Exclusive Interview: Damon Lindelof On New Release Date and Trek Appealing To Wider Audience | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Exclusive Interview: Damon Lindelof On New Release Date and Trek Appealing To Wider Audience March 1, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview,ST09 Creative , trackback

In part one of our interview with Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof we learned about his Trek fandom, favorites and connections to his other job, Lost. In part two we get down to details and discuss why the film release date was changed and how the change affects the production, budget and promotion. Lindelof also discusses how the film will appeal to both Trek fans and the wider film going audience. 

TrekMovie.com: Lets start with Paramount’s decision to move the release date. How did you guys hear about the change and what was your reaction to it?

Damon Lindelof: JJ got a set visit from the powers that be at Paramount, including [CEO] Brad Grey who basically hired JJ to direct the movie in the first place. And JJ emailed all of us, Bryan [Burk], myself, Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman], saying "don’t say anything about this, but they are going to move the release date from this Christmas to essentially kick off next Summer and this is a very good thing." It was being presented to JJ, and I have been hearing the same thing from the studio, that based on the dailies they have been seeing and hanging out on the set and seeing and beginning to understand what the movie is, I think that they are starting to look at it as a big summer crowd-pleaser as opposed to a very sci-fi, not-as-accessible-to a-wider-audience Christmas release. So the reason that  they have moved the release date is for their ability to market the film and sort of position it as the Pirates of the Caribbean for next summer

TrekMovie.com: So for your shooting schedule, are you still expecting to end in early April?

Damon Lindelof: Yep…well I think it is mid April, actually.

TrekMovie.com: What effect does this change have to the budget?

Damon Lindelof: On a budgetary level probably the most significant effect it will have is that we will not have to rush our post [production]. As you might imagine there are a gazillion effects shots. I have seen some of the early work being done by ILM and [visual effects supervisor] Roger Guyett and it is nothing short of astonishing. So they’ll basically have more time to render those effects than they would have if we had to release it by Christmas. So that will probably make the movie a little less expensive to produce.

TrekMovie.com: In November your friend and fellow writer John August blogged that JJ [Abrams] was frustrated by not being able to make a change during the WGA strike. Now that you have the chance, are you going to go back and make changes?

Damon Lindelof: Well until we see the finished movie and everything that we have shot, you really cannot determine if you are writing ADR [Additional Dialogue Recording], but you really are always writing ADR. A plot point lacks clarity so you write a line of dialogue after the fact or whatever. I think JJ’s frustration was a result of, even on a television show — let alone on a movie, you put the scene in front of the cameras and you see the actors start performing it and you go "oh wow, let’s just change that line to this" or "you don’t need to say all that, you can just play it in a look." That is sort of the ‘loosy goosey’ sort of improvisational quality of it. You couldn’t do that during the strike and I think that was a frustrating process for JJ.  

TrekMovie.com: Before the change in release date we have been hearing about promotional images for the crew and the full Enterprise being released in the near term. Plus a trailer showing up in early Summer. Has the change in date also changed the promotional rollout plan?

Damon Lindelof: We are still the midst of our publicity plan. Obviously the schedule is now going to change to accommodate the new release date. My guess is that the strategy will turn more into a slow burn. But at this point we also have to be cognizant of once the film is done, and the more we shoot the more likely it is to invite spoilers if we are holding everything back. So we still want to release those images. As far as for the first trailer trailer, I heard we were still on for the summer to have a full trailer for the movie. But I would not be surprised if they decide to hold that back. I don’t know the answer to that right now. 

TrekMovie.com: When the release date change was announced, Michael Vollman, the spokesman for Paramount, said that Star Trek was now in the same league as Transformers and Star Wars. Summer movies tend to be huge and those films did well over half a billion dollars each. Star Trek has been bigish, but never ginormous. So do you guys really think this film is that big?

Damon Lindelof: I am certainly not the one to prognosticate that this movie is going to be a massive break-out hit. We were very comfortable with the Christmas release date. When we all sat down and started to talk about whether or not we wanted to take on Trek, the question was very simple and that question has remained the same: do we think we can make it good? And there is a way to make that movie where the fans will feel that literally four decades of storytelling and canon is not being ignored, but you make the movie so there is an access point for people who want to come in and hear the band for the first time, as it were. We talked about that and kicked some story ideas around and became totally infected with it. So you never know. In February last year Transformers was a joke. It was coming out in summer and people were panning it, saying "it is a toy" and "a cartoon"…who is going to want to see that movie? Then people started seeing the trailers with the robots and started to understand that this is ascending to a different level. So until people start seeing what we are doing, I have no real gauge on whether or not this movie is going to break through to a wider audience. But obviously Paramount thinks so and that is very reassuring for us. Our job remains the same. We are not pandering to make this accessible to people who have never seen Trek, nor are we pandering to the fans. We are just trying to make the best movie we can.

TrekMovie.com: I think all of the fans understand the goal of appealing to both the wider audience as well as the fans. However, in an earlier interview you were quoted as saying "this film is not your father’s Star Trek," which raised some Trekkie eyebrows.

Damon Lindelof: Did I say that? That doesn’t sound like something I would have said.

TrekMovie.com: Ok…well then let me ask you. This film is of course entirely new, but is it also ‘your father’s Star Trek?’

Damon Lindelof: Not to get into the Star Wars films, because I think they are apples and oranges on a billion different levels. But the fundamental reality is the prequels were "not my father’s Star Wars." That is to say the looked different, they felt different. Although they featured some of the same characters, like Obi Wan and Yoda, but the methodology of the storytelling was different. I am not here to talk about whether it was better or worse, but what is interesting is that my buddies that have kids…they prefer the prequels because they are faster and visually more spectacular and there is a kid who is the protagonist in the first one. So if I said that "it is not your father’s Star Trek" it is just that we are making this movie in 2008 and so fundamentally when you think about what does Trek look like and what does it feel like, especially The Original Series, this is going to be an entirely different animal. Of course the characters are the same. The characters are untouchable. You cannot mess with the fabric of Kirk or Spock or McCoy or Scotty. They are who they are. That is why when we approached this thing, doing a total and complete reboot…like ‘oh what if Scotty was a woman?’ or ‘what if Uhura was an alien?’ or ‘what if Kirk was married?’ those were all ideas that are just heretical.

More Lindelof:
Read Part 1 of the TrekMovie.com interview with Damon Lindelof…where Damon talks about his Trek fandom, his favorites, Trek/Lost connections and more.

 
Lindelof (third from left) with the Trek team: (L-R)
Roberto Orci, Leonard Nimoy, Zachary Quinto, J. J. Abrams, Alex Kurtzman, Bryan Burk and Stratton Leopold (no longer on the project) at 2007 Comic-Con [click to enlarge]

 

Comments

1. Kertrats - March 1, 2008

Hmmm… sounds like there are definitely advantages to the delayed release date… Personally, I hope it turns out as amazing as the people involved think it will. I’m just happy to see Trek on the big screen again! Can’t wait!

2. sean - March 1, 2008

Not to become a Stanky Stereotype, but I do feel reassured every time I read an interview with these fellas.

3. The Last Maquis - March 1, 2008

I get The feeling this’ll be a really good Trek Movie, but to think that it’ll just be
sitting on a shelf somewhere for like 7/8 months. it’s not fair.

4. Robogeek - March 1, 2008

Eek…

Comparing the new Star Trek to the (coughcoughhorriblecoughcoughmidichlorianscoughcoughjar-jarcoughcough) Star Wars prequels? Probably not the best idea in terms of bolstering fan confidence.

(Batman Begins or Casino Royale are probably/hopefully better examples/comparisons.)

5. SPB - March 1, 2008

I WASN’T A FAN OF THE MAY ’09 RELEASE DATE/MOVE AT FIRST…

…but when I go back and see what a disservice Paramount and Co. did by rushing THE MOTION PICTURE and GENERATIONS into theaters, I’ve steadily grown more confident in this move. I still think Christmas ’08 would have been just fine (I think ultimately it would have played longer in the theaters, as they run the risk of a sharp drop-off in the summer), but as long as the extra time helps them make a bigger, better, stronger TREK film, I don’t care if it ends up being the #1 or #15 movie of the year.

Just make it GOOD.

6. Dr. Image - March 1, 2008

I’ve got a bad feeling about this…

7. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - March 1, 2008

Just keep the steady flow of news coming please , we love it!

8. Anthony Pascale - March 1, 2008

lets not got too off on a tangent about the Star Wars prequels…and bear in mind that Lindelof and Abrams are both huge Star Wars fans. He made it clear he wasnt saying if they were better and noted they were ‘apples and oranges’

His point is this line:
“the methodology of the storytelling was different.”

remember that lindelof is primarily a story teller. He is a prolific script writer and show runner. So he is saying that in 2008 they tell the story of the original characters differently than in 1966, but that the characters themselves are the same. And more importantly he can see how the SW films appealed to a new generation, something that is critical for Star Trek. I have often said that most of us fell in love with Trek when we were young. I hope the film does the same for today’s youth.

in fact Leonard Nimoy said something similar in his interview after comic con. He has heaped nothing but praise on the script and the screen writers for making a story that is true to the characters. But when we discussed MI3 (made by the same team behind Trek) he noted that he liked it, but that films today were ‘very complex’ and different than when he was a director. One only needs to watch LOST to see this complexity. That is what modern audiences expect and that is what I think Lindelof is talking about.

9. VOODOO - March 1, 2008

I’m glad that they feel the new film has the potential to be a blockbuster, but I am concerned that the move the May might take away from the films box office momentum.

Star Trek had December all to it’s self. While on the other hand a May release will offer much stiffer competition at the box office.

Films like X-Men/Wolverine, Terminator IV, Angels and Demons, Night at the Museum II, may cut into Star Trek’s box office.

Is it possible that Star Trek (even if it is a great film) gets overlooked against such stiff competition?

