Abrams: Star Trek True To Roddenberry’s Vision | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams: Star Trek True To Roddenberry’s Vision April 19, 2008

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Director JJ Abrams is now starting the long process of post-production for his Star Trek feature film and he talked to the LA Daily News about project. Abrams noted that “there hadn’t been this kind of action in a `Star Trek’ movie before” but he also went out of his way to talk about how (even though the film is totally ‘new’) it honors Trek’s past…

JJ Abrams on being ‘new’ and honoring Roddenberry’s vision:

(The film) is being true to the vision of our abilities and of what (creator Gene) Roddenberry started. So it’s this very interesting hybrid of honoring its origins and also being something completely brand new.

JJ Abrams on ‘huge’ movie that honors the fans

As a director, my sole mission was to make a movie that was entertaining and emotional and funny and scary and all of the things that I know I want to see when I go to see a movie. It’s a huge adventure. But because we’ve done a lot of work leading up to it, it was already honoring `Trek’ for those very vocal fans.

More at the Daily News

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - April 19, 2008

Gawd, I hope he gets it right!!!!

2. Scott P. - April 19, 2008

This should be interesting.

3. Dave L - April 19, 2008

i would hate to see him screw it up and that would be the final death blow to what is already on life support

4. krikzil - April 19, 2008

Well, while I’m still uncertain, I will say that at least if someone is going to do a reboot, at least it’s a person who gets the whole fan mentality. Let’s face it, somewhere down the line, someone would have remade Trek. it’s what Hollywood does these days. Remake and remake.

5. Freddie Wise - April 19, 2008

He isn’t going to screw it up, I have total faith in the team…

6. Capt. Chaos - April 19, 2008

KOBAYASHI MARU!!!!!!!

7. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

Ive sad it before and I will say it again, He is the right man for the Job, besides we can be happy that this film is not going to be either directed or produced or written by Michale Bay.

8. CW - April 19, 2008

What sucks is that we have to wait past the original premiere date to see for ourselves.

Regardless, I have an optimistic feeling about it.

9. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator - April 19, 2008

I’ve heard some good things about this film, and some very bad things about this film. Abrams and Co. making vague “we’re staying true to Roddenberry’s ‘vision’” comments doesn’t do anything for me.

This film might be good, but I’m not holding my breath.

10. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#8 yeah its a pain, but its only 4 additional months. I think once the film starts rolling in the theater we will forget all about it, and look foward to the dvd release which should be within 2 or 3 months after the film finishes its run. The film is going to be a blockbuster at the theaters and the dvd might set few records as well.

11. MORN SPEAKS - April 19, 2008

Star Trek movies have had a good share of action, it will be really interesting to see how amped up the action will be and how grand a scale this movie will be on.

12. mrl - April 19, 2008

I attended the wrap party last night, and let me just say that you guy’s are in for a real treat!

13. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

If this makes the time till may 9th go any faster think of it this way Its only 525,000 plus minute till may 9th, If you break the time done into small enough unites of time , it does tend to go quicker. anyone want to try to break it down into seconds and maybe mili seconds, that might be even more helpful.

14. trekee - April 19, 2008

It might be a success simply for being a big, loud action movie with lots of effects and girls in mini skirts.

There are so many huge brainless films out there that do really well and fill an evening that there’s room for this one too.

I don’t really see it bombing unless it either baffles the audience with the resetting of the time-phase inducers causing sub-nutrino eminations from another continuum which of COURSE leads to a reversing of the ion flow and so saves the day.

What has to save the day is Kirk ripping his shirt off and cleverly outfoxing Nero. Probably by cleverly using his fists on Nero’s nose.

But if it can be big and brainless, and clever without descending to technobabble it can be successful and good. I’m expecting the former and praying for the latter (and the miniskirts).

15. Scott Xavier - April 19, 2008

mrl, we have movie production people in our midst. How come i wasnt invited to the party, I could have been the official mind reader. I do have a weird job title…

Anyways, true to rodenberry? You mean there always were time travelling vulcans to earths past? Or how about a Korean sulu? Alright sorry new sulu that was a low blow. I dont remember chekov being a part of the oringinal crew.

Now Im not saying its bad, but call it what it is a reboot trying to appease some very fanatical fans. Paramount saw success of batmans reboot and said we have that star trek thing lets get some time travelling romies and a new crew and it can be 90210 meets trek meets hannah montana in space.

16. Captain Pike (ret.) - April 19, 2008

Okay Anthony – when I saw your head line I was a bit worried. “GR’s Vision” is what we got in TMP and the first year of TNG and it’s not the same as ” what (creator Gene) Roddenberry started.” If it captures the action & adventure we saw in TOS that’s great.

17. Iowagirl - April 19, 2008

I’m still going with The Human Adventure instead of The Abrams Adventure.

18. FlyingTigress - April 19, 2008

@3

When I was taking my most-recent mandatory CPR recertification, the trainer told us (we’re not medical or rescue professionals) one thing to calm our nerves about actually putting into practice what we were learning…

“Remember. When you make the decision to initiate CPR, it is because they are technically dead. You can’t make the person more dead than they are, and, there’s not likely to be someone right there who has a better skill set. So, any assistance you give them won’t make things worse, and you have a good chance for making things better.”

That’s this old Trek-fan’s opinion, anyway. Anything JJ does can’t make things any worse, in reality, IMHO … And, he has a good chance — with a large budget, a script that Mr. Nimoy was sufficiently impressed with to once-again don the ears, and sufficient ‘slack’ from the suits to give plenty of time for production and post-production — to make things better than they currently stand.

19. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

“So it’s this very interesting hybrid of honoring its origins and also being something completely brand new”

The ‘completely brand new’ part is what scares me!!!

20. sir num nums - April 19, 2008

Good greef…
Who ever wrote this story should have proof read it first before they posted the story.

But, it is good to hear that J.J. is respecting Genes ideals.

21. Mr. Bob Dobalina - April 19, 2008

#16 “when I saw your head line I was a bit worried. “GR’s Vision” is what we got in TMP and the first year of TNG and it’s not the same as ” what (creator Gene) Roddenberry started.””

Amen to that. If it’s not true to Gene’s vision circa 1966, we’re all in trouble. Gene’s later stuff, while some of it was wildly successful and appealed to whole new faction of “fans”, it also steered away from what made TOS great. Lets hope this movie gets back to the basics.

22. Thomas Marrone - April 19, 2008

Show us the bloody ship, please! I can wait an extra 5 months, I just want to know what the rest of the Enterprise looks like!

23. CanuckLou - April 19, 2008

JJ has Nimoy’s confidence. Good enough for me.

I love Lost and enjoyed MI3 so JJ’s sensibilities sit good with me.

The adventure continues….

24. AJ - April 19, 2008

I think it’s important to discount statements from the makers until the film is out, and vetted by fans and regular punters.

If it’s a pile of hot crap or a magnum opus, the PR today, a year out, will be the same.

25. SPB - April 19, 2008

I DON’T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE “ACTION” PART…

We’ve all heard by now that TREK XI is supposed to be one of the more (or most) “action-packed” of the TREK films, but why does that make so many people nervous? The greatest TREK film of all time is THE WRATH OF KHAN, and that’s probably got the most intense and emotionally-charged action out of all the TREK films so far.

Let’s not forget that a majority of the TOS episodes had PLENTY of brawling and fisticuffs and FlyIng Shatner Kicks!

And lastly, to anyone who watches “Lost” can attest to, Abrams knows how to oversee and/or produce SMART action set pieces. Abrams is far from being a mindless, jeuvenile Michael Bay-type.

I have complete faith that TREK XI has at least the potential to blow peoples minds and expectations. No worries here.

26. Scott Xavier - April 19, 2008

CPR can’t cause a more dead corpse but how gross is it to be beating on the chest of a dead corpse while making out with it????

27. Chris - April 19, 2008

I just got the chills when I read the quotes. This is EPIC!

28. SPB - April 19, 2008

#14- “I don’t really see it bombing unless it either baffles the audience with the resetting of the time-phase inducers causing sub-nutrino eminations from another continuum which of COURSE leads to a reversing of the ion flow and so saves the day.

What has to save the day is Kirk ripping his shirt off and cleverly outfoxing Nero. Probably by cleverly using his fists on Nero’s nose.”

AMEN, BROTHER!!! You pinpointed everything that was wrong with later TREK and everything that was glorious about Classic TREK. I’m tired of the 24th century diplomacy and technobabble. It’s time to get back to the patented 23rd Century James T. Kirk Ass-Kicking!

29. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

Re: Roddenberry’s vision, it was the vision of Gene Coon that made TOS the iconic classic that it is.

30. the king in shreds and tatters - April 19, 2008

#28

So you want Nero to be trick by a super-entity Baptist God stand-in to judge humanity that Kirk defeats by shouting at, while holding a space-chick in a space-bikini.

