. Boborci - February 6, 2008

RideOp1 – February 6, 2008
Closettrekker; I wasn’t offended and I did not mean to come across so short. Most of us are here because we love TREK, plain and simple. Sometimes people can get a bit emotional about it, myself included. I appreciate your response, and I was a bit harsh.

As I said before, it’s all opinions here, and what we say will have no bearing or influence on what Abrams and Orci do. Hell if they read this stuff at all, they probably think we are all nuts with way too much time on our hands and are laughing about it.

A: Not true. Comments here do and have had an influence…. and we read everything.

452. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Harry #448, that was a good description of every member of the NFL, and professional Wrestling, however it is entirely inaccurate when describing Khan.

Lets see, he was in suspended annimation for 200 years or so, and spent one day reading the Technical manuals on the TOS Enterprise, and knew how to control the Engineering section. then 15 years later, he learned in a matter of hours how to helm the Reliant, and Operate the Genesis Device……………….nah, this guy had no grey matter there

453. John from Cincinnati - February 6, 2008

In Leonard Nimoy I trust.

454. Boborci - February 6, 2008

Paul Fitz – February 5, 2008
I cant wait for this movie!
Thats all I wanted to say, no snipes about Kirk, Canon, The big E, Spock…… nothing.
I do want to say that its really cool of Roberto Orci to come here and converse with the fans.
*Ireland is wetter than an otters pockets at the moment*

A: Stay dry and thanks.

455. Sybok Amok - February 6, 2008

450: “STV, well, that was just a piece of crap. I still rip that movie, and I still want my money back.”

FX issues aside, STV is the purest TOS film, the only one to focus on the Kirk/Spock/McCoy bond which is the soul of Trek. Even Frakes has said TNG failed in creating the sense of friendship & family that TOS did so well.

Re: Canon
Abrams wants to inject Doctor Who into Star Trek. Squirt a little Tardis-like Windex on the movie screen & wipe away 42 years of canon.

456. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Not Meaning to sound Ignorant, but if this really is Bob Orci, pleasure to meet you. I posted this previously, #348. how does this sound as a torch passing of sorts?

“I think a fantastic openning scene would be Jonathon Archer witnessing or christening the Launch of 1701. Archer’s Bio says he lived to see the construction and launch of the ENTERPRISE-1701, and died of natural causes shortly after. I think that would make a great scene. then fade out and bring it up to the time of Kirk. similar things have been done before, and worked well. EXAMPLE – Dr. McCoy walking with DATA after touring the Enterprise D in the TNG Pilot.

Hey Just a thought, I’m no writer, if I was, i’d be walking a picket line……….lol.

457. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Oh God………….say it isn’t so about Abrams injecting Dr. who into this film. if so, what’s next, mentioning Moon Base Alpha?

458. Dr. Image - February 6, 2008

#415- (keeping track of the Trek universe)
Well, the Okudas keep track. Drexler, Sternbach, and the people from the inner circles DID. So did Richard Arnold. The so-called purists? Let ‘em nitpick. It ultimately makes the “franchise custodians” aware of what they’re dealing with and HELPS them do their jobs, inspite of any misgivings.
Soon, we’ll have “new canon.” Like I said, if someone didn’t like Archer brandishing an Art Asylum phaser in ENT, too bad.
Canon? yes. Consistent? No.

459. Anthony Pascale - February 6, 2008

BobOrci is indeed Roberto Orci,
co-writer/exec producer on Star Trek. co-writer of Transformers, exec producer on “Jack of All Trades” and the 35th most powerful Latino in Hollywood (according to the Hollywood Reporter)

460. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

thanks Anthony, i WAS aware of his credentials.

If Dr who is going tio be injected into this, will there be a copy of the “Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy” in a glove box on Kirk’s chair?……….lol. may as well throw all the cult following stuff in there.

461. Boborci - February 6, 2008

Gene – February 5, 2008
Mr Robert Orci:

Curious……

Did you think the Star Trek “canon” issue would be such a bone of contention for so many fans when you took on this project? What is your view on the importance or lack of importance of canon?

A; I had no idea — was completely surprised….

Just kidding. I was 147 percent sure it was going to be a MASSIVE deal. As i’ve said before, Trek fans are among the most savvy in the world, and since Damon and I humbly consider ourselves fans as well, all we had to to was look at each other to know that it was going to matter A LOT.

Canon is part of the DNA of our story. If you know your Trek, your knowledge will not be wasted. If you don’t, if won’t prevent you from entering this amazing world that’s been taken care of for over forty years by the fans. What other franchise has as distinct and established phenomenon as to have a name (Trekkie, Trekker). Even mainstream media covers the Star Trek fan base. There are no SPIDERMANNERS or PIRATERS, or SUPERMANNIES.

Trek belongs to all of us. I see canon much like the constitution. It is living document, but it has some principles that are iviolable.

462. Boborci - February 6, 2008

correction:

ivioable= inviolable

463. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

# 457—Pay no attention to the agenda peddling Sybok, who is once again, running amok.

His criticisms of the film are based solely upon his disappointment in a certain casting ommission. He will never give this film a chance, no matter what.

464. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

Re; Boborci

I Like This Guy. I also hope you see that my sarcasm is meant in fun and not to berate you.

