Orci Chats With Fans on Canon, Marketing and More | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci Chats With Fans on Canon, Marketing and More February 6, 2008

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

Yesterday we reported on JJ Abrams comments to the USA Today, which (as it so often does) kicked up a lot of comments from a lot of fans (500+ and still going). Luckily Star Trek co-writer and exec producer Roberto Orci dropped in to TrekMovie.com and answered many of the questions and took some more. Orci talked about mainstream v fan appeal, canon, publicity photos and more. For those that don’t dive into the comments, there are some excerpts below in easy to ready format.

The following are just a few of Orci’s recent comments in Q&A form, but read the full set of comments if you want to see it all.

——————————————-

Jim: 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.

Roberto Orci: 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.

 

Admiral_Bumblebee: 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 should have created his own characters, maybe have the story set in the future and not the past.

Roberto Orci: 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.

 

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

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

 

RideOp1 (to Closettrekker): Most of us are here because we love TREK, plain and simple. Sometimes people can get a bit emotional about it, myself included……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.

Roberto Orci: Not true. Comments here do and have had an influence…. and we read everything.

 

Gene: 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?

Roberto Orci: 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 do 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 inviolable.

 

Closettrekker: 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.

Roberto Orci: 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 whether 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 judgment.
 

——————————————-

TrekMovie.com wants to again thank Mr. Orci for taking time out of his busy shooting schedule to interact with the fans. And we wish you and the team the best of luck up there in Toronto shooting FRINGE (and the team shooting STAR TREK in LA the best too).
 

Comments

1. Sean4000 - February 6, 2008

I feel a little better.

2. Sean4000 - February 6, 2008

A knot in my stomach has losened, one down 345678432 to go.

3. Alaska Joe - February 6, 2008

First I suppose. That is all. Carry on.

4. Driver - February 6, 2008

I am a harsh critic. Come December 25th, If it’s not Trek, I will say it.

5. Big Rudy - February 6, 2008

I sure hope they do this right.

6. M. - February 6, 2008

I have a question. Where were you canon fanatics when that travesty ENTERPRISE aired? I mean if anything should have pissed you off it was that P.O.S.!

I am a fan of the Original too, but stop treating it as though it was a piece of the true cross. Star Trek needs to breathe, not suffocate under the expectations of the vocal minority of fans that see it as “Conform to Mr. Roddenberry or Die!”

To quote Mr. Shatner:

GET A LIFE!

7. Kobayashi Maru - February 6, 2008

Yawn!!!

8. nastrand - February 6, 2008

Hmmm, I wonder if (and when) they will be looking for extras for that Fringe project they are filming.

9. stephen - February 6, 2008

I like most of his answers but he kinda went around Admiral Bumblebees question. I want to know if this Trek will erase the timeline that comes after it. Prequels should set up the current material and fit together nicely with it. Could Mr. Orci please set us at ease about whether the timeline will be ruined or not?

10. Daoud - February 6, 2008

Gosh, I love it when “El Bob” uses something like “147 percent”.

If using the holy number 47 isn’t a big wink to Trek fen, I don’t know what is….

Thank you sir for answering yet more questions!

Perhaps it would be fair to ask this one now:

If Paramount decides to greenlight a subsequent movie, do you and “Special K” already have some ideas about what direction that story might take?

11. HunterRex - February 6, 2008

I feel confident that these guys know what they are doing. It appears that they are considerate of the existing continuity of the franchise, but are taking a little leeway to take advantage of the large budget against a low-budget TV series from 40 years ago. And if you don’t like the movie, so what. You still have the episodes and movies that you did like and no one will take them away from you. Canon needs to be taken a little less seriously by fans. If Star Trek is still around in 2065, do new movies or series still have to look exactly like the 1960s series from 100 years ago? Do you think Superman fans are upset that the movies don’t look like or fit into the continuity of the 50s TV show?

12. Valar1 - February 6, 2008

#9- why does the original timeline have to be “ruined”. If you still have the shows on DVD, still have the novels, the comics etc then what’s the harm in postulating an alternative take?

Look at the possibilities- if it’s good, then you have the old stuff and new adventures to look forward to because you won’t know how the story ends. If it fails then a decade or so later some Hollywood type will state that Trek failed because they screwed with the original timeline and he will make a faithful adaptation. We’ve already seen the latter scenario with Enterprise. Either way Trek fans win.

The only thing I’m concerned with is the thing sucking bad but still being faithful to the original, then no one will touch the original for a loooong while.

13. Scott - February 6, 2008

Was Jim Steranko a Star Trek artist from the 70’s?

14. johnconner - February 6, 2008

If the movie had new TOS-era characters, no one outside of the Trek cocoon would bother seeing it.

Widest range of audience = TOS characters. Widest range of potential audience = word of mouth plus reinvigorated familiarity with TOS characters.

In other words:
Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock = pop culture icons
Chakotay, Odo, Quark, April, Archer, Trip Tucker, etc. = NOT pop lexicon.

15. hitch1969© - February 6, 2008

The OrcSter returneth. Very cool.

I bet he drives a mac like sir JJ.

BEST!!

=h=

16. YUBinit - February 6, 2008

#1 Slightly better? Less maybe for me.

#11 So far just words. I for one will be waiting for a fan verdic here if this is all smoke up the backside to garner opening weekend totals. I don’t trust Paramount on this one wee lil bit. Look what they did up until now.

17. nyxtreme007 - February 6, 2008

I guess December 25 will be judgment day for JJ. He knows our loyalty to Trek. No one, no matter how great they are in directing, is above Star Trek.

18. steve623 - February 6, 2008

“Where were you canon fanatics when that travesty ENTERPRISE aired? I mean if anything should have pissed you off it was that P.O.S.!”

Where were you and how did you miss all the bitching, moaning, screaming and yelling over such things as the Ferengi and the Borg appearing in what was ostensibly a prequel to TOS? Because there was a LOT of bitching, moaning, screaming and yelling.

19. SteveinSF - February 6, 2008

#14-so true, I agree!

20. General Chang - February 6, 2008

I’m not and haven’t been as emotional about the whole canon issue as some other posters on this site. I’ve mostly just been excited to see new life breathed into the greatest mythos ever concieved (imho), and to none-the-less be helmed by some of the best contemporary story-tellers.

Thus, I don’t care about minor (or even some major) changes in asthetic if it adds to the story. And from the thoughtful and attentive comments of Roberto Orci, I’m confident these changes will add to the story and make for a great experience.

However, one uncertainty has really been tugging on me: will our entire concept and understanding of “the history of the future” still be relevant and “true” after this newest story is told? As a casual but devoted fan, this is very important to me. If everything I know will have to be adjusted after this movie, whether its actually a good story or not, I must admit that my enthusiasm for the franchise going forward will be tremendously lessened.

Roberto Orci, thank you so much for taking time to interact with us. In doing so you’ve convinced me time and again that the story you will tell will be both entertaining and truly great. But I really hope you’ve considered the importance of the so-called ‘history of the future’ to so many fans.

I really believe that you and Alex Kurtzman have done so, I just hope I’m not wrong.

21. steve623 - February 6, 2008

“Do you think Superman fans are upset that the movies don’t look like or fit into the continuity of the 50s TV show?”

No, but a lot of them were upset that “Superman Returns” didn’t more closely follow the Reeve-era films, which were referred to by the director as a “loose backstory”. So if people are going to get pissy over that, then how can you expect otherwise? Not everybody is anxious to see a beloved aspect of the original show wiped away or “re-imagined”.

22. HunterRex - February 6, 2008

Star Trek XI…The Next Frontier. These are the voyages of new Star Trek moviemakers. It’s next year mission..to explore strange new storylines..to seek out new fans and new audiences…to boldly go where no Star Trek movie has gone before!

Yeah, baby! Star Trek’s about to get its mojo back!

23. The Guardian of Forever - February 6, 2008

If they don’t do something stupid and screw up like Generations and Nemesis, I’ll probably like it if only because it’s Trek. But TOS is and always shall be the only real deal for me.

24. LordCheeseCakeBreath - February 6, 2008

I had a dream about the movie last night. The different design of the Enterprise was explained. and I was thrilled.

Believe it or not I do have a life!

25. Clinton - February 6, 2008

Thanks, Roberto. It’s nice to think of this as a surprise party…for me! :-)

26. Q - February 6, 2008

It’s funny, but I’m not all that worried about the film. If anything, I’m sure that *I’ll* love it.

I had a few convictions at first about how closely the canon would be followed in the new film, but that was quickly put to rest by the brilliant people behind this film. The fact that any of these people even bother to address our questions is amazing, so, yeah, not worried a bit. They know what their doing, I think. It’s going to ROCK!

Thanks for being ‘here’, Orci-san! You rock, too! ^___^

27. S. John Ross - February 6, 2008

#12: Your last paragraph sums up all of my remaining concerns as well. Thanks to this site I’m NOT worried about Abrams & company’s affection for Trek; I’m not worried about them being unaware of fan concerns; I’m not worried about the casting or the music or the uniforms or whatever. I care a lot more about spirit than canon so I’m safe there, since I believe that these guys appreciate the spirit. I’m not worried about the production values in the least; I’m not worried in any way that these guys aren’t sincerely attempting a great Trek movie to the best of their ability, plus or minus some bumps in the road from the writer’s strike.

I don’t worry much that it will actually suck. My lingering concern is whether it’ll simply be forgettable, disposable fluff (which in some ways would be worse than simply sucking). This remaining concern is rooted in my own ignorance of the creative team. Specifically:

I don’t know much about Orci & Kurtzman. As a result, I’m concerned because I’ve only seen one of their films (The Island) and just last week attempted to watch another (Transformers) but couldn’t get through it. But both of those were Michael Bay films, so it’s difficult to mentally strip away the direction and performances and try to see the words alone, and re-imagine them directed well (plus, there were others involved that may have nothing to do with the Trek project). I haven’t seen any of their other work at all that I know of. So, knowing so little and disliking what little I know, I’m left with negatives I’m willing to ignore, but nothing positive to put in their place. As a placeholder, I’m using Trek’s history on the silver screen, and overall it is not an encouraging history (and while I know it’s certainly not fair to hang that around the necks of newcomers … I just have nothing else yet to hang there).

I don’t know much about J.J. Abrams. As near as I can tell, he’s only directed one feature film before, Mission Impossible III, which I haven’t seen. I know of his other work only by reputation, and since so many people are involved in a long-running TV series I try to just ignore that stuff, since I have no sensible way of separating Abrams from the other responsible parties, let alone rumor from fact. Right now he seems most famous as the man Most Likely To Be Mistaken For the Director of Cloverfield. So, as above, I have a void and nothing happy to put in it.

Some of the rumors I’ve seen here have worried me, but every single fact I’ve seen here … every, single, one, has made me happy. Every solid thing I learn about this film has eroded all those other worries, so I have no concerns left except for the big one.

But I’ve still got the big one.

I remain hopeful. Eyes open, ears open, mind open, heart guarded. Just don’t suck, is all. Just don’t suck.

28. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

You know, on that new poll up the page there, I was torn somewhere between keeping past Trek themes/visions and just tell a good story. I actually want both. Canon, not so much that it interferes with creativity.

But what the hell. Principal photography is almost finished, and the movie’s going into post-production soon thereafter; so most of this is just moot, innit?

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

29. krusty the klown - February 6, 2008

star trek was dead. enterprise and nemesis finished it off. now we have new trek to look forward to , an alternate timeline with infinite storytelling possibilties, a huge budget, and a talented director. since robert wise, trek fans have never had this going for them.okay, that didnt turn out all that great, but i for one am grateful as all get out to this new team taking the franchise in a bold new direction.

30. Harry Ballz - February 6, 2008

#28 “moot, innit?”

There once was a gal named Moot Innit
She loved her Trek in a New York minute
Her passion was keen
Over a movie not yet seen
She was happy long as Spock was in it!

31. rebecca - February 6, 2008

“What other franchise has as distinct and established phenomenon as to have a name (Trekkie, Trekker).”

Ever heard of Whovians (Doctor Who fans, for all you who don’t know your British sci-fi)? Or BROWNCOATS???

32. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

#27: “Eyes open, ears open, mind open, heart guarded. Just don’t suck, is all. Just don’t suck.”

And you have just perfectly crystalized the thought at the back of every Trekkie brain here, ever since the movie was announced, into three simple words: “Just don’t suck.”

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

33. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

#30

Decent limerick, Harry! Iambic pentameter is *almost* satisfied!

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

34. James Jamziz - February 6, 2008

Filming in Toronto? Excellent. Good, great, perfect choice.

Well, this line for me was the most inspiring:

“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.”

I hope that means we’ll see aspects of the Trek universe that have only been explored in minor detail. Trek Politics, Trek institutions (expanded look at starfleet command and some of its branches perhaps).

Although Trek has ‘painted’ and image of these parts of the universe in mostly words, (for the exception of the few shots of starfleet academy and the presidents office we got in ST6 / Ds9) I’ve been really dying to see an actual look at that part of the trek universe.

For me as a fan, its all about seeing scope and scale. The federation is supposed to have billions of people, countless planets. Starfleet is also massive / formidable. I’d love to see this translated on screen.

Mr. Orci – I have faith that you won’t disappoint.

35. Harry Ballz - February 6, 2008

I’m glad to hear you’re “almost” satisfied….hope springs eternal! :)

36. Stanky McFibberich - February 6, 2008

I appreciate that the excerpts above included valid criticisms and/or concerns and not just the ‘rah-rah’ elements. I also appreciate that Mr. Orci took the time to address them. Whether or not others will agree with how they are addressed remains to be seen when the movie comes out.

I think it is wise to not take everything the production team says as being “everything is great” since they are naturally predisposed to talk up the movie in a positive way. The proof will be in the puddin’.

As for canon, to me the biggest issue with canon is the way the characters look, act, and sound in relation to the series, and with recasting that will be a tough one. Some will not even agree that that is an element of canon, but for me it is.

Some of the other canon issues I can be a little more lenient on, since it has been pointed out that some canon things were inconsistent even within the series. Although I enjoyed most of the movies based on the series, the things that came out in those and are now considered canon I am less interested in.

There seems to be a call by some folks to want to have references to the other Star Trek series, and for my part, I wish those would be ignored as much as possible. Apparently as Spock is to be shown to be his older self as played by Nimoy after or during the time of The Next Generation, there will need to be some accomodation for that within this story, but I hope not that much.

This may turn out to be an entertaining, well-made movie, but I will likely have a hard time with it not being what “Star Trek” is to me, which is the original characters played by the original actors. If (and that is a big IF) the design and style of the movie bear a reasonable and logical resemblance to that of the series era, that will help some.