31. T2 - April 19, 2008

as long as it’s Star Trek…….just gotta hope the characters are convincing…i’d hate to have anyone’s image distorted by this movie…i like Kirk and co. just the way they were…really hoping JJ’s done it right and that the new actors successfully capture their respective characters

32. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#29 No doubt, but it was Genes Idea Originally, he ‘s the great Bird of the Galaxy as it were, Not Gene Coon, Not DC Fontana or anyone else that helped with the building project. Without Genes Roddenberry’s orginal Idea there would be no Terk at all. Lets also consider the fact that he managed to keep a money loosing, low rated science fiction series on the air for 3 years back in the late 60′s. That in of itself is a pretty impressive feat.

33. kmart - April 19, 2008

#18

I’ve taken a cpr class from the same instructor, I think. But in this case, I don’t think the analogy holds. If Abrams has painful to watch sex with trek’s dead corpse, he is making it worse than dead (believe the word desecration would be apropos). So sometimes (as Fred Gwynne once said,) “Dead is better.”

And yeah, to the later poster, COON was the man who made it happen, and happen in a fun, memorable way. Chemistry of the original actors plus Coon’s magic tough = tos good.

34. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

I don’t understand so many people being so damned negatitve about the new trek film . More People aught be excited, and yes grateful that Paramount in it’s wisdom chose the right man for job to save the calcified Train wreck that is the Star Trek series has morphed into. You ll not that other then the fan made series and Books there are no new terk series in th pipe line and I don’t see any in the near or Far future, So please Boo Birds chiil out sit back and enjoy.

35. TrekOfficial - April 19, 2008

Nimoy had confidence in Trek5 too so that doesn’t bolster anything…

36. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#35 no argument on that point. But Abrams track suggests the film will be a really good film. Why not see the film and then decide.

37. Chris Pike - April 19, 2008

I don’t think realistically there would have been anyone else with his whole team that would have done a better job – no doubt we had the best people available, and we just have to accept it’s a new direction for Trek and almost certainly the only direction it could have gone if Trek were to survive at all. Some of us may not agree with all the changes when the film is finally revealed, but if it’s the great success it seems to be destined for, then Trek, at least, continues. Best of luck to all the team at Bad Robot.

38. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

I know when I view this movie opening night I will be jubilant, perhaps even giddy with excitement. The fact the The Big N blessed the film verbally, as well as with his presence, is enough for me. The only thing which niggles at the back of my mind is the rumor about some girl reprogramming the simulator for Kirk, when anyone who understands the complex characterization there knows Kirk would never put anyone in the position of getting in trouble for him. However, I cross my fingers hoping that was a rumor only, and am certain Abrams, Mr. Bob, etc. will present us all with awe-inspiring gift this time next year.

39. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

TrekOfficial#35- I do not know where you got that particular information; however, you would do well to read Nimoy’s autobiography I Am Spock to find out his true feelings and thoughts concerning ST: Final Frontier. I will point out one factoid to refute your claim: Nimoy never had confidence in the plotline of that movie, from beginning to end.

40. Summer Storm Pictures (STAR TREK "Soldiers of Pawns") - April 19, 2008

If the “self annointed” champion of the “original Star Trek” James Cawley (Star Trek New Voyages), who went on month-after-month spouting the veritable “beware the dark side” concerning this upcoming movie — and at one point even saying…

“…I have No interest in this film now, none at all. This will not be my Star Trek, at least not the one I have enjoyed for all of my 40 years. More power to them, I personally hope this goes the way of the REIMAGINED Planet of The Apes, and Wild, wild, west! because they were such successful movies! One thing is for sure come XMAS 2008 I will have saved $8.00!!!!!!”

(quoted from the Star Trek New Voyages forums http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?topic=1695.msg24604#msg24604)

Even after a bold stand like this — after one trip to the set of the new movie and he changed his tune. Even without seeing anything more than that, it was a “night-and-day” perspective shift. Was he “seduced by the dark side?”

Wouldn’t that also mean that Nimoy had been likewise “seduced” — and he has read the script in its entirety?

All the nay-sayers really make me laugh with their endless wellsprings of negativity. Sight unseen, they’re ready to prejudge and condemn this movie.

The bright side is that perhaps there will be a few seats available to those who really want to be there to enjoy the movie — but something tells me those same nay-sayers will be crack down in a theater seat opening day even if just for spite.

41. kokanee33 - April 19, 2008

#15)

Korean Sulu…

You’re so right. To stay true to Roddenberry’s vision JJ should have cast a Canadian as the American starship captain, a Canadian as the Scottish chief engineer, and an American as the Russian navigator.

42. Dennis Bailey - April 19, 2008

If this turns out – for whatever reason – to be the last “Star Trek” production it’s clear that it will be a more memorable final chapter than “These Are The Voyages…”

43. SPB - April 19, 2008

#30 – “So you want Nero to be trick by a super-entity Baptist God stand-in to judge humanity that Kirk defeats by shouting at, while holding a space-chick in a space-bikini.”

I like it. Sounds good to me! Nothing wrong with injecting some of the more “pulpier” aspects of the original TOS into the new movie! TREX XI needs to be more full-blooded like the ’60s episodes, and less anticeptic like the later 24th century-based series. The more blood, sweat & tears they can put up on the screen, the better.

44. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#32: “No doubt, but it was Genes Idea Originally, he ’s the great Bird of the Galaxy as it were, Not Gene Coon, Not DC Fontana or anyone else that helped with the building project. Without Genes Roddenberry’s orginal Idea there would be no Terk at all. Lets also consider the fact that he managed to keep a money loosing, low rated science fiction series on the air for 3 years back in the late 60’s. That in of itself is a pretty impressive feat”

Garovorkin, my old friend—-have you ever heard the Klingon proverb, ‘being a producer & creativity do not walk hand in hand’?

It was the fanbase letter writing campaigns that kept TOS on NBC—-a fan based founded by the genius vision of Gene Coon. Roddenberry basicly walked away from the show before the third season & left it to flounder. Please don’t give him the credit that others rightly deserve.

45. Cyberghost - April 19, 2008

are we going to have over a year of people freaking out if the movie will be great or the death of ST, relax it couldnt be in better hands,so just relax. Just look at JJ’s history and your mind should be at rest.

Is there anyone else better the franchise could of involved themselves with other than JJ and company?????

And this message is only meant for the people who constantly post the same worrisome, negative posts when the movie is posted on this and other sites.

46. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#34: “I don’t understand so many people being so damned negatitve about the new trek film”

Garovorkin, the fact so many people have issue logically proves this is not the right direction many of us wish ST to go.

You exibit constant blind praise without seeing the finished product which makes you equally ‘guilty’ as the people you scorn for forming ‘premature’ negative opinions.

47. Sebastian - April 19, 2008

#15. Even the name “Sulu” is nowhere near a Japanese name. As you may recall, Roddenberry’s intent was to create a character who was to embody the full richness of Asian cultures. The Japanese first name ‘Hikaru’ came some time later (after TOS ended its 3 yr run). Casting a Korean is not a crime. We had Canadians playing both an Iowa-born American and an Edinburgh-born Scotsman, and it worked out OK. And yes, we didn’t see Chekov on the bridge until season 2, true enough. But maybe he was assigned to another section of the ship? Who knows. I do look forward to this movie, though. It looks like they are more concerned with the important aspects of what really makes Star Trek “STAR TREK.” And of the casting issues, at least a Russian-born actor is playing Chekov this time!

48. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#45: “Is there anyone else better the franchise could of involved themselves with other than JJ and company?????”

Harve Bennett & Nick Meyer

49. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#44 Moogie Whatever the reality of the situation, every body forgets those little flaws and details of the mans life.

50. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#49: “Whatever the reality of the situation, every body forgets those little flaws and details of the mans life”

I prefer dealing with the reality of facts instead of feeding myths. After 42 years lets finally give credit were it’s deservingly due.

51. Robert April - April 19, 2008

#48

:-)

52. c0mBaTkArL - April 19, 2008

#7: “besides we can be happy that this film is not going to be either directed or produced or written by Michale Bay.”

You owe me a keyboard.

I’m totally stoked about this film. None of this nit-picking can detract from the fact that this is gonna be one wild movie ride, and I can’t wait to see it. When Nemesis came out I couldn’t be motivated with an electric Sehlat prod to go see it. This is a whole new ball game, and it ‘s efforts like this that make me want to go back into theaters, pleased to put down my 30 bucks (ticket & concessions) and escape.

53. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - April 19, 2008

#48—”Harve Bennett & Nick Meyer”-who also wanted to recast the original characters if you’ll remember. The bottom line is that Paramount would only have approved a ST project of this scope with the inclusion of Abrams as director.
We’ve been there and done that (Bennett and Meyer). It was good for awhile, but it’s time for fresh blood. There is no one better right now to relaunch 23rd Century Star Trek. I love “Lost”, and thought that JJ did an admirable job of salvaging the MI series after an abyssmal MI2. Even given the task of making a movie based on a toy and a cheesy 1980′s cartoon (Transformers), he made a midly entertaining film. Imagine what he can for with Star Trek. It certainly couldn’t do any worse than it has been of late.