Paramount takes this franchise seriously, so I believe that they wouldn’t leave it in the hands of people not capable of producing a good piece of work. I do believe that Mr. Abrams and Mr. Orci’s past work speaks for itself, and i look forward to seeing their vision of something that we all obviously care a great deal about

465. Captain Robert April - February 6, 2008

Explaining away inconsistincies can be a fun pasttime (I even managed to work out explanations for all the gaffes in Generations, in order to bury the hatchet with Ron Moore), but there are limits.

Most of the screwups on Enterprise can be squeaked by, but stuff like having the Romulans and others capable of cloaking while, a century later, Kirk and Spock discuss the whole thing as theoretical, really reaches the breaking point (and, I suspect, is when a lot of fans started tuning out). Having the Borg and the Ferengi show up, and somehow escape unidentified, only made things worse.

I can’t comment on the third season since I boycotted that one.

What Braga did to the Vulcans was nothing short of criminal, especially with regards to mating rituals and mind melds (I got a chuckle out of T’Pau’s explanation to T’Pol that she’d been lied to; clearly, Manny Coto, along with Judy and Gar Reeves-Stevens hit a brick wall on that issue and just had to squish the matter on one swift stroke: they lied, here’s the real story). In fact, the bulk of the fourth season seemed to be more damage control than anything else, trying to at least go out with as much of the record fixed as possible before the axe fell.

Which brings us to this upcoming film.

While I’ve seen a few tidbits coming over the wall that indicate that this might not be the disaster I’ve been fearing, I’m still not exactly ready to go stand in line for this thing. And if I have to engage in another round of pretzel logic to make it all fit, I may still wind up sitting this one out.

466. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

Mr. Orci,

What is it about this project that you feel will draw a new and broader audience to Star Trek? Is it something different about the story and how it will be presented in this film, or is it just in the marketing approach?

Are we going to have to watch TOS in a different light after seeing this movie? I hope that question is vague enough for you to feel comfortable answering.

467. Captain Robert April - February 6, 2008

My advice is forget about the casual nonfan. They won’t be interested in this thing anyway.

Rather, concentrate on their Trekkie friends, who will drag their mundane asses along with them to see it.

468. Iowagirl - February 6, 2008

#401

I think you’re right regarding timelines. With different timelines or changing timelines you have various possibilities to give old Spock the chance to save old Kirk without “violating” anything, or Kirk’s resurrection would in fact be a “correction” of canon.

However the creative team’s decision may be, I believe that old Spock would never miss the opportunity to save old Kirk as he would never fail Kirk, the sine qua non for the Kirk-Spock dynamic.

469. Boborci - February 6, 2008

Closettrekker – February 6, 2008
Mr. Orci,

What is it about this project that you feel will draw a new and broader audience to Star Trek? Is it something different about the story and how it will be presented in this film, or is it just in the marketing approach?

Are we going to have to watch TOS in a different light after seeing this movie? I hope that question is vague enough for you to feel comfortable answering.

A: I believe that we are the lucky recipients of 40 years of Trek school, No one who came before us had that benefit. As a result, we’ve had the opportunity to learn (hopefully) what is essential and wonderful about Trek and to distill it into its most potent from yet. Additionally, the technology and budget available to us will also allow us to realize a vision of Trek that will hopefully be the most “real” ever.

Also, by approaching it to some degree as a “prequel,” we get to make the case to new viewers that this is the time to jump into the Trek universe and find out why the rest of us have loved it for so long.

As to the question of wether or not you will view TOS in a different light, my sincere hope and belief is that it will enhance it. That’s the goal, anyway. As always, our success or failure will be entirely your judgement.

470. Captain Robert April - February 6, 2008

Something I forgot to mention in my bigger post regarding canon (personally, I hate using the term, but it’s fewer keystrokes than “established continuity”, and I think I’m developing carpal tunnel syndrome, so….)

There’s more to be concerned about than violating hard canon, there’s also the matter of credibility. Y’see, audiences will generall accept things that are patently impossible, but the highly improbable is where you’re probably gonna lose them.

Example: Will Smith’s “Wild Wild West” movie.

A giant mechanical spider in the 1870’s? Sure, why not?

A black Secret Service agent in the 1870’s? BZZZZZZZZZZZT! While a case could be made, and an interesting movie made, for such an occurance, that agent would not resemble James West in any way whatsoever.

And it’s in those areas of credibility, and the lack thereof, is where a lot of the perceived canon violations on Enterprise fall. Borg and Ferengi coming across humans in the 22nd Century? Sure, it could happen, both races were spacefaring at that time, and there is the possibility of Borg wreckage from “First Contact” (although that makes Picard and crew inexcusably sloppy to not make sure they got everything before returning to the 24th Century).

But Archer and Co. not managing to at least get a name before they disappear into deep space? What kind of idiots does Starfleet put in charge of their ships? Apparently the same kind that don’t bother to make a note that the Romulans have cloaking capability, along with several other races, so that other captains in later years will know that it’s an established fact, and not “theoretical.”

And THAT is where the real danger lies.

Sure, you can maneuver yourself through the canon minefield, but if you look like an idiot while doing so, you really haven’t accomplished much.

471. Talosian Master - February 6, 2008

Where did my first post go? Don’t mess with me….from deeper in your mind there are thoughts that are more unpleasant.