37. Gary Seven - February 6, 2008

Mr. Orci-

I am open to changes with our familiar TOS, to a degree. And everything you have said so far has inspired confidence and trust in you-
except your response to “Admiral Bumblebee” regarding the question about the timeline. If the original TOS timeline is destroyed and TOS is no longer considered “real” or definitive (because a new timeline is established), I will be very, very upset. And I suspect I won’t be alone in that. I am not sure if you are able to say something about that, but it would be great if it could be addressed.

38. COMPASSIONATE GOD - February 6, 2008

Interesting interview.

39. Andy Patterson - February 6, 2008

As much as I appreciate Orci and others communing with us on the movie, as much as I’d love to know lots more . . .I don’t think they HAVE to tell us anything. Do we really need to know all the little secrets? It’s nice to get a tid bit here and there, but man,…some rabid appetites out there. You’re going to spoil your stomache and not want any movie.

Besides if everything’s set in stone, with the writers strike preventing any changes, even if they did want to do that. . .are they really going go toodling with the story line just because of comments they read from us?

40. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

#35 Ah, Glasshoppah, you misunderstand.

I’m The Vulcanista. I’m always satisfied.

Iambic pentameter is just a good friend of mine, and she appreciates your effort.

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

41. DJT - February 6, 2008

Thanks Roberto

42. James Heaney - Wowbagger - February 6, 2008

You know what I’ve always wondered, ever since I wrote that essay on Abrams and Alias for TrekMovie all those many moons ago?

Was the vast 47 conspiracy in Alias (page 47, server 47, 47th floor, room 47, etc. etc. etc.) really an intentional Trek hat tip by the Alias writers? And Arvin Sloane’s name… and so forth. Was that all just my overactive imagination?

Anyhow, Orci’s comment about 147% just drove tha back into my mind, and I hope I get the opportunity to ask him about Trek jokes in Alias someday.

In the meantime, I will shamelessly plug my one overlong contribution to the annals of TrekMovie.com: http://trekmovie.com/2006/09/20/a-trek-by-many-other-names-alias-and-star-trek-xi/ It was a good article. You should go read it.

43. Denise de Arman - February 6, 2008

Admiral Bumblebee- Did you catch the first few words of Mr. Orci’s answer to you – “JJ had no intention of directing Trek at all”. That says something to me: First, it says that when this all started, he might have been reluctant because he knew thousands of people worldwide, like you and me, would be questioning every word leaked to the media until the movie’s opening. Secondly, it says to me that at this point JJ must have shoulders of Hercuean strength to be able to burden not only the day-to-day rigors of a feature film in production, but also the incessant fanbase paranoia.

I have a couple worries of my own, but frankly, I am heartened by the fact that the big Nimoy liked the screenplay enough to appear in the movie. That fact, as well as the fact that we will be viewing a new Star Trek movie come dec should be enough to keep you from getting too angry between now and then, okay?

Do you guys really want to critisize, threaten and ridicule the production team so much that they consider pulling out of Star Trek after this movie? From the looks of some of the comments on this and other websites, nine more months of that kind of feedback could be that consequence.

44. theSpockette - February 6, 2008

Thank you so much for answering questions for us, Mr. Orci! I think this movie is in good hands, and I’m eagerly awaiting its release! The more y’all share with us, the better I feel about it. I thought it was a terrible idea at first, recasting the original crew. But I’ve come to think it’s really the best possible way to revive the franchise, and I have high hopes for this film! Live long, and prosper, Mr. Orci.

45. newman - February 6, 2008

Star Trek will be cool again. I could never get my friends into anything Trek before. I think this movie will change that.

46. Poida - February 6, 2008

I can’t wait till all the old TOS fans have left this planet so life can move on.

This is a REBOOT, you crazy crazy people. Just like fans of the new Battlestar Galactica, no one gives a turd about the old show. Sure the references are there, but they are just guidelines to make the new show / movie so much better. Even Richard Hatch stamped his little feet up and down for a while….then he saw how much better the remake was, and asked for a role on the show!

So please stop whining like bratty little schoolgirls and accept change.

47. Bill Peters - February 6, 2008

I think the moive will be cool, I am Shure intrested in seeing their take on trek and then deciding weather or not that I like it….if it has a Cannon that’s ok and if it is some new stuff that is OK too….

48. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

#46

Well, bless your heart. Thank you for that literate, well-reasoned … whatever that was.

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

49. johnconner - February 6, 2008

Ah, your time will come, young padewan, when you will reject someone’s changes to your precious. In the wise words of RATT, “what comes around goes around.”

50. The Realist - February 6, 2008

32. The Vulcanista – February 6, 2008
#27: “Eyes open, ears open, mind open, heart guarded. Just don’t suck, is all. Just don’t suck.”

I am not opposed to changes to Trek or to Canon as even Gene ignored it. but I agree, JUST DON’T SUCK!

51. Thomas - February 6, 2008

I have to ask because I really don’t know, but what is the significance of the number 47 in Star Trek?

52. Denise de Arman - February 6, 2008

#46Poida- Did I read my computer screen correctly? Did you just write that “no one gives a “turd” about “the old show'”? Why are you here, on this message board, at this website? The “original show” is what this movie is about (the characters therein). Conventions worldwide, books, sequel television series, movies and hundreds of thousands of people for forty years attest to the fact that the original show has been loved, celebrated and appreciated by planet Earth (you know, that planet that you want original series lovers to leave?). Perhaps you should find another website to frequent, for I doubt you will find many like-minded individuals here with whom to spout your inane comments.

53. El Superbeasto - February 6, 2008

#42 – Tell me – why is 47 special to Star Trek? How would using it in Alias be a hat tip?? And likewise what is “Arvin Sloane” similar to?

54. Gabriel Bell - February 6, 2008

The significance is that it is a number that Ronald Moore and Brannon Braga and other scribes from TNG used over and over again as “random,” just as an inside laugh. At least that is how I understand it.

The beauty of it though, is that JJ had “47” all over Alias, as well, and there were even a few Cloverfield 47s. It really does pop up a lot in the Sci-Fi genre.

And every time it does, I smile.

55. Valar1 - February 6, 2008

#46 how can references to the old show make the new show better when as you say no one cares about the old show?

nuBSG was great at being gritty dark and more realistic in approach, but then it tanked when Ron Moore made his characters turn into Spanish soap opera rejects. Instead of asking the thought provoking questions he set up and proposed in his first two years on the show: about what it means to be human vs a machine, what god means, etc now where down to who slept with who, when will she find out, is the love triangle about to be expanded/exposed. I wish I could erase the past year of nuBSG from my brain. Sorry but the original might be a turd but the new one aint smelling like roses either. “Best show on Television” my ass.

56. elmachocombo - February 6, 2008

“6. M. – February 6, 2008
I have a question. Where were you canon fanatics when…”

I’d like to add to that line of reasoning. My question to all the TOS Ultra Purists out there is this. Why is it OK for CBS Digital to completely redesign a space station (Ultimat Computer) but it’s not OK for JJ and Co. to do likewise. And please, don’t gimme that, “Weeeeeeell, the space station was a re-used shot and the new one still has that 60’s look about it…” Blah, blah, and blah! It is or it isn’t, or you all have your own flexible definition of the word canon. Just a thought.

57. cd - February 6, 2008

#6 – Where were us “purists” when Enterprise was on the air? I, myself, was writing about it on rec.arts.startrek.current, trying very hard to be open minded about it, which got harder and harder to do. The actors were good, but the writing was not . The bitter beer face Vulcans were ridiculous. The temporal cold war garbage was annoying, and by the time Porthos got an iguana pituitary transplant, I was done with it. The last season, apparently, was a little better, when new writers came on. Writers that realized there was a Star Trek previously, with some history that should be paid attention to. But it was too little, too late.
That’s why some us “purists” want attention paid to canon, because otherwise we get garbage like Voyager and Enterprise.

58. elmachocombo - February 6, 2008

El Superbeasto? I think we may be related!

59. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

#54.

Huh. I would have thought it would be 42, it being the secret to life, the universe, and everything. :)

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

60. SirBroiler - February 6, 2008

#6 – Are you kidding me? All of the people who bitched about canon KILLED Enterprise. That’s why it’s not on the air anymore. And if you get the chance to re-watch the series on SciFi or HDNet – you’ll see it wasn’t that bad (except for the whole Zindi thing and that suck-ass finale). The last season was getting good – Terra Prime was CLASSIC TREK.

You’ll have to remember, TNG sucked BIG BALLZ the first 2 1/2 years it was on the air. If the Internet had existed then, that show would have died as fast as ENTERPRISE and none of us would be having this conversation because Trek would be a memory by now.

It’s time for hardcore fans to either open up their minds a little-bit, or just give-up on Trek altogether. You’ll never be happy with anything anyone does, unless Bill Shatner’s tired fat arse is waddling across the screen screaming KAAAAHHHHHHNNNNNN!

#37 – just a heads up….STAR TREK ain’t real so you can’t kill it.

All the other numbers/posters who support this new Trek effort….ROCK ON! We’re finally going to have some fun seeing a new Star Trek on the big screen. I can’t wait.

61. Quatlo - February 6, 2008

My wife and I are 50 and just watched TRANSFORMERS on DVD. We were never fans of that franchise and knew nothing about it. We enjoyed the wow factor entertainment the movie delivered and the humanism in the storyline. I’ve been optimistic about this new Trek since learning who was involved in creating it and that Leonard Nimoy saw reason to sign on with the team. Roberto especially, but all involved in the creative of this project have impressed me a great deal with their down to earth heartfelt attitudes and obvious care for Trek. They share that with the originators of Trek, who were some of the smartest and most creative in town in their day. As a fan from the start, I know Trek TOS has a good heart with the potential to be much more if given the chance. RO, AK, JJ and all the rest have the smarts to turn that chance into something very good again.

62. The Vulcanista - February 6, 2008

cd

You shoulda stuck around for Season 4. Coto & Garfield-Reeves fixed a *lot* of that. Not much they could do about the weaker Season 3, tho. SciFi is running Enterprise from Season 1 forward, if you should get curious. :)

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

63. KevinA Melbourne Australia - February 6, 2008

I have never really been a JAMES BOND fan. I’d seen a few movies in the early days with Sean Connery but it never really got to me. I mean when the spider was crawling over James in bed, you could see the reflections in the glass protecting him!!!

Last year I saw CASINO ROYALE which I understood was the very first Bond story, a prequel, that had never been bought to the big screen. I saw the opening chase scene somewhere and wanted to see the rest of the movie. I ended up seeing it 3 times in the cinema! That hasn’t happened for a long time.

CASINO ROYALE benefitted from special effects that look real and I can’t wait for the new Bond movie this year. I have become a “BONDIE” and feel I should go back at some stage and maybe watch a few of the older movies.

BUT HANG ON…is this not what Robert Orgi, JJ and the boys are trying to do for Star Trek? Present the original idea in a way that’s technically superior to anything that has come before and accessible to today movie goer.

I know people who are to scared to watch Star Trek because there’s so much of it and where do you start! They think the 60’s TV show looks like a 60’s TV show…and there right. (Even with the new enhanced edition) If I’ve become a BOND fan from seeing the prequel, will the new STAR TREK have the same effect on some non-trekkies? Let’s hope so.

I want to be able to take non-Star Trek friends to this movie and say – “This is what it’s all about” – ” this is what Roddenberry’s dream was in the 60’s and now you’re in on the secret because you know how it all starts!”

And so another Generation, hopefully, gets to boldly go!

64. elmachocombo - February 6, 2008

Well said, Sir Broiler. As someone last week so deftly expressed, “We are going to rock out with our Spocks out!”

65. AJ - February 6, 2008

Look up “47” (number) on Wikipedia.. There’s some background.

66. S. John Ross - February 6, 2008

#60: If it actually were his arse screaming it, you gotta admit that would be memorable entertainment.

Especially if there was also waddling.

67. Buckaroohawk - February 6, 2008

Every time Mr. Orci visits this site and takes the time to write, I hear nothing but sincerity when I read his words. I believe him when he says that the cast and crew are working hard to make this film representative of TOS and the characters we hold so dear, while still making changes necessary to bring Trek to a new audience. The look of the Enterprise may change, the uniforms and costumes may look a bit different, the actors playing the parts are largely unfamiliar, but if the heart and soul of Star trek is really in this project, then none of that matters.

Mr. Orci’s comment about Trek canon being “like the Constitution” is very telling. It says (to me, anyway) that they won’t be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They understand its importance, but it won’t keep them from playing around with it a bit, stretching it out, maybe filling in some empty spots. Canon is a guideline, like reflective markers on the Trek Highway that give you direction, but you can still find your own way of getting where you want to go. Like anything else, canon is subject to interpretation, and that can make the journey a lot more fun.

Adhering too strictly to canon can keep Trek from changing. Lack of change=stagnation and stagnation=death. Using canon as a springboard, on the other hand, can lead Trek into new territory, new possibilities, and new visions. Intelligent changes can only make it stronger, and I believe that Mr. Orci and the others involved with this film are very mindful of that.

We’ll find out at year’s end how it all comes together. Until then, let’s all try to enjoy the ride!

68. Steve Hall - February 6, 2008

First, I’d like to thank R. Orci for stopping by once again to yet, even though he is no doubt extremely busy.

Second, I’d like to ask the fans and purists to stop being such whiners. Stop with your complaining and start appreciating all of the good things we have with this new movie. Cut the producers and writers some slack. How can you complain so much about something you haven’t seen yet?

69. Buckaroohawk - February 6, 2008

Quatlo (#61),

I was never a fan of Transformers either, but I really enjoyed the movie, too. It had a lot more heart than I was expecting and it was one heck of a thrill ride to boot. Exactly the sort of thing I want to see in the new Trek movie.

KevinA (#63),

I look at this new Trek film exactly the same way. “Casino Royale” was an amazing movie and the best Bond film in many, many years. If this new movie can do for Trek what that film did for Bond, then I’ll be one happy dude!

70. YUBinit - February 6, 2008

#68 What good things? Some yakking promising this and that… where’s the proof in the pudding? Some leaked images from some standby’s cell camera? A themed trailer looking like Flashdance? They sure are secretive and why so? “soon” “soon” “soon”… what in tortoise years? BTW… I have a bridge in Brooklyn as well I’m selling if your interested.

71. James Heaney - Wowbagger - February 6, 2008

Trekkies: You can tell we’re happy, because we’re yelling at each other.

72. Valar1 - February 6, 2008

#63 Glad you liked Casino Royale- one of my favorite movies as well. But Bond and Trek are vastly different. Whereas the Bond films have never tried to tell a coherent overarching story, Trek has tried to fit together its various incarnations like a puzzle.