Star Trek lives…and the human adventure continues…

54. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - April 19, 2008

Im confident that this film will rock and not just be a glossy Enterprise-esque style of trek…

As for GR’s “vision” series one of TNG blew… TMP was slow and i always feel sleepy watching it (yet it does have oooo factor and many places give me butterflies, esp the theme tune!!)

my theory is that MI3 was ok, lost is ace and Nimoy loves the script, if it grabs Spielberg by the nuts and Cruise is even sniffing around, (lets also not forget that we are going to see dozens of cameos) then this film will PWN!!

Jay, Manchester, UK

55. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 19, 2008

46. I Love My Moogie – April 19, 2008

“Garovorkin, the fact so many people have issue logically proves this is not the right direction many of us wish ST to go.”

Just exactly what direction would that be exactly?

56. Redjac - April 19, 2008

I have complete confidence in this team.

If they do their best and produce a fun film that is faithful to TOS, and should it still fail at the box office, I don’t these guys will have anything to hang their heads about.

For me, the real question is “Does Star Trek still appeal to the masses?”.

57. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#55 Moogie what is the point, no matter what, you seem to think i and others are wrong for liking the prospect of an Abrams directed Trek, Well I say to each his own. thats all I can say at this point.

58. Spiked Canon - April 19, 2008

Hear me oh Canonites of the past. YOUR Star Trek is gone. Oh whining Canonites please hear me. You are safe with free online Trek at CBS.com. Even on those nights when you want to be really crazy, you have the remastered versions. You have it. It isn’t going away. But, guess what? The general public doesn’t care about that anymore. They (you know, the people that pay) want something new and exciting. The biggest word in movie making in this millennium so far as been REBOOT. Embrace it. Learn to love it. Pretty much just get used to it.

We (once again the people that pay money, but now I include Trekkies(ers)) want fresh, young, exciting, new, different, familiar, GOOD. We want a never before seen Star Trek blockbusting freaking epic. We (this time including the canonites) will never get that BB F epic with the status quo.

Thank God, JJ Abe came along and saved the universe. We have been waiting for the Star Trek messiah for over 20 years and he is here. To quote the last Messiah that came through these parts……”through Me I will make all things new” YES!

59. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#55: “Just exactly what direction would that be exactly?”

“Star Trek: The Return” novel.

#56: “Does Star Trek still appeal to the masses?”.

It hasn’t for the past 42 years, why would anyone believe it’s going to now?

60. Michael Hall - April 19, 2008

“Re: Roddenberry’s vision, it was the vision of Gene Coon that made TOS the iconic classic that it is.”

Some, apparently, never tire of spouting simplistic bullshit, no matter how often it’s debunked. Fortunately for them, there’s always a market for it.

61. J C - April 19, 2008

THIS MOVIE WILL BE THE CLOSEST TO ‘GENE’S VISION’ BECAUSE IF WILL FEATURE THE ORIGINAL CHARACTERS AS THEY WERE CONCIEVED, IN THE PRIME OF THEIR YEARS.MORE SO THAN THE MOVIES WHICH WERE ESSENTIALLY MADE TO CASH IN ON STAR WARS AND THEN TO APPEASE TREKKIES WHO COULDN’T SEPARATE THE ACTORS FROM THEIR ROLES.

62. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

Can all agree on one thing? given Abrams Track record it will at the very least be a fun scif Movie to sit back,chew popcorn and watch. One think about J J Abrams, entertainment wise you always get your moneys worth.

63. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

I have faith this will be a good film. I’m equally sure there will be “Holy crap, JJ can’t do THAT!” moments all through the movie. Actually, I think I should reserve judgement until my second or third viewing. HA!

64. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Is anyone planning a pre-birthday party for 19 days from now? That’s when the movie will only be a year away… again.

65. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

# 64 CmdrR that is still 365 days or 525,600 plus minutes and counting.

66. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

“I knew he would.”

67. Cyberghost - April 19, 2008

48

Good choices, but it might be more of the same st wok etc, not thats it a bad thing, but JJ will bring in a fresh perspective, he is on a roll and I would like a new look while staying the same. JJ is hot right now, younger with fresh ideas and crew.

What has Harve Bennett done recently that has been a blockbuster? I just have a good feeling with JJ.

But those could have been good choices as well, but why were they not picked to write/direct/produce knowing their success with previous trek successes? Paramount wanted fresh blood into the franchise with no baggage of previous treks.

Its all good, except the date change of the movie. Errrrr

68. Boborci - April 19, 2008

JJ’s Star Trek is Gonna Rock You

69. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

Poopey#53- Not to say I would want Bennett & Meyer trying a reboot, but in all the interviews and books I’ve seen and read, I’ve never heard anything about Bennett or Meyer wanting to recast the original characters. From where did you get your info, Closet, and to which movie are you refering?

70. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

Well, Mr. Bob, it is about time you let your fingers do the walking on the Trek threads again.

71. Boborci - April 19, 2008

Since Alex and I are now out of “Michael Bay jail” we can breath again!

72. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Welcome to the Monkey House, Mr. Orci.

While I’d love to have a teensy spoiler from you, let me throw this out and see if you feel like answering:

If we all LOVE STXI (aka Star Trek) do you see a new TV series in the offing? If so, will films and series continue at the same time, with possibly films being TOS era while the series gets some new slice of Trekdom?

73. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

Mr. Bob#71- Oh, were you able to locate the transponders I secreted into your cheese danish, or can we expect Trans II to start production in the near future?

74. Boborci - April 19, 2008

CmdrR – April 19, 2008
Welcome to the Monkey House, Mr. Orci.

While I’d love to have a teensy spoiler from you, let me throw this out and see if you feel like answering:

If we all LOVE STXI (aka Star Trek) do you see a new TV series in the offing? If so, will films and series continue at the same time, with possibly films being TOS era while the series gets some new slice of Trekdom?

A; Sounds smart to me!

Denise de Arman – April 19, 2008
Mr. Bob#71- Oh, were you able to locate the transponders I secreted into your cheese danish, or can we expect Trans II to start production in the near future?

All signs point to yes.

75. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 19, 2008

59. I Love My Moogie:

So basically a Kirk returns from the dead and has a buddy movie with Picard. Sorry , not for me. I want a return to TOS. That book is still set in the 24th century.

76. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Bob, if you’re wondering who Denise is, she’s the woman who’s been following you around lately. Oh, but you probably have a lot of those. She’s the one in the Green Orion Slave Girl costume. Actually, you probably have a lot of THOSE, too. Denise is the funny one. The ditzy one who keeps talking about Trek?
I’m really not narrowing this down any, am I?

77. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Can you tell us whether Chris Pine throws in an Shat-isms, or makes a clean break with a new Kirk interpretation?

78. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

CmdrR#72- I nominate your name “Monkey House” to be the official/unofficial name of the Trekmovie threads, seeing that we all know the types of play, postering and slinging of organic matter which takes place in said space…

79. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Sure, in honor of Mr. Vonnegut.

Oh, and thanks Bob for the quick answer. This is so cool. I’m totally geeking out.

80. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

CmdrR- Notice how good Mr. Bob is at answering questions put to him with absolutely no information at all…

81. K. M. Kirby - April 19, 2008

I look forward to seeing the old Spock again, before his heroic sacrifice in STII. All that extra post-production time, means plenty of opportunity for reshoots…but hopefully not too many scenes cut out.

82. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Yeppers. Still, it’s fun.
(I wasn’t sure whether he was using his Magic 8-Ball to come up with the answers. “All signs point to yes.” Ha.)

83. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

I loved Vonnegut showing up in Back To School to write an essay for Rodney Dangerfield. That scene, and of course Sam Kineson and Rodney screaming at each other over Vietnam.

84. Anthony Pascale - April 19, 2008

RE: 80
it depends on the question you ask him

Bob,
What is the capital of Iowa?

85. FobCorki - April 19, 2008

Concentrate and ask again

86. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

Anthony#84- LMAO!

87. Denise de Arman - April 19, 2008

Anthony#84- Ten bucks says Orci is asking his kid what the capital of Iowa is…

88. FobCorki - April 19, 2008

and his kid is checking Wikipedia…

89. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Whoops. Forgot my bucket. Better change back. Aaaah. Better.

90. sean - April 19, 2008

#39

I will back you up on that one Denise. Many of the behind-the-scenes books (not just I Am Spock) reveal that Leonard had concerns with many aspects of the film right from the get-go, not the least of which was Spock suddenly having a heretofore unmentioned hippie half-brother. He was also uncomfortable with the scene involving Spock’s birth, feeling his character’s journey struggling with his half-human self had been properly resolved in previous films in a far more satisfactory way.