472. Captain Robert April - February 6, 2008

^ No!

NOT RERUNS OF “WEBSTER”!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUGH!!!!!

473. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

Boborci:

I gotta admire the way you come in here and wade through the canonfire to discuss the movie. It’s good to know you guys care so much about this project and what the fans think.

And I could totally accept Chris Pine in a mini. Really.

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

474. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#465—You apparently missed the earlier discussion. Especially since you mention “Balance Of Terror”, you really should put your inconsistency issues in perspective. Canon was not established until the midway point of that first season. Nearly every bit of detail in those episodes has been “corrected”, and the vast majority of it was done long before ENT.

The United Earth Space Probe Agency is now Starfleet.
James R. Kirk is now James T. Kirk.
Sulu is not a physicist.
The transporter console is not identical to the helm.
Warp capability was achieved by humans in the latter half of the 22nd century.
22nd century starships did not defend themselves with atomic weapons.
Spock is not comfortable expressing his emotions.
TOS is not set 800 years after the 20th century.
Khan and his people did not sleep for a mere 200 years.

There is more than enough precedent to excuse ENT for disregarding some of the minute detail in early TOS episodes. TOS did it in later episodes, as did every other incarnation of Star Trek. Why do you hold ENT to such a different standard?

475. Iowagirl - February 6, 2008

#473
– And I could totally accept Chris Pine in a mini. Really. –

For the sake of continuity they should go for high heels. :)

476. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#470–You said,

“What kind of idiots does Starfleet put in charge of their ships? Apparently the same kind that don’t bother to make a note that the Romulans have cloaking capability, along with several other races, so that other captains in later years will know that it’s an established fact, and not theoretical.”

This is what I am speaking of in post#474. They obviously would report it. You mentioned Spock’s remarks about cloaking capability being “theoretical”. That minute bit of detail is no different from Khan saying that he was on Earth 200 years before the 23rd century, and then saying that he left in 1996. It is disregarded, along with all of the other minutia mentioned in my previous post. Disregarding inconsistent detail from early TOS episodes is nothing new. If you say that ENT failed to keep consistent with those episodes, then so did the rest of TOS, the original movies, and everything after. Why does everything else get a pass, while ENT is somehow held to the flame in your mind?

477. Dr. Image - February 6, 2008

Re: #461 Boborci-
Anyone with concerns should make sure they read his post.

THIS time, it really seems we have a team in charge who respects things- and us.

478. OneBuckFilms - February 6, 2008

475. Are we talking about James Kirk or Bugs Bunny?

I’m confused ;-)

479. OneBuckFilms - February 6, 2008

Boborci,

Thanks again for getting involved here.

Seeing the Enterprise being built in the trailer was really great, and I’m drooling on my keyboard at the thought of seeing her completed and flying.

I was wondering, any idea as to how soon we’ll get a good look at the new Enterprise and/or Uniforms? You know, publicity shots and the like?

Or is this going to be a big surprise when the movie is released?

I haven’t been this excited about a Star Trek movie since Star Trek VI.

480. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

#475

I might pay good money to see that!

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

481. Iowagirl - February 6, 2008

#478

To be precise, we are talking about a re-imagination of James Kirk. :-)

482. Boborci - February 6, 2008

OneBuckFilms – February 6, 2008
Boborci,

Thanks again for getting involved here.

Seeing the Enterprise being built in the trailer was really great, and I’m drooling on my keyboard at the thought of seeing her completed and flying.

I was wondering, any idea as to how soon we’ll get a good look at the new Enterprise and/or Uniforms? You know, publicity shots and the like?

Or is this going to be a big surprise when the movie is released?

I haven’t been this excited about a Star Trek movie since Star Trek VI.

A: Soon. Not being coy, just know we haven’t locked down the schedule for some of these promotional releases.

483. Ron - February 6, 2008

#444: Perhaps, but I’m still having trouble understanding how you can judge a 17 year series run and four feature films (three of which were financially successful) as a failure based on mismanagement in the final few years. Depends on one’s point of view, I guess.

484. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#483–I have always been a TOS fan. TNG–not so much. VOY–not at all. DS9–towards the end, it was very entertaining.

The only work of his which I had a genuine appreciation for was ENT (once I got to see it), but the longevity of his work speaks to its overall success and popularity, even if that popularity was waning at the end.

I think the franchise is in capable hands now.

485. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#480–So would my wife’s brother, but I’d keep my ten bucks!

486. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

I think I upset Mr. Orci, he didn’t comment on any my posts to him.

I agree with Closet, I loved TOS, TNG, not so much, VOY, had it’s moments, and DS9 was ok toward the end. ENTERPRISE was a great work. The ship design was great for the period, the set design was very good, and the characters were good. However Malcolm Reed got on my nerves at times. The Archer, T’Pol, Tripp Dynamic was reminiscent of Kirk, Spock, McCoy. They gave Family Guy a 2nd Chance, Lets see Enterprise come back, and fill that 10 year gap. I know, I know, ain’t gonna happen, But maybe Mr. Orci can mention it to Mr. Abrams……….lol.