Trek had very loose connective tissue during the original series, but around the second or third year of TNG onwards there was a concious effort by the producers to not contradict what had occured before. It created a tapestry of events that enhanced the viewing experience of people who obsessively followed the 3 shows that were set in that time frame- over 800 hours of TV. Casual fans didn’t notice but people looking for the sense of continuity you usually get in a series of novels loved the shows adherence to “cannon”. Because of that, people who were fans of those shows expect a certain level of stability regarding the “history” of their characters.

73. S. John Ross - February 6, 2008

It is always a fascinating question as to which is stranger: haters who complain about a film they’ve not seen, or apologists who defend a film they’ve not seen. :)

74. Gary Seven - February 6, 2008

#36 Stanky-

Are you mellowing a bit, just a wee little bit, a tiny tiny bit, in your old age?

Wow. As the old Vulcan saying goes, “Only Nixon could go to China.”

75. Quatlo - February 6, 2008

73: Such is life, some see half empty some half full. I wouldn’t consider praising people who are busily involved in this project because they care enough to interact as being an apologist. As of now, it is a realist attitude towards fellow human beans.

76. Nigel - February 6, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Dismissing Jim’s usage of the phrase “lowest common denominator” as elitist is self serving rubbish as you, sir, are a member of the Hollywood show biz elite.

It’s interesting to note that you later mention distilling 40 years or Star Trek into it’s most potent form yet… Hmmm, isn’t distilling a process where you boil things down to their base elements? Kinda like dumbing them down to thir lowest common denominator? Interesting, indeed.

In an era where even the government tries to sell a dumbed down version of reality, his concerns are valid.

Perhaps Jim is not the only one who feels that cinematic inspiration is better drawn from Lawrence of Arabia or Dr. Strangelove than from xXx, Die Hard 4 or one of the Bourne Stupidity or M.I. movies.

Too bad JK Rowling didn’t have final say in the Star Trek franchise. She’d keep the Hollywood nonsense to a minimum.

77. trekee - February 6, 2008

@62 Vulcanista:

Seconded. Season 1 of Enterprise felt like fun, it wasn’t *great* but it was interesting seeing where it all went and it was a canon watchers dream to see how they tied them selves in knots to fit things in.

Season 3 was an abomination in my very humble opinion. Mostly redemeemed by Season 4. The last episode though was a bit of a Balrog Whip at the ankles though, just grabbing you when you thought the worst was all over.

And to the first posted. Did I whine or did I whine… !!

Back to Roberto Orci’s comments though… I’m still going with the alternate universe scenario now. With miniskirts. You can see by the way he doesn’t answer… ;-)

78. blake powers - February 7, 2008

I want to shake that dude’s hand.. Mr. Orci, when you make your way to the convention circuit I would gladly pay 10 bucks just to shake your hand..

79. Laserlover2254 - February 7, 2008

#67:

Pretty good.

And #60,

I hate Enterprise because it’s a bad prequel, although it has some occasional good things about it, mostly Andorians and a handful of the later episodes, and It didn’t have the Earth-Romulan War with Atomic Missiles on both sides, and no FTL communications at all.

80. Chain of Command - February 7, 2008

It’ll be a cool movie, folks. Canon-shamnon.

TMP looked totally different from the series, and ST2 looked different from TMP. Heck, during the span of the 25 years that we had the original crew the look changed considerably, but it was still Star Trek. The cage was monochromatic, the series was a crayon box of color. TMP was Star Trek: A Space Odyssey and TWOK was Moby Dick. They all looked different, and “felt” different, but it was still Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. taking us on a journey.

I think these guys are going to do the same thing for Star Trek in the 2000’s that Bennett and Meyer did for it in the 80’s.

81. Jackson Roykirk - February 7, 2008

# 73. S. John Ross

I agree. Even if the writers’ strike were to end today, so much has been filmed already that the movie will end up pretty much as Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman wrote it. Que sera sera.

Best case: the new movie will add depth to all the characters we know so well and will inform the TOS (and subsequent series) episodes we know so well. George Lucas tried that with Episodes 1-3.

Worst case: the new movie will “update” the Star Trek universe to appeal to the modern mass-market audience and subvert TOS. Tom Cruise did that with Mission Impossible 1 (turning Phelps in to a bad guy.) That was just evil.

From what I’ve read on every one of Mr. Orci’s chat sessions, he’s vastly closer to “best case.” And FWIW, I thought MI:3 was the best of the MI movies. JJ did a great job with what he had to work with.

82. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - February 7, 2008

Hmm… perhaps the Enterprise will face a fleet of 47 Romulan Birds of Prey, that would be a trip to see!

83. Paul - February 7, 2008

I loved Casino Royale! The only thing that bugged me…? Use of Judy Dench as M! I lover her performance as M but the original M was a bloke and in the later films she is portrayed as the NEW M and even refers back to her predecessor, so painting her as the original M who promoted Bond to 00 status didn’t make sense!

If they’d kept her as his handler – a more junior officer – and used a male M, I’d have been totally happy. The little disregard for canon upset me and Trek will be no different!

At the moment, the only thing bugging me is that Rand and Chapel have not been treated as main characters, which has skewed the male female dynamic to a ludicrous degree. At least in the modern BSG reboot the writers felt able to acknowledge that sexist attitudes have no place in sci fi.

In addition, I think that to minimise canon offences, they should just advance the Timeline to the second 5-year mission at the end of the movie. That way they can refit the refit and adjust the uniforms with impunity by confining their tales to this unexplored time period. In fact there is very little about the period 2271 – 2285 other than the crusty old crew end up teaching at Starfleet in the 80’s. Loads of potenital there.

84. LoCuTu$ - February 7, 2008

Just remember everyone. There are always possibilities. That is what Star Trek is about.

85. Battletrek - February 7, 2008

Is this a damn reboot then? Someone help me!

86. Commodore Redshirt - February 7, 2008

re: 6. M.
” I have a question. Where were you canon fanatics when that travesty ENTERPRISE aired? I mean if anything should have pissed you off it was that P.O.S.!”

The night STE started I HATED IT! The opening song was a scramble for the MUTE button, I HATED the Klingon look and even hated the TNG-style ship! The only thing that gave me hope was that by season 4 they seemed to get on track. ..but alas all good things…(and even the BAD things!) must come to an end…

To me it was that they both GOT IT & MISSED IT at the same time!

You also wrote:
” I am a fan of the Original too, but stop treating it as though it was a piece of the true cross. ”

I AGREE! TOS was of the future but also very much of the 1960s!

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN! I am always somewhat bothered by people who love the “Trek Universe”, they are embracing the new world and future with all the changes in our society that must occur, and yet so many fear change. “Keep it the same!” they post…

oh well…

87. TJ Trek - February 7, 2008

The fact that all these guys are willing to come out and speak directly to the fans, engage them, and honestly answer there questions, and take there feed back is really cool. I don’t remember Ric Berman ever doing that.

88. Geoffersuk - February 7, 2008

Firstly, I think we should thank the way in which those who really don’t have to, are respondiong to what the fans are saying. (namely JJ and Robert).

Secondly, why are people still bitching about Enterprise, for gods sake I am what I consider a “trekie”, but I loved it, and would love to see it back.. yeah it tinkered a little, but not too much, unless you are so anal to go through with a fine tooth comb. Please leave the arguments on this for else where.

Thirdly, as long as the film doesn’t mess with anything major in the timeline of trek, and actualy “fits” with what we know and love, and doesn’t unravel it all (by say killing a main character we know lived on in “Our trek), then let’s give the folks a chance.
If they screw around and change what we know, then yeah, for me they have ruined it, but let’s see, and lets stop ripping stuff to shreds before it’s had a chance to air a little.

I really can;t help that it isn’t the studios that killed Trek, it’s some of the more anal fans!

89. cugel the clever - February 7, 2008

67 Buckaroohawk

“Canon is a guideline, like reflective markers on the Trek Highway that give you direction, but you can still find your own way of getting where you want to go.”

Thank you. This is the best and most concise definiton of canon I’ve heard. Canon ensures that ST is headed in the right direction and that it conforms to the “big picture” and values of the franchise. However, there is plenty of room for variety and roaming within the “width” of canon.

The canon police would have us riding a monorail as helpless passengers and voyeurs on a predetermined highway. Travelling on “Route 47″ allows us to wander, to explore, and experience the unknown.

Star Trek is in good hands, finally.

90. Battletrek - February 7, 2008

Does this movie start up an alternate time line? I’m more interested in that question than if it lines up perfectly with canon.

91. cugel the clever - February 7, 2008

IDIC – one of the most beloved concepts in ST canon explicitly allows variations, recombinations, and reinterpretations of canon. This is a fact that the Canon Police conveniently ignore.

92. Dr. Image - February 7, 2008

#6 – All the people who bitched about canon killed ENT??

THAT’S funny!
ENT flopped because of arrogant, short-sighted producers and their shitty writers force-feeding viewers crap!
Then, Coto ended up being a scapegoat, and an overrated one at that.

Meanwhile… understand that ANY type of influence we’ve all had with THIS gang-in-charge is just about at an end, since scripts have been written, shooting is under way, etc. We’re NOW going to have to WAIT AND SEE.
I, and I’m sure many others, are very thankful that JJ, Roberto, etc. have been hanging out here and putting up with us, so give them a break.
The fact of the matter is, things are looking pretty good– and this is coming from a cynical, jaded, old-time (but DS9 loving) “purist!!”

93. Captain Neill - February 7, 2008

If they write it so that the original timeline has been destroyed to make way for this time line then you have committed the ultimate sin to a Trek fan. To me this would be JJ Abrams wanting to crap over Roddenberry’s Star Trek and make it his own.

If they did this then I will be very angry, VERY ANGRY indeed. Orci sounds like he respects the fans and is one himself so I hope this doesn’t happen.

If the time line changes then thats the FINAL straw and I will want to annihilate JJ Abrams. I

94. JL - February 7, 2008

#11
“Do you think Superman fans are upset that the movies don’t look like or fit into the continuity of the 50s TV show?”

Good point, well said.

95. James Cawley - February 7, 2008

Gang,
Take a collective deep breath and relax. I am the biggest purist! ( especially in the look of the Star Trek!) But after meeting with J.J., and Bob and Damon, I must say to you, my fears were dismissed. I met three guys who deeply care about the meaning of Star Trek, They care about what is at “The Heart” of the show.
Some fans see “CANON” as the entire presentation, that is the look of the sets, costumes etc. as well as the story, and I was one of them. I mean let’s face it, we have been educated that way, by the many production teams and writers that have come before. Each one of them, had gone out of their way to preserve “The Look” of each inacarnation of Trek and explain it’s visual change and evolution in the script and stories, using words like “REFIT” to make it all fit, and seem believable. By doing so they created a vast universe for Star Trek, that was totally believable, and that captured our imaginations for 40 years now.
But I have come to realize that while I woud not change these things, that does not mean it is a bad thing to change some of them.
Star Trek needs to grow and endure for another 40 years!!!!!!!!
Above all it needs to tell an entertaining story, and teach us about ourselves along the way. These folks making this movie have not taken on this job with the intention of trashing Trek, quite the opposite in fact.
So find it in yourself to believe in your fellow Trekkers “Orci and Lindlehoff and Abram’s” find some of that Optimism Gene Roddenberry believed that we all possesed! Let’s work together to get the rest of fandom excited about this feature! With this feature and all the Fan’Films out there it really feels like the 70’s again, a time when it was COOL to be a Trek fan!
This movie really has the potential to really re-energize the interest in the Original Series, and to get people to watch it all over again, and to even introduce it to a New Generation of kids who may just have ignored it!
Let’s all enjoy the ride, cause it has not been this Fun in decades!!!!!!!

96. Cervantes - February 7, 2008

#95 James Cawley

Agreed, but why can’t we have that AND Bill Shatner, red railings, and some Fred Steiner cues too? ;)

97. Chris M - February 7, 2008

Once again a big thanks to Roberto Orci for taking the time out to answer the questions and issues us fans have about Star Trek!

98. PaoloM - February 7, 2008

#95 “Let’s all enjoy the ride, cause it has not been this Fun in decades!!!!!!!”

Amen, brother! ;-)

99. Father Rob - February 7, 2008

95 and 98:

I’ll echo an amen, and raise you a… “Headin’ out to Eden, yea brother!”

In all seriousness, and if anyone from the Trek filming community is reading, I’d be curious if you wanted to offer a response…

Star Trek, over the years, has been described in many ways, but most consistently, Gene Roddenberry’s vision has been a humanistic one. There are famous quotes of his from various unfilmed projects that indicate his disdain for religion, but there are also very respectful views of religion shown on Trek as well (Uhura’s apparent reverence for at least the concept of the Son of God in “Bread and Circuses”, the realistic religion of the Bajorans on DS9 – showing both the positive and negative sides of faith and religion – and the reassuring note that Mass was still being said in the twenty-second century in an episode of Enterprise). While I don’t expect the new movie to focus or hinge around religious overtones or themes (well, except for the Church of Spock, but that’s a different matter altogether), do you, as writers, find that religious concepts and spiritual beliefs of Earth’s contemporary religions have helped to shape your work on the new film, or your thoughts on Star Trek in general?

Rob+

100. Jim - February 7, 2008

Re: the poll – like Vulcanista, I’m betwixt and between on the poll (#28). For me, the issue of “fit” has more to do with a semi-reasonable explanation as to why something has changed. Look, one of the reported premises of the story is to bring together THE (not A) TOS Spock with his younger self in whatever timeline. So when TOS Spock steps out of the Wayback Machine and encounters himself on an Enterprise that does not resemble that which comports with his recollection (or that of members of the audience) of the well documented appearance of the Enterprise not bloody A, B, C, D, give him some dialogue along the lines of “Fascinating, there appear to be other variations in the timestream that have altered the present reality. Everything is changed, yet everything is the same.” Chalk it off to Chekov’s lost phaser or some other similar temporal anomaly. Anything please except “OK – the past is different because new guys are now in charge!”

Re: #76 – Nigel – That’s more the direction I was going. In my mind, a creative endeavor (film, TV show, novel, play, music etc.) can attain mass popularity without being “dumbed down” or by solely appealing to the lowest common denominator. It does so by retaining a balance – I want something that I find both viscerally and intellectually appealing. The best examples that comes quickly to mind are distinctly non-ST and are the works of Shakespeare. His plays were wildly popular among his contemporary audience because of the balance between rude humor, slapstick comedy, popular references AND classical allusions, compelling plots and timeless themes that allowed them to appeal to a very wide segment of his contemporary audience. A modern viewer, with just the tiniest investment of time, can see these elements at work in modern productions of those works.