91. sean - April 19, 2008

#59

The Return – while being one of the only Shatner Trek novels that is worth reading – is so full of wink-wink, nod-nod moments as to be unfilmable. You’d have to hand out Star Trek Encyclopedia’s to the audience prior to the curtain coming up.

92. shat hands - April 19, 2008

good to hear from the man in the know! for some starnge reason i have a good feeling about this!

93. TK - April 19, 2008

Whether its good or not, I will def go see STXI, at least once. That’s a given. However in general, I don’t watch remakes. I just don’t. For some reason they don’t interest me.

Now here’s a question for people in this supposedly “monkey house” of ours…

If you had to recommend one, which movie remake would you recommend? Batman begins?

94. J C - April 19, 2008

To Boborci (ridiculous question of the day),
Will this film answer the question as to why everyone in starfleet HAS to wear pointy sideburns? or are you going to leave us hanging on that one for the sequel?

95. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

TK — King Kong is on now. I give Peter Jackson a lot of credit for watching out for minor characters and for creating an overaul visceral ‘feel’ to each of his movies.

As for stuff I’d love to SEE blow’d up into a big high-felutin’ Hollywood movin’ picture…

Star Blazers
Captain Harlock
The Starlost
Dark Star

For each, I’d rather avoid the overly CGI look (a la Speed Racer) and take a serious approach. Poach only the basic feel, story and characters and see where they take you.

96. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#90:
In all the interviews promoting the release of TFF Nimoy INDEED assured it was going to be a great film. No sane actor is going to say anything negative prior to a film’s release, whether in 1989 or 2008.

97. Anthony Pascale - April 19, 2008

Moogie
You are implying that Mr. Nimoy is lying and I do not appreciate that. I have spoken to him about the film and know him to be genuinely enthusiastic about it. You have been warned for trolling before and I am starting to wonder if that is all you are here to do. I for sure will not tolerate any more innuendos about Mr. Nimoy.

98. Spiked Canon - April 19, 2008

in fairness Anthony. Though I too trust Mr Nimoy and I openy admit Moogie irritates me… he is kind of correct :-&

99. CmdrR - April 19, 2008

Everyone here knows this movie is not about one movie… it’s about a minimum of three. The contracts are signed. Even if XI tanked, there would be minimum of one more.

I do NOT think this will be a bad movie. The only real questions: will old school Trekkies embrace it; will newcomers get excited about ST XII?

As for Mr. Nimoy’s comments on TFF, I think once bitten, twice retired. He had NO reason to come back to Trek unless he liked this script and crew.

100. Spiked Canon - April 19, 2008

I agree with that…good point

101. Crusty McCoy - April 19, 2008

BobOrci,

1) What can you tell us about the release of pics, trailers, info etc about the trek film in terms of a time schedule? Anything? The release seems so far away…

2) What’s the word with Fringe? Can you give us any insight into storylines?

3) Speculation on a budget for Trans II? All principals returning?

Again, thanks for your time here. Your presence is always appreciated.

102. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#97:
The post was about STV, not STXI.

An earlier post stated that Nimoy had been harsh with TFF & I said that ANY actor associated with a movie is only going to say positive things about it prior to it’s release, just as Nimoy did in praising TFF in 1989.

It was a COMPLIMENT to his being professional & supporting Shat’s film when he, as we found out later, had issues with the film.

103. Xai - April 19, 2008

I LOVE that the nay-sayers have a place to vent. I am sure this has made a dent in the amount of road- rage across the nation and the world.
While no one here (except for Roberto) has a CLUE about how well XI will do… don’t the negative-minded frequenting the site get tired of the doom and gloom you type on these threads? I can’t prove this movie will be great, but I believe it’s best to have a positive attitude about things and people until they prove me wrong. It’s easier on the mind and the stomach. I see some of the “reasons” for negativity include..
… doesn’t like change
…. didn’t cast Shatner
… Quinto supposedly can’t do the Vulcan SAlute correctly
…JJ’s directing
… someone else should direct
… the writers are hacks (Sorry Bob, I don’t agree)
… “They didn’t listen to me when I told them not to make Nemesis, so now I have an agenda”
…The ship (uniforms, bridge rails, colored stars, etc) will be/is wrong
… Chekov wasn’t there at the start (toooo funny)
….Close to Gene’s vision/wasn’t Gene’s vision.

All this cr*p spilling over a movie that doesn’t appear for another 384 days.

And I always learned you needed solid, real information to form a valid opinion… or do we still have a bunch of trolls inflaming the board? Hmmmm.

I’ll check under the bridge, meantime… chill…y’all

104. Maxi - April 19, 2008

LOL I think this films been JJ’s Kobayashimaru.

105. Spiked Canon - April 19, 2008

only if he subjects himself to this…i don’t see too many JJs responding

106. Boborci - April 19, 2008

Crusty McCoy – April 19, 2008
BobOrci,

1) What can you tell us about the release of pics, trailers, info etc about the trek film in terms of a time schedule? Anything? The release seems so far away…

2) What’s the word with Fringe? Can you give us any insight into storylines?

3) Speculation on a budget for Trans II? All principals returning?

Again, thanks for your time here. Your presence is always appreciated.

A:

1 — working out schedule now based on date change
2 — We are in he final moments of post production on Fringe and we should find out officially if we are going to series very soon.
3 — Budget will be far less than the usual sequels, but larger than the first movie, and we’ll have many returning characters from first movie.

107. Spiked Canon - April 19, 2008

Bob..in response to answer #3

Please…the girl…please

108. Boborci - April 19, 2008

Spiked Canon – April 19, 2008
Bob..in response to answer #3

Please…the girl…please

A: Well… okay. Just for you.

109. Spiked Canon - April 19, 2008

in my best Napoleon Dynamite… yesss

110. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

lots to argue about on this one

111. Spiked Canon - April 19, 2008

certainly not the girl

112. rooster - April 19, 2008

#26 LOL!

I saw Star Wars III 3 times in the theatre and cried every time. I kept coming back to it because it haunted me. Mind you, Lucas is terrible at writing dialogue, but I felt the actors did the best they could with his words.

I anticipate my reaction to this movie to far surpass that. I’m willing to wait. I want Star Trek to be alive, well, and relevant still by the time I procreate. It will make my “symbol of the Klingon Empire” tattoo much easier to explain to my children.

Anthony, thank you so much for all your hard work!

113. sean - April 19, 2008

#102

There’s a difference between praising a film and not trashing it. As I recall at the time, Nimoy had little to say publicly. And I definitely don’t recall him heaping praise on it.

Honestly though, I think you’ve made a good point. He didn’t trash TFF publicly because he was protecting the feelings of his dear friend. In the case of Trek XI, he had no friendly obligation to appear or to heap undeserved praise on it. He only agreed to appear AFTER reading and approving of the script. The situation is completely different. To me, that should increase confidence that the project is worthwhile.

114. Bill Peters - April 19, 2008

I for one belive in not speeking bad of a film before I See it and I take JJ and Nimoy at there word as we’ll as anyone else who has actually seen the Scrip and acted the parts.

115. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

we need to stop throwing cannons at each other

116. rooster - April 19, 2008

I believe the Kobayashimaru comparisons are quite accurate. In this case Abrams is opting for the Kirk method and changing the rules in order to win out.

In a world of wi-fi, text messaging, and iPhones, he is taking the right approach towards reviving the franchise. I’m ready to hear 13-year-olds getting excited. Hopefully the philosophy begun by Roddenberry will be the heart, and JJ will facilitate the technology catching up to our new expectations of what the future can hold.

117. Spockanella - April 19, 2008

Well, well, well…feisty, people, feisty!

Change is hard. We all instinctively fear it. Die-hard Trekkers especially fear what might be done to the show they love, for all the various reasons that they love it. We’ve all seen too many remakes not to be cautious. So, for all the naysayers, yes, I understand your concerns.

But…

I CAN’T WAIT I CAN’T WAIT I CAN’T WAIT! For good or ill, I wanna see it, wanna roll around in it, see if I can break my old record for the most times I saw the same movie in the same day (Lord of the Rings), wanna gobble it up like candy.

Thanks, Anthony, for giving us this forum to express our opinions. And, folks, that’s all they are. If you skew negative, you always will, no matter what I or anybody else ever says. If you skew positive, same thing. Let’s agree to disagree and get on wit’ it!

118. Star Trek Imagination - April 19, 2008

62″Can all agree on one thing? given Abrams Track record it will at the very least be a fun scif Movie to sit back,chew popcorn and watch. One think about J J Abrams, entertainment wise you always get your moneys worth.”

I AGREE.