10. DavidJ - March 1, 2008

5

Nowadays it’s not about how LONG a movie plays. All that matters is the opening weekend, and with all the millions of people going to the movies every weekend during the summer, May is just a much better month to release a movie.

11. S. John Ross - March 1, 2008

Very substantive responses from Lindelof; that’s groovy and in many ways a milestone in what we’ve had so far (we’ve had friendly and even extensive responses but this guy seems less interested in dodging questions … plus he sounds like a nice dude).

Some of what he says worries me a teensy bit (the studio’s praise for the dailies), but I’m glad to hear it spelled out honestly and with what seems like genuine enthusiasm and pride on his part. That can’t be a bad thing. Hopes remain high, and if you drop by to read: thank you so very much, Mr. Lindelof, for taking the time, and I hope I spelled your name right (I keep wanting to add another h …)

12. ShawnP - March 1, 2008

Excellent interview, Anthony. As always, thank you for your efforts!

13. SPB - March 1, 2008

#8 Anthony –

If TREK XI turns out to be more like “Lost” and less like the STAR WARS Prequels (story and script-wise), they I don’t think we’ll have anything to worry about.

Just knowing that the creative team behind “Lost” is helping to guide Orci & Kurtzman’s script thrills me to no end! Again, I don’t really care if TREK XI gets a little lost in the Big Summer Shuffle, as long as they make a film that’ll stand the test of time and please both the fans and the general public. The TREK film franchise really only has one dyed-in-the-wool classic in its arsenal… we’re long overdue for another one.

14. SPB - March 1, 2008

#10 –

Maybe, maybe not. I seem to recall plenty of summer movies from the past 10 years having huge opening weekends, then plummeting 60% or more the next weekend and ultimately disappearing from view (THE HULK is a classic, egregious example).

Word of mouth is still everything. Sure, TREK XI will undoubtedly have a huge opening weekend, and it most assuredly will have a steep drop-off once the next big summer movie is released, but hopefully the new TREK will be so good that it will continue to earn STEADY business throughout the summer and not fade into oblivion by June.

If its run is over and done with after 3 or 4 weeks, Paramount may have a hard time convincing itself to greenlight a STAR TREK 12. It NEEDS to have a good, long run.

15. S. John Ross - March 1, 2008

I just noticed the INFOCOM shirt J.J. Abrams is wearing in that picture, and just physically felt my odds of seeing this movie rise.

Well, I’m _pretty_ sure that’s what I felt rising.

16. Anthony Pascale - March 1, 2008

as i have said before…in the summer you are lucky to get one weekend to yourself and there is no chance for two. Right now Trek has its own weekend and that is good. Again look at TRANSFORMERS, it made like 700 mil but it only won one weekend, by the next Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released

17. Irishtrekkie - March 1, 2008

‘oh what if Scotty was a woman?’ or ‘what if Uhura was an alien?’ or ‘what if Kirk was married?’ those were all ideas that are just heretical

scotty a women ? no !
Uhura an Alien , lame !
KirK married , ahahahahahahahhahahahah never !

thank god for those ideas never been used

18. Harry Ballz - March 1, 2008

When I hear some of the ideas they bounced around I’m reminded of the outlandish and stupid Superman script penned by Abrams just a few short years ago. It’s irrelevant that he was commissioned to write it by someone else, the point remains that, for a price, he was willing to screw around with the Superman mythology………let’s hope he hasn’t done the same with Trek!

19. Cagmar - March 1, 2008

That change in pace for modern audiences is what dragged down Voyager and Enterprise. Let me point specifically to Seven of Nine, or the death of the instrumental theme (in favour of a flaky pop song) for Enterprise. I’m even a fan of the model ships over the cgi ones, which did not have the same sense of weight or texture in space — and that goes for Star Wars, as well.

They can make more twists and make XI more explosive — but please don’t put a laser fight in where a good conversation used to be.

20. Sisko Is The Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him - March 1, 2008

I am sorry but Voyager and Enterprise’s ham handed attempts and modernity are not relevent. Putting in a bimbo and a theme song are not exactly new forms of story telling. Lets face it, the problems with Voyager and Enterprise is that they were actually too much like shows from a decade past. Bermage didn’t know how to compete with X Files, West Wing, 24, Alias, Lost, etc. The way shows worked evolved and they kept telling the same stories the same way with a few gimicks.

The only show in the trek pantheon to get it recently was of course DS9

Clearly the guys behind Lost and Alias understand modern storytelling…and clearly Berman and Brage do not.

21. Morn Speaks - March 1, 2008

I think the movie will do $150 million domestically.

22. Bobby - March 1, 2008

#18
JJ DID NOT WRITE THE MOVIE!

This has been stated over and over again by Roberto Orci.

23. Sisko Is The Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him - March 1, 2008

i meant Braga not Brage

24. Sarah Connor - March 1, 2008

“18. Harry Ballz – March 1, 2008

When I hear some of the ideas they bounced around”

um….clearly he wasn’t saying they ‘bounced those ideas around’ he was making a point that they were not interested in doing a ‘reboot’…it is amazing how people just twist things

25. Cagmar - March 1, 2008

#20 Granted. All I’m saying is that Berman and Braga said the same things about modernizing their show. It’s a very disquieting thing to hear ST producers say.

26. Sisko Is The Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him - March 1, 2008

25

disquieting?

how? Abrams Lindelof and the boys are clearly in a whole different league than Berman and Braga. Plus Berman and Braga were right when they realised Trek needed more modern techniques…the problem was they were not talented enough to do it and they let all the talented people like Ron Moore and Bryan Fuller go.

change is good if it is done right.

27. Cagmar - March 1, 2008

True. But like I said, even the CG ships in place of models… look like CG. Even that has been a problem for me in recent years. I mean, there are ways even well-intentioned people can over-modernize. I recall Jonathan Frakes refused to CG his explosions for First Contact, and that was one of the best things I’d heard from a ST director since TNG took over the films.

28. Ban An Appeal - March 1, 2008

Early effects work “nothing short of astonishing”? I really, really hope so. Here’s hoping that ILM raises the bar for Trek effects, and that story and characterization also reach that level.

I’m counting the days (not literally, thanks to Anthony’s ticker).

29. Gary Seven - March 1, 2008

I see Anthony’s point about how Lindelof may have been using the Star Wars prequels in a constructive way. I hope that Anthony is correct in his interpretation.
I say this because I thought the Star Wars prequels were terrible and far inferior. They were boring, with poor characterizations, and mere special effects extravaganzas. I realize I sound old, so maybe it’s just a generational sensibility. . But then again maybe they were just were movies with poor characterizations and poor scripts with good special effects, and that is what audiences want nowadays. I hope Star Trek accomodates to this new, modern sensibility to a degree. It must adapt to survive. Yet it should accomodate but not assimilate to it. I really hope that is not going to be assimilated into it. If it does become assimilated into these modern sensibilities it will no longer be good Star Trek. But it may be popular. That is a poor trade off in my point of view.

But it would be great if I fret about nothing and Anthony’s interpretation is right. It often is.

30. Can't Wait for May 2009 - March 1, 2008

Im really hope that Paramount does a good job marketing this movie to non fans. Like many people have stated before this is make or break for Star Trek. And we really need the new blood to keep it going. If I was Paramount I would at least put out something new with Indiana Jones this May. Maybe a teaser where we actually see some of the cast. Then release the 1st trailer by December. And also put a commerical in during the Super Bowl next year. And then one final trailer in March of 2009. Now if the story is good then I don’t think the movie should have a problem definitly making over 100 million. But in order to really make a profit from this movie it has to make over 200 million domesticly and over 100 overseas. So here is to keeping my fingers crossed that they do not mess up marketing this movie. And also im keeping my fingers crossed the movie will be released in IMAX!

31. Iowagirl - March 1, 2008

- Did I say that? That doesn’t sound like something I would have said. –

Damage control.

– ‘what if Kirk was married?’ those were all ideas that are just heretical. –

This idea is not as far-fetched as Lindelof might think, as Kirk actually was married once. See, this happens if you don’t get involved in the matter really thoroughly. (Wasn’t he also the one who accidentally forgot Bones?)

32. The Last Maquis - March 2, 2008

# 18. Harry Ballz
Hey Harry, Was JJ really gonna screw With the Superman Storyline?
that Sucks. though I’m more of A Batman….”Man” my self.
It’s Too bad they wont Do it, but I’d love to see Frank Millers: “the Dark knight Returns” as a movie, God That’d Rock!! with films like 300 and Sin City, the Part where Bats Squares off Against Supes alone Would be Worth the Admission.

33. nyxtreme - March 2, 2008

Paramount is known to have good marketing skills. Star Trek is one of their “core” franchises. After 10 films, for them to decide to bring it to a “blockbuster” level is at best, respect for the franchise it should deserve, or at worst, the most opportunistic for profit squeezing.

34. DJT - March 2, 2008

I grow more hopeful everyday with these gentlemen at the helm.

35. Prologic9 - March 2, 2008

Cookie post. COOKIES!!!

36. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

#31-
Kirk was married? Really?
Do you mean Carol Marcus? Or what?

37. Headless Redshirt - March 2, 2008

That INFOCOM t-shirt is a great thing to see. It scores extremely high on the “geek cred” meter.

For those of you who don’t understand it, it means, “I played computer games back when they were all text and you had to type.”

Of course, if he wore a Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle or Sam & Max t-shirt, that would be cool too. Just different geek cred.

38. Paul - March 2, 2008

Didn’t read all of the posts so assumptions i will apologize for in advance, mea culpa.

i’ve noticed a negative trend here since i’ve started visiting, and i have to say that it is beginning to have an affect on me. the final blow has to be the move to May 09. on one hand i am so glad that they have the extra time now to make a great, well rounded movie, as well as have the extra time b/c of the strike. but i hate having to be patient!!! i was soooo excited to log on on Xmas Eve and see the countdown clock wind down past 365 days. and then having to endure the move to Summer 09. i was afraid i was gonna break down but then i remembered the paraphrased words of a legendary actor who was a legendary Starfleet captain “ITS JUST A TV SHOW!!!”