Finally – I would hate for anyone to take the comments I made about the “pre-internet” days as some kind of slight toward Anthony and his work here. The work and time he invests to provide a “living fanzine” results in a quality venue that is head and shoulders above many others that populate the internet that I much appreciate.

101. cd - February 7, 2008

#62 – Vulcanista, I saw part of the season 4 opener with Nazi aliens in WWII (sheesh). But I will give it a shot. “Through A Mirror, Darkly” wasn’t bad. I saw the last episode with Trip’s contrived death, maybe the rest of the season is better… maybe. >;>}

102. CanuckLou - February 7, 2008

Mr. Orci thanks once again for coming in and try to calm stormy seas – or should that be an ionic storm?

After this enterprise is over, a gig at the United Nations will be a piece of cake!

Hope you are enjoying your stay up here. Sorry for all the snow!

The adventure continues…

103. Holo J - February 7, 2008

9. stephen

“I like most of his answers but he kinda went around Admiral Bumblebees question. I want to know if this Trek will erase the timeline that comes after it. Prequels should set up the current material and fit together nicely with it. Could Mr. Orci please set us at ease about whether the timeline will be ruined or not? ”

I agree, he did kind of not really answer that, which makes me think all we know and love about the 23rd & 24th Century set after this film according to Star Trek could be gone or maybe just a lot different. I sure hope this isn’t the case as it would throw up more questions than answers just for the sake of getting around certain aspects of canon.

I would like to see a film that respects what has come before and that ties in neatly to what we know of Trek history already.

95 James Crawley Congratulations on getting your part in the film… I am very jealous!!!
” Some fans see “CANON” as the entire presentation, that is the look of the sets, costumes etc.”

I suppose I fall into that category, but I am not so bothered if the sets are updated as well as the costumes. It would have been nice if it looked as close to the original as possible instead of something totally different but those things don’t bother me as much as much as say this films story changing everything that follows this film.

I like the fact the all previous series & movies have tied into each other as though they were from the same universe and I hope this film will also find its place in that same universe without changing events that we know are to come.

I have high hopes for this film and I am looking forward to seeing it. I am really impressed with Roberto Orci and the way he has got involved with us mere mortals here at TrekMovie. He clearly has a passion and obvious enthusiasm for this project and Star Trek as a whole. I just hope this film fits into the gaps of Star Trek history we know nothing about, instead of seeming to be part of a totally different universe.

104. Red Shirt - February 7, 2008

ROBERTO!

Can you please pass on that we want more viral sites, and soon! I for one, am ready to see J.T “R” Kirk’s myspace page!

Gracias!

105. Dr. Image - February 7, 2008

# 95- James-
THANK YOU. Just as I said.
(Oh yeah… well I’m a BIGGER purist!)

BTW, when no one is looking, steal a costume or two.
Just kidding. (Actually… I’m not!)

106. Petey - February 7, 2008

Wow. I never thought I’d say this… but the cumulative hate, bitterness and bile in the past 100 or so comments are such a huge turn-off, and if not for that timely comment from Mr. Cawley, I’d have no hope in the goodness of the “ardent Trek fan” anymore.

Abrams, Quinto, Mr. Nimoy and especially Rob Orci are trying their best to re-assure and engage the 40-year fan population of millions in a way that no other creative team has ever had. Yet, instead of appreciating this rare interaction dynamic that they’ve created, several of us here seem content to tear each and every word to shreds, being disgruntled at every thing that is being revealed and generally just hating on every effort made.

It’s digusting.

Without the movie, Trek would be only living on in comic books, novels and remastered episodes. If that’s the way you want your fandom to end, go ahead and be negative about everything that’s being done. Me? I want to have something new I can share with my friends and children, so that they can discover for themselves why I’ve been such a big fan of Star Trek for years.

107. Chrono - February 7, 2008

James, well said.

108. Clinton - February 7, 2008

#105
Don’t focus on or fret about the negative comments. Look closely and you’ll see lots of positive ones, too. That’s where the future is!

109. OneBuckFilms - February 7, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Please ignore some of the less civilized portions of the fan comments here.

While many have their concerns, en masse, much of the fandom here may appear more rabid than they really are.

There is no way that everyone will be pleased by any effort by anybody.

And while there is a lot of weight on all of your collective shoulders, please have some fun while making this.

If you guys are really enjoying your work, your love of Star Trek and that sense of fun will come across on the screen in intangible ways.

Also understand that many of the opinions on this board are an expression of the passion we feel for this movie.

Thank you.

110. TBK1701 - February 7, 2008

People once the movie comes out then complain if you need too. Its not even here yet. Guinan once said if a man is convinced he is gonna die tomorrow, he usaly finds a way. That is what so many of you are doing. Stop hating on the thing we all love!

111. Marian Ciobanu - February 7, 2008

-‘Mainstream’..what a great word for trek world..and in the same time so much attention for trek fans..hmmm…i just can’t wait to see the movie..!!!

112. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#102–I suppose I have to second those sentiments. That is why I asked Mr. Orci the following question after he answered my first.

Me: “Are we going to have to watch TOS in a different light after seeing this movie?”
I did not expect the answer I was looking for, but his response was vaguely encouraging…

Bob Orci: “…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 judgment.”

While this does not completely alleviate my concerns, it also does not hinder my optimism that, in the end, the original adventures of the USS Enterprise will remain intact within the Star Trek “canon”.

As Mr. Cawley alluded to, “canon” means something different to many people.

To me, “canon” has never been very tangible. You cannot often even reference TOS and get an answer to a “canon” question, without a later contradiction or “correction”. Early TOS episodes (primarily from the first half of the first season) have very little canon continuity with the rest of the series. I have never seen “canon” as having anything to do with set designs, costumes, etc., but at the same time, it is a nice feeling to know that we will get a nostalgic nod here and there.
The same people who accuse ENT of violating continuity and canon (and all but threaten the new team over it) do not seem to mind that :

–the captain of the Enterprise was originally James R. Kirk,

— that the first season of TOS implied that the story took place anywhere from 200-800 years after the 20th Century (depending on which episode you reference),

— that Spock was more than comfortable with his emotions and in expressing them,

–that TOS “Balance Of Terror” implied that only 100 years earlier, Earth (and the Romulans) were still deploying atomic weapons and travelling at sub-light speeds, yet somehow still managed to come into contact with each other over a vast distance,

–that ships painted like “Birds Of Prey” were originally Romulan ships, not Klingon ships,

–that no TOS Klingon had “ridges”, long hair, or fangs,

–or that Khan and his people slept for only 200 years aboard the Botany Bay, yet they left in 1996.

TWOK was the first to establish that the TOS-era and original movie eras took place in the 23rd Century, yet “canonites” seem to have no issue with the fact that that was clearly contradicted yet again before the film was even over.

All of that and so-called “purists” burn ENT at the stake for ignoring some of the same minute detail in early TOS episodes. Those same “purists” are here every day holding Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelhoff to the same flame, despite the fact that they haven’t even seen the film. Why, when everything pre-Berman gets a pass?

I am a lover of TOS, first and foremost, but I choose to take a more realistic approach. I think ENT gets better with time, along with “better perspective on what is canon”, and what kind of significance “canon” really has.

For me, the question is continuity within the Trek timeline. “Canon” is overrated, and has ALWAYS been selectively adhered to.

113. bugs a la nixon - February 7, 2008

I don’t think Star Trek is in any way elite or high brow.

i think its popularist mass entertainment with a little bit of pop philosophy thrown in

jj’s comments are aimed at appealing to the saturday night popcorn crown

orci’s comments are aimed at appealing to the fan – both responses are telling what each camp wants to hear

its easy to make mistakes with star trek – but actually trekkies arn’t hard to satisfy. trek isnt high brow and it never was.

sorry to be so brutal, but its true – and any success this film gets from its lowest common denominator content will just make trekkies seem cooler…

you’re going to get a full blooded drama here – star trek will feel grown up and cool and you’ll see kids totally into it with toys and tshirts

youre going to get kudos as fans

average cinema goers will look at this lavish action adventure and think “oh, so thats what trekkie like is it? oh – so they’re not as sad as i thought”

and all of a sudden fandom will feel as though all the conventions and costumes were worth the effort

but remember this too – star trek is about to become mainstream again, and you may resent the fact that everyone will be trek crazy…

your sense of proprietorship will take a few knocks because kids will want captain kirk lunch boxes and mr spock stickers

mark my words…

114. Jipeman - February 7, 2008

#60 “It’s time for hardcore fans to either open up their minds a little-bit, or just give-up on Trek altogether. You’ll never be happy with anything anyone does, unless Bill Shatner’s tired fat arse is waddling across the screen screaming KAAAAHHHHHHNNNNNN! ”

I couldn’t agree more. Just reading some of the inane comments on this forum makes me think that if any creative industry person actually listened to some of these disparaging fans, no Sci-Fi shows will last more than a couple of episodes. Keep your hateful diatribe to yourself and don’t misconstrue your anger for passion. It only makes you sound like a whiny child that throws a tantrum when they don’t get what they want.

115. robin alexander - February 7, 2008

#112

I REALLY hope you’re right

116. Brian - February 7, 2008

About “elite”: I’ve come to be suspicious of the word “elite” as code for “We want to make and market schlock but if you call it schlock then I’ll do my best to alienate you from everyone else.”

Sorry if that seems harsh, but there’s such a race to the bottom in the culture these days, and I hate to read sneaky little apologies for it like that one. A fan would think and hope that Trek could keep to its tradition of asking just a little bit of the audience, even while providing action, humor, and miniskirts.

117. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#112–“jj’s comments are aimed at appealing to the saturday night popcorn crowd”,

“orci’s comments are aimed at appealing to the fan – both responses are telling what each camp wants to hear”

You bring up an excellent point about how this is being approached on different fronts. They are acting as the “consumate politicians”, taking a different approach with traditional fans, as opposed to the “movie-going mainstream”. That strategy is good.

It is also, for that reason, why JJ’s comments to USA Today– or the like, should never be dissected the way they sometimes are on these boards. They should be taken with a grain of salt. Mr. Abrams brings with him a large following of his own fans, and non- Trek fans are going to be more willing to see this film knowing that he (even if they only know him as the guy who helped create the popular “Lost”) is directing it. Star Trek brings with it their own fans. Add to those audiences the category of movie-goers that like big budget action movies, and this will no doubt be the blockbuster that perhaps no other Star Trek film has ever been. For all of us who eventually want Star Trek back on the small screen, too–nothing could further that cause any more than that.

118. David (Flaming Wings Forever!) - February 7, 2008

112 Very much in agreement.

A lot is riding on the acceptance of the picture, as it has to appeal to a broader audience than ever before. It needs to be escapist, cerebral, and yet have a tip of the hat to the original cheasyness (is that a word?) which captivated us for these many years.

Every article and comment I read get me more excited about it.

119. Kev-1 - February 7, 2008

So is he saying yay or no to photos? Didn’t they say something about a photo of the Enterprise being “forthcoming”?

120. The Vulcanista - February 7, 2008

#77

Nice to see some Enterprise love, or at least not-hate!

And *I hatedhatedHATED* the series finale. Whatta ripoff to the cast.

And, yeah, I didn’t think Orci would comment back on my comment about Pine in a mini. Oh well. :)

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

121. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#118–Not sure I want that. I think I want to see it first on the big screen. I anticipate that being a wonderful moment. Besides, I’m not sure I want to sit through all of the ridiculously critical comments that would follow such a photo being released. I’d rather see it first within the context of the film.

122. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#119–“Whole Lotta (ENT)Love” here!

123. British Naval Dude - February 7, 2008

Unlike real history, fake history is not doomed to repeat itself…

arrrr… TOS era… no holodeck foolishness (good), no children on ship far as we know (good) no golden boy wanting so ever ta be human (good)

All them be done to death, along with all the sets (even TOS), ships, and technobabble… I furrr one will like to see somethin’ new…

I think the only person who could be upset by sci-fi canon would be poor belated Mr. Asimov for when they turned his peaceful robots into murderous hooligans targeting the Fresh Prince o’ Bel-air…
arrrr…

… make Star Tek as REAL as possible… that means good characters ya know!… in a conciev’bly plausible plot and plot solution…

Oh- and showing ‘em usin’ the loo…

Checkhov on KP…

124. British Naval Dude - February 7, 2008

and yes, I liked ENT… cuz it was something different… even the song I liked (uh-oh they be coming after me now!)

well… the Xindi crap was unbearable but the bread of the sandwhich (seas 1 und 4) was very good and really Trek ta me… explore… try to have good characters… good stories and social ideas…

I be spammin’ now…

arrr…

125. Scott - February 7, 2008

Re: #100 – Jim

I couldn’t agree more with your well-written opinion — all three paragraphs. I’ve often thought what you wrote here:

“give him some dialogue along the lines of ‘Fascinating, there appear to be other variations in the timestream that have altered the present reality. Everything is changed, yet everything is the same.’ Chalk it off to Chekov’s lost phaser or some other similar temporal anomaly. Anything please except ‘OK – the past is different because new guys are now in charge!'”

I do believe that the members of the production team making this new movie have their hearts in the right place. I really do. And not having seen anything but fuzzy snippets of the production design, plot, etc., it is too soon for me to forge a supportable opinion, frankly. I do think changes to anything as encoded in our synapses as ST-TOS is should be credibly explained, if strict adherence to continuity (visual, “historical” or otherwise) is to be mitigated in any way. The simplest throwaway line can cover a lot of ground.

As for the caution and outright hostility that some fans show on these boards — I understand it, even if some of it seems at best premature. But that said, I can forgive a lot of the “necessary” changes we seem to be in store for, if I am shown that those in charge show they care about Star Trek. So far, I am cautiously optimistic, as Roberto Orci’s presence here and the access we’ve had to other team members show that they do care.

Scott B. out.

126. James Heaney - February 7, 2008

116 Closettrekker: “You bring up an excellent point about how this is being approached on different fronts. They are acting as the “consumate politicians”, taking a different approach with traditional fans, as opposed to the “movie-going mainstream”. That strategy is good. It is also, for that reason, why JJ’s comments to USA Today– or the like, should never be dissected the way they sometimes are on these boards. They should be taken with a grain of salt.”

I wanted to reprint that, because it is one of the most insightful things anyone’s said in several days. Very nicely put.

Re #100 – Jim: I am personally deeply, deeply hostile towards throwaway lines. If it doesn’t forward the plot or the characters, cut it, and let the fans work out the continuity of it later. Exposition bores me–exposition that isn’t even important to the current work drives me absolutely up the wall. So I disagree with you and Scott about including an explanation for any changes in the aesthetic feel. (And I’m still hoping there’s no alternate timeline at all.)