I want to watch this movie now because it is an Abrams film. I am fully aware that it might not feel totally like the original series. But hey watching some of those episodes remind me that Star Trek was a work in progress even then. Not all of the original episodes were good. Hell , imo, if not for some or the plot additives from the wrath of Kahn, the kobyahsi maru would not have existed, kirk would have had no son , never cheated, and the depth of kirk and spock’s relationship through spock’s death would not have been conveyed with such emotional impact. Can a movie still be entertaining, piss on cannon at the same time, and still be a fan favorite? Watch Star Trek 2. I rest my case.

119. Stanky McFibberich - April 19, 2008

re: 9. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator – April 19, 2008
“I’ve heard some good things about this film, and some very bad things about this film. Abrams and Co. making vague “we’re staying true to Roddenberry’s ‘vision’” comments doesn’t do anything for me.
This film might be good, but I’m not holding my breath.”

Yes, amazing how some can be taken in by the vague comments of people involved in the production.

And I don’t think mentioning that these people are on the payroll and are naturally going to say these things is any kind of accusation that they are “lying.” They may really believe some or all of what they say, but they are naturally not going to say anything negative or even neutral.

A vision and a script is one thing. What ends up on screen is another. The most recent “King Kong” is an example. What I read about that previous to the movie coming out was all roses, too. I was very excited to see that movie. But, while visually impressive, it was essentially overblown and boring and a huge disappointment.

So excuse me if I’m not buying into the propaganda.

120. Star Trek Imagination - April 19, 2008

19.So excuse me if I’m not buying into the propaganda.

what are you buying into exactly? i know you usually do not want this film to succeed but maybe that is because you do not like the idea of trek being redone. so i guess you have a type of propaganda here. i guess we all can hope for the best and prepare for the worst. i respect that mentality. i just do not agree entirely.

121. Xai - April 19, 2008

Yes, let’s make sure we don’t fall into that trap of someone talking positive about A MOVIE.

I am still waiting to hear what “very bad things” TOS Purist has been hearing. More rumor based on opinion? We’ve seen quite alot of that from fellow posters the last few weeks.

I find the “propaganda” from the people that have acted in, directed or written this movie far more believable than “fans” and others that seem to have an agenda that denies anything good could come from the film.

A new Star Trek film is a good thing, contrary to some might read in these posts.

IMO.

122. Dr. Image - April 19, 2008

Where have I heard all this before?
Ho hum.

Hey- when are we gonna see some more pix??

123. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

No one intends to make a bad movie, not even the late Ed Wood.

No one here knows if STXI will be good OR bad. People who shout ‘rah, rah, rah’ every time someone from the production says the film is ‘awesome’ are no different from those who seek more information to be convinced. Both groups are forming their opinions without seeing the finished product or even reading a halfway decent spoiler.

I think both sides deserve a few images with weight, just as Starlog used to publish photos of a Trek movie months before the release.

The people in this forum do have one special thing in common, we love & support Trek and want the an early peek. If I like what I see, I would be the first one here to admit I am being swayed in the other direction.

A few images will put a lot of these debates to rest .

124. Jon - April 19, 2008

It’s as if some people want this movie to fail, thus killing Star Trek. You don’t want Trek to die, do you? That’s just really sad. “Star Trek was the greatest show ever! I don’t want it be over yet I desperately want this movie that (let’s face it) I still don’t know much about to die a horrible death in theaters because no one else can do Trek but a man that’s been dead nearly 20 years!”

Hypocrites.

Make up your bleedin’ minds. Would you rather see Abrams give the franchise a much deserved breath of fresh air or let the last fond memories of the greatest franchise ever be that of what Rick Berman did to it?

Isn’t it quite possible that Abrams wouldn’t have gotten the support of the surviving cast of TOS and that of Mr. Roddenberry’s son himself without knowing what the devil he was doing? Nimoy’s in the freaking movie! Doesn’t that count for something?

125. Xai - April 19, 2008

123. I Love My Moogie – April 19, 2008

“No one here knows if STXI will be good OR bad. People who shout ‘rah, rah, rah’ every time someone from the production says the film is ‘awesome’ are no different from those who seek more information to be convinced.”
I have no problems with this statement.
However, what about those that have decided that the movie is already bad based on no evidence?

126. Battletrek - April 19, 2008

I WANT RICK BERMAN BACK!!!!

127. I Love My Moogie - April 19, 2008

#125: “However, what about those that have decided that the movie is already bad based on no evidence?”

It’s no different than those who are already convinced it’s great, it’s just the flip side of the spectrum.

I don’t see how it’s going to spoil the film if Abrams/Paramount released a Nimoy/Quinto in costume photo or a complete external image of the Enterprise, then we can all know what we’re actually debating about : )

128. The Vulcanista - April 19, 2008

Just tell me a really good story. That’s all I ask for my 8 bucks. And if it has really cool FX, lotsa eye candy, and flames shootin’ out the naecelles when Enterprise hits warp, so much the better.

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

129. OR Coast Trekkie - April 20, 2008

Moogie, basically you are saying that you are going to grade the movie on things like the uniforms, button colors, Enterprise hull detailing things like that? Are you going to let that kind of thing ruin what could be a tremendous story for you?

Are you trying to tell people that they should think negatively about the film first?

I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Abrams gives us. Trek needs some NEW life. I want to see what this new life will be.

And besides, TOS is riddled with continuity errors that itself had and created (General Order 7 vs. General Order 4, James “R” Kirk, the Klingons… need I go on?) And also, it should be considered that any line that Kirk says will not be said by CAPTAIN Kirk, but rather, by CADET Kirk, or ENSIGN Kirk, etc. Captain Kirk may not say or do certain things, but a younger Kirk may very well do and say things we don’t agree with.

130. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 20, 2008

93. TK: Batman Begins was not a remake. If it can be considered a remake then the Burton Batman would be a remake since there was the Adam West Batman movie in 66. And heck there was a movie serial in the 40s. Batman has been around for coming on 70 years. Actually Batman Begins is the first time the origin of Batman has ever been a major part of any movie featuring him. And yes I recommend it. :)

Moogie: I understand you point. But I don’t think you realize how bitter and cynical you and TOS and other naysayers sound at times. I think you are mischaracterization some folk with the rah rah label. I think that most here, like myself are just excited that there IS a Star Trek film and it is being treated like a big deal and has huge budget and seems to be in good hands. Of course none of us know what the end result will be but being positive and hopeful has to be better than being negative and jaded. In the end of course you and everyone else here is entitled to their own opinion of course. However I think this a time when Trek fans should be united in their hope that this new film will revive our beloved franchise and it end up on the other side stronger than ever.

As for Nimoy, well yes he didn’t trash Final Frontier and as you pointed out that was the professional and correct thing to do. But being tight lipped about the perceived problems with a dear friend’s movie publicly and being enthused about a movie he came out of retirement to do is a whole other ballgame. If this film was a turkey we would see a perfunctory and professional reserved Nimoy. Instead we see an enthusiastic, happy and impressed Nimoy. Good enough for me. Oh and what about all the folks who visited the set who have no vested interest in the film personally other than good will? Why would David Gerold and the original cast members talk it up if they smell or see a stinker? Food for thought.

Yes…..Starlog showed stuff months in advance. We are talking over a year yet to go. It is MUCH too early to spill anything yet. And trust me I want it as bad as the next Trek fan. Trust me, we will get all the promotional material we can handle soon enough. The con season has already started and I am sure there will be tidbits scattered about. And eventually we will get bigger and bigger bits. Its the proper way to build up interest. This movie isn’t just for us. We are already interested. ;)

Which brings me lastly to your comment about the mainstream audience and Star Trek. The mainstream audience DOES like Star Trek. Just like they like I Love Lucy and Superman and other things. They don’t collect books or memorabilia or write fan fiction or go to conventions. They just watch the show and like Kirk and Spock’s adventures in Space, and all those TV guide readers who voted Kirk as the top Captain and those who said they were Star Trek fans in the poll Dan Quayle quoted which numbered half of America,. or those who went to see TMP that made it the biggest box office success per capita of all Trek films, the ones who made The Voyage Home the actual top grosser of all Trek films, and all those people who watched Star Trek in syndication while they ate dinner all across America, causing it to rival I Love Lucy as a syndication giant. Like my Dad and brothers and friends who don’t quite get my mania about Trek but who watched it and enjoyed it as a TV show.

Thats why.

131. Iowagirl - April 20, 2008

#130
- The mainstream audience DOES like Star Trek. -

I agree. But that means they ALREADY love Classic Trek. They already have made it the cult it is today. This is precisely why some of us have doubts and feel XI is taking itself far more important than it actually is. Abrams & Co have set out to re-imagine it, to re-whatever it. Imo, they should have gone for something completely new with new people, a new idea – but they chose to base their film on TOS and I personally don’t have confidence in what their saying and doing so far. I think it’s because the original imagination and implementation always worked out perfectly for me.