487. Crusty McCoy - February 6, 2008

Roberto,

I don’t know if you can answer this but when you and your partner wrote the script for Star Trek did the story “flow” or were there a lot of stops and starts? Maybe I’m not phrasing the question right. I know it wasn’t easy, but did it “click”? Aw hell, I don’t know what I’m asking.

Good luck with the film, I’m really hoping this is the one.

488. Closettrekker - February 6, 2008

#486–I thought he did comment on one of your posts (the one about whether they read and apply our thoughts to theirs).

Anyway, a new Trek series will only be viable, IMO, for Paramount if this movie is successful in drawing new fans (although I continue to contend that if ENT had been shown on a broader platform than UPN, it would still be on).
My ideas for new Trek are as follows:

A mini-series depicting the Earth-Romulan War

A post TOS-pre TMP film series

A post TMP-pre TWOK TV series

A post STVI-pre TNG TV series featuring Sulu’s Excelsior

another featuring the voyages of the Enterprise-B

still another (perhaps Enterprise-C or another new “original” ship) that follows until the 78 year gap between STVI and TNG is closed.

What do you think? Too much?

489. RideOp1 - February 6, 2008

nor at all Closet…………all good ideas. I’m sure George Takei would jump at that chance, hell, Chekov could even be his 1st officer. Tho I was never crazy about the Excelsior Design, Sulu’s voyages would be very cool.

The Earth/Romulan wat would also be a cool MiniSeries, they can use the Captain Styles mentioned in Balance Of Terror.

Here’s a thought………….Alternate episodes between the Enterprise B, and The Excelsior………..like Law & Order CI

However, given the choice of all mentioned, I’d love to see ENTERPRISE given a 2nd chance, however improbable that is.

490. Alex Rosenzweig - February 6, 2008

#403 – But that’s not what Abrams and Co. said at the outset of development for this film. They told us that it would “respect and embrace” continuity. The questions become: Was that a lie? If it’s not, then what are they doing? And if it was, why didn’t they feel they could tell us the truth?

#409 – “How can you criticize Enterprise or Abrams for slight variations from canonical details from 40 years ago when TOS couldn’t even stay true to canon from one week to the next at the beginning of the series?”

Slight variations won’t bother me. Throwing out general continuity will. Just that simple.

#413 – “I’m looking forward to this movie because from the info I’ve assembled, there is every indication that they’re going to do it right and give us a worthy chunk of Trek future history that makes sense- even for purists.”

I’m certainly keeping fingers crossed that you’re right. And to be fair, much of the available data suggests just what you say.

#422- “And “canon” does not mean “consistent.” ”

Bingo, Dennis. That’s why I don’t use the term. I prefer “continuity” or “fictional universe”, which is a more precise terminology for what I am interested in. :)

#461 – “Canon is part of the DNA of our story. If you know your Trek, your knowledge will not be wasted. If you don’t, if won’t prevent you from entering this amazing world that’s been taken care of for over forty years by the fans.”

See, it’s things like that that do make me feel more excited. But at the same time, since alternate universes are (as various folks have noted) very much a part of the canon of Star Trek, it does still beg the question… Plot details aside, is the ultimate result of this new film a “branching continuity” (all variations within the context of the story allowed for ;) ), or does it remain in the same continuity at the end, fully realizing that the 2008 *portrayal* of said continuity may be somewhat different than the portrayal in the late 1960s? (I know, I must sound like a broken record at times. Sorry, but I gotta ask! :) )

“Trek belongs to all of us. I see canon much like the constitution. It is living document, but it has some principles that are iviolable.”

I think that’s a fair statement. Certainly there have been reinterpretations a-plenty over the years…

#474 – “The United Earth Space Probe Agency is now Starfleet.”

One of the deftest bits of continuity-fusion in all of ENT came near the end, and is likely the work of the ever-to-be-praised Art Department, through which it is established that the Earth StarFleet started out as a component of the United Earth Space Probe Agency. And with that, a number of things from early in TOS suddenly seemed to fit in a whole lot better.

491. Red Shirt - February 6, 2008

Roberto,

I know you are on the road, but can you share a little of the status of filming? Yeah, I know you are about 2.5 months away from the wrap of principal photog, but I am curious to know what is going on say, this week, or last week.

That shouldn’t prove too spoilery, right?

PS. Are you viewing dailies of STCero on the road?

492. Red Shirt - February 6, 2008

Another question, since most helmers don’t have it, I think I already know the answer, but does J.J. have final cut on this picture? And, so I won’t beat you to death with this query any more, do you know what he is shooting on? Technical minds want to know! :)

Gracias.

493. AP - February 6, 2008

#490: “One of the deftest bits of continuity-fusion in all of ENT came near the end, and is likely the work of the ever-to-be-praised Art Department, through which it is established that the Earth StarFleet started out as a component of the United Earth Space Probe Agency. And with that, a number of things from early in TOS suddenly seemed to fit in a whole lot better.”

Yes, exactly! Enterprise was filled with all kinds of beautiful little things like this. That’s why it’s so ironic that Enterprise is criticized for violating canon of all things. Enterprise went out of its way to fix many of the numerous canon violations made by TOS (which somehow get a free pass from criticism). Enterprise was a brilliant show that never got a fair shot from the studio or from the fans.