127. Jorg Sacul - February 7, 2008

First off, thank you Mr. Orci for stopping by to our little corner of the web! You’ve obviously found us to be a vocal group hidden behind our IP addresses, as passionate as any zealots in history about our, um, future made up history. I hope you get an occasional good feeling from what is read here, besides all the vitriol that bubbles up. Despite the hostility written, it’s all because we love Star Trek, and like any good zealots, we want it on our terms, perfect in our opinion. If it’s not, well… therefore we’ll all be going there on premier day, buying our tickets, and then eagerly awaiting DVD release day.

I hope you come back to talk to us again, soon!

now…back to the previously scheduled righteous flame wars…

>>
“What other franchise has as distinct and established phenomenon as to have a name (Trekkie, Trekker).”
Ever heard of Whovians (Doctor Who fans, for all you who don’t know your British sci-fi)? Or BROWNCOATS???
>>

Rebecca: Please. Trek is SO much more of a global phenom. It is known world-wide, in obscure regions of the world that barely have electricity. To use the term “Whovians” or “Browncoats” on the street of any major cities of the world would get you a look from most people akin to a cat trying out ill-fitted contact lenses. However, if you say “Trekkie”, they’d know.

I’m not denegrating Dr. Who or whatever show features Browncoats… they just aren’t as universally known as Star Trek.

128. Kirk, James T. - February 7, 2008

mr Orci – do you ever visit Trekunited.com and view the sub forum set up for this movie? if so, what do you think of some of the opinions being talked about there? do you think sometimes in cases fans take things too seriously?

129. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#124–“I do think changes to anything as encoded in our synapses as ST-TOS is should be credibly explained, if strict adherence to continuity (visual, “historical” or otherwise) is to be mitigated in any way. The simplest throwaway line can cover a lot of ground.”

Quite reasonable, I think, and that is consistent with what Mr. Orci has told us here before.

Mr. Orci: “Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.

I think that is what he meant. These guys (Mr. Orci and Mr. Lindelhoff) are fans, too. I think it is reasonable to assume that they have equally passionate concerns regarding continuity.

Either way, one faction of the fan community or another will criticize the film, whether it be the “canonites”, the “Shat-heads”, or the self-proclaimed “purists”, but that is nothing new. For every one inflexible fan lost after this film is seen, who is to say that the Star Trek fan community will not add two others to their ranks?

130. T'juli - February 7, 2008

I agree. This has helped to alleviate some anxiety. I knot in the stomach down, 1,771,561 to go.

That is assumingm of course that they start off with 1, have an average litter of 10 every 12 hours over the course of 3 days.us

131. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#92– You said,

“ENT flopped because of arrogant, short-sighted producers and their shitty writers force-feeding viewers crap!”

I have to disagree with you there, Dr. Image.

ENT flopped because it was made available to a small audience. I very much appreciated it–that is, once I was able to see it! The more I watch it on dvd, the more I appreciate it for what it was. It was, IMO, a realistic depiction of what the Trek universe would have been like more than a century prior to Mr. Roddenberry’s utopian TOS-era. As for its alleged canon violations, I would submit to you that it was 100 times more in line with canon than say–the original movies were with continuity to the first season of TOS, or for that matter, one TOS episode was to another. As for the quality of the writing, do you enjoy rewatching every single episode of TOS? I don’t. There are about 20-25 episodes which can boast excellent writing… that’s about it.

132. AJ - February 7, 2008

I enjoy hearing how people here think that so much is “brewing” with Trek, and that things have reached a fever pitch.

Actually, outside of the small group which inhabits this site, I sense an excitement level of zero.

The teaser, while it got me going, is absolutely meaningless to the bulk of the public JJ&CO are trying to attract. It got older folks into Cloverfield and younger folks to see the trailer.

The secrecy really does a lot to annoy us Trek-minded folk, but has no effect on the general public, whose cash will determine whether this sinks or swims. The General Public needs action, good-looking actors, and space battles. What they will get in the end product is (hopefully) good drama and pop philosophy as well, plus a compelling reason to return for a sequel.

133. Craig - February 7, 2008

But the burning question is:
Will the movie appeal to the avid TNG’er who’s knowledge of TOS is built only from what was seen in the movies and the odd rerun that could keep our attention longer than one ad break?

134. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#130–I get what you are saying, but when I say to people I know (who are definitely not big Trek fans) that there is a new Star Trek movie coming out in December, the response is much more encouraging when I add that JJ Abrams is directing (once I explain who he is).

Your thoughts are exactly the reason why Mr. Orci said they needed an A-list director to really pull this off.

But for “us”, things are at a “fever pitch”. Imagine this site 2 weeks before Christmas.

135. Steve Hill - February 7, 2008

If the new Star Trek movie looks like it did in the 60s I would think we were watching a Bradey Bunch movie. You have to update the look, Star Trek Enterprise was updated it looked better and it was before the 60s Star Trek in stardate . I know the 60s ship and uniforms poped up once on Enterprise but you could tell it was 60s that is TV you can’t do that on the big screen.

136. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#131–I would suggest to you that you go back and watch some of the better TOS episodes on dvd. If you like, I am sure any one of us can recommend some which are sure to keep your attention, or just set your DVR. I cannot remember the last time I sat through ANY commercials that were not broadcast during a live sporting event.
Here is a short list of 15:
“Where No Man Has Gone Before”
“Balance Of Terror”
“Space Seed”
“Friday’s Child”
“The Savage Curtain”
“The Enterprise Incident”
“Errand Of Mercy”
“City On The Edge Of Forever”
“The Trouble With Tribbles”
“The Ultimate Computer”
“Day Of The Dove”
“Amok Time”
“Arena”
“Cout-Martial”
“The Menagerie”

I could give you more, but that could occupy your attention and your imagination for awhile. If nothing else, you will certainly bring with you to the theater a different perspective on the new film.

Mr. Orci thinks you’ll like it either way– even suggesting that you could have never seen any TOS episode and still enjoy it, but I have to think that having a degree of familiarity with “pre-holodeck Trek” would be an advantage worth owning.

137. Bart - February 7, 2008

You gotta give these guys the benefit of the doubt here. They are obviously real fans. Nimoy praises the story and the director as well, so I’m not worried.

138. johnconner - February 7, 2008

FIRST!!!!

139. Mark Lynch - February 7, 2008

#59
You beat me to it!
I had temporarily forgotten the Ultimate Answer was 42 and had slipped 47 into my mind and was about to make myself look very silly by making a statement along the lines that THHGTTG had already given this answer (47) after 7.5 million years of deliberation. I wonder what the Ultimate Question was……?
Mind you, I always felt the original question was a bit broad. Didn’t you?

I will be eternally grateful for your intervention ;)
Have I already made myself silly? Probably… :)

Awwww who cares? It’s all a bit of fun.

P.S.
Really looking forward to the forums on TM

140. The Vulcanista - February 7, 2008

#137

LOL! Ditto on the forums.

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

141. Dr. Image - February 7, 2008

#129- To me ENT failed dramatically. I just didn’t care about the characters at all. They were drawn the same way Voyager’s characters were drawn- as a bunch of smarmy unappealing whiners.
Technically, Drexler and the other designers had to work within the producer’s constraints to create the 100-years-B4-Kirk universe.
They came up with a version that again was stylistically the same as the versions of TV Trek that had come before. And you know what? Braga agreed with this point on this board a while back. Paramount insisted that they play it safe. They did and it bombed.
Time for something REALLY new.
Bring it on, JJ.

142. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#139–“Time for something REALLY new.
Bring it on, JJ.”

Now, on that… we agree.

I did not care for TNG. I hated VOY. I thought DS9 was okay, and significantly better towards the end.

ENT was the only Berman-era Trek work I had any real appreciation for. I found that it stood apart significantly from the others, particularly in its cinematography and its grittiness. It wasn’t perfect, but I found it more refreshing than their past work. I think that if it were broadcast on a more accessible outlet, it might still be going.
Oh well, if it were– we might not be looking down the barrel of an exciting new project like this. Bring it on, indeed.

143. Red Shirt - February 7, 2008

134

That is one heck of a list! Makes me smile just to think about those eps all over again.

144. AJ - February 7, 2008

134: “Mirror (cough) Mirror!?”

145. Closettrekker - February 7, 2008

#142–Like I said, any one of us could make a list. “Mirror, Mirror” is a great episode.

146. Alex Rosenzweig - February 7, 2008

#95 – James, I can completely agree that there are times when a change to the visual presentation may well be necessary and warranted. e.g., at borrow from the point #56 raises, I don’t have any problem with the sort of redesigns TOS Remastered is doing, and if Abrams and Co. are doing their own version of visually “sprucing up” Trek for today’s audience, that’s cool with me, as well!

But proceeding then to promptly tell us that the last 4 decades of storytelling will no longer matter because the entire fictional world is changed by the end of the film is *not* cool.

That’s where I stand on it, along with the belief that the first does not require the second. In the absence of anything beyond a few relatively vague statements to suggest that the Trekverse itself is being messed-with in any permanent way, I remain mostly hopeful. I’d just like to get that reassurance so I can be 100% optimistic. :)

Does that make sense?

#100 – Ironically, I think I’m more in the other camp. I could more readily accept that, if the new sets, costumes, etc. at least broadly resemble the older ones (and there are pretty strong hints that at least in the case of the ship and the costumes, that’s the case), this is just a modern portrayal of the same fictional world. I’d rather not have dialogue suggesting that suddenly things have actually changed, fictionally. Let the Trekverse itself remain intact and simply allow for a fresh presentation thereof.

#102 – “I have high hopes for this film and I am looking forward to seeing it. I am really impressed with Roberto Orci and the way he has got involved with us mere mortals here at TrekMovie. He clearly has a passion and obvious enthusiasm for this project and Star Trek as a whole. I just hope this film fits into the gaps of Star Trek history we know nothing about, instead of seeming to be part of a totally different universe.”

Very nicely said. I agree.

#111 – “For me, the question is continuity within the Trek timeline. “Canon” is overrated, and has ALWAYS been selectively adhered to.”

I think that in some ways, that’s what Roberto was referring to when he discussed the Supreme Court analogy. The earliest parts of TOS are often notably inconsistent, both with each other and with what was later settled upon, because they were still finding their way and developing their world. I’m sure the new film will have had its share of occasions where to do something that makes sense now, either realistically or in the fictional world, will contradict some detail in one of those early stories. Such reinterpretations have happened often, and no doubt will continue to happen. I’m relatively unbothered by that.

147. Oregon Trek Geek - February 7, 2008

Whether or not the movie is good, or whether it is a success (the two don’t always go together), Orci sure seems sincere. I am confident they are pouring their heart into it. I continue to be optimistic. And the conspiracy theorist in me STILL thinks the Shat is going to show up in this movie. :)

148. M. - February 7, 2008

#92

That is actually not what I said, but do agree about the poor writing part of your comment. My comment, for those who failed to see my point, was geared towards those fans out there who complain about certain issues from the franchise, but let others slide. If you’re going to complain, atleast be consistant!
I believe the problem with Enterprise was the poor writing and lack of convincing characters, and yes producer arrogance contributed also. I personally am not a stickler for absolute continuity. I can accept the occasional anachronism if the story is served. Case in point Star Trek First Contact.

#98

My thought as well!!!!

#140

Hmmm?! It’s nice to have a forum where people who have totally different views can coexist. I respect your opinion, although I strongly disagree with it.

149. Dr. Image - February 7, 2008

When they release the cast photo on the bridge, this place is going to go into trans-warp.
I want to hold the image of what I think it will look like in my head so that I’ll have SOME reference point to dull the shock.
As I’ve said, the New Voyages crew is going to look like a bunch of old familiar pals by comparison, so, in the words of Captain Jack, you better be ready…

150. Rick - February 7, 2008

It would seem that we can all hope for the BEST and prepare for the WORST… No one really knows what is going to happen in this movies and so far all everyone has done is FREAK OUT, BITCH and MOAN… After Enterprise and the whole, long drawn out temporal war who knows? Maybe the movie will start out in an alternate time where the ship and crew look and act differently and by the end of the flick Spock will fix the timeline and restore everything to the STAR TREK we all know….

So here is my advice, wait and see…. and if it does piss you off afterwards, don’t buy it or see the next one if the same people continue on with thie NEW FRANCHISE… STTAR – STAR TREK THE ALTERNATE REALITY….

151. Captain Otter - February 7, 2008

Dear #9-

Star Trek has always tried to be true to science. Current time-travel theories strongly suggest that time travel also involves multiple timelines or parallel universes. Many previous Trek plots have revolved around this reality.

When the new franchise creates a new and different timeline, it does not at all erase the other “canonical” timelines. Theoretically, they still exist.

What I am saying is that even a radical reboot is no threat to Trek canon for those who understand the scientific underpinning of Trek canon.

Just think of Abrams Trek the way you already think of Mirror Universe stories in existing Trek lore. The difference is, Abrams will build a whole franchise in a mirror universe- not exit neatly out of it in 60 minutes.

In that sense, Abrams is being more true to the tech of Trek than any previous caretaker- including Gene. After all, that’s how the science works.

I suggest a quick Google of the John Titor hoax for some good info on time travel and alternate universes.

152. Balock - February 7, 2008

TOS E exterior is iconic, and now matter much the new guys try, anything they come up with will be inferior… If they are going to change the uniforms, then the the skirts should be raised a few more inches…

153. Colorado_Gamer - February 7, 2008

http://www.audiograffiti.com.au/47/

154. SweetBabyJesus - February 7, 2008

jesus. i am beginning to REALLY hate internet movie sites. not only are they starting to lean toward the hate for hate’s sake; they’re totally unbalanced. this article is a PERFECT example. i mean, when was the last time ANYONE cared about a star trek film?!! the last series of films was like watching bad sci-fi channel marathons. my god. they should be HAPPY that someone is trying to inject some life into this dead in the water mythology. instead, these pathetic whiners just whip their wet blankets around like backseat drivers. why don’t you guys relax, and hope for the best. most of you have already made up your mind- WITHOUT SEEING A DAMN FRAME OF THE FILM. it makes me sick. just shut up and DON’T watch the film, if it’s gonna bother you so much. i mean, it’s not like your opinion made any of the last few films any money. they just floated like a turd until the multiplexes flushed them away…

155. Dan - February 7, 2008

This team has another advantage: they can learn from the mistakes of others.

George Lucas, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace,” and Jar-Jar Binks, I am looking squarely at YOU.

156. Laserlover2254 - February 7, 2008

#139:

Interesting.

Where was that?

157. [The] TOS Purist - February 7, 2008

I just have one question for Mr. Orci…and although I doubt it’ll be answered, I’d like to ask it anyway.