LISTEN UP (and i’m only doing the all caps thing right here to get attention and then i’m done) YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LITTLE FAITH THAT STAR TREK 08 WILL BE GREAT.

If the bigwigs think that Trek can hang with the best of em, they finally hopped in my boat. i think my college graduation present is gonna be a private screening of Star Trek.

So, TPTB, gonna need a test audience? (Had to ask that was obligatory, and i will sign whatever oaths of secrecy. just sayin…. it was worth a try)

39. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - March 2, 2008

what, these guys are all, what… 5 foot 9? 5 foot 8?

i have a feeling they’re just punks, and don’t have the chops for ST, period.

40. Captain Robert April - March 2, 2008

Does the name “Miramanee” ring a bell?

41. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - March 2, 2008

and, uhm, 38, the “bigwigs” greenlit Nemesis, Enterprise, etc. It’s also a wonder that the whole thing didn’t end with the first couple of seasons of TNG because that motherf*cker (even WITH G-Rod involved) was BAD ACTING, BAD WRITING, BAD DIRECTING. I mean, any time I see Riker with his arms folded, barking that bad dialogue again I’m going to puke. like a bunch of talk radio hosts doing community theater.

42. Captain Robert April - March 2, 2008

In any case, they’d better be taking a step back and thinking long and hard about what they’re doing to the ship, and the possible blowback they’re gonna get.

43. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius - March 2, 2008

yes, 40, miramanee was stoned to death (she was NOT kirok), and Capt April’s big appearance was as a cartoon character. nice obelisk, though.

44. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

Miramanee was not married to Kirk. She was married to Kirok. Kirk wasn’t married, was he?

45. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

#36
Miramanee.

46. noirgwio - March 2, 2008

I’m Encouraged By What I’ve Read On This Flick. I Think We (trekkies/ers) Will Be Happy In The End. My Worry Is That I Hope It Will Find That Mainstream Acceptance As With Transformers And Casino Royale… And IMO, TOS & ENT Were The Best Of All The Series’. While DS9 Was The Most Innovative, And TNG & VOY, Were Moreover Entertaining In A Multitude Of Ways.

47. AJ - March 2, 2008

15: I, too, noticed JJ’s INFOCOM T-shirt. It, too gave me hope, but then reminded me of all the girls I didn’t meet in college because I was spelunking the GUE or trying to gnusto spells and defeat Krill. Best games ever devised.

This film needs to break Trek internationally outside of its few traditional EU markets. Over half of Transformers’ revenue came from overseas, where the old cartoon/toy line may not have had such a fanbase. Trek should be marketed as something new and shiny, and not as an old friend with a new paintjob. The current campaign, if you can call it that, resonates with us fans, but does nothing for those who have had no exposure to Trek. For many, this will be the first time seeing our favorite ship and crew, so it must be done without reliance on nostalgia or recognition of the iconic Big E.

Also, it’s funny that Damon references the SW prequels. They were different in terms of pacing, and they packed more of a visceral punch. That was not the problem. It was the writing. Hearing Padme and Anakin speak with one another was like nails on a blackboard, as was hearing Samuel Jackson slowly barf out his lines as a Jedi Master.

48. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

#44
Gary Seven, I was posting before I saw your post 44. Kirk IS Kirok. He was suffering from amnesia, that’s true, but that doesn’t mean they are two different persons. Lindelof has put the “Kirk being married” example in one line with Scotty being a women and Uhura being an alien. I think this is inappropriate. Kirk maybe would not have married under “normal” circumstances because he considers himself as being married to the Enterprise, but the fact that he was married when not being aware of the strain of responsibility towards this ship and his crew demonstrates that being married is in line with his emotions and stance as a human being.

49. Harry Ballz - March 2, 2008

Miramanee can visit my teepee anytime!

50. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

#44 Iowagirl:

OK. I see ur point even though I have a different point of view. So why don’t we agree to respectfully disagree. But you know, how a man and a woman handle disagreements is the key to a successful marriage. So…………….
Iowagirl, will you marry me?

51. Battletrek - March 2, 2008

Is anyone really interested in this film? Because personally I feel like I’ve seen enough Trek.

52. AJ - March 2, 2008

51: I am extremely interested in this film. Many of us perceived that Trek was mismanaged into the ground in its last few years with VOY and ENT, and the travesties that are Insurrection and Nemesis. I remember the day of STIV and Spock on the cover of Time Magazine, and the headline “The Enduring Power of Star Trek.” Then TNG flourished for 7 years straight. Many of us want Trek to be relevant and exciting again, and a good Trek story with our favorite TOS characters and a nice big budget is (or was) the best Christmas present imaginable. If it is a colossal flop, so be it. If it is a massive success, then “here we go again.”

53. Michelle - March 2, 2008

Plenty of us are interested in this film. That’s why most of us are here.

54. noirgwio - March 2, 2008

Battletrek, Yes – I Do Want To See It. Without Getting Into A Debate Over What’s Better, (cuz I Dig Both,) You Could Always Try Doctor Who… =)

55. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

#50

Gary Seven: YES

Let’s give it a try. This time, you provide for the teepee and I’ll inform the gang with the stones.

Oh, and I agree to respectfully disagree – seems we’ve just settled our first lovers‘ quarrel.

56. AJ - March 2, 2008

I am 43, and I have a job, kids from a previous marriage, a new relationship moving towards marriage. I have a life.

And sure, I have had times where Trek was far from top of mind. But I grew up with this thing, as many here did, and we all have the uncanny ability to cite episode names (over 700), character names, ships of the line, dialogue snippets, technobabble, weapon specs, Romulan/Vulcan/Klingon/Borg culture, and to debate points on nacelle caps.

I truly care about Trek. It’s got a great message, and so much depth, that it’s worth giving it another chance. And I think we all want to see it!

57. noirgwio - March 2, 2008

Re – 56: AJ, Well Said! I’m 29, And Grew Up With Trek In All Its Incarnations Through My Parents. TNG was first, but I Came And Went With It, (school.) While I Watched All The Newer Series’ On And Off, It Wasn’t Until ENT That I Truly Stayed For Every Ep. I Was The Same Age As Some Of The Cast And Found I Could Identify Better With Them. Bakula Sold Me Too, Cuz When TNG Was All I Had I Also Watched Quantum Leap And Actually Told A Pal That He’d Be An Awesome Trek Captain, Back In 1993 Already! ENT Also Provided Hope And Catharsis In Some Really Hard Times When I Lost My Parents, (heart Attack And Diabetes) And Had To Kind Of Adopt My Sister. Then I Got Really Into TOS. Doctor Who Has Filled The Void That ENT’s Cancellation Created, So I Am So Very Ready To Trek Again Too!

58. JimJ - March 2, 2008

That Was Hard To Read!!!

59. SPB - March 2, 2008

#57 –

Your post reads like a Fiona Apple album title! :)

60. TK - March 2, 2008

#36, Wasn’t Kirk married to Admiral Lori Ciani, during the years he was on earth before TMP happened ? Is that not canon?

Remember the woman that got killed in the transporter accident with Sonak just as enterprise was about to set off to investigate viger? That one. Or was she his wife just in the novelization of TMP, or have I read too many fan fics??? :P

I’d be grateful if someone could clarify….

61. SPB - March 2, 2008

#57 –

And your #54 post reads like “For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky!”

62. Stanky McFibberich - March 2, 2008

The more I read about this, the more I realize that some people think the movie is in great hands and that it will rock their worlds!

;)

63. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

#60

Kirk and Lori Ciani had a one-year arrangement in Roddenberry’s novelization of TMP, but this part was omitted in the film. And yes, it was LC who got killed in the transporter accident in TMP.

64. justcorbly - March 2, 2008

#19: Sorry, but things like theme music, Seven of Nine, and use of models versus CGI are peripheral. It’s like arguing people pick their favorite books based on cover art.

What counts are good stories — good scripts — performed compellingly. Those were lacking much of the time in Voyager and Enterprise.

I’ve always thought that the fact that so much of Trek is centered on a few people living and working inside a spaceship is a terrible constraint on writers. As I see it, the better stories, and not just DS9, happened when the crew got off the ship.

65. Red Shirt - March 2, 2008

Did someone say this movie has been delayed?

66. biodredd - March 2, 2008

Anthony – Please don’t use the word “ginormous” in an interview question again. I cringed a great deal after reading the other very pofessional sounding questions.

“Ginormous” suddenly reduced the interview to a geeky 16 year-old meeting their favorite rock star for the first time.

67. jonboc - March 2, 2008

I totally understand the ithought behind changing how Trek is made, to accomodate “today’s” audience. It also scares the hell out of me. The formula and style of TOS is everybit as important to the success of TOS as those characters. You could have put the characters of TOS on board the Enterprise D, with TNG scripts, and TNG would still be the same talky-non adventure series it always was. The storyltelling style was completely different than TOS …Trek updated for the 80’s, and was a style a lot of people liked. By the same token, a lot of TOS fans did not like TNG for that very reason…the action/adventure of romantic exploration had been drastically changed into something more akin to Melsose Space. . It was indeed a VERY different animal.

WIll this new “different” animal adhere to the same recipe that made TOS a phenomenon? Or will they change it and make it their own to the degree that, while it may look like TOS, it doesn’t feel like TOS.

TMP…Trek updated for audiences of the 70’s, looked like TOS…but the feeling was gone. TWOK hired Harve Bennet, who in turn watched all 79 episodes before he made his movie…and he got it right.. WOK looked like Trek, but more importantly, it FELT like TOS.

Are they trying to make this movie successful by recreating the elements that made TOS a classic, or are they trying to make it a success by altering production to make it for todays audience? Hopefully they will find the perfect balance between the two but there is some room for concern. At this point I have to say I remain, cautiously optimistic.

68. trekee - March 2, 2008

Hmmm. I *know* Anthony said let’s not go there with the Star Wars comparisons but….