494. PaoloM - February 6, 2008

#483 “Perhaps, but I’m still having trouble understanding how you can judge a 17 year series run and four feature films (three of which were financially successful) as a failure based on mismanagement in the final few years. Depends on one’s point of view, I guess.”

It’s surely a matter of point of view. I liked TNG very much but the following productions showed us that Berman was departing from the original roddenberrian spirit to create his own Trek. I consider DS9 an anti-Roddenberry TV series. Voyager was, IMO, very hard to watch and Enterprise had heavy story arcs that didn’t match at all with the spirit of TOS.
The movies, well, in my humble opinion they were direct TV to screen transpositions. Nothing new under the sun, nothing really exciting. Low profile productions. First Contact is enjoyable but it’s nothing more than an action movie.
People got bored and Berman never realized that Trek was in agony.
So, in my opinion, Berman failed.

495. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#455: “Re: Canon
Abrams wants to inject Doctor Who into Star Trek.”

After three seasons of loving Russell Davies’ version of “Doctor Who,” I’m hoping that we get so lucky with Abrams’ “Star Trek.” :)

496. dalek - February 6, 2008

Bob Orci, I can feel the sexual tension between you and Iowa girl lol Just invite her to the premiere darn it. hehehe.

Just one question sir: If Paul McCartney was back in time do you think he’d save John Lennon from the bullet that killed him? ;)

#481 I’m somewhat concerned that older Kirk doesn’t seem to be cared about, probably because of his age, or because he was played by Shatner. It’s often ducked or evaded. Maybe they find the whole issue “delicate”. I would hope tho that it will be at least reconsidered should the strike end soon (Mr Orci’s just said that our opinions still have and have had much influence).

But I would hope they would consider the character equally important as they do Pine’s version. I definitely agree that Spock wouldn’t leave Kirk dead and he cares more about Kirk than any Starfleet rules you could name. I have massive problems from a logistic point of view with Spock saving a younger Kirk and leaving his best friend in the whole universe dead just because he’s older. Isnt that agist? lol Okay its convenient for the script maybe, but not Star Trek; not the characters we know and love. Save Kirk and THEN i will see the true Spock/Kirk dynamic in this movie.

I’ll get accused of being Shatner pro-active, but when it comes down to it, I care more about Kirk’s fate than I do Shatner playing him. Pine aged would work for me — I wouldnt feel any emotional attachment to him playing elder Kirk, but at least I’d get emotional satisfaction knowing the character escaped his horrible murder at the hands of the Berman era.

So this new “fate” quote of JJ interests me greatly. Could it be that there is a chance Kirk will escape his execution by a different direction? Chances are tho it will show an alternate timeline and the big reset button will be pressed. Then it would feel like a wasted opportunity. There may be some hope in JJs quote; but all hope i’ve had about Kirk’s ultimate fate when it comes to this movie has been shattered. And I care MASSIVELY about the character. He’s my hero. And my hero cheats death :)

#495 yeah and the single best moment of Doctor who’s revival in those 3 years:

The new Doctor coming face to face with a previous “deceased” older version of himself thanks to a time collision. Take note JJ ;)

497. Sybok Amok - February 6, 2008

Russell Davies honors Doctor Who canon, down to preserving K-9’s original 1970’s design. This is why the current Doctor Who is so is a success!

JJ wants to recreate Trek in his own image. Without canon & The Shat STXI will fail.

498. Dennis Bailey - February 6, 2008

#496: “yeah and the single best moment of Doctor who’s revival in those 3 years:

The new Doctor coming face to face with a previous “deceased” older version of himself thanks to a time collision.”

Oh, come on – there’ve been hundreds of better moments, particularly back in the Billy Piper/Christopher Eccleston days.

499. Sybok Amok - February 6, 2008

Perfect scenario for STXI: Chris Pine’s Kirk sacrifices his life to bring Shat’s Kirk back to life, just like a later regeneration of Doctor Who gave the gravely wounded Tom Baker the ability to become Peter Davison.

Fake Kirk gives us back The Shat, now that’s what fans will pay to see!

500. Xai - February 6, 2008

#499 Sybok

you just killed kirk a little earlier

501. Red Shirt - February 6, 2008

Hey, maybe it would be a nice bonus feature on disc two of STCero to spotlight Trek fandom, like those that inhabit this site!

Okay, in lieu of that, maybe Bad Robot can help a few of us with invites to a premiere, if not THE premiere.

A fella can hope can’t he?!??

Red Shirt out.

502. Harry Ballz - February 6, 2008

And all of this speculation is going to get MUGATU into the new movie… HOW? :)

503. Quarksbarteder - February 6, 2008

There were canon mistakes all over the various series and movies, lets just have a good time and watch what I am hoping will be a great movie.

504. Charles Trotter - February 6, 2008

#208

“Keep an open mind. You haven’t seen Pine’s legs.”

LMAOROFL!!!

505. Charles Trotter - February 6, 2008

ROFLMAO, even. :)

506. Litenbug - February 6, 2008

Old, old, old..

Someone explain how Kirk died at the hands of Berman and Co. and Shatner wasn’t involved. He’s not innocent in this. For Kirk to die in Generations, Shatner had to agree and the act the part.
I am tired of hearing how he’s owed a return. He bowed out voluntarily.
I would have been fine with NO original cast for this film.