Why did you feel the need to create your OWN version of the TOS world out of the blue instead of using the one that was already there? Wasn’t the original “good enough” as it was? Why wasn’t it “good enough,” in your people’s opinion?

I understand that you’re trying to change non-fan’s perspectives on Star Trek, but I should think that the best way to do that would simply be to make a TOS movie that borrows details from the show and exists within the realm of the original show, as a way to “point out” the cool aspects of the show to non-fans who never bothered noticing them. Making up something totally different is all well and good if you’re trying to make your own movie look “cool,” but it does nothing for the original, which is NOT being represented in the end, and therefore is not having people’s perspectives about it changed. It remains as it always was, and your efforts to change the way people look at TOS will have been in vain, no?

158. [The] TOS Purist - February 7, 2008

Sorry about the run-on sentances, it’s late. XD

159. Katie G. - February 7, 2008

Re: #105. Petey

I agree somewhat — but don’t be too quick to lump us all together. I don’t want to be identified with the others. Some of those posters are obviously not Trek fans because I don’t think real Star Trek fans would be that rude. However, I could be wrong. Guess I just don’t understand that mentality except to say that they’re angry for some reason and they are acting out here. Hopefully other true Trek fans will recognize the difference and just ignore them.

So, “reader”:

If you’re a new visitor, please ignore all the nasty little posts you’ve read and don’t judge Star Trek or its real fans by the unpleasant posts you’ve seen here. I’m fairly new myself but have “met” some fabulous fans and hope to stay in touch.

Petey:

I’d love to list all the post #’s that embarrass me and even anger me but that would probably be labelled as flaming (or even trolling) and I’d get busted. And here’s hoping that Anthony will start deleting some of the more nasty ones that seem to slip through the net. It ruins the spirit of what this whole website is for: mutual enjoyment of Trek and each other’s company because some of us do not have friends that like Trek so we have no one to talk to about it.

(Hey — maybe that’s why some of the posters are so cranky…)

Just a thot…

kg

160. Craig - February 7, 2008

I watched the TNG S7 episode “Parallels” it shows that multiple alternate universes exist in addition to the Mirror Universe(incidently it’s the episode that shows an image of a galaxy class ship being built on the ground at utopia planitia).

With TOS what put me off is mainly the female dialog, it makes me cringe so much… it’s like watching Data do stand up in the one of the early TNG episodes. The one I have seen and liked was that one with Joan Collins and Balance of Terror I guess

161. Katie G. - February 7, 2008

Re: #158. Craig

“With TOS what put me off is mainly the female dialog, it makes me cringe so much… ”

Please clarify. Not sure what you mean.

Thanks.

kg

162. Jabob Slatter - February 7, 2008

Frankly, I’m horrified by the reaction of so many “purists” and “canonites.” I’m a little ashamed of some “fans” here. I’ve been thinking about taking a leave from these forums because of the increasingly low maturity level. I’ve certainly cut down my participation as of late.

I’m especially embarrassed that the creators of the new Star Trek film are reading much of this. No wonder there’s a stigma surrounding Trek fandom. No wonder Bill Shatner yells at us and tells us to get lives.

Well, I’m taking Bill’s advice. So long folks!

163. Rick James - February 8, 2008

Wow. I am just … Wow.

All I can say is I will see the new movie this Christmas. If it stinks it is a $8 mistake I won’t be making again.

I just finished watching all of Cawley’s New Voyages episodes. They are better than I expected. If the new Trek movie changes TOS, there are always Cawley’s episodes to watch if one wants new TOS material.

164. Chris TROC - February 8, 2008

#11 “Do you think Superman fans are upset that the movies don’t look like or fit into the continuity of the 50s TV show?”

ROFLOL. The fan wars over Superman canon make the argument over Trek look like a disagreement over yarn color in a knitting circle. DC Comics has been doing this “stealth reboot via alternate timeline” thing for decades, and it’s driven away longstanding fans, confused new ones, and generally brought very little that’s good.

Go to any Superman message board and ask them, “What story is Superman’s current origin?” They don’t know. DC screwed up their timeline so badly even they don’t know. You’ve got Golden Age Superman, Golden Age Superman Reimagined as Silver Age Earth 2 Superman, Silver Age Superman, Man of Steel Superman–with pre- and post-Zero Hour variants–and Birthright Superman, with pre- and post-Infinite Crisis variants.. The current Superman is a poorly defined amalgamation of the MoS and BR versions with some new stuff thrown in. That’s just the mainline canonical comic book Superman; I’ve left out alternate timelines, future Supermen, canonized Elseworlds and imaginary Supermen, etc., as well as all radio, film, and television Supermen.

And fans complain about it every single day. So Superman was probably the worst example you could’ve chosen to belittle Trekkies who are concerned about canon.

165. Dave - February 8, 2008

Since when is there Star Trek “canon?”

They’ve changed everything up so many times already, so who cares?

I just want a good story with some kicking special effects.

166. Craig - February 8, 2008

#159 Katie – The burry camera and the lines for the female cast members on TOS just didn’t feel right… Tasha Yar and Troi had quite a few stinkers in the first couple of TNG seasons but quickly shook off that TOS feel

167. Closettrekker - February 8, 2008

#158, #164–Some of the female dialog is representative of the times, for sure, but keep in mind that this series was the first to break new ground in casting females (and in particular, an African-American female) in important roles such as those filled by Number One, Uhura, Rand, and Chapel.

If some of the importance of their dialog seems dated, I can only point out that all incarnations of Trek are somewhat reflective of the time they were produced, no matter how far in the future those shows were set. Again, there are only about 20-25 great episodes of TOS which stand the test of time, IMO. TOS only ran for 79 episodes in 3 seasons. TNG ran for 7 seasons, and in that time, I can think of only about the same amount of episodes which are worth rewatching, if that many at all.

You mentioned Troi, but I found her to be, along with Wesley Crusher, a rather useless character. She was quite obviously there as eye candy, but IMO, she even came up short in that regard.

“Tasha Yar and Troi had quite a few stinkers in the first couple of TNG seasons but quickly shook off that TOS feel”

TOS feel? I don’t think so. The characters in TNG never reached the heights of the TOS feel! Even Jonathan Frakes admitted as much in an article on this very site. True ensemble character dynamics really only work in sitcoms. TOS had the big 3, while TNG–again, IMO, struggled to keep that “ensemble” the least bit interesting and out of snoredom.

168. Katie G. - February 8, 2008

Re: #164. Craig

Gotcha. Thanks. In TOS Rand had a bit part so they probably didn’t put much thought into her role. I actually didn’t like some of Edith Keeler’s lines. Maybe it was the way she said her prognostications about the future. It sounded a little far-fetched and too convenient.

I really wasn’t impressed with Troi’s part in the TNG opener (Farpoint). It was embarrassing. However, she has been written more

One of the women I liked was the daughter of Anton Karidian (Lenore). Her lines were quite sharp but then she snaps and we see that she’s a little “off”. Oh well. Does the writing of that era reflect their impression of women? Who knows. I don’t take it personally. It’s just interesting.

Re: #165. Closet-trekker

Actually I enjoyed the TNG bridge ensemble very much (as I did the rest of the series’ ensembles). They may not have achieved the impact/success of the original trio in TOS but the writers wrote more parts for the rest of the group instead of keeping it a trio. Maybe they had to because it did last 7 years. Enjoyed getting to know the rest of them. Besides, who could top Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock?

Gotta tell you, though, that I got tired of Riker real quick. Didn’t enjoy his swaggering “what-the-hell’s-going-on-here” type of bravado. It seemed rather unbecoming of a Bridge Officer and it appeared to contradict his record. Couldn’t see how he could have such a brilliant record with that type of attitude. Hopefully the writers weren’t saying that this was their impression of the “military” and that this type of attitude should be rewarded with promotion.

Of course, it’s possible that there are personality types like that. It’s just that it seemed inconsistent and I found it uncomfortable. I did, however, like it when he acted properly. They gave him a good sense of humour and a commanding presence. (What did he wish for on his birthday when he blew out the candles after one of his trombone performances in Ten Forward? “Music lessons!” That was classic.

It sounds like we’re talking about real people. Hah! What a riot.

I liked Tasha but she was given some poor lines. Maybe Denise bailed because she didn’t have the faith that the writers would do her character justice.

They all had some bad writing at times, but all-in-all I enjoyed it immensely. Maybe I’m not very discerning.

Never stopped to count which episodes I liked/didn’t like. It would be interesting to see the ratios of each series. Maybe I’ll take a moment and do that some day. It would be an interesting project.

kg

169. Iowagirl - February 8, 2008

#166

RE: Edith Keeler

Edith Keeler arguably is ST‘s most crucial single-episodic female character. Living in the 30‘s, she can‘t possibly know anything about those events and avenues she‘s talking about; so, one can say she‘s a real visionary and thus she‘s a true personification of future ambitions and destinations. In a way, her thoughts are a perfect link, a bridge to the 23rd century, and by thinking and feeling the way she does she‘s able to establish that wonderful relationship with Kirk.

On this note, I wouldn‘t say that her lines sound a little far-fetched or too convenient, but very inspiring and giving the impression of a woman who is way ahead of her times, vouching for her beliefs, and being on her way to make the world a somewhat better place.

“One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, maybe even the atom… energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in… in some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will be able to find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world and to cure their diseases. They will be able to find a way to give each man hope and a common future. And those are the days worth living for. Our deserts will bloom… “

170. Alex Rosenzweig - February 8, 2008

#163 – “Since when is there Star Trek “canon?”

They’ve changed everything up so many times already, so who cares?”

Really, I don’t think that’s true at all, especially if by “canon” you mean “continuity”. Allowing for the periodic finessing of relatively minor details (most of which have been gone over ad nauseum in this and other threads), the overall continuity has held up remarkably well for 40+ years. Oh, it’s not perfect, but there’s been nothing so jarring that one had to point and say, “Okay, this has changed everything and what went before doesn’t matter.” And considering the sheer number of people involved in creating Trek from the 1960s through today, that’s pretty impressive.

With luck, the current team will translate the oft-spoken-of respect for Trek to the presentation of a story which explores some of the early tales-not-yet-told of Kirk and co., and things will have continued to hold up.

171. table10 - February 8, 2008

#165
“TOS feel? I don’t think so. The characters in TNG never reached the heights of the TOS feel! Even Jonathan Frakes admitted as much in an article on this very site. True ensemble character dynamics really only work in sitcoms. TOS had the big 3, while TNG–again, IMO, struggled to keep that “ensemble” the least bit interesting and out of snoredom. ”

I agree about TNG not being able to match the dynamic of the big 3, but what I found came close, was as the series progressed, and into the movies, the sort of “father to son” responsibility that picard Began to have towards Data, like a teacher.

It wasn’t kirk spock mccoy, but it was enough of an interesting relationship that made TNG unique, instead of a show trying to redo TOS.

172. Closettrekker - February 8, 2008

#166–Hi, Katie G. I am sure there are a million fans who share your appreciation. I watched their first runs, but I have to say that I almost never rewatch those episodes. On the other hand, I get a “TOS jones” quite often, and it is almost always the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic which brings the first smile to my face.

#167–Agreed. Edith Keeler always struck me as an extremely well-written character, and one of the best—female or otherwise. Moreover, her comments did indeed become prophetic, within the Star Trek universe. That episode was not only one of the best Trek episodes, but one of the best in television history.

#168–There has definitely been “general” continuity throughout the 40 years of Trek, and you’re right–it is impressive, considering the longevity and the sheer number of different creative writers involved.

#169–I certainly agree that TNG was right in not attempting to emulate TOS too much. It was certainly successful in its own right. As I am not a huge fan of TNG or the spinoffs set in that era, I will accept your judgement that the particular dynamic which you mentioned contributed to that success.

173. Craig - February 8, 2008

This Trio thing I just don’t see it ,my favorite character in the TOS movies was Scotty but I guess it’s this over emphasis on this Star Trek Trio formula which totally failed when they tryed to force it on TNG in NEM with Worf,Picard and Data.

TNG was more of a family show every one had their part of the family and it work really well in INS and FC(to a lesser extent but nice to see Barclay and Ogowa ) Certainly I think TNG did alot with couples eg. Data&Geordie(I can’t beleive Geordie didn’t have a bigger Part in NEM) , Troi & Riker ,Picard & Crusher

174. I Love My Mookie - February 8, 2008

Honor canon or watch Star Trek’s 42 year history come to an end. You cannot leap into the future by re-imagining the past to one man’s vision.

When it comes to Star Trek, as Jor-El says in Superman-The Movie, “This is not fantasy”. ST is real for most of us who fought for TOS’ 3rd season. We fought for TAS & TMP.

If Abrams doesn’t wish to be loyal to canon & honor it to the letter then why retreat backwards instead of warping into onwards where there are no restrictions?

175. Katie G. - February 8, 2008

Re: #170. Closet-trekker

“…On the other hand, I get a “TOS jones” quite often, and it is almost always the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic which brings the first smile to my face…”

Absolutely. I totally agree. My friend and I watch it as often as we can. We can almost quote the famous scenes verbatim. My husband just shakes his head. He doesn’t get it.

Oops. Just re-visited my posting and saw a typo.

“I really wasn’t impressed with Troi’s part in the TNG opener (Farpoint). It was embarrassing. However, she has been written more ”

Left hanging there. Just meant to say they improved her character giving her a little more range, depth and authority. Guess I posted before I proofread.

Re: #169. table10

That’s it.

kg

176. Lochlan - February 8, 2008

I quote Russell T. Davies, EP for Doctor Who and Torchwood:

“I think we’re an unusual science-fiction franchise in taking a very big step back from fandom and having nothing to do with them. . . . Every program on the BBC has a message board on the website. I forbid it to happen on ‘Doctor Who.’ I’m sorry to say this, all the science fiction producers making stuff in America, they are way too engaged with their fandom. They all need to step back.”

The fact that there’s even a board where there are producers of this film concerning themselves with Star Trek fan’s obsession with “canon” is ridiculous.

Times change. People change. IDEAS change and evolve. Change is neither good or bad, it’s how you adapt to it. It’s all out of your hands anyway, folks, relax and get over it.

177. Closettrekker - February 8, 2008

#172–Honor canon? Which canon?

The canon from the first season of Star Trek–which was discarded in the second and third seasons? The canon established in second and third seasons–which was disregarded in the movies? Or is it the canon in TMP/TWOK–which was discarded before TWOK was even over? Which “canon” does Mr. Abrams (Orci, Kurtzman) have to “honor to the letter” in your eyes?

And what have they said that leads you to believe they are planning to disregard it?

Mr Orci: “Anything that appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.