The thing is, the first trilogy really wasn’t criticaly well recieved, but we all loved it anyway… the second trilogy wasn’t critically well recieved (I am in uber-understatement mode now) and we all hated them (more or less) but it would appear that people with kids said their kids loved them, but Damon’s point seems to be that it’s OK, because well… the kids loved them…?

Could be a bad example but if we look at why the 3nd trilogy was so badly received, it was because the story telling became *more* childish and gee-whizzy, not because we’d simply grown up. Great lines (HOW quotable are episodes IV-VI? and give me one quote from episodes I-III), great characters, great set pieces, decent direction.

If they’d kept those things in the 2nd Trilogy, then they could have been better movies than the first lot.

So my point (and if you are still with me, thanks for your attention) is that if you modernise without keeping all the bits that made the original so good, you’ll lose the core audience. All the kids might love it – but it won’t have the legendary epicness (if that’s a word) of a great film.

There is a huge difference between big budget epic effects and an epic film.

69. star trackie - March 2, 2008

You know, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Transformers was a hit. Sure, the humor was decidedly juvenille and corny but it had cars that turned into robots! What kid or teen wouldn’t love that? These kids and teens today had never been exposed to that and it was like- “wow…these are awesome.” It’s success was no big surprise to me. It’s a kids concept and the summer is when kids rule the box office.

But the million $ question is this: Can the same kids who saw tranformers 10 times get into Trek without the built-in coolness that comes with being a transforming robot? I really doubt it. Trek will not only be fighting other big movies, its also fighting itself, or rather the stigma and indifference that 20 years of 24th century same-ness has created.

I thnk it would have been much more successful during a winter run, without all the big-gun competition. With Transformers 2 coming and the new Terminator movie (which will have the benefit of the very popular Sarah Connor Chronicales feeding the fire) Trek 09 will have its work cut out for it, no doubt about it!

70. CanuckLou - March 2, 2008

So are reshoots an option? Only if needed that is. You can only do so much with ADR.

Thanks again, Anthony!

The adventure continues….

71. crazydaystrom - March 2, 2008

#60-

Yes, that relationship only happened in the TMP novel.

It was a contract marriage (three years, if memory serves) that he?they decided not to renew.

Kirk had a starship jones he had to satisfy.

72. crazydaystrom - March 2, 2008

#63-

One-year? I guess my memory didn’t serve.

73. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

Transformers was a big noisy cheesy special effects extravaganza, if you went into a film like that expecting to see anything intelligent or adult, then your expectations were not going to met. The film is pure escapist fun and that is all it’s supposed to be. Will the same audience flock to see Trek, i think so and for a variety of reasons. Some because of special effects, some because they want a good scifi story and still others will go out of curiosity, and consider the fact that their is a young cast, so we also have age demographic appeal at work here as well. You have to remember that the trek brand name does have a wide appeal with the over 30 crowd as well.

74. I Love My Moogie - March 2, 2008

Not my father’s Star Trek? Lindelof isn’t my father’s Cecil B. DeMille! Change is for underwear, not TOS. IMHO all this movie is going to do is break NEM’s ‘staying away in droves’ attendance record.

75. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

# sorry Moogie , this film is going be a big hit and make a gazillion dollars in sales and merchandizing. Paramount and Walmart and Radio shack are licking their chops at how this bonanza is going to boost their bottom line.

76. noirgwio - March 2, 2008

Re: – 61: Um, Thanks… I Think. I’m A Writer Confined By A Stone Knives And Bear-skins Level PC. :D

77. AJ - March 2, 2008

Have to agree with Garovorkin. This will be a monster.

78. crazydaystrom - March 2, 2008

I can’t imagine the high-wire act the producers of this movie are trying to perform. Bringing in a new audience and proving to the studio their millions were well spent while at the same time not pissing us off.

I feel confident we’ve got a good film coming next May (the postponement still stings) I really hope its a GREAT film and at the same time good solid trek!

And #64 a good script is the most important factor IMO as well, but the wrapping on the package is not unimportant. As much as I loved TWOK (my favorite of the films) I never liked those uniforms at all. My favorites were the DS9/Voyager black with colored shoulders jumpsuits even though the ENT suits were the most practical and realistic.

Theme songs really matter to me. Never much liked the TMP/TNG military march. Voyager’s theme ‘transports’ me every time, my favorite by far.

But like you said, its the writing. TOS is my favorite series but DS9’s ‘the Visitor” I think is the best Star Trek script, movie or tv, bar none.

When all is said and done all we can do is wish, hope and dream. Any influence we might have on the production has already happened with the history of our passionate interest and love of Trek.

79. noirgwio - March 2, 2008

Re: – 58: Let Me Dumb It Down For You… Yo Yo Yo, Dis Trek Sh** Be Dope! Props To J-Abb!

80. crazydaystrom - March 2, 2008

Also

I’ve never been a huge fan of the movies and eps that were basicly humorous in tone. They grow on me in time but tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth at first. It took me several viewings to really likeSTIV (and I now do).

When i wait years for a Trek film I want sci-fi not slapstick. Some humor, yes. But not a comedic movie.

Just me…

81. Jorg Sacul - March 2, 2008

Even “Norbit”, which everyone on this planet apparently hated and nobody went to see, made nearly 100 million bucks. So, if only HALF the planet hates ST11, it should do great.

We’ll all know in May, right? :-)

82. justcorbly - March 2, 2008

#67: I don’t thnk it is a matter of changing how Trek is made to ‘accomodate “today’s” audience’ so much as it is an acknowledgement that the tools and techniques of movie making have changed. A film released in 2009 that consciously mimiced the look and feel of a 1960’s TV show would be ridiculed.

I also disagree that Trek is an ‘action/adventure’, or that TNG, etc., was consciously tweaked to appeal to 1980’s audiences. Those labels — 1970’s audiences, 1980’s audiences, etc., — are meaningless. TNG differed from TOS because it has different characters and different stories and different settings.

Now, it is true that audience expectations for improved production values changes over time as the industry raises the bar. TNG’s productions values were different — better — than those in TOS. That’s important because people will stick with a bad story and good production values longer than they will with a bad sotry and bad production values. (But, in the end, a bad story is the kiss of death.) Certainly, any number of TOS episodes involving Kirk battling silly monsters in the California hills qualify as bad stories coupled with bad production values.

For me, the heart of Trek has always been the characters, and the drama propelled by those characters. That means that, sometimes, those characters need to talk, and not just behave like cardboard soldiers in some shiny, noisy military sci-fi novel.

At its best, watching or reading Trek makes us feel good because it depicts a credible portrayal of what humanity will be doing a few centuries hence. If this movie manages to do that, it will be successful.

83. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

#82 Well said, but unfortunately not always true. The original character sKirk ,Spock, McCoy ect were admirable characters, but in the original run of the series the characters only developed to a point and then they stagnated, actions and choices by the characters had no lasting impact. next episode everything was reset to zero The TOS characters had their most significant growth and development in the movies, similar problem with Tos characters In the case of the next gen characters you had more character development but again they only went so far. Ds9 now there was a show that allowed their characters to stretch and grow. Im not trying to denigrate Trek. If in the future mankind could rise above and be at all like these people then that would wonderful But as good as we become we are still going to have these little flaws and imperfections like egos and ambitions, these may never go away. Roddenberry seemed to be of the impression that we would free ourselves of all of our failings, as good as that sounds, its quite unrealistic to expect we are and always will be human.

84. diabolk - March 2, 2008

Star Trek needs a shot in the arm to revitalise it, and I hope this movie is it, whatever it takes.

85. TrekSucksHard - March 2, 2008

I wasn’t too happy when the release date was delayed at first but now I can see that Paramount is very very confident that this movie will be a blockbuster in the summer and I agree with them- the movie is already generating a lot of hype.

Great interview!

Some questions in my mind:

* Are the major stars (Quinto, Pine, Urban, Yelchin, etc.) under a multi-picture contract if this does well?

* Does Lindelof, Orci and the other Trek writers already have an idea for a sequel to this? ;)

86. Snake - March 2, 2008

39 – um since when has there a height restriction to making a great star trek movie?

I’m pretty sure Nicolas Meyer and Harve Bennet werent 6ft 2 inches with quarterback builds..

Anyway regarding the switch from Xmas to May 09 – sounds like a change for the best the way its been described in that interview..hopefully it’ll pay off with bigger box office…I know X4, T4 and Angels & Demons are also out in May but the $700 million grossing Transformers didnt get harmed in summer 07 with all the other competition ..in fact Id say it totally exceeded box office expectations by a good 200 million worldwide.. (btw what was the date TransF came out and what was the competition the weeks b4 and after?)..

Competition can sometimes be a GOOD thing as if a person goes to the cinema and has a really good time it can get them in the mood for going the week after and seeing the next big summer film and then again the week after etc…so lets hope X4: Wolverine which is out a week b4 Trek is a great movie…(hopefully PATRICK STEWART will somehow have a cameo in that movie to remind people that Trek is out the next week)

Also dont forget 2009 is a sorta mementous year for Trek..specifically Big Screen Trek as its the 30th anniversary of The Motion Picture – a film that this one shares quite a few similarties with..(budget, epic scope etc)

Oh yeah and the 20th anniversary of STAR TREK V – so paramount take note and give The Bill the $2.1 million he needs for his Directors cut – I want to see CGI ROCKMEN!

87. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

#72, 71

Yeah, it says in the novel: “They had lived the basic and simple one year arrangement together…”

Apparantly, Roddenberry himself considered the thought of a married Kirk not too far-fetched – but of course to each their own interpretation.

As for “jones”, I think you have a point there, as in the novel Kirk muses about Ciani as his “surrogate” Enterprise.