As for Nimoy’s endorsement, I’m sure we all like Nimoy very much, but I for one don’t form an opinion solely on the basis of his statements. He wasn’t sold on TFF? Never mind – I love TFF. Surely Shatner used to be in favour of GEN – I do like Shatner a lot, but does that make me like GEN? Definitely not.

Neither side has evidence whether this will be a good or a bad film, that’s correct. But we have indicators at our disposals, all of them having been discussed. Thus, being positive or negative about XI, is a matter of different priorities. This board should be able to bear different priorities.

132. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 20, 2008

131. Iowagirl :

You are making my argument for me. Why would JJ and the gang make something new with new people? CBS, Paramount and Bad Robot have wakened to what many of us already know, It is TOS and Kirk and Spock that is Americana and what most people want and will pay for. That is evidenced by the re -mastering, the merchandising and the new big budget movie. I am forever hungry for more TOS, Kirk and Spock. I wouldn’t want some other ship, some other crew, some other idea. We have had that for the last 20 odd years. And yes…I will say right here and right now that Star Trek 0 will not be exactly like and therefor not better than TOS, period. But then again, what has been? It’s an impossible task. TOS stands alone as what it was. The greatest TV show of all time. If this movie honors it and seeks to imitate it and tell us a rousing tale?…Well thats win/win in my book. The movie is vastly important. Because it is leaving Mod Trek behind and taking us home.

I am sure this board certainly can handle different priorities. And opinions for that matter. I am referring to the more cynical posts. And indeed the overly enthusiastic should likely take a chill pill too certainly. But in the end I suppose everyone will do what they like. But I tend to be a peacemaker, so I said my piece. :)

I do have to ask however. What priorities would those be?

133. Iowagirl - April 20, 2008

#132 I Am Morg Not Eymorg

- It is TOS and Kirk and Spock that is Americana and what most people want and will pay for. -

Agreed – however my priority would be Kirk and Spock as portrayed in TOS…

- I will say right here and right now that Star Trek 0 will not be exactly like and therefor not better than TOS, period. -

Spot-on.

- TOS stands alone as what it was. The greatest TV show of all time. -

Exactly.

- And indeed the overly enthusiastic should likely take a chill pill too certainly. -

They can have my today’s ration.;-)

Further to priorities, I was referring to what we all tend to read into what’s been said and done so far in the run-up to XI, depending on what we treasure the most in TOS. Re-casts in general, the Shatner debate, the Canon debate, Abrams’ statements, the re-casts’ comments. For some these things are encouraging, for others they are discouraging. For me, the idea of re-casts in general, Shatner’s absence and the “no“ to old Kirk‘s return, and the puffery of XI are reason enough to be put off so far. As I said before, the Original always provided the optimum for me, so that would be *my* priority.

As regards the peacemaker, Morg – I have no doubt about that. I was rather making a general statement aimed at some people on this board who tend to attack “negative” posters just because of their different view. I wasn’t referring to you – my apologies if you received that impression.

134. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

While the Original Star trek was a decent show for its first two seasons . It simply does not qualify for the title greatest show of all time.

135. I Love My Moogie - April 20, 2008

134:
“While the Original Star trek was a decent show for its first two seasons . It simply does not qualify for the title greatest show of all time”

If that statement doesn’t qualify for trolling, I don’t know what does?

Garovorkin, that statement is begging for people to passionately respond in protest, which I’m not going to do because TOS iconic status says it all.

136. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 20, 2008

134. Garovorkin:

I beg to differ. So what TV show is the best? And do you post on a message board for it? ;)

137. Jamie - April 20, 2008

I hope this movie has the special effects scale of ‘Superman Returns’.

Unlike Superman Returns, however, I hope it retains all the fun and excitement of the original, instead of having a more serious and melancholy tone. (SR really disappointed me, even though it was true to the original films in many ways.)

138. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 20, 2008

133. Iowagirl:

No need for apologies I never thought you were taking shots at me. I was just explaining why I was banging my head against a brick wall lest you think me entirely insane. :)

Now to the issue at hand: So let me see if I got this. You prefer your Kirk and Spock and TOS….well to be TOS that has already happened. No new TOS. (Unless of course the originals are all involved which is becoming increasingly impossible). Is this correct? And if so what movie would you like to see? With or without them?

See, to explain my priorities. I am DONE with them trying to recreate the magic with other ships and crews and such. They all pale to the iconic Kirk and Spock frankly. I am ready for more TOS if done right and well. I can’t expect exact TOS because the principles can’t keep doing it and honestly when I say I want TOS, I want the show. The movies are good and I love them, but they also pale to the show for me. Now don’t get me wrong. I could and can and do live off my TOS episodes. Nothing will ever supplant or surpass them. I am sure of that. However, I can see this new movie a fun little apocryphal romp in my beloved 23rd century, just like some of my fave novels, comics and such.

So I am understandably curious as to what you want or think they should do.

139. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#136 Good show decent show I will give it that, best show ever No I don’t think so. There are a number of other shows in in different genres that might be better candidates for greatest show ever. What do I think is the best show ever? There are alot of show s I could choose from but it is a matter of opinion .Maybe in minds and hearts of die hard trek fans it the greatest show ever,but that could hardly be considered an objective opinion.

140. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 20, 2008

139. Garovorkin:

When did I ever entertain the idea that I was being in the least bit objective. I am never objective about food, Star Trek and my Mama. LOL.

To ME, there hasn’t been a show to touch Star Trek. None provide the entertainment level to as high a degree. None were a must buy on DVD as much as Star Trek was. None cause my book shelves and walls to be filled with Star Trek memborbilla. None just plain rock my world like it did.

I do apologize. I have been known to assume that all other Trek fans think and feel the same way I do about the show. I have done that to a couple of friends of mine. I am a Zealot there is no doubt. And I do not apologize for that. :)

All kinds of Trek fans exist here. From Next Gennies to casual fans. (Such as the ones I mentioned in my original post). I suppose I was just curious as to where you stand. I mean….a number of shows? Have mercy.

141. Michael Hall - April 20, 2008

I could certainly acknowledge that TOS is probably not the “greatest TV show ever” (based on such criteria as acting, storytelling, production values, etc.–on those terms it’s not even the best space opera, let alone SF series, of all time, anymore), while maintaining that nevertheless it’s still probably my all-time favorite show, since the two categories don’t have all that much to do with each other.

142. I Love My Moogie - April 20, 2008

#139: “Good show decent show I will give it that, best show ever No I don’t think so”

Garovorkin, In your opinion, not in fact. I’m very surprised at you.

I believe most people here, excited or not about STXI, love TOS which was helluva lot more than merely a ‘decent’ show—it’s a CLASSIC & the greatest of ‘em all, IMHO.

143. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#140 Oh sorry silly me LOL Look Eymorg I can’t exactly call my myself 100 percent object on all things either and yes some of my unobjective opinions have probably ticked off more then a few people here, and there have been more then a couple occasions where I have gotten my head handed back to me on a stick. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about things so long as it doesn’t t lead to dueling pistols at 20 paces. I am critical of trek, but i do like the old series, and the Next Gen and Best of all to me is DS9. It burns me up that so many trek fans dismiss it so readily. I also Like B5 tremendiously,it my favorite scif series of all and I will defend it tooth and claw, I tend to like most thing s science fiction and fantasy both written and on the tv and big screen. In the case of the New trek Movie I am upset that so many trek fans are condemning it before it has a chance, If they viewed it with open mind and then decided it is not for them ,that I have no problem with. I look upon the Abrams movie as a new chapter in the trek saga, not a disavowel of the old as so many seem to view it. Star Trek Nemesis left me with a very bad taste in my mouth and I am hoping that Abrams can save this wonderful scif franchise from oblivion.

144. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#142 Ahh Moogie do I detect the tiniest crack in your Armor? maybe your getting just a little bit more enthusiastic for the Abrams film then your will to admit? LOL . Moogie as to greatest show ever will say for the sake of argument in the scif category okay. But what about all the other Television Genres?

145. S. John Ross - April 20, 2008

Meaningless promotional sound-bytes aside, I still have (tentative) high hopes for the new movie. The cast have me pretty excited overall … I get the least amount of warm-fuzzies from our new Spock and Kirk (saw Quinto at an event here yesterday) … but Urban, Pegg, Cho and Yelchin have me enthused to the point where if I decide not to see the film, I’ll feel regret just for missing out on their performances … and Leonard Nimoy.

146. Iowagirl - April 20, 2008

#138 I Am Morg Not Eymorg

To start with – I agree to everything you say with respect to TOS.

Ok, I understand they have to go for re-casts (it didn‘t escape me that they would be facing certain… imponderables if they didn‘t ;-)), but I don‘t have to regard them as Kirk, Spock & Co. I’ll never do that, but I may see them as actors who are playing those roles for a certain period of time, as Pegg said. Shatner and Nimoy would have made it “real” for me, but that won‘t be the story. Furthermore, some of the statements Abrams & Co are making are giving me personally the impression that they actually want to “paint over” TOS instead of honouring it (not your daddy’s trek, will feel real in a way it never did before, etc.) Sometimes, it’s the big events and the small things that combined will give you a negative idea of something.