Sybok, you can keep wishing, but your opinion is just that, an opinion… and one among many.

507. Mary Jane - February 6, 2008

#4 (Admiral_Bumblebee)

You wrote: “Either someone dies in ther alternate timeline or they are killing off old Spock, which I would find really bad.”

You’ve got it all wrong. That would be a great and really romantic thing: Spock dying where it all began, giving his life for his younger self’s future, for the future of his friends and comrades. That would in essence be the inverse Kirk, who “went forward” in time to pass the torch: his last moments in this universe were… well… not really well written and rather mundane. Kirk was lost in an unknown world, facing an unknown generation, dying a kind of unnecessary death, the “alien” relic Kirk in the TNG timeline of “Generations”. No wonder so many (including myself) dislike the fact that he’s gone: his passing was done completely the wrong way. But Spock going back to where it all began (where *he* began) and giving his life would be wonderful thing… really touching. However, I fear it would seriously p*ss off Shatner. (~_^)

508. t2 - February 6, 2008

wow, it’s early february and look what the anticipation is doing to us…who knows what this place will look like come november/december…although it is…fascinating! keep up the good work, j.j….it appears the fate of many is in your hands

509. OneBuckFilms - February 6, 2008

OT: Harry, do you have a brother named Shvettie?

510. Billy - February 6, 2008

I’m a huge Trek fan, I’m really not worried as long as JJ can bring life back to star trek. We have gone for a few years without any trek which to me is weird, because I am young and for as long as I can remember from the 80’s on there has been constant trek. I think JJ will do a great job, I am a huge fan of his as well, If any one here is a fan of Alias or Lost they would know how amazing his work really is. So I think in the long run, everyone is going to be surprised when the movie comes out, and almost certainly will be quite amazing.

511. John from Cincinnati - February 6, 2008

Let’s all be honest. None of us would be here discussing Star Trek if not for William Shatner. The second pilot never would’ve sold the series without him.

512. Ron - February 6, 2008

#494: “So, in my opinion, Berman failed.”

There’s the magic words I wanted to hear: “in my opinion.” Because it is indeed an opinion, not a fact. Berman failed in your eyes because YOU didn’t like what he produced. In fact, he spearheaded four successful TV series, turning one of them into a successful film franchise. That’s a pretty amazing track record for a TV producer. Someone else suggested that he “dropped the ball” and I certainly agree that mistakes were made with Enterprise. But an objective review of the facts does not support Berman’s “failure” — quite the opposite, in fact.

513. Alex Rosenzweig - February 6, 2008

#510 – “We have gone for a few years without any trek which to me is weird, because I am young and for as long as I can remember from the 80’s on there has been constant trek.”

The last couple of years have probably been a lot more jarring for you, Billy, than, say, for me. I first got involved with Trek during the First Interregnum, back in the ’70s. TAS was “the new Trek” at the time, and then we had 5 more years of nothing before TMP came along. And, really, Trek did pretty well, even then, because the fans were a committed bunch.

Today, even with the lack of new Trek from Paramount, we have it pretty good. There’s a new Trek “episode” every single month from Pocket Books; the comics have come back very strong. Some of our fellow fans are putting Trek stories on film, anyway, in the form of their own productions. Contrary to the bleating of some about how “Star Trek was dead”, the reality couldn’t be more different.

And look how lucky we are that we only had to wait a bit less than two years before another feature film was announced! We have it pretty good. :) The other big difference, of course, is that during the First Interregnum, we only had the 100 or so episodes (TOS and TAS). Now we have over *700* episodes of Star Trek, in five different TV series. One could watch Trek for about a month, 24 hours a day, before having to see anything twice. And with all the books, one could read for many more months before having to reread, as well. (And we won’t even get into fanfic. I’ve done well over a half-million words of Trek storytelling, myself, and I’m very much a lesser light in such things. ;) ) I wonder if having so much Trek has made fandom a bit complacent. There’s plenty of room to pick and choose which parts of Trek one prefers, and multiple styles of Trek to choose from. The one thing that sets Trek apart from so much else is that 99% of those 700+ hours of episodes and hundreds more books and comics are all set in the same fictional world, a gigantic, sprawling saga of the future with literally dozens of “jumping on points” for new folks and experienced fans alike.

I’m keeping fingers crossed that this new movie will provide another new “on ramp” to the world of Trek. I’m hopeful that the team doing the film “gets it”, and will do the whole thing justice. And I guess we’ll see what transpires.

#511 – I think Bill Shatner was great as Kirk, and that he truly made the role his own over many years. But whether he’s the only one who could have done it? Well, I don’t think we can ever know that for sure. There were quite a few talented performers in Hollywood in 1965, and if Mr. Shatner hadn’t been cast, we still might have had a successful Star Trek. It’d be *different*, of course, than what we know today, but to say that no one else could have done it seems to me just slightly presumptuous. More importantly, I think what we can be thankful for is that pretty much the entire regular cast of Star Trek, who had no idea that the show would become what it became, have stuck with it and supported it, whether they were asked to be part of newer productions or not, for all these years. For that they will always be appreciated.