88. zirclet - March 2, 2008

#82 – “Roddenberry seemed to be of the impression that we would free ourselves of all of our failings, as good as that sounds, its quite unrealistic to expect we are and always will be human.”
So, not to get all snippy, but you’re rejecting the basis of Star Trek here. Me, I LOVE the notion that in 300+ years we’ll have a bit of an ‘advanced sensibility'; I mean think of humanity 300 years ago, and the social changes in just the last 50 years.
Yet at this point I think I’m in the minority- so many people mock the way Roddenberry fashioned the characters in TNG, and more and more prefer the imperfect characters of the more recent series’. I saw (don’t scoff, now) ‘Nemesis’ twice in the theatre, and both times the audience giggled whenever Picard evidenced any compassion toward his enemy, or other traits that showed his ‘advanced sensibility’- the overall audience has changed.
This makes me think that ‘your father’s Star Trek’ and the one presented in the upcoming film differ in this sense, & that we’re going to get portrayals based around the ‘pop’ aspects of the characters (body language, accents, catchphrases) and less or very little of the things that make Trek stand out from the crowd- eg. those traits that show how humanity can or will change. Even when Roddenberry was alive, his attempts to include this in the films were largely shot down, so I hope the current collaborators will make an attempt to get a newer audience thinking a bit instead of just rollicking along on a Transformers-style roller coaster.

89. The Quickening - March 2, 2008

I confess up front, I’m a little more negative about Hollywood than most, but can anybody give me a list of films that were allowed to “sit” on the shelf as an example of a good thing and a sign of a good film?

90. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

Re: #67 and the ensuing discussion on other posts:

I think my post #29- was ahead of its time on these posts- down to the use of the word “accomodate” in regard to how different, and why, the new movie should be from TOS. Bend it, but don’t break it. Honor the essence of the original while updating it. It is a fine line that can be handled well but must be done with loving attention and focus.

Re: #82- I don’ t think it’s only due to modern changes in technological moviemaking. That’s part of it, intertwined with it, but I believe something more has happened. The faster pace, the emphasis on effects ,are all emphasized in most modern films. There is a lesser emphasis on good, well-thought out characters, good stories, with underlying thematic messages, in most modern films. All of these have been deemphasized. Perhaps it is a cycle- the technology causes more effects and a faster pace,which in term develops modern sensibilities,which in turn feeds more demand for more effects and a faster pace. There is also the matter of shorter attention spans- video games, that people read less these days. There’s something going on.
I just hope the new movie “accomodates” to these new sensibilities while not becoming “assimilated” into it. This accomodation vs. assimiliation is a theme from both psychology, and of course the latter is also a term we all now from the Borg as well. But becoming “assimilated” into the modern sensibility, as the word is meant by the Borg, reflects the deep chill I get, the fear, about this movie when the producers compare it to the newer Star Wars films vs. the original Star Wars films.

But maybe I am just an older stage of life, so I am just too “seasoned.” As you all may know I recently got married and am on to the next stage of life. Her name is Iowagirl (#50-proposal, #55-fruition).

91. The Quickening - March 2, 2008

25 & 26
I see both your points, but DS9 was a successful example of modernizing TREK–as Sisko Is The Prophet… pointed out — and it’s ratings still went down, along with VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE. I think we have to look at this and other areas as well as to why TREK declined. Over-saturation, perhaps?

92. DavidJ - March 2, 2008

Judging by the huge ratings the DS9, VOY, and ENT pilots got, I think it’s clear there IS a huge general audience out there that likes Star Trek.

But for the most part the haven’t been excited enough by what they saw to stick around. And frankly, I can’t blame them. Trek has gotten too far away from the swashbuckling roots of TOS and become way too insular and overly complex.

What’s been missing from Trek is the MAGIC. That’s what people respond to, and that’s what they want to see again.

93. Snake - March 2, 2008

85 TreksSucksHard – i remember you from the cinescape boards back around the time of ‘Nearmiss’ ‘Wheato’ etc i was there for Treks downfall – the movie series (that shocking opening weekend) then Enterprise a couple years later…Christ those were dark days..Trek finally being put out of its misery….the only light on the horizon was the rumoured prequel trilogy from our old pal Ricky Berman…still going at it like a doc whos just lost his termanily ill patient but wont give it up with the defibulator..’he’s dead Rick’

what happened to the CS board and the magazine? they no longer exist? I used to go on the CS boards all the time

94. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

#88 Star trek is entertainment, fiction ,not a guide post for human development as you seem to think it is or should be. Human beings might be better in 300 years assuming we don’t drive ourselves into extinction either through was or mis management of our resources and environment. People are rejecting the utopia ideal because deep down they know its not realistic, they want to be entertained not preached to about how the world could be a better place. At one time most people believed what Roddenberry preached but now all of us myself included just don’t believe any of it anymore. Technology has made things easier but not better. Believe me I would love to be wrong here.

95. diabolk - March 2, 2008

#89… this in not an example of a film sitting on the shelf because the execs don”t have confidence in it… that happens after a film is done and then they see it’s a stinker. This one is simply being changed to a more advantageous date because they believe in it’s potential as a blockbuster even at this early date in the production. Pure and simple.

96. I Love My Moogie - March 2, 2008

Garovorkin, Star Trek defines who we are & what see seek the future to be. By ‘rebooting’ our past, our future is torn from us, only to be replaced by a dumbed down, mass audience CGI SciFi/action flick. What set ST apart from Star Wars & everything else was it high standards, both as entertainment & as a mirror to the better part of ourselves. If you desire to see Trek perverted into the Phantom Menace, that’s your option. For many of us, WE ARE THE FATHERS in ‘our father’s Star Trek’ & it was fine just the way it has been for 42 glorious years. May 09 the Human Adventure won’t be beginning, the quest for a live action comic book will be taking it’s place. Sad, very sad.

97. SPB - March 2, 2008

#96 –

Oh, brother… get over yourself.

98. Harry Ballz - March 2, 2008

#50+55 Gary Seven and Iowagirl:

Hey, Gary, sounds like a good deal to me…….Iowagirl wants to live under the same roof and get “stoned” together…………….SWEET!!!

99. indigo - March 2, 2008

-It’s hard to make a good movie destinated to 3-4 generations of people..

100. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

#94- Garovorkin:
I couldn’t agree more. I myself have given up on life getting better. I have dedicated the rest of my days towards mindless entertainment. It makes the time go by faster until the all-healing grave finally arrives. I have pity on those fools who try to use Star Trek and other works of art, literature, philosophy, religion etc. for some kind of meaning and as aguidepost to a better way of living.
Now back to my Playstation. 5 minutes closer to death.

101. SPB - March 2, 2008

#96 –

The third season of TOS.
The first 2 and last 2 seasons of TNG.
The first 2 seasons of DS9.
Pretty much all of VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE.
THE MOTION PICTURE.
THE FINAL FRONTIER.
INSURRECTION.
NEMESIS.

Proof that not everything touched with the STAR TREK moniker is automatically turned to gold. TREK is fun entertainment… try not to make it into something it’s not. No one’s future will be torn from anybody when TREK XI is released.

Pretentious hyperbole doesn’t suit you.

102. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

#100 Gary Seven you have just demonstrated the true meaning of what it is to be human, let the games begin!

103. I Love My Moogie - March 2, 2008

#101: There is a big difference with STXI, canon is being euthanized because ‘your father’s Star Trek’ isn’t hip enough for the kids who plunk down allowance (their father’s cash) at the box office. The weaker seasons from the various series were still within the canon universe, now Lindelof & Abrams wants the timeline erased & the original ‘aging’ fans put out to pasture, much like he did by not utlizing a particular TOS actor.

104. Moe Larry and Curly Cue Link - March 2, 2008

#101 When adjusted for ’08 dollars STTMP was the most financially successful Star Trek movie of all time…so far!

Season Three of TOS HAD MANY GOOD EPISODES, it’s all a matter of opinon there though, I’ll give you that.

GO TO THE IMDB FOR PROOF ON STTMP BEING THE MOST PROFITABLE MY GOOD FERENGI.

105. Moe Larry and Curly Cue Link - March 2, 2008

yes, agreed # 74, I too am afraid that with these kids at the helm and Nimoy betraying his best friend Shatner, and acting senile about it all, or a pretense that there is little hope for a really successful Star Trek ever again, how tragically sad if it comes true…let us pray the squeeze Shatner in somehow!

The only guy I think is well cast is Karl Urban as Bones, he is the only actor in the film worthy of a part aside from Nimoy, imo.

106. Spiked Canon - March 2, 2008

Trek “series” for the most part have all been very good. Trek movies for the most part have all been crap. The movies are no where people, literally and artistically. Abrams, Orci et al have proved they can bring a good look to a project. You Canonites still have your series and your books-Leave the movies to the adults.

107. Xai - March 2, 2008

39. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius – March 2, 2008
“what, these guys are all, what… 5 foot 9? 5 foot 8?

i have a feeling they’re just punks, and don’t have the chops for ST, period.”

Based on their height?… and your other posts…. yeesh. You sit on a cactus or what?

108. Xai - March 2, 2008

60. TK – March 2, 2008
#36, Wasn’t Kirk married to Admiral Lori Ciani, during the years he was on earth before TMP happened ? Is that not canon?

Remember the woman that got killed in the transporter accident with Sonak just as enterprise was about to set off to investigate viger? That one. Or was she his wife just in the novelization of TMP, or have I read too many fan fics??? :P

I’d be grateful if someone could clarify….

Not Canon

109. Xai - March 2, 2008

79. noirgwio – March 2, 2008

You are just friendly with the Shift Key, buddy.

110. Xai - March 2, 2008

96. I Love My Moogie – March 2, 2008
Garovorkin, Star Trek defines who we are & what see seek the future to be. By ‘rebooting’ our past, our future is torn from us, only to be replaced by a dumbed down, mass audience CGI SciFi/action flick. What set ST apart from Star Wars & everything else was it high standards, both as entertainment & as a mirror to the better part of ourselves. If you desire to see Trek perverted into the Phantom Menace, that’s your option. For many of us, WE ARE THE FATHERS in ‘our father’s Star Trek’ & it was fine just the way it has been for 42 glorious years. May 09 the Human Adventure won’t be beginning, the quest for a live action comic book will be taking it’s place. Sad, very sad.”