To cut a long story short, I’m just a bit over-protective of the Original I treasure so much. (Not that it would need protection…) TOS helped me through some very rough times in my life, and it’s much more than a show for me, and I cannot accept people messing around with it the way I feel it is being done now.

What they should do? It’s more a question of what they should have done. If they had shown a more sensitive approach so far, this entire scenario wouldn’t have been such a disappointment for me and for others. I think this is a very aggressive approach, and I’m not able to embrace it.

But then, if I understand your last sentence as to the film correctly, your approach to XI differs from the makers’ approach, as well. And I would like to point out that I could perfectly live with that approach! Makes much sense to me, and it’s good to see that there are people who are looking forward to the film, but regard it as “apocryphal romp”, and are aware that this film won’t have the capacity to surpass TOS. Thanks for *that* chill pill. :)

147. I Love My Moogie - April 20, 2008

#140: I am never objective about food, Star Trek and my Mama”

Here, here!! I agree 110 percent on all counts (they don’t call me ‘I Love My Moogie’ for nothing).

148. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 20, 2008

143. Garovorkin – April 20, 2008

“Oh sorry silly me LOL Look Eymorg I can’t exactly call my myself 100 percent object on all things either”

Thats okay. :) And good glad to know, wouldn’t want to suspect you were a replicant and go all Blade Runner on ya. :)

“There is nothing wrong with being passionate about things so long as it doesn’t t lead to dueling pistols at 20 paces.”

I couldn’t agree more.

“I am critical of trek, but i do like the old series, and the Next Gen and Best of all to me is DS9. It burns me up that so many trek fans dismiss it so readily.”

I understand that and appreciate it. I liked DS9, espeicially the characters. Still had the taint of the 24th century for me but it managed to rise above it frequently.

“I also Like B5 tremendiously,it my favorite scif series of all and I will defend it tooth and claw”

Now we are talking. THIS is what I am on about. I am not even remotely a fan of this series as I believe we have discussed in another thread. However I admire and respect you passion and fervor and zeal towards it. Thats what being a fan is all about. Its your thing. If we don’t defend our thing, then who will?

Its like sports teams. Yeah yeah its all PC and polite and even logical to praise good teams and to appreciate talent and all. But honestly that stuff only goes so far. I like fans with passion. Who support their team. Who bleed the colors of their team. I can respect the Steelers and the 49ers but I can also despise them. Why? Because they took things from my Cowboys. Its really very simple and honest. :)

“In the case of the New trek Movie I am upset that so many trek fans are condemning it before it has a chance, If they viewed it with open mind and then decided it is not for them ,that I have no problem with.”

Agreed. As I spoke to in my original post.

“I look upon the Abrams movie as a new chapter in the trek saga, not a disavowel of the old as so many seem to view it. Star Trek Nemesis left me with a very bad taste in my mouth and I am hoping that Abrams can save this wonderful scif franchise from oblivion.”

Agreed in part. I do not believe they need to save the franchise from oblivion. TOS will be there long after we are all dead. It has lodged itself among the immortals. Kirk and Spock rub shoulders with Superman, Tarzan and Sherlock Homes and Lucy Ricardo. Now what they CAN save is the franchise making new material for us. Which is very important to me. I have been in hog heaven the last couple of years with the return to TOS merchandising.

“as to greatest show ever will say for the sake of argument in the scif category okay. But what about all the other Television Genres?”

Well that really makes no diff with me. When I say it was the greatest I mean the greatest. So that includes all other genres. Indeed the second show on my list would be in the same genre and that is the Twilight Zone. But trust me my list is filled with classic and quality television. M*A*S*H, All in the Family, Seinfeld, X-Files et al. But Trek tops them all. And I base that not only on its quality but the fact that it has become part of Americana, it was a syndication giant and it begat 10 movies and 5 more television shows. And untold merchandise, books and etc. Now, tell me what makes the TV show you think is the greatest the best? LOL

And I am curious what you would list as some of the best. Hopfully some at least won’t be from only the last 10-20 years. It seems this era has the bad habit of dismissing previous eras like no other before it. Perhaps its a new jerk reaction to the baby boomers. But Carrie from Sex and the City as one of the top ten TV characters of all time!? C’mon TV Guide. Yeeesh. :)

149. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 20, 2008

146. Iowagirl – April 20, 2008

“To start with – I agree to everything you say with respect to TOS.”

Of that I had no doubt. :)

“Ok, I understand they have to go for re-casts (it didn‘t escape me that they would be facing certain… imponderables if they didn‘t ;-)), but I don‘t have to regard them as Kirk, Spock & Co. I’ll never do that, but I may see them as actors who are playing those roles for a certain period of time, as Pegg said. Shatner and Nimoy would have made it “real” for me, but that won‘t be the story.”

This is fair enough. And I agree. But its just a reality and hopefully the youngsters do well, have fun with it and we call enjoy it. I mean, I want there to be further stories of Kirk and Spock for people after I am long gone. Yes they will have the originals. And they are the best. But just as I was hungry for more in the 70s leading to the Motion Picture…so will those future Trekkers. So its just an inevitable solution.

“Furthermore, some of the statements Abrams & Co are making are giving me personally the impression that they actually want to “paint over” TOS instead of honouring it (not your daddy’s trek, will feel real in a way it never did before, etc.) Sometimes, it’s the big events and the small things that combined will give you a negative idea of something.”

I understand that but I feel those isolated incidents are just hype speak. I have read too much else about how these folks revere the show so I don’t think they are attempting to build their movie on the ashes of the original but rather on it’s shoulders.

“To cut a long story short, I’m just a bit over-protective of the Original I treasure so much. (Not that it would need protection…) TOS helped me through some very rough times in my life, and it’s much more than a show for me, and I cannot accept people messing around with it the way I feel it is being done now.”

Believe me dear, I grok. I completely understand. And if I felt an inkling that anyone was dissing my Trek. I would be as mad as a hornet. But we all perceive things differently. So if you felt threatened then I get that and you are more entitled to that. I would just gently urge you to keep an open mind and a careful heart. :)

“What they should do? It’s more a question of what they should have done. If they had shown a more sensitive approach so far, this entire scenario wouldn’t have been such a disappointment for me and for others. I think this is a very aggressive approach, and I’m not able to embrace it.”

I understand that. I do admit I have enjoyed the aggressiveness. It reflects my attitude for the last several years. I am tired of TOS being on a shelf. Its time we shouted out to the world that we still love our show and that its the best and that everyone better recognize. LOL. Now this could very much be a Venus/Mars thing for sure. LOL.

“But then, if I understand your last sentence as to the film correctly, your approach to XI differs from the makers’ approach, as well. And I would like to point out that I could perfectly live with that approach! Makes much sense to me, and it’s good to see that there are people who are looking forward to the film, but regard it as “apocryphal romp”, and are aware that this film won’t have the capacity to surpass TOS. Thanks for *that* chill pill. :)”

You understood it perfectly. TOS exists in a vaccum. It is the Holy Grail upon what all the rest of these Trek series, movies, toys, books, and fandom revolve. Nothing can destroy it. It will be here long after we are all gone. And yes, there will be those, including the movie makers who have to please everyone to some degree, or at least not alienate them, who will declare this movie “canon” and continuity and whatever. All of that is subjective and beside the point and secondary to the movie and its quality and its entertainment value and it’s respect to TOS. Those are the important aspects.

Because when it comes right down to it, we all chose our own continuity and ‘canon’. Fanon is a whole systematic structure of that sort of thing. Its all what we want it to be to ourselves. Like for instance,I certainly do not anchor my TOS by the vast continuity of the Mod Trek shows.

And I am glad I was able to help you out with the chill pill. Go ahead and take two and call me in the morning. ;)

150. Iowagirl - April 20, 2008

#149

I’ll keep taking those chill pills in heaps (never mind the side effects) and give you a call, be sure about that.;-)

Cheers!

151. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#148 Eymorg I don’t think anyone will forget the original, How can they? Trek’s’ contribution to scif was huge,. If trek had never happened There would not be Babylon 5 or Bsg or much else in the way of science fiction in the movies other then maybe b movies or on television. Trek also inspired generations of Engineere and scientists who built and designed some of the gadgets t that were on trek.

Book of interest for you to check out Jack London’s The Star Rover, his only Fantasy novel about a man who can Astral project into his past lives at will.Check it out on project Guttenberg.The book is wonderous journey across time space and history, style is vastly different then anything else written by him. It largelyl unknown by most people. i have introduced over 1000 people to it.

152. Anthony Thompson - April 20, 2008

But will it honor Gene Coon’s vision??? Harharhar.