514. Iowagirl - February 7, 2008

#496
– Save Kirk and THEN i will see the true Spock/Kirk dynamic in this movie. –

Exactly. And although I agree that saving Kirk is the Prime Directive, I still think that it would make no sense to resurrect Kirk and at the same time *not* include Shatner, especially not in the light of Abrams’ most recent statements. But, of course, we’ll have to wait and see.

#513
– But whether he’s the only one who could have done it? Well, I don’t think we can ever know that for sure. –

Same holds true for everybody else involved in ST. What we know for sure though is that all original actors, mainly Shatner and Nimoy, made their characters iconic and instantly recognizable archetypes which are embedded in people’s minds and which gave us the fundamental knowledge of their respective traits and development we have nowadays and which provide the basis for our discussions. I think we should concentrate on this ken instead of speculating about what other actors might have or might not have given us instead.

515. NTH - February 7, 2008

I guess it is fair to say that if a character dies in a prequel then there can be no future for that character just like Tasher Yar in TNG unless you hane a flashback scene or an alternate timeline type story.I really enjoyed the “Yesterday Enterprise “story,it was gutsy , emotive and re-introduced the viewers to a much loved character who had suffered an empty and unnecessary death.As a fan of all things Trek I am really looking forward to being introduced to the original crew and the Enterprise from the perspective of their origins.As fans I think it is fair to say that we invest a lot of time and emotional energy into Star Trek.This Approach to introducing and at the same time relaunching Star Ttrek gives the fans a unique opportunity to share with a new audience a story which will be new to both of us.

516. Ron - February 7, 2008

#511: Er…I’m not so sure about that. NBC’s objection to the first pilot, as I recall, was their infamous judgment of “too cerebral.” The second pilot sold because it was more action-oriented (without being “dumbed down” in any way). How much of the success of the second pilot can be devoted to Shatner’s performance is debatable, at least.

Bottom line is, no one who knows what they’re talking about is going to deny that Shatner’s excellent performance as Kirk is one of the primary components of Trek’s success over the years. (Until Generations, anyway — his re-imagining of the character in that film is best left unmentioned.) But this idea that many have that Shatner = Trek just isn’t correct. If TNG and the other spinoffs don’t prove the point, perhaps Star Trek: New Voyages (the closest thing to original Trek we’ve seen since the animated series) does?

517. Orci: Canon is DNA of ‘Trek’ : VulkonLIVE! - February 7, 2008

[…] You can find Orci’s original post at the talkback here. […]

518. DaveO - February 7, 2008

322. I AM THX-1138 – February 5, 2008
“…Making Trek’s violation of canon,canon.”

KIRK: (To Norman) Everything Harry says is canon. Remember that, Norman, everything Harry says is canon.

Norman turns to Harry.

HARRY: Now listen carefully, Norman…. (then, theatrical pride) Kirk’s middle initial is … “R.”

NORMAN:(desperate monotone) Canon states that Kirk’s middle initial is “T” but everything you say is canon and you say it is “R” which is in conflict with…

519. OneBuckFilms - February 7, 2008

518 LOL !!!!!

520. Joe - February 7, 2008

If they’re all in some parrallel or alternate universe, in which the history, time & place are all different, then why couldn’t they find a way to write the Shat in?

521. AdamTrek - February 7, 2008

Re 518

Tru dat. Canonites are getting a little too prickly for my tastes.

Imagine in this movie if every canon mistake we saw on screen becomes fixed or what has become canon because of this new film? Such as Nero’s time-scapades making the Romulan war happening later as it became established in Enterprise but originally happened earlier using atomic weapons as stated in Balance of Terror.

Or what if elder spock has to pretend to be a doctor at Jimmy Kirk’s birth to save Nero’s ploys to kill him and he gently nudges Kirks parents to give him the middle name Tiberius because they were thinking giving him the middle name of Roy . Spoke could say “Roy violates the space-time continuum as I know it to be, therefore it is only logical to name hime Tiberius”?

That would fix canon, and CBS digital can make more money off our @$$ and do another DVD remastered set with canon revisions.

522. AdamTrek - February 7, 2008

Re521:

Or not.

523. DaveO - February 7, 2008

521:

“Canonites are getting a little too prickly for my tastes.”

My sentiments exactly.

I grew up a TOS-obsessed teen, so this is an era of Trek near and dear to me.

When TMP came out, I was in heaven.

When TWOK was released, I was cheering with everyone in the packed theater…. and on, and on…

I love seeing creative filmmakers CREATE … do their stuff, excel in what they have chosen to do. Be it Wise, or Meyer, or Abrams … Bring it on! :)

Canon is a guide, but after that… well, trust.

Let the filmmakers boldly go.

524. Alex Rosenzweig - February 7, 2008

#521 – “Imagine in this movie if every canon mistake we saw on screen becomes fixed or what has become canon because of this new film? Such as Nero’s time-scapades making the Romulan war happening later as it became established in Enterprise but originally happened earlier using atomic weapons as stated in Balance of Terror.”

I think I understand what you’re trying to say here, but I also think you’ve got a couple of things backwards. ;) e.g., going strictly by the timeframe suggested in TOS, the Romulan War actually happened later than ENT suggests it might…though ENT actually says very little about the war itself. In other words, the details of said war are still very fuzzy, based on what Trek to date has established, and could easily be fleshed out without much contradiction. Had the Kerner/Jendresen project (ST: The Beginning) come to fruition, we would have seen more of those details.