Sound familiar? It should. You mentioned TMP. That is exactly what the producers did when they realized that the TOS-era Enterprise was not fit for the big screen–provide a canon explanation for changing it.

On the other hand, we were force-fed Klingons with Ruffles (I mean ridges) without any explanation within “canon”. Was Gene being disloyal to canon– or adding more creativity to Star Trek?

As for “retreating backwards”, the way I understand it, the story begins in the 24th Century where the spinoffs/NEM left us. Besides, the characters have never been as good as they were in TOS–so “why not?” is the better question. There is an abundance of Star Trek history which remains unexplored right now.

When I asked Bob Orci if, after seeing this film, we would have to view TOS in a different light, he simply answered that it was his(and their) goal that it (our future viewing of TOS)be ehanced after seeing their movie.

What if that is indeed the case? Are they then being disloyal to canon–or adding more creativity to Star Trek?

178. Closettrekker - February 8, 2008

#174–I never really cared for Doctor Who.

For every fan seemingly obsessed with “canon”, there are a dozen others who are not.

As for Mr. Orci paying us a more-than-occasional visit here—we love that he even cares, and it gives us something new to talk about here each time.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that quote (although I am personally not one to obsess over “canon”). It is things like this great news site and comment forum which keeps the fans of Trek excited about upcoming films, tv series, books, etc.

To each his own.

179. I Love My Mookie - February 8, 2008

The message is loud & clear that most fans desire the return of William Shatner as Captain Kirk. Would one produce an updated “Seinfeld” & recast Jerry? Shatner is the star of TOS and devoted his career to Star Trek, at one point the poor man slept in his car because he was so heavily typecasted.

Lets reward Mr. Shatner’s golden years by giving him what he & Jim Kirk love most, the captain’s chair of the USS Enterprise in STXI. It is the human thing to do.

180. Simon - February 8, 2008

Sorry Mookie. Kirk is DEAD. Let him rot in peace.

“Star Trek” is “Star Trek”. It is not “Kirk” or “Shatner” (referring to your odd “Seinfeld” comparison). If JJ Abrams could have had him in there he would have, but he couldn’t. It would have taken a film itself to explain why he was back (like “ST III: TSFS”).

Canon is good, but it can suffocate and kill a franchise, just as it did.
TREK was *dead* for all purposes. JJ Abrams is bringing it back to life and the fans here are ready to abort it because it doesn’t have cheesy 60’s production values or dead characters brought back to life. Abrams has an excellent track record, and I’m more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This movie cost $100+ million. To make that kind of money back, it MUST appeal to the mainstream. Those of you who want your canon and cheesy production can watch the Cawley stuff (which I find terrible). I’ve been with TREK for over 40 years now and I’m damn excited about this new film. I would hate to see it fail because some dorks on the internet began spreading false hate based on *rumors* and something they have not yet seen for themselves.

181. Katie G. - February 8, 2008

#177 I Love My Mookie

By the way, if by the term “I Love My Mookie” you are referring to the pet name that Quark and Rom had for Ishka, their mother, it was spelled

“MOOGIE”.

Just looked it up on star trek.com.

If not, then nevermind! :-)

kg

182. I Love My Moogie - February 8, 2008

#179

Katie G., I humbly thank you, my universal translating spellcheck is in the shop.

#178: “Sorry Mookie. Kirk is DEAD. Let him rot in peace.”

Kirk will be alive & well in STXI, isn’t this fact the foundation for the Shatner debate? The ‘rot’ remark was most uncalled for, for many of us William Shatner defines TOS. It was Rick Berman who killed Star Trek, not ST itself abiding to canon. A STIII type of film with the objective of reviving Shatner is exactly what fans have been waiting fourteen years for. It just seems very odd for a film that’s suppose to show James T. Kirk at different periods in his life could not find a way to show him at a point where he looks like Bill Shatner.

183. Simon - February 8, 2008

“for many of us William Shatner defines TOS”

Yes, so watch TOS if you want a Shatner Kirk.

There’s no way to do that for this film. The Shat was willing to kill Kirk for “Generations” and that is that. No crying over spilled milk here.

I for one, am sick of the “he’s dead but not really dead” joke that TREK has become. It was stretching for “Search For Spock” and it would be INCREDIBLY stretching to find a way to not only resurrect Kirk, but explain why he’s aged a decade and gained all the additional weight.

184. Anthony Pascale - February 8, 2008

damnit people stop derailing everything into the stupid shatner debate

185. Anthony Pascale - February 8, 2008

mookie warning for trolling and derailment

and no one is able to declare what ‘most fans want’ and imply that those who dont agree with them arent fans

186. Katie G. - February 8, 2008

Re: #180. I Love My Moogie

I think what everyone is trying to say is, this particular movie that J.J. has been given to do is about James T. Kirk when he was young (and the other members of the crew around the same time and how they came together on the bridge). For him to do justice to this movie, he can’t do justice to a “bringing Kirk back” story. Maybe in the next one…

If the ones who want Kirk do the letter-writing campaign like that woman who got them to do one more year of TOS, maybe you guys can do that.

Please don’t get angry at us when we say it’s not possible. Most of us aren’t being stubborn, just realistic. And after all, who knows what the plans are for the next two movies?

Let’s just be magnanimous and allow each other room for opinion. Guys, anyone who says “I love my Moogie” can’t be all bad…

I’m enjoying this website. Let’s not jeopardize it.

Thanks.

kg

187. Benjamin Sisko - February 8, 2008

#95. a.k.a. ToupeGuy

How you changed your mind so radicaly? I recall your negative wievs about ST XI, design of USS Enterprise etc. Can you tell us the reason for this sudden \”revelation\”, please.

188. Anthony Pascale - February 8, 2008

RE: 185
I changed your name from ‘Avery Brooks’. On this site we dont allow actor/producer/etc names except from the actual people. This is so people dont think you are really Avery Brooks

189. craig - February 9, 2008

I still think Picard should be int the film

190. Benjamin Sisko - February 9, 2008

#187.

I agree, and Benjamin Sisko. :)

191. Closettrekker - February 9, 2008

#185–I think post #95 was pretty clear as to why Mr. Cawley has come aboard.

“Star Trek needs to grow and endure for another 40 years!!!!!!!!
Above all it needs to tell an entertaining story, and teach us about ourselves along the way. These folks making this movie have not taken on this job with the intention of trashing Trek, quite the opposite in fact.
So find it in yourself to believe in your fellow Trekkers “Orci and Lindlehoff and Abram’s” find some of that Optimism Gene Roddenberry believed that we all possesed! Let’s work together to get the rest of fandom excited about this feature! With this feature and all the Fan’Films out there it really feels like the 70’s again, a time when it was COOL to be a Trek fan!
This movie really has the potential to really re-energize the interest in the Original Series, and to get people to watch it all over again, and to even introduce it to a New Generation of kids who may just have ignored it!”

“Only Nixon could go to China…”—Spock

I would like to add that making such changes is nothing new. It was done for TMP, when the producers realized that Star Trek needed a new look for its big screen debut. They simply provided a canon explanation for those changes. Mr. Orci has assured us that this team will do the same.

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation.”–Bob Orci

I think the question of whether or not this film will violate canon has become much less relevant. The question has, IMO, become about these rumored “alternate timelines”, and what that means to previous incarnations of Star Trek. Will this alternate timeline be permanent? And if it is, what happens to the 40 years of Trek stories on my dvd shelves and yours? Are we to accept that all or some of it never happened? If so, just how significant is that?

192. Katie G. - February 9, 2008

Re: #189. Closet-Trekker

“…So find it in yourself to believe in your fellow Trekkers “Orci and Lindelof and Abrams” find some of that Optimism Gene Roddenberry believed that we all possessed! Let’s work together to get the rest of fandom excited about this feature!”

I’m not as eloquent as some of the posters here so I can’t go into elaborate arguments on the canon. However, it just kills me when I see furious arguments about a film we’ve only seen, what, 30 seconds of? If that even was going to be in the film!

For those who do not know this little adage, it goes like this:

When you “ASSUME”, you make an “ASS-” out of “U-” and ‘ME”.

It’s fun to exchange theories but when it gets bandied about (thank you, Scotty) it takes all the joy out of it.

“Bandy – to toss words back and forth casually, often without caring whether they are true or what effect they may have.”

When we’re on our deathbeds, so-to-speak, we won’t be remembering (i.m.o.) whether or not “the canon wasn’t respected in a Star Trek movie”. Trust me.

So let’s get a little bit of perspective. It would be nice if things fit but it not:

i-t-‘-s o-n-l-y a m-o-v-i-e!!

kg

193. AJ - February 9, 2008

174: Dr. Who fandom is irrelevant. It’s a British series with a limited following (and in need of a new marketing person, if fandom is to be ignored on principle).

Trek exists today because of its insane vocal and international fan base, which happens to exist because we have had 40+ years of great stories, and we are used to having a voice. And we are all 110% certifiably nuts.

Also, this site is not an official site. But we still get to interact with writers and actors. It’s cool. You should try it.

194. Closettrekker - February 9, 2008

#177–You said,

“The message is loud & clear that most fans desire the return of William Shatner…”

No…it is not, although it has been made clear that some people are bigger fans of Shatner than they are of Captain Kirk.

195. Closettrekker - February 9, 2008

#191–Very well said.

“(It’s a)…series with a limited following (and in need of a new marketing person, if fandom is to be ignored on principle).”

196. I Love My Moogie - February 9, 2008

#192: “although it has been made clear that some people are bigger fans of Shatner than they are of Captain Kirk.”

Shatner/Kirk are one & the same in my eyes. How can I ever imagine Kirk not wearing the skin of William Shatner?

197. Closettrekker - February 9, 2008

#194–First of all, they are not one and the same. And you can imagine it the same way we got over seeing Christopher Reeve start playing Superman, when everyone had only seen George Reeves do it up to that time. The same way we can still enjoy James Bond, even though he is not wearing the skin of Sean Connery—and hasn’t for a long time.

How many people do you think have played MacBeth before Patrick Stewart (who was just nominated for an award for that role)?

You can think that it will not be the same, and it will not be. Each actor brings something different to a role.

Was Bill Shatner really playing the same character in Generations that he played from 1966-about 1986? I don’t think so. I think in the later movies, he played Captain Kirk as William Shatner instead of the other way around. I don’t need to see that again. Frankly, I did not like where he went with that character beginning with STV.

I think he misjudged the comedic feel of STIV as something to try and reproduce in his future portrayals of the Kirk character. James Kirk was so much more dignified than the way Bill played him later on. I don’t need to see Bill pander to the SNL crowd in a Starfleet uniform. Somewhere along the way he stopped taking that role seriously, and the movies began to suffer for it.

Do you really want to see a movie dedicated to resurrecting that? I don’t.

Let’s remember Bill Shatner’s portrayal of Jim Kirk the way it was for the first 20 years–when it was good.

I do not feel disrespectful of Bill, and neither should Mr. Abrams and the others involved in casting. What better tribute to The Shat than to revisit a character which he helped make into an icon over 40 years ago? May we all be so well-respected for OUR work.

198. Garovorkin - February 9, 2008

We should have faith in JJ Abrams. Paramount chose the right man to bring about a revival of the Star Trek franchise. With his track record in television and movies I am convinced that he will do an exceptional job and we will get a great Star trek movie. In all honesty, trek needs a reboot, with the exception of Star Trek First Contact, the next generation movies were by and large major disappointments. Lets also remember the fact that on television there are no new star trek series in the works, worse still the original 79 episodes are on the TV land Channel with such shows as I love Lucy and Green Acres. The original series has gone from cutting edge to quaint which happens to science fiction as it ages. Gene Roddenberry recognized that trek could not stand still, that it had to evolve to stay relevant .

199. I Love My Moogie - February 9, 2008

#195:
I respectfully disagree with your thoughtful post about Shatner playing Kirk comically in STVI. He did play evil Kirk a bit broader, but in that scene he was actually portraying Martia.

The humor in STV was ordered by Paramount in response to TVH & not be Shatner. Bill originally tried to get Nick Meyer to write the screenplay which would have taken a very different tone.

There were a couple of fleeting moments in TFF where a stronger director would have kept Bill more focused (eg: the “he’s your brother brother? scene) but I do not see any issues with his performance in VI or GEN.

200. Garovorkin - February 9, 2008

In all honesty I have no difficulty seeing another actor in the role of Kirk or other actors in the parts of Spock,Mccoy, ,Chekov ,Scotty,Uhura. The simple fact is that the actors are just that, actors. I don’t understand what all of the fuss is about. If other actors are playing these iconic characters will we believe in them less? How many actors have played James Bond or Dr Who, yet we have no trouble accepting new actors in these familar roles. Why should we have a problem here? Would someone mind explaining it to me?

201. RTC - February 9, 2008

Any reservations I might have had about STXI — and, frankly, I’ve had almost none, and I’m a TOS fan from the beginning — were put to rest once and for all when James Cawley embraced it.

202. Garovorkin - February 9, 2008

#194 and #177 with all do respect your both being unrealistic here. No actor no matter how beloved is bigger then the franchise, Shatner has moved on to newer things and so should Trek and so should the both of you.As I pointed out in my previous comment he is an actor (a very good one), but still an actor, Yes some would have difficulty identifying another actor in this role most like myself would not. If you are going to approach the new movie with a closed minds your both only going to cheat yourselves out of a potentially great movie experience. Shatner is mortal and cannot be Kirk forever, Kirk is a fictional chaater and is immortal. consider the fact that in another generation there will be a new reboot of trek with a whole new cast play Kirk and company for a new generation

203. Katie G. - February 9, 2008

Re: #198. Garovorkin

Must admit that I WILL find it a little weird with someone else as Kirk (and the rest of the cast) but we must remember that this is a YOUNG James T. Kirk. Every time someone wants to do a “flashback” to when the character in the movie was young, they have to get someone who the audience will believe IS them (like a young Bette Midler in “Beaches” when they used Mayim Bialik from the series “Bossom” — that was a stroke of genius). I am willing to see it through and give it a chance. And if he becomes the new James T. Kirk, good for him! It will just take me some time to get used to it, but I will!!

If others don’t want to, that’s their perogative. I believe they’re missing out but that’s my opinion.

I can what people mean by using the Bond (007) example (Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Connery (?) Brosnan, Craig), but it’s not quite the same. We had Shatner for quite a while. Still, I want to see what Mr. Abrams is going to do with it. In fact, I can’t wait!

kg

204. Katie G. - February 9, 2008

Sorry… typos. It’s getting late.