You make a lot of assumptions… based on..?

111. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

I have your back, Moogie. There was a recent quote in the paper- something like: It is the gospel of the mediocre man to mock the imperfections in those things that aspire to make things better. Doing things that are hard and not fully achieving it ispreferable, in my opinion, than playing PS3, or as #100 says: “Gary Seven you have just demonstrated the true meaning of what it is to be human, let the games begin!”
The advantage of lying down on the floor is you can’t get hurt. The disadvantage is that you are lying on the floor.

112. noirgwio - March 2, 2008

Re: – 109, Xai: Ah, I see… It’s automatic. But based on the usual and steady decline these days in basic english, especially where it pertains to the internet and message boards/blogs; you might permit me a little Shift-key trouble… Hmm?

113. Xai - March 2, 2008

112. noirgwio – March 2, 2008
Just pointing out that it’s difficult to read.

114. Denise de Arman - March 2, 2008

Moe #105- Are you implying that Mr. N is “betraying” Shatner by accepting a role in the movie? My goodness Moe, reality check time: Shatner and Nimoy are not really Kirk and Spock – they are ACTORS. And they get paid to act. Nimoy accepted a part in the movie – he didn’t convince them to write Shatner out. If you think Nimoy should have refused to appear in the movie because the script wasn’t The Search For Kirk, I would hate to be a friend of yours. According to your definition of friendship, if you and your buddy go in for job interviews at the same company and they hire him but not you, he should then refuse the job because you weren’t hired. Come on, be realistic. One other point: according to I Am Spock, Nimoy warned Shatner against letting himself be killed off in Generations.

115. Xai - March 2, 2008

My point is… who said this is a “dumbed down version”? Assumptions may be fun, but don’t present them as facts. The fact is we haven’t seen the work.

Hard to form opinions on the yet-to-exist.

116. lexx - March 2, 2008

-I hope we will never see a very young Spock killing hundreds of romulans..

117. Xai - March 2, 2008

105. Moe Larry and Curly Cue Link – March 2, 2008
“yes, agreed # 74, I too am afraid that with these kids at the helm and Nimoy betraying his best friend Shatner, and acting senile about it all, or a pretense that there is little hope for a really successful Star Trek ever again, how tragically sad if it comes true…let us pray the squeeze Shatner in somehow!

The only guy I think is well cast is Karl Urban as Bones, he is the only actor in the film worthy of a part aside from Nimoy, imo.”

What? Betrayal? Senile?

Here’s the news… you won’t see Shatner in the movie (do a little research on the real reasons why) and consider the fact you owe Leonard Nimoy an apology. And ,maybe you should not assume to know how this movie will do before it’s actually sen.

118. Joel - March 2, 2008

With every interview you conduct, I feel more and more comfortable with where these guys are going with Star Trek. Thanks for a great interview Anthony and keep up the great work!

119. AJ - March 2, 2008

Man, this has gotten weird. Gary Seven, please get some help. Throw out the Playstation 2 and find out what awaits you in real life. As someone once said, “it’s wondrous.” It really is. Find a partner to be with you during the good and bad times, and get off the friggin’ floor. Jeez Louise.

120. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

#111 Gary you are of course entitled to your opinion. My comment 100 was actual met as joke believe it or not. I guess in your case not . As to my opinions about making the world a better I did not at anytime say it that people should not aspire to make the world better . The average person doesn’t dream about utopia , or even watch or read science fiction of any kind. If you ask the average person what they want, out to have fun and have enough money so that they can retire, few if any say I want to build a better world.

121. Anthony Pascale - March 2, 2008

Moogie

final warning for trolling

comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback

122. justcorbly - March 2, 2008

#83: “…in the original run of the series the characters only developed to a point and then they stagnated, actions and choices by the characters had no lasting impact. next episode everything was reset to zero ”

That’s debatable, but to the extent it is accurate, it might have something to do with the show’s cancellation.

#83: “If in the future mankind could rise above and be at all like these people then that would wonderful…Roddenberry seemed to be of the impression that we would free ourselves of all of our failings…”

I know many people attribute Trek’s success to it’s alleged portrayal of humans who have managed to set aside evil. Maybe that was Roddenberry’s intention. But, I’ve never seen it that way. While it make sense that a galaxy-wide culture would have managed to control our more lamentable tendencies, that always seemed to me to be due more to wise and effective use of technology rather than improvments in humanity’s moral nature. The world of Trek is a world without want and deprivation, without money for that matter, and, hence, it is a world without the crime and passion fueled by want and deprivation. In Trek, technology has delivered a world without material scarcity.

This wise use of technology is, for me, why Trek stands out as a portrayal of our future. The people of Trek seem much the same as we our today.

#88: “…you’re rejecting the basis of Star Trek here.” See above. I’ve never understood the notion that the characters in Trek had somehow evolved in a few centuries into superior moral beings. All of us today are exactly the same as our Neolithic ancestors thouands of years ago. We are born with the same moral and ethical nature as they were. Our world differs from their’s primarily because of our use of tools and technology. We can use that technology to kill more people than they though possible, and we can use the technology to feed and heal more people than they thought possible. It is our choice. Trek pictures a world unlike our’s, in that technology has enabled them to effectively eliminate the conflicts driven by greed and want. If, somehow, that technology failed them, I’m sure they would behave as we do today.

Plenty of other things can motivated bad behavior besides greed and want, and the characters inTrek certainly prove that. While they displayed the discipline one would expect of any small and dependent military organization, they never behaved like angels.

123. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

#122-writes:
“This wise use of technology is, for me, why Trek stands out as a portrayal of our future. The people of Trek seem much the same as we our today.”
Huh? Are we watching the same show? People haven’t changed at all? No disrespect intended, but I couldn’t disagree more. Have you seen “Arena?” Not much technology there (gunpowder), but do you remember the ending? Hmmm…Remember the ending of “Spectre of the Gun?” (“We overcame our instinct for violence.”) CIty on the Edge of Forever (We’ll make them take all this money they spend on war and death…and make them spend it on life”). “Let that Be Your Last Battlefield- (Chekov: “There was prejudice on Earth once; I remember reading about it in my history class”). And those are just off the top of my head.
And Garovorkin, : #120 writes:
“If you ask the average person what they want, out to have fun and have enough money so that they can retire, few if any say I want to build a better world.”
Well, it just so happens that I am saving for retirement for myself and my bride to be (Iowagirl). I am going to ask her how she feels about retiring in Riverside.

124. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

#120
– The average person doesn’t dream about utopia , or even watch or read science fiction of any kind. If you ask the average person what they want, out to have fun and have enough money so that they can retire, few if any say I want to build a better world. –

This may be true, as this is a pleasure society we’re living in and entertainment and distraction becomes more and more important. But IMO, it would bode well for our society if people cared more about visions, did a bit more dreaming about Utopia, and thought more about new possibilities for a better living, albeit that we all should have fun in doing so, and not forget about earning enough money to make a living. And IMO, this was one of the reasons for many people to become attracted to ST, and I think this is one reason for the enduring success of TOS. TOS is fun, it is entertainment, and adventure and there’s nothing wrong with that, but at the same time it does have a vision as it is showing us a future in which different peoples are working together, in which different colors or different religions do not matter anymore, and in which people of completely different background and origin can become close friends, despite or just because of their differences. I for one always found that to be a vital part of ST, and to me reducing TOS to a mere entertainment factor would not do it justice.

125. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

Gary, judging from our recent posts, it seems that our understanding has increased since our marriage. Let’s retire in Riverside.

126. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

#123 Gary no disrespect of your opinion was intended. I am a student of history as well. #124 Iowagirl for all of my Cynicism and Pessimism and yes Snarkiness about things i to wish more people cared about this world. I wish i still cared. At least both of you still care about something and maybe that is hopeful.

127. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

Well Garovorkin that is very big of you, and generous. Seriously.
On another note,
Since you are being so generous, I wanted to tell you where Iowagirl and I are registered for our wedding gifts. You will find a wide variety of gift choices.

128. Iowagirl - March 2, 2008

#126
Garovorkin, thanks for your words. Cynicism and pessimism aren’t necessarily bad things. They often accompany hope.

129. The Quickening - March 2, 2008

#95…. Or, they could have moved it from it’s former date of release because they DIDN’T think it would make back enough of the money spent and moved it to a better date to make as much money as possible to avoid less of a loss. Don’t think that is all that pure and simple. This is Hollywood. I’m not going to just swallow what they tell us.

130. ShatisDead - March 2, 2008

Cmon people, the whole point of the TOS and TNG was that no matter how advanced we think we got as humans, we never really change.

Perhaps our realization of our faults grows and we try to contain those impulses, but there are plenty of instances of greed, ambition, war-mongering in both the TOS and TNG…

131. Xai - March 2, 2008

9. The Quickening – March 2, 2008

“#Or, they could have moved it from it’s former date of release because they DIDN’T think it would make back enough of the money spent and moved it to a better date to make as much money as possible to avoid less of a loss. Don’t think that is all that pure and simple. This is Hollywood. I’m not going to just swallow what they tell us.”

It’s still being filmed. They don’t have a finished product yet, good or bad, to judge.

Why be negative?

132. subatoi - March 2, 2008

His last few sentences are great! Scotty as a woman…
Plus, it calms us down again, like the Orci quote I keep in mind, that all the changes made will have a canon-based reason (those were my words).

133. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

Yeah sure #130, that’s what Roddenbery said. We never really change. Sure.

134. Harry Ballz - March 2, 2008

Iowagirl……how do you find the time to post here? Don’t you have a wedding to plan?

135. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

December 08 or May 09, whats the difference? the film will do well either way
and I think it might force the other studios to rethink some of their release plans which could be of benefit to the movie. May being the official start of the sumer moves season will allow the film to get a jump on all of the competition. The May opening is not that big a deal, that only an additional 4 months, How is that a Bad thing? you see the studio is doing what it thinks is best for itself, by trying to cash in on the start of the sumer season, which is good sound business. Contrary to popular misconceptions the delay will allow Abrams to make the film that he wants.

136. justcorbly - March 2, 2008

#123: Unless they genetically modified themselves — which they seem to have a strong aversion to — the people in the Trek world are just the same as we are today, and just the same as humans have ever been. When those characters were born, they were exactly like you, and me, when we were born.

What’s different about the Trek world is that people no longer have material reasons to commit violence. That is, poverty and hunger have been eliminated. No one wants for housing and warmth. In other words, their material needs have been met.

How? By wise use of technology. It’s the tools and tech of their world that provide homes and food and clothing and all the rest for an entire population.

Furthermore, it no longer makes sense to attack your neighbor, or to go to war against your neighboring nation, to acquire wealth, because everyne already has access to everything they might ever want.

As a result, all those social ills and personal failures that rest on material deprivation are absent. That gives people in the Trek world the means to abandon prejudice, etc.

To me, the fundamental lesson of Trek is that technology has always been the distinguishing trait of humanity, and that it is possible for us to use it more wisely and that, if we do, it will sustain us and liberate us. That’s what I see happening in Trek, to people who are just like me.

137. Irish Trekki - March 2, 2008

#17
Mate, what have you been drinkin, and where can I get some? lol!
#101, I liked Voyager, it captured the imagination in the same way TOS did. I will concede though that ENT was just plain shoddy!!!

I agree in General with what people are saying, I suggest though that we all see it at least 3 times in order to judtify a sequel and see whwt they do with the Klingons!!

138. Irish Trekki - March 2, 2008

JUSTIFY! JUSTIFY! DAMIT!!!!

139. Denise de Arman - March 2, 2008

Iowagirl and Gary- Congratulations!! Harry, Iowagirl doesn’t have to plan a wedding, they’re just going to go to Vegas and get married on the bridge of the Enterprise. The big question is to Iowagirl: Are you going to dress as a Starfleet officer, an Orion slavegirl or one of Kirk’s twinkies?

140. Denise de Arman - March 2, 2008

Irish#138- LOL! I know, I hate it when I push the send button and then see a misspelling – takes me back to those first grade days when I got a spelling paper back with a big red X and 99 instead of 100.

141. Irish Trekki - March 2, 2008

#140
I blame the fact that it’s 1.30 AM over here lol. my choices are blog or attemt to go over my notes for a Business Tutoruial tomorrow…. blog it is!

142. Harry Ballz - March 2, 2008

Denise

with the Vulcanista away………care to come out and play?

143. Denise de Arman - March 2, 2008

Gotta go out for a couple hours, Harry. Be back later tonight.

Irish- 1:30am? Harry will keep you awake.

144. Garovorkin - March 2, 2008

#141 Irish Treker I agree blog, you gotta get some enjoyment out of things life is after all to short. I may have some differences with Damon Lindelof, especially over issues of Ds9 I will say this He seems like a pretty earnest and Honest man. You have to admit that he and Abrams have a really tough task ahead of them, putting together a movie is not by any stretch of the imagination, a walk in the park. They have do the budget, the script,casting calls to find the right actors. then there is the production itself, which narrowly avoided being shut down by the strike, but even so they couldn’t make changes to the scripts because of the WGA rules, Now on top of that they have deal with not only studio politics, but they have to find a way to try to win over the most hardcore of fans yest at the same time, produce a movie for the widest possible audience. On top of that Mr Abrams has to find time to produce Lost, then there are other movie projects on top of this one, more hasels with the executives. Then they have to promote the film, and if it fails take the rap. I was wondering how many of you would be up for this task, I know I could do it, wouldn’t want to. So please lets cut these guys some slack please.

145. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

Justcorbly , #136-
I discussed this before with the Beta 5 Computer, and I’ll say it again. As I said in Assignment Earth:
“Problem — Earth technology and science
have progressed faster than political and social knowledge.
Purpose of mission —
To prevent Earth’s civilization from destroying itself
before it can mature into a peaceful society.”

Technology is neutral; it is political and social knowledge which advances in the future, and that allows for technology to emerge as a force for good, not for bad. I’m afraid you have the causality backwards.

146. David P - March 2, 2008

I can’t believe you didn’t encourage Lindelof to find a way to include William Shatner in the movie. You didn’t ask about it either!

147. sean - March 2, 2008

#146

Likely because even those of us who love The Shatman are burned out on the subject. They’ve made it plain he’s not in it, so what’s the point in dragging the topic out again?

148. The Quickening - March 2, 2008

131. Xai wrote–
It’s still being filmed. They don’t have a finished product yet, good or bad, to judge. Why be negative?

They had enough of the film to judge it good or bad and change the release date.

I don’t see I’m being negative, just realistic; recognizing all the options and possibilities as to why the date was changed. There is a considerable investment here. Don’t tell me TPTB aren’t above protecting that investment by not being truthful.

149. OR Coast Trekkie - March 2, 2008

#39 – I’m only 5’6″ – 5’7″, so does that make me a punk that can’t understand or hack it at Star Trek?

I’m sorry, but there seems to be a LOT of overreaction and whining in here. People have to face the reality that the world has changed and that Trek needs to evolve in order to remain relevant. I’m sorry to say that, and I’m sorry to say, if you’re looking to be transformed back to when you were 10 years old, it isn’t going to happen.

And yes, this really is a matter of you guys growing up, but still seeing TOS with the eyes you did when you were a child.

Movies of today aren’t inferior: just different.

150. Gary Seven - March 2, 2008

Well, #149, u sure said it. No evidence, just a lot of loud assertions. Like what passes for intelligent discussion nowadays. Sure, not inferior, just different. If you say it loudly and strongly it must be true.

151. Iowagirl - March 3, 2008

Harry and Denise,

Had to catch my beauty sleep so I’m coming back to you only now. I’m all for Denise’s suggestion to get married on the bridge of the Enterprise. I’ll ask Gary about it. I think I’ll dress up as a Horta, ya know “No kill I” and all that…

As regards the preparations, Gary and I take turns, so we’ll have enough time to post in between. As far as I’m concerned, we should go for a simple wedding, not too much pomp and circumstance. As you know from my posts, I’m not that fussy. :)

152. TrekSucksHard - March 3, 2008

#93 Hey Snake- CA got absorbed by Cinescape which then got turned into and its current incarnation: MANIA- there’s a few posters from the old board there (like Rosetta and a few others) go check it out. Just click my on username. ;)

153. justcorbly - March 3, 2008

#145: I”m not suggesting any causality. I am, however, stating that the fulfillment of material needs and wants is a precondition of a peaceful and harmonious society. I.e., that a society in which those needs and wants are not met is much more likely to see violence used, regardless of the society’s social and political structure. If violence is reduced in more “advanced” social and poltical structures, it is because those structures allow more effective use of technology to meet human needs.

No social or political strucuture has ever, and can never, produce a single ounce of food or shelter or clothing. As humans, we are totally dependent on the use of tools, i.e., technology. Our tools produce are bread, our homes, and our starships, not our political systems. We judge the fairness of political systems, in large part, by the degree to which the benefits of technology are available to all people versus some of the people.

In the Trek world, technology has allowed material needs and wants to be met, hence, removing the need for the violent acquisition of those. If, for example, shortages were to return to the Earth of Trek, I’m sure they would behave just as we do today.

Unless we imagine evolutionary developments, changes in human nature and behavior are myths. We are the same as we always have been, and always will be as long as we are homo sapiens.

154. danbramum - March 3, 2008

# 10 The opening weekend is very important in the US, but the market is different in Europe for example (and Paramount wants to make most of the profit on foreign markets). A movie takes its time here to become a success, marketing is not as powerful. Many people wait and see the film in the following weeks. (That changed a bit in the last years, and some blockbusters went the same way as in the US.) Secondly, I don’t know the stats, but many people in Germany for example tend to go to the movies more often around Christmas. But here also: big exceptions in the last years.

But hey, this way or another, the new Trek will make its millions. More important for me would be the quality of the film. Hope they do not do things (regarding visual arrangements) only to make it look “cool”. Some of the blockbusters of the last years looked ludicrous, only because they wanted to appeal the MTV kids. Speaking of a faster visual style, I always felt it was great that Star Trek remained some sort of “heavier” (take a look at Kubrick’s 2001 – does it ever grow old? It is so astonishing and epic because there is a great dynamic between slow and fast). More complexity? Great! Many big movies were dumb in the past, and I’m glad that the people like to use their brain more today. But a more MTVish style has to fit in the artistic approach. The filmmakers should not reduce the visual design to a plain vehicle.

And just to make it clear: I hope they will change a lot. I’m not one of the whiners. Trek needs changes, not only to appeal new people, but to become a refreshing experience again. They only should not reduce their changes to a method to broaden markets. They should make those changes to increase quality, the audience will follow… I’m optimistic and can’t wait for May 09.

155. Harry Ballz - March 3, 2008

#151 Iowagirl “I’m not that fussy”

Well, sure, by marrying Gary we could tell THAT! (RIMSHOT)

156. AJ - March 3, 2008

Trek11 will be the latest ILM space movie, and it has a respectable budget, so I am sure it will be absolutely eye-popping. That should bring the kids in. Because it’s Trek, there is no pop soundtrack, and no product placement (I hope), and as smaller standard “bag of tricks” to attract younger consumers.

It’s also Uber-cool 21st century casting ready for a new generation of fans.

157. TrekkyStar - March 3, 2008

Yes it will!

158. AJ - March 3, 2008

Off-topic, but I watched some mid-run DS9 last weekend and (gasp) saw welders on a pylon during the opening credits. Check the Tribbles ep. Am I completely wrong?

159. Xai - March 3, 2008

148. The Quickening – March 2, 2008

“They had enough of the film to judge it good or bad and change the release date.”