153. Xai - April 20, 2008

127. I Love My Moogie – April 19, 2008
#125: “However, what about those that have decided that the movie is already bad based on no evidence?”

“It’s no different than those who are already convinced it’s great, it’s just the flip side of the spectrum.”

Sorry, no. There’s always a difference between constructive thought and destructive thought.

My point is….

we have people that say… I like what I am hearing from the people that participated in the production of the film. I think it will be good.

we also have people saying…
JJ’s not a fan, he’s only in it for the money.
Quinto can’t do the Vulcan Salute right… I see bad things in this film
… and that list goes on.
There’s a segment of “fans” that don’t want this film to be good or to succeed and they do troll that opinion through here based on far less than the people who “Rah-rah” in here.

Is their freedom of speech? Yes. In here? We live by Anthony’s rules. We’ve seen the writers creds, JJ’s creds and other information drug through the mud in here, completely inaccurate or twisted and it’s tiresome.

154. krikzil - April 20, 2008

“Is [there] freedom of speech? Yes. … We’ve seen the writers creds, JJ’s creds and other information drug through the mud in here, completely inaccurate or twisted and it’s tiresome.”

But isn’t that the very definition of “freedom of speech”? –that others have the right to voice opinions you may find distasteful and vehemently disagree with? (Sorry I’ve been watching that John Adams HBO series and I’m in touch with my American roots right now!) A lot of folks connected to Trek have been tarred & feathered over the years. Fandom is composed of a group of very bright, intelligent, thinking (some would say, too much!), individualistic folks — so disagreement is almost a given in my book. Stepford fans we are not. Nit-picking is in our DNA.

“There’s a segment of “fans” that don’t want this film to be good or to succeed and they do troll that opinion through here based on far less than the people who “Rah-rah” in here.”

I disagree. I don’t think there’s a large contingent routing for the movie’s failure. There’s no gain for them in that because that would kill Trek. No, it’s simply genuine FEAR that something they love will be screwed up. I count myself as one of them.

Today my paper ran an article about the upcoming Summer movies and how many of them are reboots of old tv shows or franchises. It also went down memory lane counting the successes and failures of such endeavors. They even mentioned ST:TMP. Sadly, the failures greatly outnumbered the true successes despite all the good intentions. For now, I’m clinging to Nimoy’s involvement. He had no reason to do it unless he thought it was viable (unlike STV) and selfishly, I’m rationalizing that even if the movie doesn’t live up to expectations, at least I’ll see my favorite Vulcan again!

155. Xai - April 20, 2008

154. krikzil – April 20, 2008
“Is [there] freedom of speech? Yes. … We’ve seen the writers creds, JJ’s creds and other information drug through the mud in here, completely inaccurate or twisted and it’s tiresome.”

Those are my words but you didn’t give a complete quote.
– “Is their freedom of speech? Yes. In here? We live by Anthony’s rules.”..
If you read the rest of my post, I cite some of the things I’ve read in here. Most seem to have resulted in a warning by Anthony to that poster, but misrepresentations and misleading statements seem to persist. It’s Anthony’s decision who steps over the line and what the penalty is for that.

Xai– “There’s a segment of “fans” that don’t want this film to be good or to succeed and they do troll that opinion through here based on far less than the people who “Rah-rah” in here.”

Krikzil–”I disagree. I don’t think there’s a large contingent routing for the movie’s failure. There’s no gain for them in that because that would kill Trek. No, it’s simply genuine FEAR that something they love will be screwed up. I count myself as one of them.”
I never described how big that segment is. But it is present and posts regularly. I don’t know why they do what they do… and I am not not talking disagreement… more like accusations or falsehoods.
I want this movie to work, apparently you do too. But I cannot see where some posters think that being hyper-critical is a benefit or just making things up helps them express their FEAR over something they love being screwed up. It doesn’t reason out.
I expect differences in opinion and debate when it comes to Trek, but I also expect some civil attitudes from those bright people you described and they have the right to expect the same from me.

156. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

Xai I think that a vast majority of the Boo birds will come around once the movie premiers. Your right some people do fear change.

157. Requiem1971 - April 21, 2008

I don’t care what anyone says about true to this or that…Star Trek already had a central flaw to his base code, one that was ready to fracture the whole saga; perhaps this recharge as it were will weed that flaw out and give us true quality. I’ve watched every episode of TOS, and yes I enjoyed them. But they lacked something. TNG was great too, but it lacked something. And then we have VOY and ENT… more of the same. DS9 came close to hitting the mark, but it too was inherent with that central flaw. Of all the movies, I thought VI was the best, followed closely by II, as it had all the characters interacting and working on the story. Other movies had me asking by movies end–”was that it, is this all?” But now we’re in for round 2. I pray we get it right this time. And remember, in Star Trek the Enterprise is a character too, not just set decoration… Ships don’t turn on a dime and adjust course on the fly; these things are HUGE, don’t forget that.

158. Xai - April 21, 2008

157. Requiem1971 – April 21, 2008
“I don’t care what anyone says about true to this or that…Star Trek already had a central flaw to his base code, one that was ready to fracture the whole saga; perhaps this recharge as it were will weed that flaw out and give us true quality”

And that flaw is?

159. Commodore Shaggy - April 21, 2008

It’s good to hear that there will be a new level of action in ST. I don’t think it detracts from the original at all, seeing how the pilot that worked was the one with more action in it. Besides TNG was more about technobabble than TOS was, of course TNG knew how to combine technobabble with enough action and intrigue that made it interesting for many in the masses.

160. Horatio - April 21, 2008

Geez.

Ever get the feeling sometimes that these canon vs reboot arguments are about as substantive as the boxers vs briefs debate?

Its fascinating how Trek fandom has managed to fracture itself into splinter groups. Niners vs TNG vs V’ger vs Enterprise vs TOS, Trekkers vs Trekkies and even then there are factions with factions. Its almost like freakin religion now – My church is better than yours and if you don’t believe the same as me you’ll go to hell.

For Star Trek fans, we can sometimes be a pitiful example of IDIC.

161. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - April 21, 2008

160:

I used to wear briefs all the time until I developed sciatica. Then I switch to boxers and that brought blessed relief.

Oh wait…you were saying that factiously. Never mind. :)

162. demon barber of starfleet - April 21, 2008

It better honor Trek for the very vocal fans. ‘Cause I’m gonna become a lot more vocal if they screw it up.

163. krikzil - April 21, 2008

“I want this movie to work, apparently you do too. But I cannot see where some posters think that being hyper-critical is a benefit or just making things up helps them express their FEAR over something they love being screwed up. It doesn’t reason out.I expect differences in opinion and debate when it comes to Trek, but I also expect some civil attitudes from those bright people you described and they have the right to expect the same from me.”

Hmm…I’m not really sure how to respond. Yes, I always want any Trek to succeed whether it’s my cup of tea or not. However, I don’t agree that being hyper-critical is automatically somewho not “civil”. (Are oh so politically correct society has cost us on a certain level I think.) Oh, I’ve got no use for posters attacking each other on a personal level but opinions on Trek are fair game. And artists, be they actors, writers or producers, are also subject to being judged for their body of work.

“For Star Trek fans, we can sometimes be a pitiful example of IDIC.”

Great post Horatio. The religion analogy really fits and yes, it’s sad that we can’t seem to live up to IDIC. I’ve watched the various ‘factions’ for gosh, 30+ yes and still don’t really get it. Oh, I have some very strong opinions about various aspects of Trek but that’s all they are, MY opinions. I never expect everyone to agree with me. But believe me, so far the sparring over this new movie seems very mild. (The K/S wars or TNG years were really something else!) Personally, I have no problem with people who vent or complain. Heh, where else can they go? No one else cares about Trek like we all do. And I don’t really understand why some folks let the kevetching (sp?) bother them so much. It’s only opinions; they have power only if you let them.

164. krikzil - April 21, 2008

Geez…I can’t type tonight. It should have read:

“…automatically someHOW not “civil”. (Our oh so politically correct …”

165. Xai - April 21, 2008

163. krikzil – April 21, 2008
” However, I don’t agree that being hyper-critical is automatically somehow not “civil”.
Sorry, you are blending my quotes again. I did not say someone who’s being critical is automatically not “Civil”. We do have some debates that are civil. I am talking about the trolls with off the wall statements. Those are not opinions, those are bold-faced lies and frankly those DO bother me when it involves the people trying their best to give us a great movie. They don’t deserve that.

166. krikzil - April 22, 2008

Hmm…I still think that ANY perceived negative comment takes an unrealistic amount of heat from some posters. And as for the Trolls that bother you so much, all I can say is that responding TO THEM only encourages them. It’s what they live for. If they are bad enough, I’m sure the moderator will take care of it.

167. Xai ∞ - April 22, 2008

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to that line of thought.

168. krikzil - April 23, 2008

?

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