There’s a great deal in the period just before TOS that’s equally fuzzy, which means the new film has a lot of room in which to be creative. This of course is the advantage of not trying to play in a very well-explored part of the Trekverse. (That TOS was episodic and didn’t have a tight story arc also helps.) It also leaves room for, as in #523:

“Canon is a guide, but after that… well, trust.

Let the filmmakers boldly go.”

525. Captain Robert April - February 7, 2008

I’m getting a little sick of Doctor Who being cited as an example of a successful reboot, because it is nothing of the sort.

Christopher Eccleston was the 9th Doctor, not the first in a rebooted continuity. William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, and Paul McGann still precede him in order of regenerations, and all those episodes are still a part of the Doctor Who “canon.” If the remaining surviving Doctors could whip themselves into shape, there could easily be a “Six Doctors” episode, and it wouldn’t violate anything.

The new show is certainly a revitalization of the franchise, but it’s not a reboot.

526. Xai - February 7, 2008

523. DaveO – February 7, 2008

Bravo! Best post I’ve seen in awhile.

527. Grown up a Trekky - February 7, 2008

I would love to see them somehow incorporate the remaining crew of Enterprise (great series, wish we had more, and they should of never killed off Trip, ended it with Riecker, and not shown us Archers big speech that set up the federation). Atleast they could give us some more T-Pol!! If they could work them in somehow, it might allow Archers crew a movie of their own, which I feel they deserved. But probably only us real trekkies would go.T-Pol is obviosly still alive at this time and probably still lookin fine! If you mess with the timeline, Trip is still alive. I dont know, i just feel bad for Enterprise, they didnt even get a good sending off episode, for what was the first crew ever! If they want to go back in time to stop kirk, why not archer? Kirk and Jean-Luc met, why not Archer and Kirk? They had so much they could of done with Enterprise that they could still use in a movie. Not to mention a familar cast that everyone seems to like, to introduce us to a new cast that will hopefully lead to more movies! I’ve never been on here before, but i think this is a great site. Sorry if i was rambling or somethin didnt make sense, just some random thoughts i had and was happy to find someplace to share them. Need a new series with T-Pol at the helm of an all girl vulcan ship, i wouldnt miss it!!! Thats where i would be if i were spock!!

528. Closettrekker - February 8, 2008

#497–No movie will fail just because they don’t get YOUR ticket money!

529. I Love My Mookie - February 8, 2008

It just seems that Shatner IS the star of Star Trek. TOS clearly says ‘starring William Shatner’. Would you revive Seinfeld & recast Jerry? Shatner is Kirk, why is there even a debate on this subject?

If J.J. Abrams doesn’t wish to faithfully honor TOS, then why go backwards instead of forwards? I think this is very disrespectful to Mr. Shatner, a man who at one point slept in his car because he was so heavily typecasted as Kirk. I think he deserves better in his golden years.

530. Orci fala do cânon de Jornada em chat com fãs « Startrekbr’s Weblog - February 8, 2008

[…] Um dos roteiristas do filme de Jornada nas Estrelas, Roberto Orci, voltou a ter um breve bate-papo com os internautas do site The Trek Movie. Orci respondeu questões a respeito da canonicidade da franquia e sua importância para a história do filme, além de dizer se ela se enquadrará ou não nessa nova visão de Jornada por J. J. Abrams. […]

531. Closettrekker - February 9, 2008

#529—Oh God, No!!!! Not another Shat-head!

What leads you to believe JJ does not wish to “faithfully honor TOS”? Because he does not wish to tell a story about ressurecting a dead man once again in a Star Trek movie?

Jerry’s show was called “Seinfeld”.
Star Trek was never called “Shatner”, nor was it ever all about him. He was not even Star Trek’s first star–Leonard Nimoy was.
James Kirk was captain of the Enterprise–not William Shatner.

Are you a Trek fan, or just a Shatner fan?

532. Ryan - February 10, 2008

#529 – Bad example. Seinfeld plays himself, Shatner does not.

533. Jovan - February 10, 2008

You guys freak out about the most asinine things, you know…

534. Ze Doctor - February 10, 2008

Maybe it will be an older Spock remembering what it was like in the good old days back at the Academy. Passing a tall tale on to some young Federation citizens. Just a guess.

535. Alex Rosenzweig - February 10, 2008

533 – Ahh, but as we’ve seen, “asinine” can very much be in the eye of the beholder. :D

536. Ukenuke - June 14, 2008

This is a “B” movie out of the gate. Basic crap. With all the millions, couldn’t even get an A-list star. The Hulk got Edward Norton. Iron Man got Robert Downey, Jr. The acting and the thoughtfulness of the writing make the movie. Star Trek gets who???? Wynona who? Chris who? Damned cheapskate, low-budget, mind-sucking hacks. Yes you Abrams. And why is Batman welding the Enterprise in the teaser trailer? (The guy with the arc welder.) I thought the Enterprise hull was supposed to be made of duranium. Sorry, you’re gonna need a bigger blowtorch! This whole project reeks. I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes straight to video.

537. Budget Spaceprobe 130 resources here! | Orion Telescope Reviews - May 7, 2009

[…] Abrams: Star Trek Not Traditional Prequel | TrekMovie.com […]

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