“I can SEE what people mean by using the Bond (007) example…”

and

“…If others don’t want to, that’s their PREROGATIVE. ”

Bedtime.

kg

205. I Love My Moogie - February 9, 2008

They tried to recast The Honeymooners & failed. There are certain TV characters that are so intertwined with the actors (Lucy Ricardo, Barney Fife, Archic Bunker) that they are impossible to recast. Among these icons is James T. Kirk.

In the case of Doctor Who, the rebooting was a continuation, not a re-imagining. The previous Doctors, The Master, Sara Jane Smith & K9 are still very much canon.

The issue is Shatner wants to play Kirk, the dear man continues to make his desire known. Over the course of ST history Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Picard, Janeway (several times), Kim, Seven of Nine (and the list goes on) have died only to be revived within the same episode (excluding Spock). Bringing back Kirk is hardly stretching the limits of acceptability. If STXI can have three Spocks, then why not three Kirks?

The original Kirk deserves a better farewell than the one Rick Berman sentenced him to.

206. I Love My Moogie - February 9, 2008

#202: “Bedtime”

Sweet dreams.

207. Simon - February 10, 2008

“They tried to recast The Honeymooners & failed.”

Umm, I think the movie being pretty bad had more to do with it.

208. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

Moogie i do see your point with regard to actors being identified with a given role . I am curious about one thing.,What do you think of James Cawleys’ portrayal of Kirk in the New Voyages Episodes? More to the point does anyone else have have a problem with Cawley the actor portraying the role of Kirk who is so identified with actor William Shatner. I myself like the new Voyage episodes and I don’t have an issue with Cawley a different actor in the role of Kirk. I know the new Voyage episodes are fan based and not officially cannon but thats not the point , within the context of the series is he believable enough for me to accept him in the role of Kirk? The answer would be yes. I think I and others will not have an Issue identifying Chris Pines in the Role of Kirk and older kirk depending on how many years the movie series runs. As I pointed out Shatner as much as we love him as kirk cannot be Kirk forever. Suppose movie producers in the very distant future say 100 years from now decide to retell the story of Trek and its Iconic characters for a new generation. Since Shatner wont be available at that time does that mean that they should not tell anymore stories about kirk because Shatner is not available to portray Kirk?

209. Space Cowboy - February 10, 2008

Better late than never to respond to #46 as I just saw the post:

Poida – February 6, 2008

I can’t wait till all the old TOS fans have left this planet so life can move on.

This is a REBOOT, you crazy crazy people. Just like fans of the new Battlestar Galactica, no one gives a turd about the old show. Sure the references are there, but they are just guidelines to make the new show / movie so much better. Even Richard Hatch stamped his little feet up and down for a while….then he saw how much better the remake was, and asked for a role on the show!

Well I’m old and worried if I’ll still be alive to see the new movie. :-/
Anyhoo…
I was never really a fan of either Battlefart Galactica, In the 70s it was the
only thing to watch, given a max of five local channels.
I only ever cared about the ships and props(though in my younger days
I would have liked to hookup with Maren Jensen)the stories themselves
were rather dull but at least the old one never pretended to be more than it
was. A space opera shoot’em up. This new one, R.Moore seems to have
created a society more pathetic than the one I’m forced to live in.
I have absolutely no empathy for any of the characters in Moore’s show.
They’re getting exactly what they deserve. Moore obviously has no
military advisers on the show because he is making glaring mistakes
week after week but this is a rant for another board. Suffice it to say
as far as the new Battlefart Galactica is concerned I only care about
seeing the ship designs. Another point that it is a bad show is
except for the (Blockbuster) rentals when I’ve tried to watch it live, I keep
falling asleep!

The quoting thing on this board sucks, though I’m an old Usenet
denizen…just to get back on topic, I’m with the poster who have
said that they hope the new movie doesn’t/won’t suck.
(now that I’ve banged this out, I gotta go back and see what
Cawley had to say)

210. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

Space Cowboy i know this is getting off topic

I agree with you on some points and I disagree on others. First of I agree the original Galatica was little more then a badly written badly acted Star Wars wanna be. On the issue of the new series I have to disagree with you, I think in terms of writing acting and overall production values the show is far better then its not so illustrious predecessor. That said I think as a series The New Galactica is far from perfect. There are a number of issues that i think hurt the show. first of The coloniels created the Cylons, now from a common sense stand point if you create something as potentially dangerous as a Sentient machine would it make sense to put some kind of an Off switch? or some kind programing subroutines or laws to prevent the potential for rebellion? second could safetys be hardwired into their circuit designs. Now the early part of the war the Cylons had ships and weapons How could they have gotten hold of them?Where did they get the factories to build them with? and second the war was fought with tactical nukes and what doe the electromagnetic pulse do to electronic machines? it disable them.Why is it that they coloniels being so phobic about network linked computers convenietly network linked their fighters to the mainframes so that the Cylons could disable them. Hello where are theircomputer backup systems

211. I Love My Moogie - February 10, 2008

#207: ,”What do you think of James Cawleys’ portrayal of Kirk in the New Voyages Episodes? More to the point does anyone else have have a problem with Cawley the actor portraying the role of Kirk who is so identified with actor William Shatner.”

Yes, I enjoy New Voyages but I see it somewhat in the same light as reading a Star Trek novel, non-canon entertainment with some very inspired guest casting. That said, no one is taking the performances Cawley (especially with the Elvis wig) or the guy who plays Spock seriously or as being successors to Shatner & Nimoy. NV is a sincere tribute TOS and on that level succeeds very well.

What does puzzle me is the continous agument about Shatner being too old & past his prime, while Nimoy is in the film and is within a few days of being the extact age as Bill. If Bill is too old to play Kirk, then perhaps the greater question is if TOS itself is a product of another era? The reality is ST movies will never capture new audiences, they never have & never will. ST is fan based & what made the earlier films successful was that they were visits with old friends. How many people will see Pine’s Kirk as that? After five series & 10 films, all the stories have been told. The plot for XI seems more like a trivia quiz on key points of Kirk’s & Spock’s lives.

TOS is a lightening bolt that cannot be recaptured. Though I’m not a big fan of TNG, DS9 & VOY, at least Trek was moving forward with new characters & possiblities, though sadly Berman was not the right man to do it. XI marks the 2nd ST product in a row that has gone backwards which I think is very disturbing. Is Abrams so uninspired that he can only go where we have been before? The answer will keep us at bay until Dec 25th, may we all live long & prosper to find out this answer together.

212. Jabob Slatter - February 10, 2008

Moogie –

The reason people have a problem with Shatner returning to the role of Kirk is because he doesn’t seem at all Kirk-like any longer. James Kirk was a physical man of action, a fighter, a warrior.

In real life, Shatner was none of these. He became the physically blobby man that Jim Kirk never would have become. It was like Kirk was swallowed by Shatner somewhere around TWOK.

No matter how much you embody a character, you must stay physically true to that character. For instance, Sylvester Stallone could not have played Rambo or Rocky again if he was out of shape and fat. It would not be those characters any longer.

Spock, on the other hand, was an intellectual character. His physical presence had little to do with the character. Nimoy can still be Spock, he still seems like Spock.

Shatner does not seem like Kirk any more, and hasn’t for a long time. He wants to play the character without being like him any more. Jim Kirk would not have aged the way Shatner has done. People say that he IS Kirk, but just putting on the uniform and speaking the lines doesn’t cut it.

213. Space Cowboy - February 10, 2008

Garovorkin – February 10, 2008

Space Cowboy i know this is getting off topic

I knew I’d get feed back but this board isn’t the place,
you do point out technical writing issues that I’ve pointed out in the past
elsewhere, have gotten tired reiterating them over and over again.
The lesson shown there is if you build an AI, don’t just give it rules,
make a bill of AI rights aka the right to choose. Like Jiohny Five,
or that Andromeda ep where Dylan gave the uprising Highguard
vessels what they wanted and the sister ship to Rommie then
chose to sacrifice herself once given the choice.
On the other hand, just don’t make them….just keep your computers as info storage and high faluting calculators but don’t forget …Skynet is software not hardware[tee hhee hee].

The beef I have is all the fans saying how realistic it is,blah blah,
blah. Phooey!
Having been a member of the RC(Air)C and CAF I can tell you
that if they existed now, I would join Starfleet, The Imperial/Republic forces or the rebels, Hienlien’s(sp?)
novel version of the MI, the saturday morn version of the MI
or the godawful movie version of the Mobile Infantry but as for
Moore’s version of the Colonial Forces, they’d have to conscript me! I have never seen such a bunch of unprofessional and undisiplined(note to webmaster: where the ‘f’ is the spell checker
on this thing?)bunch of losers ever. As well as a lot of other protocols they keep saluting bareheaded or as my American
colleagues would say “without cover”,which you don’t do …
look it up .

That’s all I’m going to say and this was the condensed version
of my BSG rant the full one belongs on a BSG board or
Newsgroups: alt.battlestar-galactica

214. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

Moogie You think that Abrams the man who brought us Alias, Lost, Mission Impossible 3 and Cloverfield can’t make the next trek movie a success? Are you Kidding me? The notion that another actor cannot successfully play an iconic characters like Kirk , Spock is laughable. I agree James Cawley and co won’t make us forget Shattner and Nimoy and co but you seem to saying because its not Shatner we should not accept either the movie or any actor portraying Kirk. Lets take another Iconic character, Sherlock Holmes, lots of actors have played this character and audiences seem to accept various actors in this role. As to a new trek movie not being able to appeal to an audience beyond its trek core audience, I would not be to sure about that one. Star trek whatever incarnation is not just for the Trekis its for all of us science fiction fans

215. I Love My Moogie - February 10, 2008

#213: “Lets take another Iconic character, Sherlock Holmes, lots of actors have played this character and audiences seem to accept various actors in this role.”

Sherlock Holmes is a literary character that’s open to interpretation, from the excellent Basil Rathbone to the campy Roger Moore. Holmes, Superman, James Bond are all characters from other mediums and never created to be played by only one actor. The fact is, whether on TV or in films, recasting established series characters doesn’t work., it never has.

“Star trek whatever incarnation is not just for the Trekis its for all of us science fiction fans”

Much as I have loved ST for the past 42 years, it will always be a fan based icon, which has been shrinking as Berman pushed it farther away from TOS. Shatner is indeed correct about it being bad business to upset a portion of the built in audience. No matter how much people want to tout ‘reboot’, it’s still Star Trek to the average person that didn’t care about it in the first place. To not cast Shatner will upset more fans than some want will admit to. Pine is not bringing anyone new into the Trek fold, so yes, Shatner is correct and he will be the first one to say ‘I told you so’ (I never said he’s humble).

As for Abrams’ resume, everyone who is singing his praises now will be the first to blame him if the film fails. As I said before, the answer will keep us a bay in this debate until Dec 25th. Plus, the joke may very well be on all of us in that Shatner was secretly planned to be in the film all along.

216. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

I don’ t think any of us are going to completely agree on the issues of whats in the best interests of trek and whats not. Moggie , Jabob all of you raise good points with regard to trek. What is truly amazing about trek is that 40 years after, we are still talking about it. Think about what our lives would be like If Trek had never happened, all the Technology that it inspired ,all people who became scientists and engineers because of it.

217. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

Space Cowboy you made some interesting points about Battlestar i might suggest that you try the Scifi Weekly Website, the letter and editoral section, I have not seen any one do a letter the technical problems of BSG. Okay Moggie what would be your suggestion for the future of Star Trek if not a reboot?

218. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

One more point i want to make Moggie, On sherlock Holms I will concede that point. But whaen you say that recasting an established series never works that is no entirely true. Lets go back to Dr Who for a minute. The original series ran from 1963 to 1989. The first doctor Will Hartnell played him from 63 to 66 and then fro reasons of health had to quit, he was succeeded by Patrick Troughton who played the Iconic character from 1966 to 1969, was succeeded by John Pertwee who played him from 1969 to 1974,then Tom Baker played him from 1974 to 1981 I believe then he was succeed by Peter Davidson,Colin Baker and Sylverter Mccoy where the old series ended in 89. Then there was the false start with Paul McGann, then we come to the new series which yes is a reimagining of the old and not truely a reboot, and so far we have had two men play the doctor Christopher Ecelston for the first season and David Tenant is now holding down the role. The show did not collapse either era as result of recasting. The audience had no trouble whatsoever accepting new actors in this role. Also Dr Who is not a literary character as far as I know.

219. I Love My Moogie - February 10, 2008

#216: “Okay Moggie what would be your suggestion for the future of Star Trek if not a reboot?”

Lets take ST into the 25th century, it’s long overdo to see what happens 80 years after Picard, Sisko & Janeway. Plus, no more holodeck malfunction stories!

220. I Love My Moogie - February 10, 2008

On Doctor Who, recasting worked up until Tom Baker (on the original version) because each actor played the Doctor very differently. Plus the companions, Brigadier, etc were aware of the change.

On the new series, Ecelston was excellent & clearly one of the best Doctors, it’s very frustrating that he left the role so soon.

221. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

Moggie I am aware of the fact that each actor played him differently, I am not disputing that at all. The point that you made was that recasting a character never works, well here is an example where it did work. If it works in place then it might work in another place. Its obvious that we not going to agree on much of anything here so lets leave it at that.I just don’t feel like going to line number 1000 on this one .The proof will be in the movie and whether it succeeds . Trek in the 25th century, interesting Idea and I do agree the Holodeck was a major shortcoming of Star Trek the Next Generation.

222. I Love My Moogie - February 10, 2008

Garovorkin, on Shatner we agree to disagree. You have made very thoughtful & intelligent points and it has been my honor discussing this subject with you.

223. Garovorkin - February 10, 2008

Moogie likewise have enjoyed our little discussion I think everyone else got sick of hearing us argue. Good luck.

224. Alex Rosenzweig - February 10, 2008

#207 – “What do you think of James Cawleys’ portrayal of Kirk in the New Voyages Episodes? More to the point does anyone else have have a problem with Cawley the actor portraying the role of Kirk who is so identified with actor William Shatner. I myself like the new Voyage episodes and I don’t have an issue with Cawley a different actor in the role of Kirk. I know the new Voyage episodes are fan based and not officially cannon but thats not the point , within the context of the series is he believable enough for me to accept him in the role of Kirk? The answer would be yes.”

James and his team were the ones who convinced me that recasting Trek was indeed possible. I have come to realize that I can believe those folks in the roles of Kirk and Co., and thus my former concerns about recasting have largely been allayed.

Now, when it comes to [ptui!!] reboots and throwing out established continuity, irrelevant of the excuse for doing so, my hostility continues unabated. ;)

225. Katie G. - February 10, 2008

Re: #221. I Love My Moogie and #222. Garovorkin

[Sob] you’ve made me so proud!!!

Seriously, it’s nice to prove to others that we can agree to disagree. Nice discussion!

kg

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