“I don’t see I’m being negative, just realistic; recognizing all the options and possibilities as to why the date was changed. There is a considerable investment here. Don’t tell me TPTB aren’t above protecting that investment by not being truthful.”

Sorry, I don’t agree.
You just don’t have enough information to form an opinion. Your statement says they could have moved the date because they think they have a bad movie and are hoping for more box office in May.
There’s nothing to back up that claim. Before the film started… Nimoy was excited. The interviews we see from the actors, etc indicate they feel good about what they are doing. The film’s being moved because of it’s strength, not it’s weakness according to the studio and it’s producers. There have been no negative comments leaked out. The film’s still in production, editing and post-production have yet to happen.
At best I think an outsider’s opinion could be cautiously optimistic, at worst… we don’t have a finished product to judge.
And as for your implication that “TPTB” may be liars. I can say… I don’t know. But I have nothing to tell me that this is something any of them would do. I believe people are generally good until they prove my opinion wrong. I’ve not seen them lie.
If you feel strongly that this isn’t a good film, vote with your dollars (or euros) and don’t go.

160. craig - March 3, 2008

Its a joke if they expect to beat First Contact Box Office wise it’s the best they can hope for.

161. AJ - March 3, 2008

159:

Obviously there has a been a major re-tooling of budgets, and Trek11 may be better suited as a massive summer draw in 2009. Paramount has Indy4 and Iron Man this year, and they may simply want to spread the joy into ’09 rather than take it all in ’08. In 2009, Trek11 and Transformers2 are simply huge.

Man, these guys are going to rake it in.

162. The Quickening - March 3, 2008

159.
Xai wrote–
Sorry, I don’t agree. You just don’t have enough information to form an opinion. Your statement says they could have moved the date because they think they have a bad movie and are hoping for more box office in May.

You don’t have enough information either. Only what has been told you by the powers, which you seem to accept totally. That is your choice. My opinion, I feel, is more well rounded because I accept both as possibilities, but choose to wait before forming a final opinion.

Xai wrote–
There’s nothing to back up that claim. Before the film started… Nimoy was excited. The interviews we see from the actors, etc indicate they feel good about what they are doing. The film’s being moved because of it’s strength, not it’s weakness according to the studio and it’s producers. There have been no negative comments leaked out. The film’s still in production, editing and post-production have yet to happen.

It’s not a claim. I don’t think you are getting the point of my position. I am choosing to remain open, by accepting BOTH as possibilities, but will wait and see. The excitement of Nimoy and others doesn’t mean much at this point. As you yourself state, it’s too early to tell and it’s just excitement. I’m just saying, it’s too early to tell either way.

Nimoy also said Abrams is a great director. He’s only directed one film and it sure wasn’t great. Hitchcock, Ford, Altman are great directors, but only because their work makes them great. My point is Nimoy is spinning a product he is helping to sell. It’s called marketing. So are the other statements that come out concerning this or any product being sold. I’m not just going to believe what they say just because they say it. I will wait and see, but remain open to all possibilities–positive or negative.

Xai wrote–
At best I think an outsider’s opinion could be cautiously optimistic, at worst… we don’t have a finished product to judge. And as for your implication that “TPTB” may be liars. I can say… I don’t know. But I have nothing to tell me that this is something any of them would do. I believe people are generally good until they prove my opinion wrong. I’ve not seen them lie. If you feel strongly that this isn’t a good film, vote with your dollars (or euros) and don’t go.

I am not making a judgement. I never said I feel strongly that this isn’t a good film. We don’t have enough product or proven facts to judge, either way. I am both “cautiously optimistic” and “cautiously pessimistic”, because I accept both as possibilities.

Neither did I call TPTB liars. I don’t have enough info to make that claim, but it is within the possibilities for them to spin. A studio is going to protect it’s investment. That’s good business. I don’t have facts, but neither do you to accept only one possibility in this area.

I agree, in part, of the basic goodness of man until evidence shows up otherwise. In this case since we are dealing with a whole lot of money being invested and a possible loss; a busines that is sure going to protect that investment; a movie date suddenly changed; a few suggestions from other sources I have read that the movie is over budget; I don’t see it as strange to think other possibility could exist.

There is not much difference in our view, since you are “cautiously optimistic”, meaning a touch of negativity exist in your view of this situation. I guess you look at life as a glass half full; other see a glass half empty; I see the glass as half full and half empty.

Thanks.

163. Sam Belil - March 3, 2008

Any question to who by far is the most popular ST character????
Bring back the SHAT!!!!

Polls

What Star Trek actor do you want to hear more from?
Chris Pine (Kirk) (50%)
Zachary Quinto (Spock) (6%)
Leonard Nimoy (older Spock) (23%)
Karl Urban (McCoy) (6%)
John Cho (Sulu) (1%)
Zoe Saldana (Uhura) (5%)
Anton Yelchin (Chekov) (1%)
Bruce Greenwood (Pike) (6%)
Eric Bana (Nero) (3%)
Total Votes: 576

Loading …
Polls Archive

164. Xai - March 3, 2008

Quickening, I will leave it at that. My intial impression of you posts looked..to me… to be negative. But you say you are not. So be it.

Thanks for the discussion

165. Bob Dobalina - March 3, 2008

#159 “Paramount has Indy4 and Iron Man this year, and they may simply want to spread the joy into ‘09 rather than take it all in ‘08. In 2009, Trek11 and Transformers2 are simply huge.

Man, these guys are going to rake it in.”

..uh..one small problem. Trek isn’t embraced by today’s youth. Year after year after year of Berman’s snoozefest Bore Trek steered kids AWAY. They went over the dark side….because it was FUN. They did NOT go see Nemesis. They did NOT watch Enterprise. They do not watch reruns. The trick is how do you get these kids to WANT to see this movie. All the best “daileys” in the world won’t make a kid and his date want to see STar Trek….they’re saving their allowance for Transformers 2.
Like it or not, thanks to Berman and his paint by numbers Star Trek assembly factory, JJ’s Trek, no matter how fantastic it is, will come into the scene with considerable baggage. That preconcieved notion is Trek’s number one enemy. The marketing will have to break the 24th century mold that buried the franchise. Marketing will either make or break this film.

Personally, I can’t wait to see this movie. I look at it as a throwback to the days of old, when Trek was about fun, action, adventure, exploring new worlds and new civilizations. And I hope it does great. My inner TOS trekkie wants it to be the number one movie of the summer. But don’t fool yourselves. Just being a new Trek doesn’t guarantee it a free get-out-of-jail card. Berman buried the franchise under a mountain of uninspired same-ness, digging out of that hole will not be easy.

166. Floydhead Max! - March 3, 2008

Wow, what a weird thred this has turned into.

I agree with AJ, this is gonna be huge!

I hate waiting as much as anyone, but if it insures the future of trek, then so be it.

As far as those already critical of JJ’s reboot, without having seen any of it yet, as well as writing tretsies on how GR ‘s philosophy will change the world, I will remind you all of what The Shat had to say: “GET A LIFE PEOPLE!! IT’S A TV SHOW!”
Of course it’s my fav TV show, but it’s STILL a TV show. The primary difference between TOS and TNG was that Kirk would generally kick some ass to save the galaxy, and Picard would talk, talk, and talk some more, thus saving the galaxy. Why did sensibilities change, well it might have something to do with TV generally taking violence out compared to the 60’s. with Tipper Gores PRC etc forcing the networks to reduce violence on TV.
Now if they take Kirk and make him act like Picard talking his way out of problems, then this movie will suck. If they remember that Kirk kicks butt and takes names. has plenty of action and don’t have Chris Pine overact trying to win some kind of academy award, then all will be fine.
I believe that the point of the interview where he was referring to modern sensibilities comes more down to things like editing with the faster cuts, and not having those long extended diologue scenes. That’s what people are used to now. Christ, just watch lost or alias, or MI-3. Very fast paced, very action oriented, no long boring extended diologue scenes dragging down the show.

I think it will be fine, Have a little faith people……

Oh, and congrates to Gary and IG!! Hope you two are happy together!!
Mazel Tov!

Until Next Time, I now will get down from my soapbox and end my rant…….
FM!!

167. AJ - March 3, 2008

165: Marketing…this is where Trek goes Century 21. And it’s up to JJ and TPTB to do it right.

168. Irish Trekki - March 3, 2008

It’s 1.30 again and of course I’m blogging….. I need a girlfriend….. real bad!

169. Gary Seven - March 3, 2008

Well, I feel for ya, Irish Trekki. Just don’t go after Iowagirl. She’s taken.

170. Irish Trekki - March 4, 2008

#169
I wish them all the best!

171. Kevin Walker - March 4, 2008

It seems to me that long delays between Trek movies is part of their problem. Non-fans lose the momentum of their interest, and fans will accept mediocrity just to have SOMETHING released…

172. Irish Trekki - March 4, 2008

#171
You would then hope that they’d keep the momentum with a sequel, say 3 years later!

173. Devorah - March 15, 2008

On March 20, 2008 Spock will beam-in as part of “Mirror Universe,” an art exhibition of Star Trek inspired works by Devorah Sperber which includes a life sized interpretation of Spock “beaming-in” the gallery, constructed from 25,000+ colored beads. The exhibition runs from March 20- April 26 in New York City.

Gallery web site: http://www.carengolden.com

Images and text: http://www.devorahsperber.com/caren_golden_show_3_08/index.html

174. Weekend Watchers » Blog Archive » Star Trek hype machine revs up - October 15, 2008

[...] J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” revamp has been smoldering beneath the surface for the most part. There hasn’t been a whole lot of press or hype for the film aside from a few posters released at Comic-Con this summer. Really, the most we’ve heard about the flick is hubbub over the release date change from this December to May 2009. [...]

175. Ivana - March 21, 2009

@Sam Belil: “Any question to who by far is the most popular ST character????”

Of course not. Everybody knows it is and has always been Spock.

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